Labour still isn't ruling a capital gains tax in or out, following comments from the boss of our biggest bank.

ANZ CEO Antonia Watson says while she isn't jumping for joy about the prospect of a capital gains tax, the time has come to for a tax on realised gains.

Labour's Carmel Sepuloni told John MacDonald that Watson is just another example, of a prominent figure who's now open to the idea.

She says she Labour hasn't made any decision either way but is reviewing its progressive tax policy.

The Deputy Labour Leader joined John MacDonald for a chat in place of Chris Hipkins, talking about Andrew Coster’s change in jobs, abusing public transport workers becoming an aggravating factor, and the potential for a capital gains tax.

LISTEN ABOVE

Labour still isn't ruling a capital gains tax in or out, following comments from the boss of our biggest bank. 
ANZ CEO Antonia Watson says while she isn't jumping for joy about the prospect of a capital gains tax, the time has come to for a tax on realised gains. 
Labour's Carmel Sepuloni told John MacDonald that Watson is just another example, of a prominent figure who's now open to the idea. 
She says she Labour hasn't made any decision either way but is reviewing its progressive tax policy. 
The Deputy Labour Leader joined John MacDonald for a chat in place of Chris Hipkins, talking about Andrew Coster’s change in jobs, abusing public transport workers becoming an aggravating factor, and the potential for a capital gains tax. 
LISTEN ABOVE

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Carmel Sepuloni: Deputy Labour Leader discusses capital gains taxes, new safety measures for public transport workers, and Andrew Coster

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c9e1cae2-c24c-4a1f-a10b-b1f50185500a/transcript

When it comes to apologies there are generally two types: a sincere apology and a hollow apology.

And survivors of abuse in state or religious care are saying that the Prime Minister’s apology today for that abuse is hollow, because the Government isn’t saying anything today about redress or compensation.

The Government’s position is that it needs to take the time to make sure it gets the compensation scheme right and won’t be making any announcement until early next year.

Abuse survivors, though, say it should have been working on this long before now and today’s apology is undermined by what they think is a lack of timely action and work on compensation. Or, in other words, they’re saying that the apology is hollow.

Which I don’t agree with – I think the Government is right to take its time on this one. Which is probably easy for me to say because, thankfully, I haven’t been caught up in this nightmare.

Which is exactly what it has been and still is for these victims, or survivors as they prefer to be known, and they are the people criticising the Government today.

You’ll remember it was back in July when the final report on the massive inquiry into abuse of kids in care came out. 200,000 people were abused while they were, supposedly, being looked after by state and religious organisations.

And at the time the report came out, the Government said it would be delivering a national apology - which is what today is all about. And that it would be working on determining how the state will deliver what’s called redress. But, essentially, we’re talking about compensation for the victims who are still living.

Also included in that work is what changes can be made to try and ensure this kind of mass abuse can’t happen again, which is another priority for the abuse survivors.

I think it’s impossible to come up with changes that will stop it happening outright for the simple reason that there are evil people out there who can be very good at getting around structures and rules to do what they want to do.

But already the Government has this week announced steps to try and prevent abuse of kids in care. It's introducing a bill prompted by the Abuse in Care inquiry, which will ban strip-searching children.

So that’s all part of the redress work being led by Erica Stanford, who is the minister responsible for co-ordinating the Government’s response to the abuse in care inquiry.

The other big part of that response is the compensation side of things. Which survivors would have liked to have seen details from the Government today in parallel with the national apology.

But I think the Government’s right – this is something that can’t be rushed. I don’t think it’s something that should be neatly fitted-in with the timeline of the Prime Minister standing up today and delivering this apology that the country has to make, and which these poor buggers, whose lives were ripped apart, have been waiting years for.

In fact I’ve been very critical of the Government’s pace on some things. It’s been all quarterly action plans and runs on the board and, thank goodness, it isn’t taking the same approach trying to work out how it’s going to do to compensate these people.

Remember that it was less than two weeks ago when it announced that it was going to sort out things for people who were abused at the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit, who reached a $6.5 million compensation settlement with the Crown in 2001 but then lost $2.6 million of that in legal fees.

So last week, after 20 years, the Government said it would fix them up for the $2.6 million they didn’t get.

That’s just one example of why taking a slow, measured approach is the best thing to do. It’s probably a basic example, but there are other reasons why I think the Government is taking the right approach.

Another reason why I think the Government shouldn’t be criticised today is that whatever it decides to do, it will be setting a precedent.

There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse by people working for the state, ongoing.

Another reason too not to rush it is that it wasn’t just government agencies involved in this hideous abuse – religious organisations were involved too.

And the Government will need to negotiate carefully with these organisations - like the St John of God order which ran the boys home in Christchurch where terrible, terrible things happened.

Pretty much every time there’s a story on TV about abuse in care you see that stock footage of the van going through the gate and the pathetic-looking water sprinkler.

So this complex. The Government has to get it right. And while, yes, maybe it would have been good if it was in a position to announce compensation details today as well as the apology, I think it is much better to do a thorough job and do exactly what it said it would and do the right thing for the people it is apologising to today.

When it comes to apologies there are generally two types: a sincere apology and a hollow apology.
And survivors of abuse in state or religious care are saying that the Prime Minister’s apology today for that abuse is hollow, because the Government isn’t saying anything today about redress or compensation.
The Government’s position is that it needs to take the time to make sure it gets the compensation scheme right and won’t be making any announcement until early next year.
Abuse survivors, though, say it should have been working on this long before now and today’s apology is undermined by what they think is a lack of timely action and work on compensation. Or, in other words, they’re saying that the apology is hollow.
Which I don’t agree with – I think the Government is right to take its time on this one. Which is probably easy for me to say because, thankfully, I haven’t been caught up in this nightmare.
Which is exactly what it has been and still is for these victims, or survivors as they prefer to be known, and they are the people criticising the Government today.
You’ll remember it was back in July when the final report on the massive inquiry into abuse of kids in care came out. 200,000 people were abused while they were, supposedly, being looked after by state and religious organisations.
And at the time the report came out, the Government said it would be delivering a national apology - which is what today is all about. And that it would be working on determining how the state will deliver what’s called redress. But, essentially, we’re talking about compensation for the victims who are still living.
Also included in that work is what changes can be made to try and ensure this kind of mass abuse can’t happen again, which is another priority for the abuse survivors.
I think it’s impossible to come up with changes that will stop it happening outright for the simple reason that there are evil people out there who can be very good at getting around structures and rules to do what they want to do.
But already the Government has this week announced steps to try and prevent abuse of kids in care. It's introducing a bill prompted by the Abuse in Care inquiry, which will ban strip-searching children.
So that’s all part of the redress work being led by Erica Stanford, who is the minister responsible for co-ordinating the Government’s response to the abuse in care inquiry.
The other big part of that response is the compensation side of things. Which survivors would have liked to have seen details from the Government today in parallel with the national apology.
But I think the Government’s right – this is something that can’t be rushed. I don’t think it’s something that should be neatly fitted-in with the timeline of the Prime Minister standing up today and delivering this apology that the country has to make, and which these poor buggers, whose lives were ripped apart, have been waiting years for.
In fact I’ve been very critical of the Government’s pace on some things. It’s been all quarterly action plans and runs on the board and, thank goodness, it isn’t taking the same approach trying to work out how it’s going to do to compensate these people.
Remember that it was less than two weeks ago when it announced that it was going to sort out things for people who were abused at the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit, who reached a $6.5 million compensation settlement with the Crown in 2001 but then lost $2.6 million of that in legal fees.
So last week, after 20 years, the Government said it would fix them up for the $2.6 million they didn’t get.
That’s just one example of why taking a slow, measured approach is the best thing to do. It’s probably a basic example, but there are other reasons why I think the Government is taking the right approach.
Another reason why I think the Government shouldn’t be criticised today is that whatever it decides to do, it will be setting a precedent.
There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse by people working for the state, ongoing.
Another reason too not to rush it is that it wasn’t just government agencies involved in this hideous abuse – religious organisations were involved too.
And the Government will need to negotiate carefully with these organisations - like the St John of God order which ran the boys home in Christchurch where terrible, terrible things happened.
Pretty much every time there’s a story on TV about abuse in care you see that stock footage of the van going through the gate and the pathetic-looking water sprinkler.
So this complex. The Government has to get it right. And while, yes, maybe it would have been good if it was in a position to announce compensation details today as well as the apology, I think it is much better to do a thorough job and do exactly what it said it would and do the right thing for the people it is apologising to today.

John MacDonald: No mention of money doesn't make today's apology hollow

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/3d53edd1-7cfa-4252-8416-b22501741ce1/transcript

If you’ve got solar panels on the roof, you’ll be loving the blue skies. 

And a solar energy advocate is saying today that those of us who don’t should be getting financial support from the Government. 

Mike Casey says New Zealand is one of the few western countries that doesn’t provide subsidies for solar energy. He says, in Australia, people can get subsidies to convert to solar and - guess what - more of them have. Way more.  

I think this is brilliant thinking - but not necessarily a brilliant idea. Because, if we could do all that magic wand stuff - which we can’t - but if we could, I’d say yep - Government subsidies for anyone and everyone. 

But there’s no magic wand and so we can’t. So I reckon there should be Government support to get solar into all new builds. 

I was talking to someone who, as they put it, went down the solar panel rabbit hole - in that they looked into it. But they just came to the same conclusion that I think most of us have - and still do - and that’s that the numbers just don’t stack up.

You can spend the money getting the panels on the roof, but it’ll take you years before the savings in electricity costs justify the spend. 

But getting more and more people onto solar energy is a much more realistic way for the Government - and I’m not just talking about the current Government, but all Governments - it’s a much more realistic way of trying to get those power costs down. 

Because what other options are there? The Government of the day can thump the table and tell the power companies to stop ripping us off. 

But that’s rarely worked with the supermarkets. So as if thumping the table is going to work with the power companies. 

The other option up the Government’s sleeve is restructuring the electricity market. But when do you think we’re going to see that happen? 

I was reading a history of New Zealand’s electricity reforms back in the 80s and 90s and it took about four years for those reforms to happen. So any changes the Government wants to make to the current electricity market is going to take a fair amount of time, isn’t it? 

So, if it wants to, the Government can do that. But I think it needs to be looking for some quick-wins at the same time. And subsidised solar conversion would be a quick win. Because, like anything in life, if you focus on the things you can actually influence - then that’s when you start to make progress. 

And providing taxpayer support to get solar power happening more widely, then that would be something the Government could make happen as soon as it wanted to. 

There are about two million occupied homes in New Zealand and around 60,000 of them have solar panels.  

It took New Zealand more than seven years to get 30,000 houses with solar. The other 30,000 took three years. And so now we’ve got 60,000. Which is about 3 percent of houses connected to the national grid. 

Compare that to Australia, which heavily subsidised solar, simplified the installation process, and invested in workforce training for installers and the general figure is about 35 percent (compared to our 3 percent). 

In many neighbourhoods in Australia, though, 50 percent of houses have solar panels. In some, as many as 80 percent. Thanks to government subsidies. 

Which our Government could bring in today, if it wanted to.  

LISTEN ABOVE

If you’ve got solar panels on the roof, you’ll be loving the blue skies.&nbsp;
And a solar energy advocate is saying today that those of us who don’t should be getting financial support from the Government.&nbsp;
Mike Casey says New Zealand is one of the few western countries that doesn’t provide subsidies for solar energy. He says, in Australia, people can get subsidies to convert to solar and - guess what - more of them have. Way more. &nbsp;
I think this is brilliant thinking - but not necessarily a brilliant idea. Because, if we could do all that magic wand stuff - which we can’t - but if we could, I’d say yep - Government subsidies for anyone and everyone.&nbsp;
But there’s no magic wand and so we can’t. So I reckon there should be Government support to get solar into all new builds.&nbsp;
I was talking to someone who, as they put it, went down the solar panel rabbit hole - in that they looked into it. But they just came to the same conclusion that I think most of us have - and still do - and that’s that the numbers just don’t stack up.
You can spend the money getting the panels on the roof, but it’ll take you years before the savings in electricity costs justify the spend.&nbsp;
But getting more and more people onto solar energy is a much more realistic way for the Government - and I’m not just talking about the current Government, but all Governments - it’s a much more realistic way of trying to get those power costs down.&nbsp;
Because what other options are there? The Government of the day can thump the table and tell the power companies to stop ripping us off.&nbsp;
But that’s rarely worked with the supermarkets. So as if thumping the table is going to work with the power companies.&nbsp;
The other option up the Government’s sleeve is restructuring the electricity market. But when do you think we’re going to see that happen?&nbsp;
I was reading a history of New Zealand’s electricity reforms back in the 80s and 90s and it took about four years for those reforms to happen. So any changes the Government wants to make to the current electricity market is going to take a fair amount of time, isn’t it?&nbsp;
So, if it wants to, the Government can do that. But I think it needs to be looking for some quick-wins at the same time. And subsidised solar conversion would be a quick win. Because, like anything in life, if you focus on the things you can actually influence - then that’s when you start to make progress.&nbsp;
And providing taxpayer support to get solar power happening more widely, then that would be something the Government could make happen as soon as it wanted to.&nbsp;
There are about two million occupied homes in New Zealand and around 60,000 of them have solar panels. &nbsp;
It took New Zealand more than seven years to get 30,000 houses with solar. The other 30,000 took three years. And so now we’ve got 60,000. Which is about 3 percent of houses connected to the national grid.&nbsp;
Compare that to Australia, which heavily subsidised solar, simplified the installation process, and invested in workforce training for installers and the general figure is about 35 percent (compared to our 3 percent).&nbsp;
In many neighbourhoods in Australia, though, 50 percent of houses have solar panels. In some, as many as 80 percent. Thanks to government subsidies.&nbsp;
Which our Government could bring in today, if it wanted to. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Should the taxpayer chip-in for your solar panels?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/811e04a9-402e-4779-b145-b225000da3de/transcript

You'll have your own way of describing this crazy situation where we’ve got KiwiRail telling the Christchurch City Council that it has to close a 1.5 kilometre stretch of cycleway for two years, because the cycleway needs some safety improvements.

KiwiRail reckons the Heathcote Express cycleway, which is near a railway crossing, is so dangerous that a death or serious injury could happen there once every 1,000 years. Yep, once every 1,000 years.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that any death or injury —no matter how infrequent— is acceptable in any way. And KiwiRail says the section of railway that the cycleway crosses is the busiest section of the South Island rail network, with about 35 trains using it each day.

The cycleway opened less than a year ago and the locals seem to love it. 

In fact, some local school kids turned up at the city council this week to tell councillors how important it is and how worried they are about this section of the cycleway being closed for two years while the safety upgrades are made to the railway crossing.

Here’s an idea of why they’re so worried about not being able to use the cycleway for two years and being forced onto a road busy with trucks going to and from the port at Lyttelton.

“We would need to bike on the highway. Port Hills Road is 60km. Lots of trucks, underpasses, and it’s scary and dodgy. It’s very dangerous crossing the Lyttleton offramp.”

And you’ve got to say, the possibility of something bad happening once every 1,000 years surely has to put it at the lower end of things. And certainly not a priority.

And this is the key thing here. I certainly don’t think it’s worth forcing cyclists off a safe cycleway for two years and onto a stretch of road that these school kids and other people who use the cycleway everyday say is a way more dangerous way for them to get to school and work.

Now I’m not saying get rid of health and safety, because that old Kiwi “she’ll be right approach” is not something I’m in favour of. 

But surely this type of crazy directive from KiwiRail shows how all the brilliant changes that have been made to keep people safer can be tarnished by another consequence of the health and safety laws.

Whether it’s an unintended consequence, who knows, but the layperson’s term for this consequence is “backside covering”.

That's all KiwiRail is doing here, because it knows that, whenever this once in 1,000 years death or injury might happen, it will be in the firing line. That’s the only conclusion you can come to.

But that’s what health and safety has become. Backside covering.

The other thing about this too is the safety upgrade being forced by KiwiRail is going to cost ratepayers $6.5 million.

I remember the last time I was in a managerial job, and I had to make my team go to a health and safety briefing. And the so-called expert started banging on about a “cable strategy”.

And I couldn’t help myself - because the old BS detector was going off left, right and centre. So I put my hand up and asked what this “cable strategy” was that they were going on about.

Turns out it was a documented plan on how to handle things like computer cables and other cords, so that they didn’t create a risk of people falling over.

That was the point when I realised that health and safety was becoming an industry.

And that’s how I’m feeling about KiwiRail’s plan to force the Christchurch City Council this 1.5 kilometre section of the Heathcote Express cycleway for two years.

It's also another example of how health and safety is out of control in this country.

You'll have your own way of describing this crazy situation where we’ve got KiwiRail telling the Christchurch City Council that it has to close a 1.5 kilometre stretch of cycleway for two years, because the cycleway needs some safety improvements.
KiwiRail reckons the Heathcote Express cycleway, which is near a railway crossing, is so dangerous that a death or serious injury could happen there once every 1,000 years. Yep, once every 1,000 years.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that any death or injury —no matter how infrequent— is acceptable in any way. And KiwiRail says the section of railway that the cycleway crosses is the busiest section of the South Island rail network, with about 35 trains using it each day.
The cycleway opened less than a year ago and the locals seem to love it.&nbsp;
In fact, some local school kids turned up at the city council this week to tell councillors how important it is and how worried they are about this section of the cycleway being closed for two years while the safety upgrades are made to the railway crossing.
Here’s an idea of why they’re so worried about not being able to use the cycleway for two years and being forced onto a road busy with trucks going to and from the port at Lyttelton.
“We would need to bike on the highway. Port Hills Road is 60km. Lots of trucks, underpasses, and it’s scary and dodgy. It’s very dangerous crossing the Lyttleton offramp.”
And you’ve got to say, the possibility of something bad happening once every 1,000 years surely has to put it at the lower end of things. And certainly not a priority.
And this is the key thing here. I certainly don’t think it’s worth forcing cyclists off a safe cycleway for two years and onto a stretch of road that these school kids and other people who use the cycleway everyday say is a way more dangerous way for them to get to school and work.
Now I’m not saying get rid of health and safety, because that old Kiwi “she’ll be right approach” is not something I’m in favour of.&nbsp;
But surely this type of crazy directive from KiwiRail shows how all the brilliant changes that have been made to keep people safer can be tarnished by another consequence of the health and safety laws.
Whether it’s an unintended consequence, who knows, but the layperson’s term for this consequence is “backside covering”.
That's all KiwiRail is doing here, because it knows that, whenever this once in 1,000 years death or injury might happen, it will be in the firing line. That’s the only conclusion you can come to.
But that’s what health and safety has become. Backside covering.
The other thing about this too is the safety upgrade being forced by KiwiRail is going to cost ratepayers $6.5 million.
I remember the last time I was in a managerial job, and I had to make my team go to a health and safety briefing. And the so-called expert started banging on about a “cable strategy”.
And I couldn’t help myself - because the old BS detector was going off left, right and centre. So I put my hand up and asked what this “cable strategy” was that they were going on about.
Turns out it was a documented plan on how to handle things like computer cables and other cords, so that they didn’t create a risk of people falling over.
That was the point when I realised that health and safety was becoming an industry.
And that’s how I’m feeling about KiwiRail’s plan to force the Christchurch City Council this 1.5 kilometre section of the Heathcote Express cycleway for two years.
It's also another example of how health and safety is out of control in this country.

John MacDonald: Health and Safety is off the rails

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/5d753882-f9c3-4241-b921-b22200096fac/transcript

Carmel Sepuloni: Deputy Labour Leader discusses capital gains taxes, new safety measures for public transport workers, and Andrew Coster

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips