National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Megan Woods joined John MacDonald in studio to discuss some of the biggest political stories of the week.
Green MP Tamatha Paul has been under fire for her comments about beat police – does their presence really make people feel less safe? And how do her comments bode for Labour, given they’re potentially coalition partners?
Is it fair the new Christchurch stadium could have a levy for ‘out-of-towners', since ratepayers funded the build?
And will the proposed changes to the RMA really deliver what’s promised?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News talks'b Politics Friday, Megan Wood This Morning Morning,
John Morning, Matty Morning. I got a question for it.
Do you reckon Formula one has shown itself to be
even more brutal than politics?
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Matt Doocy, Well, that was my first thought when I
heard about Liam Lawson. Look, yeah, fairly brutal. The only
thing once I started digesting it, I suppose you could
see it as relevant to other high performance sports. He
actually just goes down to the next tier and potentially
can go back up. But you would argue that the
(00:46):
investment into him. For I'm not big in the sport,
but I believe he's had two goes at it and
to be acts that quickly. But knowing Formula one, you
know there's a lot of money involved. You do wonder
what else is behind the scenes.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
You do, it's two strikes and you're out on this case,
isn't it.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
It's that I think imagine if it was your lot,
Chippy would have been gone on election. He wouldn't have
even stood up to do the speech.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
I don't know that anyone in the parliament. Joh I
don't think you can. I don't think you can just
focus it on jiffy but not coming. Yeah, brutal is
a good word for it. But it kind of it's
not passing the sniff test. It seems like there's a
bit more to the story.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
There will be more to it, all right. What doesn't
pass the sniff test is tell of the Paul's comments
about the police screen MP, saying that people feel more
at risk when the police around, or more nervous when
the police are around. Megan, you must have had your
head in your hands. Given that they are a potential
coalition partner, you must have had your head in your
hands when you heard about that.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Yeah, and look, I mean I think that you ask
you ask Matt whether he agrees with everything their coalition
partners say as well, it's not the case. We're not
the same party, and we've been really clear we do
not agree with what Paul has said. We think that
actually what we need to be seeing is our community
is feeling safer and having beat polices really important to that.
(02:07):
One of the things we are concerned about is if
it has come out this week that there's only thirteen
additional police that have gone in over the eighteen months
that this government's been in power. I did the math
on earlier this morning. They managed to thirteen over eighteen months.
To get to the five hundred, it's going to have
to be over sixty. It's going to have to be
sixty a week.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
You didn't fifty a month math on the newsal Right, No,
but no.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Actually I did do the math because I hadn't seen them.
But I mean the bottom line is that I know
that the communities that I represent they want to see
more beat police and we don't agree with timoth of Paul.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
All right, Matt Doucy weird comments.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
What from Megan?
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Yeah, I think a lot more squirrel.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Look, that was an absolute squirrel math from the issue.
And first really concerning comments from an elected representative, but
an electric MP as well in Wellington. Equally concerning is
now the report that what she was claiming either around
police their behavior and her experience in prisons has been
(03:13):
unsubstantiated and some community organizations now who she was saying
we're substantiating her claims, are actually distancing themselves and saying
they never said that in the first place. So look,
every person in Parliament has to stand up and take
responsibility for her actions. And she'll need to do that.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
But what would that be in your book?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Well, I think that she will need to respond to
her claims, and now the questions around how substantiated her
claims was that she once stated. What I would also
say is it's really concerning is that when you look
at both Labor and the Greens, they have been lockstep
in vote their voting record this term around law and order,
(03:58):
voting down every law and order bill that we've put up.
So this is really concerning going forward. We've got I think,
don't mean no, no, there's lockstep. You look at the.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Hold on, hold on, hold on. There's one thing. There's
one thing my mother said. My mother says politics Friday,
you run a tight ship. They don't talk over each other.
So don't get me in trouble with my mum.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Look, I mean, I think let's actually talk about that
issue ahead. You asked us about this. In terms of police,
Labour has been really clear, and I think that's a
good thing that we can say that when when parties
who may well form a coalition together they don't have
to agree on anything, will come out to say that
Labor and Greens are lockstep on this. It's just absolute nonsense.
(04:46):
He's been absolutely crystal right.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
I want to ask you, all right, I whant to
ask you a question. Do you think Megan woulds at
some of the polls, should hold on to her role
as spokesperson for police and corrections for the Green Party?
Speaker 3 (04:57):
There is absolutely a question for the Greens, And I
think you'd say that about whatever party it was, if
you if you asked me about that, And I think
that's a question you should put to the Greens.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Well, like Meghan, they will have to take respect, what's
your opinion, And equally for her, as an elected representative,
she will need to take responsibility for her actions and
her claims which are proving to be unsubstantiated in your.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Book, what does taking responsibility mean?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Well, I think she needs to stand up and explain
why she is now in a difficult position claiming things
that now others are saying actually didn't occur.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
And if she can't explain.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
It, well that's for the Green Party to decide. They
are responsible for their MPs.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
But you think she should stay in the role, No.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
That would be for the Green Party to decide.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
All right, Meghan I'm going to ask you first, because
you were the one that turns the first sound on
the stadium site, what do you reckon of this idea
that venues Aututarhi is apparently looking into of applying a
levy to tickets for events at the stadium bought by
people outside christ Church, so effectively those of us in
christ Church get a cheaper deal.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Yeah, and this is a discussion that's been going for
a long time. And actually about the time I was
turning the sod before the government handed this over to
council and council, I always thought council were going to
pick it up with the other councils around about when,
and they haven't hopelessly that. I think a cleaner way
(06:27):
would have been to have direct contribution from those councils
into the stadium. And I think one of the things
that some of these surrounding me is were always a
bit perplexed about is that they were never spoken to
you by christ Church City, So I think that would
have been a cleaner way. I mean, there's all kinds
of ways that you can gain the system. You can
get your mates in christ Church to buy your tickets
to the game, if you if you live just like
(06:47):
have met if you live in wy Mec, I'll buy
your tickets to the game they met. So there's all
kinds of kind of administrative things.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
So back to getting to an answer to the question
you think a dumb idea.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
No, No, I think that they should be looking at
mechanisms in the ways that the councils that's around christ
Chach can contribute to the stadium. It is greater christ
Churcher's Stadium, but the.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
People anywhere outside christ Church, North Island, Southland, and this.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Is not unheard of in terms of having differential contributions
to stadiums.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
No.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Not a ticket price yea, And I think that it's
going to be hard to administer, but I wouldn't rule
it out. I think one of the things that really
that what it's trying to address is the fact that
it is greater christ Church Stadium. I take your point
about people out of town also getting caught by that,
and we do want to encourage people to come to
(07:43):
christ Church for games, so you have to make sure
you weren't setting the ticket price there. But I think
one of the things that we've got a sense of
greater christ Church that now includes Selwyn and Wymack very
much in terms of the people that live in Kaiapui
and Rangior are going to use the stadium just as
much and see it as their home ground. But the
(08:03):
point as much as someone living in within the city limits.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
They have contributed, just like people in Auckland have contributed
through the taxpayer support, the taxpayer investment in the stadium,
the christ.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
Which people have as well. So the argument then is
they're contributing twice. And look when I was involved before
government handed it over to council, I can tell you
that other councils weren't weren't ruling out having a conversation
about it. The way they did it in Wellington with
Wellington Stadium is that actually obviously if you lived closer
(08:35):
to the stadium you contributed more, so that it was
kind of when you paid less the further out you
went in terms of the greater Wellington region. So there's
a good precedent around the country of how you can
do this.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
You're worrying me, now, what did you poop? Po Matt
duson what about you?
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Well?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I think, sort of taking back to a principals base,
the two issues I think that needs to be addressed
through some rating is the wash up of ongoing operational costs,
but also the ability to leverage the stadium for economic
development and get out there and attract some brilliant, world
(09:14):
leading events. I mean, you know, I'd like to think
we could be the Melbourne of New Zealand when events
the question. But my point being I think it should
be framed like that. And when it is framed like that,
then I think it is christ Stadium greater christ Church
and Canterbury. So you could look at a pro rata
system and then whether it be through the ticket mechanism
(09:37):
that has been proposed here, but largely I think really
e Can's probably showed a lack of leadership. It should
have been through the regional county. No, no, but hold on,
hold on for me. The best mechanism would have been
through the regional council's ability to collect through their rating basis.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Well, let me test that, Meghan. So you'd be quite
happy to pay extra to go to a comm sort
of eating part Eden Park because right Payers and Auckland
have contributed towards that.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
I'm just going to come to the defense of a
Ken on that it's absolutely right. The mechanism would have
been through the regional the regional rate that you pay.
That's what was done in Wellington. But it really was
on the city to initiate those discussions. Is the people
building the discussion, So I don't think it's like a
leadership on the.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Part of all right, So why is it Why is
it fear for for for christ to charge people more
to buy a ticket to come here when other cities
don't do that to us?
Speaker 3 (10:35):
And I think you raised a really good point, John.
What we need to make sure is that we're not
pricing ourselves out, that this isn't done in such a
way that we're that we're that we're making ourselves not
competitive and people are thinking, well, I'm not going to
travel to Christis to go to.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
But we're trying to come up or I'm not dead
against it, but but.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
You wouldn't need to do it on every event.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
You guys are trying to come up with an answer
to a problem that doesn't exist.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
The point, sorry, missus McDon The point that Matt and
I are both making is it would have been much
tidier to do this through rates rather than doing it
through tickets. So I absolutely agree with you. I think
it's messy to do it through tickets. I think it's
(11:21):
trying to address a problem that after the horse has bolted,
and I think they're actually the council and I think
Sam McDonald has raised this. They need to look at
why they haven't gone and spoken to other councils and
go back and have that conversation and do it at
that rating level to get the contributions from our surrounding
(11:42):
areas rather than ticket prices. I agree with you, it's
going to be a messy situation.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Quick point, Matt Doocy, Well, not a quick point.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
I think you a good run, so you know, and
I'm sure, I'm sure if you were to call your
mum John, she would agree that you'd should say give
Matt doocey a good a good a good time, hey long.
I don't know if it is around purely covering cost,
I can see people's apprehension, but actually, if we're saying
this will be an investment into the promotion of the
(12:10):
stadium to bring events in, look at you know, events
that come in and bring millions of dollars not only
into the city but into Canterbury. That's a different proposition,
and I think people would say, I'd be happy to
invest into something that's going to bring jobs and in
comes into the wider region.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
So the government announced this WHEK changes to the Resource
Management Act well, the end of the Resource Management Act
being replaced by two other pieces of legislation. Megan Woods
kind of connected your colleague Duncan web is unhappy that
the supermarket in Edgeware has been fast tracked and he's
been having meetings in the pub at edgewhere. I mean,
(12:48):
do you think people should have a say when it
comes to the establishment of a supermarket. No.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
I think that community is soon need to haven put
into things. And I think Duncan is saying that he's
not necessarily opposed to a supermarket. He's been really clear
on that. What he does want is there to be
a modicum of a process where local people can have
their say, and I don't think many people would disagree that.
But I think going back to the broader rim changes,
(13:13):
I think one of the things that is vitally important
is that we can try and get some consensus on this.
I went to the Investors Invested summit. Was that last
week or the week before the Government's Invested summit. I
went along with Barbara Edmonds and one of the things
that we do know that if we are going to
see people invest in New Zealand, they do need susan ty.
(13:33):
We've reached out to national We've said, look, we're we're
scrapping the RIM. We've already scrapped the changes labor made.
For goodness sake, Let's try and get some long term
thinking around this, because this is really difficult, whether you're
trying to do something as in New Zealander or coming
in to do something as an international investor.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Just on that though, I mean, you guys did that.
Both of your parties did that with housing intensification. Then
you said on each.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Well, no we didn't.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
I'm sorry point the viewers can't see your fingers. I'm
pointing at his lordship, so I'm pointing at you. Matt
Doucy pulled out. So how can you talk about cross
party consensus when history tells us that you're incapable of it?
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Well, I think Duncan's showing that, isn't he He's often
his own little protest and what I would say, he
seems to be sort of captured by a very noisy
and vocal minority in St Albans. And we've seen this
before with the Northern Corridor Motorway. There there were there
were up and arms about that and obviously that ended
(14:32):
up being an absolute game changer for not only the
city but greater christ To So Lot, what we do
know is we need competition and supermarkets and on Sunday,
on Sunday, people want supermarkets. And the problem we've got
in New Zealand at the moment is when we need
(14:52):
things and around infrastructure and investment like this, we ended
up we end up just with all the nasays right
and the ability for people to actually respond and invest
their private capital and provide the infrastructure and this services
they need. So a lot Duncan might think he's doing
a good job as a as a local MP, but
(15:13):
the reality is I think it's not delivering what we need.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
But Mett, you're absolutely missing the point that John asked
you about. John, I'm gonna come in.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
What fee you need help at all?
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Excellent questions, you can always build on them.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
But met excellent room to do better.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Hey, you know the rules of engagement.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Satisfaction survey.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Back to that that Mett, that labor has reached out
and see we will work to give that certainty. So
I think you haven't addressed the core question that John
asked you about what bipartisanship looks like. He pointed to
the fact that you guys backed out of when Labor
and National had come to agreement about the medium density rules.
(16:02):
But the response from National on saying let's get some certainty,
let's x we have some ways forward so we can
make things happen and not have chopping and changing when
we change government and Nationals come back and said, you
need to agree with with us. That's what bipartisanship looks like.
We actually need to have a different approach to this.
Bipartisanship isn't the opposition just agreeing with the government of
(16:24):
the day.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
It's working to go all right, okay. And if someone
you start saying you're going to ask a question and
then you gave a leak, just like a public.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Meeting, an answer, Matt, So someone's got to do something.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
It's always like that on the meetings, question time and
after twenty minutes year is there a question mark at
the end of I'm just.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Looking for an answer from Matt. That's what I'm waiting.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
For You know, Matt, you don't get answers.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Right, that's outrageous. Bring your mum, she'd agree, she'll be
clapping right. A couple of couple of things to finish
off with. It's been reported yesterday and the Journal of
Primary Healthcare that primary healthcare so gps are still taking
a back seat to hospitals when it comes to funding
and support within the health system. So, Matt Doocy, what's
(17:06):
the government going to do to fix that? Well, you'd
have seen recently Health Minister Simeon Brown announce a big
package around primary care and part of that was a
funding envelope of around two hundred and thirty five million
to better support primary care. So look, clearly part of
the answer is around funding. What I also support was
(17:30):
Simeon talking about looking at a primary care access target.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
I support that.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
I brought one in around mental health primary care to
be seen in one week.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
I think.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Was that targeted.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Well, we're announcing quarter two data in a couple of weeks.
The target was eighty percent to be seen within one week.
Our first data released three months ago. Still some quality
issues in the first trant, but we were not far off.
I think late seventies for meeting that target. And what
it does show is actually when you set clear expectations,
(18:08):
the services will be organized accordingly. Because the last point
I'd make John is I've had experience in two health systems,
the free GP health system of the NHS of the
UK and the one here in New Zealand where there
is a fee for service, both equally as bad around
wait times you try and get registered with a GP
(18:31):
in the UK or seen timely with a free service
you can't, and here it's equally as bad. So it
shows it's not about the cost of access. We need
to make sure that people are delivering to the expectation.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
And Megan, what would your party do if you were
in government to sort this out?
Speaker 3 (18:47):
So I think rather than any party patting itself on
the back about increased funding, you've actually got to look
at that article and what it talks about is that
it acknowledges that there have been increases to funding for
primary health care. But what it points to is the
proportion of health funding that primary health care is getting
out of the overall health system. New Zealand sits at
(19:07):
around five percent in his for the last fifteen years.
So I think this is a really important piece of
research and one that all parties have to look in
and not think they're fixed. All right, One, I see
these fourteen percent. One final in terms of what you do,
So everyone's got more to do.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
One final thing to GoF. Speaking of percent, the christi
At City Council residents Satisfaction Survey results have been released
and there's one figure in particular. This is the trust
people have that the council is spending rate payer money
wisely and it's nineteen percent. Meghan Woods, that's cruddy no
matter how you look at it, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Yeah, it's not a past mark? Is it far from
a past mark? And look, I'm going to be upfront
since Tali, I haven't done my homework and looked at
all the numbers around that satisfaction survey. Be really interesting
to dig into that and see if there's particular bits
that people are really dissatisfying.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Five.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Absolutely, I'm not defending it. I'm agreeing with you, and
I'm saying that I think it would be interesting to
look across the country and see how that compares to
other councils as well, like as christ Church an outlier,
or are we performing on par with other councils, and
then there's a bigger issue.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Hey yeah, hey yea was bad as everybode.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
No, no, no, And I'm not saying that. I'm saying that
if there is a case across the country, then that's
something that we need to address nationally. But I mean
rate payers do need to see value for the money.
Rates are an expensive part of any household's budget that
they put together, and people want to see that they're
getting value for money out of them.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Matt Doucy, your government has hasn't been slow and coming
forward when it comes to criticize criticizing local councils. What's
your response to that survey result.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Well, I think that low ranking at nineteen percent, arguably
it'd be interesting to know what it was a year ago,
whether it's tracking.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Us, it's about things about eighteen seven there was a so.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
The trend line is a small increase, but clearly that
reinforces why we said that local government needs to get
back to basics and ensuring they are delivering value for money.
And I think what most people, in my view would
be exercising with that result is saying, actually, we don't
think the councils are prioritizing the funding in the right areas.
(21:23):
But on saying that at a high level, I'm led
to believe the overall satisfaction levels before council survey has
increased and in fairness to fail. When he stood in
the last campaign, I thought it was an interesting thing
to single out the satisfaction survey that he wanted it
to increase, and it sounds like he has done that
(21:44):
more broadly.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
So good on him. Thank you both, nice to see its.
Enjoy the weekend. Make Jersey Megan Woods here for politics Friday.
What was the word you use, Matt about the value
for money? You say that that result, that result shows
people don't think they're getting value for money from the council.
Were on, Yeah, we are, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Oh you're on now?
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Oh sorry? I thought you pushed and buttons and we were.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
This is why I sometimes run away because I think
it's over.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
I should have asked them a far more interesting question.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
I thought, Oh, yeah, hot, Mike, moment John, Hot, Mike.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Did you say that we're not getting really for money?
Speaker 2 (22:19):
No? I think what now? You really got me? So
what I was saying is that the nineteen percent I
think reinforces. What the government said is that we need
the councils to get back to basics and make sure
they prioritize their funding on investing in things. Ratepays one
For more from Catebory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
(22:41):
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News talks'b Politics Friday, Megan Wood This Morning Morning,
John Morning, Matty Morning. I got a question for it.
Do you reckon Formula one has shown itself to be
even more brutal than politics?
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Matt Doocy, Well, that was my first thought when I
heard about Liam Lawson. Look, yeah, fairly brutal. The only
thing once I started digesting it, I suppose you could
see it as relevant to other high performance sports. He
actually just goes down to the next tier and potentially
can go back up. But you would argue that the
(00:46):
investment into him. For I'm not big in the sport,
but I believe he's had two goes at it and
to be acts that quickly. But knowing Formula one, you
know there's a lot of money involved. You do wonder
what else is behind the scenes.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
You do, it's two strikes and you're out on this case,
isn't it.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
It's that I think imagine if it was your lot,
Chippy would have been gone on election. He wouldn't have
even stood up to do the speech.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
I don't know that anyone in the parliament. Joh I
don't think you can. I don't think you can just
focus it on jiffy but not coming. Yeah, brutal is
a good word for it. But it kind of it's
not passing the sniff test. It seems like there's a
bit more to the story.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
There will be more to it, all right. What doesn't
pass the sniff test is tell of the Paul's comments
about the police screen MP, saying that people feel more
at risk when the police around, or more nervous when
the police are around. Megan, you must have had your
head in your hands. Given that they are a potential
coalition partner, you must have had your head in your
hands when you heard about that.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Yeah, and look, I mean I think that you ask
you ask Matt whether he agrees with everything their coalition
partners say as well, it's not the case. We're not
the same party, and we've been really clear we do
not agree with what Paul has said. We think that
actually what we need to be seeing is our community
is feeling safer and having beat polices really important to that.
(02:07):
One of the things we are concerned about is if
it has come out this week that there's only thirteen
additional police that have gone in over the eighteen months
that this government's been in power. I did the math
on earlier this morning. They managed to thirteen over eighteen months.
To get to the five hundred, it's going to have
to be over sixty. It's going to have to be
sixty a week.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
You didn't fifty a month math on the newsal Right, No,
but no.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Actually I did do the math because I hadn't seen them.
But I mean the bottom line is that I know
that the communities that I represent they want to see
more beat police and we don't agree with timoth of Paul.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
All right, Matt Doucy weird comments.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
What from Megan?
Speaker 1 (02:47):
Yeah, I think a lot more squirrel.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Look, that was an absolute squirrel math from the issue.
And first really concerning comments from an elected representative, but
an electric MP as well in Wellington. Equally concerning is
now the report that what she was claiming either around
police their behavior and her experience in prisons has been
(03:13):
unsubstantiated and some community organizations now who she was saying
we're substantiating her claims, are actually distancing themselves and saying
they never said that in the first place. So look,
every person in Parliament has to stand up and take
responsibility for her actions. And she'll need to do that.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
But what would that be in your book?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Well, I think that she will need to respond to
her claims, and now the questions around how substantiated her
claims was that she once stated. What I would also
say is it's really concerning is that when you look
at both Labor and the Greens, they have been lockstep
in vote their voting record this term around law and order,
(03:58):
voting down every law and order bill that we've put up.
So this is really concerning going forward. We've got I think,
don't mean no, no, there's lockstep. You look at the.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Hold on, hold on, hold on. There's one thing. There's
one thing my mother said. My mother says politics Friday,
you run a tight ship. They don't talk over each other.
So don't get me in trouble with my mum.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Look, I mean, I think let's actually talk about that
issue ahead. You asked us about this. In terms of police,
Labour has been really clear, and I think that's a
good thing that we can say that when when parties
who may well form a coalition together they don't have
to agree on anything, will come out to say that
Labor and Greens are lockstep on this. It's just absolute nonsense.
(04:46):
He's been absolutely crystal right.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
I want to ask you, all right, I whant to
ask you a question. Do you think Megan woulds at
some of the polls, should hold on to her role
as spokesperson for police and corrections for the Green Party?
Speaker 3 (04:57):
There is absolutely a question for the Greens, And I
think you'd say that about whatever party it was, if
you if you asked me about that, And I think
that's a question you should put to the Greens.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Well, like Meghan, they will have to take respect, what's
your opinion, And equally for her, as an elected representative,
she will need to take responsibility for her actions and
her claims which are proving to be unsubstantiated in your.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Book, what does taking responsibility mean?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Well, I think she needs to stand up and explain
why she is now in a difficult position claiming things
that now others are saying actually didn't occur.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
And if she can't explain.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
It, well that's for the Green Party to decide. They
are responsible for their MPs.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
But you think she should stay in the role, No.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
That would be for the Green Party to decide.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
All right, Meghan I'm going to ask you first, because
you were the one that turns the first sound on
the stadium site, what do you reckon of this idea
that venues Aututarhi is apparently looking into of applying a
levy to tickets for events at the stadium bought by
people outside christ Church, so effectively those of us in
christ Church get a cheaper deal.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Yeah, and this is a discussion that's been going for
a long time. And actually about the time I was
turning the sod before the government handed this over to
council and council, I always thought council were going to
pick it up with the other councils around about when,
and they haven't hopelessly that. I think a cleaner way
(06:27):
would have been to have direct contribution from those councils
into the stadium. And I think one of the things
that some of these surrounding me is were always a
bit perplexed about is that they were never spoken to
you by christ Church City, So I think that would
have been a cleaner way. I mean, there's all kinds
of ways that you can gain the system. You can
get your mates in christ Church to buy your tickets
to the game, if you if you live just like
(06:47):
have met if you live in wy Mec, I'll buy
your tickets to the game they met. So there's all
kinds of kind of administrative things.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
So back to getting to an answer to the question
you think a dumb idea.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
No, No, I think that they should be looking at
mechanisms in the ways that the councils that's around christ
Chach can contribute to the stadium. It is greater christ
Churcher's Stadium, but the.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
People anywhere outside christ Church, North Island, Southland, and this.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Is not unheard of in terms of having differential contributions
to stadiums.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
No.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Not a ticket price yea, And I think that it's
going to be hard to administer, but I wouldn't rule
it out. I think one of the things that really
that what it's trying to address is the fact that
it is greater christ Church Stadium. I take your point
about people out of town also getting caught by that,
and we do want to encourage people to come to
(07:43):
christ Church for games, so you have to make sure
you weren't setting the ticket price there. But I think
one of the things that we've got a sense of
greater christ Church that now includes Selwyn and Wymack very
much in terms of the people that live in Kaiapui
and Rangior are going to use the stadium just as
much and see it as their home ground. But the
(08:03):
point as much as someone living in within the city limits.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
They have contributed, just like people in Auckland have contributed
through the taxpayer support, the taxpayer investment in the stadium,
the christ.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
Which people have as well. So the argument then is
they're contributing twice. And look when I was involved before
government handed it over to council, I can tell you
that other councils weren't weren't ruling out having a conversation
about it. The way they did it in Wellington with
Wellington Stadium is that actually obviously if you lived closer
(08:35):
to the stadium you contributed more, so that it was
kind of when you paid less the further out you
went in terms of the greater Wellington region. So there's
a good precedent around the country of how you can
do this.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
You're worrying me, now, what did you poop? Po Matt
duson what about you?
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Well?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I think, sort of taking back to a principals base,
the two issues I think that needs to be addressed
through some rating is the wash up of ongoing operational costs,
but also the ability to leverage the stadium for economic
development and get out there and attract some brilliant, world
(09:14):
leading events. I mean, you know, I'd like to think
we could be the Melbourne of New Zealand when events
the question. But my point being I think it should
be framed like that. And when it is framed like that,
then I think it is christ Stadium greater christ Church
and Canterbury. So you could look at a pro rata
system and then whether it be through the ticket mechanism
(09:37):
that has been proposed here, but largely I think really
e Can's probably showed a lack of leadership. It should
have been through the regional county. No, no, but hold on,
hold on for me. The best mechanism would have been
through the regional council's ability to collect through their rating basis.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Well, let me test that, Meghan. So you'd be quite
happy to pay extra to go to a comm sort
of eating part Eden Park because right Payers and Auckland
have contributed towards that.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
I'm just going to come to the defense of a
Ken on that it's absolutely right. The mechanism would have
been through the regional the regional rate that you pay.
That's what was done in Wellington. But it really was
on the city to initiate those discussions. Is the people
building the discussion, So I don't think it's like a
leadership on the.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Part of all right, So why is it Why is
it fear for for for christ to charge people more
to buy a ticket to come here when other cities
don't do that to us?
Speaker 3 (10:35):
And I think you raised a really good point, John.
What we need to make sure is that we're not
pricing ourselves out, that this isn't done in such a
way that we're that we're that we're making ourselves not
competitive and people are thinking, well, I'm not going to
travel to Christis to go to.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
But we're trying to come up or I'm not dead
against it, but but.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
You wouldn't need to do it on every event.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
You guys are trying to come up with an answer
to a problem that doesn't exist.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
The point, sorry, missus McDon The point that Matt and
I are both making is it would have been much
tidier to do this through rates rather than doing it
through tickets. So I absolutely agree with you. I think
it's messy to do it through tickets. I think it's
(11:21):
trying to address a problem that after the horse has bolted,
and I think they're actually the council and I think
Sam McDonald has raised this. They need to look at
why they haven't gone and spoken to other councils and
go back and have that conversation and do it at
that rating level to get the contributions from our surrounding
(11:42):
areas rather than ticket prices. I agree with you, it's
going to be a messy situation.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Quick point, Matt Doocy, Well, not a quick point.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
I think you a good run, so you know, and
I'm sure, I'm sure if you were to call your
mum John, she would agree that you'd should say give
Matt doocey a good a good a good time, hey long.
I don't know if it is around purely covering cost,
I can see people's apprehension, but actually, if we're saying
this will be an investment into the promotion of the
(12:10):
stadium to bring events in, look at you know, events
that come in and bring millions of dollars not only
into the city but into Canterbury. That's a different proposition,
and I think people would say, I'd be happy to
invest into something that's going to bring jobs and in
comes into the wider region.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
So the government announced this WHEK changes to the Resource
Management Act well, the end of the Resource Management Act
being replaced by two other pieces of legislation. Megan Woods
kind of connected your colleague Duncan web is unhappy that
the supermarket in Edgeware has been fast tracked and he's
been having meetings in the pub at edgewhere. I mean,
(12:48):
do you think people should have a say when it
comes to the establishment of a supermarket. No.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
I think that community is soon need to haven put
into things. And I think Duncan is saying that he's
not necessarily opposed to a supermarket. He's been really clear
on that. What he does want is there to be
a modicum of a process where local people can have
their say, and I don't think many people would disagree that.
But I think going back to the broader rim changes,
(13:13):
I think one of the things that is vitally important
is that we can try and get some consensus on this.
I went to the Investors Invested summit. Was that last
week or the week before the Government's Invested summit. I
went along with Barbara Edmonds and one of the things
that we do know that if we are going to
see people invest in New Zealand, they do need susan ty.
(13:33):
We've reached out to national We've said, look, we're we're
scrapping the RIM. We've already scrapped the changes labor made.
For goodness sake, Let's try and get some long term
thinking around this, because this is really difficult, whether you're
trying to do something as in New Zealander or coming
in to do something as an international investor.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Just on that though, I mean, you guys did that.
Both of your parties did that with housing intensification. Then
you said on each.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Well, no we didn't.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
I'm sorry point the viewers can't see your fingers. I'm
pointing at his lordship, so I'm pointing at you. Matt
Doucy pulled out. So how can you talk about cross
party consensus when history tells us that you're incapable of it?
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Well, I think Duncan's showing that, isn't he He's often
his own little protest and what I would say, he
seems to be sort of captured by a very noisy
and vocal minority in St Albans. And we've seen this
before with the Northern Corridor Motorway. There there were there
were up and arms about that and obviously that ended
(14:32):
up being an absolute game changer for not only the
city but greater christ To So Lot, what we do
know is we need competition and supermarkets and on Sunday,
on Sunday, people want supermarkets. And the problem we've got
in New Zealand at the moment is when we need
(14:52):
things and around infrastructure and investment like this, we ended
up we end up just with all the nasays right
and the ability for people to actually respond and invest
their private capital and provide the infrastructure and this services
they need. So a lot Duncan might think he's doing
a good job as a as a local MP, but
(15:13):
the reality is I think it's not delivering what we need.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
But Mett, you're absolutely missing the point that John asked
you about. John, I'm gonna come in.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
What fee you need help at all?
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Excellent questions, you can always build on them.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
But met excellent room to do better.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Hey, you know the rules of engagement.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Satisfaction survey.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Back to that that Mett, that labor has reached out
and see we will work to give that certainty. So
I think you haven't addressed the core question that John
asked you about what bipartisanship looks like. He pointed to
the fact that you guys backed out of when Labor
and National had come to agreement about the medium density rules.
(16:02):
But the response from National on saying let's get some certainty,
let's x we have some ways forward so we can
make things happen and not have chopping and changing when
we change government and Nationals come back and said, you
need to agree with with us. That's what bipartisanship looks like.
We actually need to have a different approach to this.
Bipartisanship isn't the opposition just agreeing with the government of
(16:24):
the day.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
It's working to go all right, okay. And if someone
you start saying you're going to ask a question and
then you gave a leak, just like a public.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Meeting, an answer, Matt, So someone's got to do something.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
It's always like that on the meetings, question time and
after twenty minutes year is there a question mark at
the end of I'm just.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Looking for an answer from Matt. That's what I'm waiting.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
For You know, Matt, you don't get answers.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Right, that's outrageous. Bring your mum, she'd agree, she'll be
clapping right. A couple of couple of things to finish
off with. It's been reported yesterday and the Journal of
Primary Healthcare that primary healthcare so gps are still taking
a back seat to hospitals when it comes to funding
and support within the health system. So, Matt Doocy, what's
(17:06):
the government going to do to fix that? Well, you'd
have seen recently Health Minister Simeon Brown announce a big
package around primary care and part of that was a
funding envelope of around two hundred and thirty five million
to better support primary care. So look, clearly part of
the answer is around funding. What I also support was
(17:30):
Simeon talking about looking at a primary care access target.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
I support that.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
I brought one in around mental health primary care to
be seen in one week.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
I think.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Was that targeted.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
Well, we're announcing quarter two data in a couple of weeks.
The target was eighty percent to be seen within one week.
Our first data released three months ago. Still some quality
issues in the first trant, but we were not far off.
I think late seventies for meeting that target. And what
it does show is actually when you set clear expectations,
(18:08):
the services will be organized accordingly. Because the last point
I'd make John is I've had experience in two health systems,
the free GP health system of the NHS of the
UK and the one here in New Zealand where there
is a fee for service, both equally as bad around
wait times you try and get registered with a GP
(18:31):
in the UK or seen timely with a free service
you can't, and here it's equally as bad. So it
shows it's not about the cost of access. We need
to make sure that people are delivering to the expectation.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
And Megan, what would your party do if you were
in government to sort this out?
Speaker 3 (18:47):
So I think rather than any party patting itself on
the back about increased funding, you've actually got to look
at that article and what it talks about is that
it acknowledges that there have been increases to funding for
primary health care. But what it points to is the
proportion of health funding that primary health care is getting
out of the overall health system. New Zealand sits at
(19:07):
around five percent in his for the last fifteen years.
So I think this is a really important piece of
research and one that all parties have to look in
and not think they're fixed. All right, One, I see
these fourteen percent. One final in terms of what you do,
So everyone's got more to do.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
One final thing to GoF. Speaking of percent, the christi
At City Council residents Satisfaction Survey results have been released
and there's one figure in particular. This is the trust
people have that the council is spending rate payer money
wisely and it's nineteen percent. Meghan Woods, that's cruddy no
matter how you look at it, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
Yeah, it's not a past mark? Is it far from
a past mark? And look, I'm going to be upfront
since Tali, I haven't done my homework and looked at
all the numbers around that satisfaction survey. Be really interesting
to dig into that and see if there's particular bits
that people are really dissatisfying.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Five.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Absolutely, I'm not defending it. I'm agreeing with you, and
I'm saying that I think it would be interesting to
look across the country and see how that compares to
other councils as well, like as christ Church an outlier,
or are we performing on par with other councils, and
then there's a bigger issue.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Hey yeah, hey yea was bad as everybode.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
No, no, no, And I'm not saying that. I'm saying that
if there is a case across the country, then that's
something that we need to address nationally. But I mean
rate payers do need to see value for the money.
Rates are an expensive part of any household's budget that
they put together, and people want to see that they're
getting value for money out of them.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Matt Doucy, your government has hasn't been slow and coming
forward when it comes to criticize criticizing local councils. What's
your response to that survey result.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Well, I think that low ranking at nineteen percent, arguably
it'd be interesting to know what it was a year ago,
whether it's tracking.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Us, it's about things about eighteen seven there was a so.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
The trend line is a small increase, but clearly that
reinforces why we said that local government needs to get
back to basics and ensuring they are delivering value for money.
And I think what most people, in my view would
be exercising with that result is saying, actually, we don't
think the councils are prioritizing the funding in the right areas.
(21:23):
But on saying that at a high level, I'm led
to believe the overall satisfaction levels before council survey has
increased and in fairness to fail. When he stood in
the last campaign, I thought it was an interesting thing
to single out the satisfaction survey that he wanted it
to increase, and it sounds like he has done that
(21:44):
more broadly.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
So good on him. Thank you both, nice to see its.
Enjoy the weekend. Make Jersey Megan Woods here for politics Friday.
What was the word you use, Matt about the value
for money? You say that that result, that result shows
people don't think they're getting value for money from the council.
Were on, Yeah, we are, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Oh you're on now?
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Oh sorry? I thought you pushed and buttons and we were.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
This is why I sometimes run away because I think
it's over.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
I should have asked them a far more interesting question.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
I thought, Oh, yeah, hot, Mike, moment John, Hot, Mike.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Did you say that we're not getting really for money?
Speaker 2 (22:19):
No? I think what now? You really got me? So
what I was saying is that the nineteen percent I
think reinforces. What the government said is that we need
the councils to get back to basics and make sure
they prioritize their funding on investing in things. Ratepays one
For more from Catebory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
(22:41):
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
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
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!