Latest / The SME Stream / Chris Hipkins: Labour Leader on the debate between Nicola Willis, Taxpayers' Union, Andrew Coster

Transcript

Chris Hipkins: Labour Leader on the debate between Nicola Willis, Taxpayers' Union, Andrew Coster · The SME Stream

• 0:06
  Speaker 1: You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: from News Talk ZB.
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: Find out what opposition and Labor leader Chris Hipkins thinks
• 0:15
  Speaker 2: of them Morning.
• 0:16
  Speaker 3: Chris Today, John, how are you very well?
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: Now? Resource Management Act is going to be history replaced
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: with two separate acts. What's Labour's position on it? And
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: will you hold onto it? Will you not get rid
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: of it?
• 0:30
  Speaker 3: We're still sort of working our way through the detail
• 0:33
  Speaker 3: of it. As all things. The devil's in the detail
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: and we only got it just you know, when it
• 0:37
  Speaker 3: was announced yesterday. But in principle we don't want to
• 0:40
  Speaker 3: see this merry go round continue where a government comes
• 0:43
  Speaker 3: in repeals and replaces, repeals and replaces, because it's just
• 0:47
  Speaker 3: we can't afford to keep doing that. So will we
• 0:49
  Speaker 3: keep it, yes, Will we make changes to it? Quite possibly,
• 0:54
  Speaker 3: But we're going to try as we can through the
• 0:56
  Speaker 3: next twelve months as it goes through the parliamentary process
• 1:00
  Speaker 3: to find as much common ground with the government as
• 1:02
  Speaker 3: we can because in an area like this, which has
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: such a big long term impact on the country, I
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: think stability and certainty as much as we can achieve
• 1:10
  Speaker 3: it would be a very good thing.
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: I heard Chris Bishop say that he had consulted at
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: least labor on it, but then I heard you at
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: different points with some sort of niggle about not being consulted.
• 1:22
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean, Chris Bishop has a different view of
• 1:24
  Speaker 3: consultation and sort of cross party conveensers. In his mind,
• 1:28
  Speaker 3: that seems to be I'm going to tell you what
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: I'm going to do and you should agree with me.
• 1:32
  Speaker 3: But that isn't a consultation or collaboration. So we're very
• 1:36
  Speaker 3: open through the next part of the process, which isn't
• 1:38
  Speaker 3: control by the government, it's controlled by the SOLI Committee.
• 1:41
  Speaker 3: We're very open to the idea that if we can
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: find some common ground and get something that could be enduring,
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: there would be better for the country. Then the IRMA
• 1:49
  Speaker 3: continuing to be a political football.
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: Just before we joined US, I was sharing a message
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: from Kevin who said that this change is just going
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: to give developers, or allowed allowed developers to write roughshot
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: over the environment. What's your response to that.
• 2:05
  Speaker 3: I think environmental protection is important. We need to make
• 2:08
  Speaker 3: sure we're protecting the environment for future generations. There are
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: you know, RMA deals with big issues like who can
• 2:13
  Speaker 3: use water and under what circumstances, who can build where
• 2:16
  Speaker 3: and under what circumstances. These aren't insignificant issues, and even
• 2:20
  Speaker 3: on something is fundamental as the government describes it as
• 2:23
  Speaker 3: property rights, there are conflicting property rights. So you can say, well,
• 2:27
  Speaker 3: you know, I have this piece of land, I want
• 2:28
  Speaker 3: to build a ten story building on it. The person
• 2:30
  Speaker 3: who's got a single story house next door is going
• 2:32
  Speaker 3: to be affected by that, and they might have a
• 2:34
  Speaker 3: view on that. So there are going to be competing
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: property rights, and so just how we manage that is
• 2:40
  Speaker 3: pretty fundamental to the success or otherwise of these reforms.
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: Right when you were police monister, do you have recollection
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: or a recollection of traveling in the Kakoda area in
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: the back of a car with the police commissioner.
• 2:52
  Speaker 3: Absolutely? I remember that trip well. When I became Minister
• 2:55
  Speaker 3: of Police, they hit the road. I visited every police
• 2:57
  Speaker 3: district in the country and the commission who was with
• 2:59
  Speaker 3: me for.
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: Most of that did he mention Jevin mcskimming.
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: Gemen Miskimming would have been discussed. We discussed as senior
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: leadership team and so on his assertion that he discussed
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: the issues around Sevin Mickskimming having an affair is simply wrong.
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: I have no recollection of that he for coming up,
• 3:19
  Speaker 3: and I certainly have no recollection of any of the
• 3:23
  Speaker 3: very serious things that have subsequently come to light ever
• 3:26
  Speaker 3: being discussed there.
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: But no, having no recollection doesn't mean that there is
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: some doesn't mean something didn't happen, did it.
• 3:35
  Speaker 3: I had a press secretary with me in the car
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: at the time as well for that entire trip. She
• 3:40
  Speaker 3: also there's pretty adamant that this was never discussed in
• 3:45
  Speaker 3: the car. So you know, Andrew cost there has a
• 3:48
  Speaker 3: different view to everybody else. He has a different view
• 3:51
  Speaker 3: to me, different view to the current Minister of Police,
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: different view to the Peputy Public Service Commission, a different
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: view to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. I think he's wrong.
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: Why do you think he has a different view.
• 4:05
  Speaker 3: Well, people are going to form their own judgments on that, but.
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: You're pretty damning it wants your judgment.
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: Well, I think that there was a culture within the
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: police leadership team of downplaying the significance of the complaint
• 4:18
  Speaker 3: that had complaints, multiple that were being made against Jevin
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: mcskimming and that was completely unacceptable.
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: So what did you take from the interview that Andrew
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: Costa gave the other day, How did you think he
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: came out of it? How did you think he came
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: out of it?
• 4:36
  Speaker 3: Well, I was greatly disappointed. I watched the interview because
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: I wanted to hear what he had to say. The
• 4:41
  Speaker 3: week before that I had seen his apology and his
• 4:44
  Speaker 3: acceptance of responsibility, and I actually thought I gave him
• 4:47
  Speaker 3: credit for that. I thought he had done the right
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: thing there. I thought he undid a lot of that
• 4:53
  Speaker 3: in the way he approached that interview on Sunday, he
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: was continuing to talk about Jevin mcskimming as if he
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: was the victim. He was continuing to speak about miss Zed,
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: you know, the woman at the center of all of this,
• 5:06
  Speaker 3: with a language that was just totally inappropriate, such as well,
• 5:10
  Speaker 3: including accusing her of being hysterical and so on. And
• 5:15
  Speaker 3: I just think it brought into the narrative that clearly
• 5:17
  Speaker 3: is the problem here. The police had created this narrative
• 5:20
  Speaker 3: that she was just crazy, that they had done nothing wrong,
• 5:23
  Speaker 3: and that they therefore were totally justified in not taking
• 5:26
  Speaker 3: it seriously. And that was just totally wrong.
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: When you say that you're certain that Jevin mc skimming
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: was mentioned in the car in terms of talking about
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: the scene of management team. Can you remember his name
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: being mentioned?
• 5:38
  Speaker 3: Oh? No, I can't remember the name being mentioned. But
• 5:40
  Speaker 3: I mean I'd just become Minister of Police, so part
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: of what we were doing in the car journeys I
• 5:44
  Speaker 3: was getting to understand that the police operations. At that
• 5:47
  Speaker 3: point he was a non statutory deputy. So one of
• 5:51
  Speaker 3: the things that I do recall Andrew Costra and I
• 5:53
  Speaker 3: talking about is who does what within the police, So
• 5:55
  Speaker 3: I'm sure he would have been mentioned in that context.
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: Do you back Mark Mitchell's recollection to the extent that
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: he backs yours?
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: Yes, I do, and I've got no re into question
• 6:07
  Speaker 3: them otherwise, even on issues like the emails, for example,
• 6:10
  Speaker 3: where there seems to be seen some discrepancy there. My inclination,
• 6:14
  Speaker 3: having been a former minister, is that Mark Mitchell is
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: being absolutely sincere there. Every minister has to rely on
• 6:22
  Speaker 3: the staff in their office and the way they manage
• 6:24
  Speaker 3: their emails. I mean, no minister in government are sitting
• 6:27
  Speaker 3: there clearing all of their own emails all day every day.
• 6:29
  Speaker 3: They have to rely on your staff. And I think
• 6:32
  Speaker 3: what Mark Mitchell has said is almost certainly correct, almost well,
• 6:39
  Speaker 3: I mean, I can never verify it for true, for absolutely.
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: He can never verify what I'm saying for absolute. But
• 6:45
  Speaker 3: I'm absolutely accepting what he's saying. He's accepting what I'm saying,
• 6:48
  Speaker 3: and I think that does show that there is one
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: person here who has a different recollection of events compared
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: to everybody else.
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: Have you both spoken with each other about this in
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: the last few.
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: Days, Mark Mitchell? Now, I haven't spoken to Mark Mitchell.
• 7:02
  Speaker 3: I've only had one briefing and that was just before
• 7:04
  Speaker 3: all of this was made public, and that was with
• 7:06
  Speaker 3: Judith Collins, the Attorney General who ran through the findings
• 7:10
  Speaker 3: of the IPCA report and the Public Service Commission's review.
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: She ran through those with me. So you haven't discussions
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: with the government on it.
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: Right, You haven't compared notes on timing?
• 7:22
  Speaker 3: No, absolutely not.
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: How do you feel about Nichola Willis getting into this
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: debate with former Finance Minister Ruth Richardson.
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: I think it's petty. In fact, I think she's got
• 7:33
  Speaker 3: better things to do with her time. I'm surprised that
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: she's decided that this is a priority for her. Surely
• 7:39
  Speaker 3: getting people back to work and getting the economy growing again,
• 7:41
  Speaker 3: is what she should be really focused on.
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: How do you feel about Ruth Richardson being a former
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: National Finance minister do and what she's doing getting involved
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: in this campaign basically trying to get rid of Nichola.
• 7:51
  Speaker 3: Willis what shows once again the deep divisions within the
• 7:54
  Speaker 3: National Party. They've always been there. They're more interested in
• 7:57
  Speaker 3: fighting amongst themselves rather than helping out ordinary everyday New Zealand.
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: Well, I could point to a few examples where it's
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: happened in the Labor Party, not that are not that
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: long ago. So you think that Ruth Richardson should keep
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: her nose out of it.
• 8:13
  Speaker 3: I think the Taxpayers Unions is wrong on so many levels.
• 8:16
  Speaker 3: And you know they have a view of entrenched privilege.
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: You know that they want to look after the people
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: who have lots of money who pay their bills. You know,
• 8:22
  Speaker 3: the taxpayers supposed so called Taxpayers Union funded by a
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: bunch of very rich people who want to keep all
• 8:28
  Speaker 3: of their money and don't want to do anything to
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: support the rest of the people in the country.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: All right, what's your relation to the Supreme Court ruling
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: that people providing full time care for disabled family members
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: deserve to be paid and recognized as employees.
• 8:41
  Speaker 3: It's a pretty watershed decision. It's a pretty big decision,
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: and it's one that we need to take some time
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: to really digest. I'm going to be interested in seeing
• 8:49
  Speaker 3: what the advice the government gets on it is and
• 8:51
  Speaker 3: watch what course of action they choose to take on that.
• 8:53
  Speaker 3: I'm sort of reserving judgment on that. It is big
• 8:57
  Speaker 3: for those cares. It shows that the government were wrong
• 9:00
  Speaker 3: when they attacked people caring for people with disabilities in
• 9:03
  Speaker 3: the way they did. But it's also potentially has very
• 9:07
  Speaker 3: wide ranging ramification. So I think we need to take
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: the time to digest it carefully.
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: You sound a bit nervous about it.
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: Well, it's going to have a very large cost associated
• 9:17
  Speaker 3: with it, so of course anyone who wants to be
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: in government is going to tread carefully about that. We
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: need to really digest the full implications of it before
• 9:26
  Speaker 3: we rush forward and form a view on us.
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: So the person listened to this right now, what is
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: the scale just given an idea of the scale of
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: cost that this could mean.
• 9:37
  Speaker 3: Well, it's not just the cost of people with disabilities.
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: If you're starting to say that people who are caring
• 9:42
  Speaker 3: for others who are dependent and who are in need
• 9:46
  Speaker 3: should be paid for that work, even if they're family members.
• 9:49
  Speaker 3: It potentially actually creates a precedent that goes wider than
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: just those with disabilities. So those are all of the things,
• 9:55
  Speaker 3: and that could be a very very large number. So
• 9:59
  Speaker 3: if someone caring for elderly parents who are no longer
• 10:01
  Speaker 3: able to look after themselves, are there things in this
• 10:04
  Speaker 3: judgment that will potentially have implications for them? These are
• 10:08
  Speaker 3: all questions we're going to need to consider very carefully
• 10:11
  Speaker 3: before we rush to judgment on it.
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: Do you agree with the Supreme Court?
• 10:15
  Speaker 3: Well, I haven't had a chance to digest it properly. Well,
• 10:19
  Speaker 3: but but do I think that people who care for
• 10:21
  Speaker 3: those with disabilities deserve more support and more recognition for
• 10:25
  Speaker 3: the work that they do? Yes, I do.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: That's easy to say.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: But have the.
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: Court got it right? I'm not sure yet.
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: What would convince you?
• 10:34
  Speaker 3: Well? I want to Harman, I haven't had a chance
• 10:36
  Speaker 3: to read the full judgments. I want to do that
• 10:38
  Speaker 3: before I formed a final view on it.
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: All right, appreciating time as always, it's the last catch
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: up of the year. So what would be the highlights
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: of your year? I think I know one of them.
• 10:51
  Speaker 3: Well, you know, on personal level, obviously getting my fiance
• 10:54
  Speaker 3: agreeing to marry me very highlight.
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: And an achievement, had a pretty good achievement.
• 11:00
  Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, I reckon. But you know, on the workfront,
• 11:03
  Speaker 3: we've had a good year as the Labor team. We
• 11:04
  Speaker 3: end the year and good spirits with neck and meet
• 11:06
  Speaker 3: with the National Party. That's something that I'm really happy with.
• 11:09
  Speaker 3: We've announced a couple of new policies. I'm really proud
• 11:12
  Speaker 3: of the three feet doctors visits policy, which I know
• 11:15
  Speaker 3: you New Zealanders are welcoming. So it's been a good
• 11:17
  Speaker 3: year for labor.
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: Well, what's happening for the break much planned?
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: Yeah, no, We've got a beach house on the Carpity coast,
• 11:24
  Speaker 3: so that's where we'll be hanging out for the summer holidays.
• 11:28
  Speaker 3: And I think they can't wait to just get my
• 11:29
  Speaker 3: feet into this end brilliant.
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: We'll talk in the new year and thank you for
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: your availability through this year. Chris Hauptins appreciate it.
• 11:35
  Speaker 3: Cheers, John, good to talk to you, and Merry Christmas.
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: Merry Christmas do as well, and happy new Year.
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: For more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald. Listen live
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio