Chris Hipkins is hitting out at the Taxpayers' Union as it prepares to launch a campaign against Finance Minister Nicola Willis. 

The lobby group is questioning Willis's track record on the economy. 

Willis has responded, challenging chair and former finance minister Ruth Richardson to a debate. 

The Labour Leader told John MacDonald the Taxpayers' Union has a view of "entrenched privilege". 

He claims the organisation is funded by a group of rich people who want to keep all of their money. 

Hipkins is also unimpressed by Willis’ decision to agree to the debate, which he says shows deep divisions among the National Party. 

He calls it petty and says Willis should be focused on things like creating jobs. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

Chris Hipkins is hitting out at the Taxpayers' Union as it prepares to launch a campaign against Finance Minister Nicola Willis.&nbsp;
The lobby group is questioning Willis's track record on the economy.&nbsp;
Willis has responded, challenging chair and former finance minister Ruth Richardson to a debate.&nbsp;
The Labour Leader told John MacDonald the Taxpayers' Union has a view of "entrenched privilege".&nbsp;
He claims the organisation is funded by a group of rich people who want to keep all of their money.&nbsp;
Hipkins is also unimpressed by Willis’ decision to agree to the debate, which he says shows deep divisions among the National Party.&nbsp;
He calls it petty and says Willis should be focused on things like creating jobs.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;

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

Looking for actionable business insights all in one place? 

We're here to help you find a way with a curation of the ‘best bits’ from top business podcasts. 

Save time searching; subscribe to the SME Stream where you can listen to relevant, timely, business-related content today. 

 

Looking for actionable business insights all in one place? 
We're here to help you find a way with a curation of the &lsquo;best bits&rsquo; from top business podcasts. 
Save time searching; subscribe to the SME Stream where you can listen to relevant, timely, business-related content today.&nbsp;
&nbsp;

The SME Stream

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

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1cc327f5-0e3e-4c6f-8532-b3af00063778/transcript

I’m glad I’m not a volunteer firefighter. Because, if I was, I would be brassed-off that an attempt to get volunteer firefighters the same ACC cover as full-time firefighters has gone nowhere.

A petition calling for the change has been rejected by a parliamentary select committee because it doesn’t want to set a precedent. The committee is trotting out all the usual platitudes but the fact remains that volunteer firefighters have just had another kick in the guts.

A bit of background: Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown volunteer brigade started the petition after another volunteer developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but couldn't get any help because he’s a volunteer.

That’s because volunteer firefighters don’t get the same ACC cover and benefits as full-time firefighters. Which means if they suffer from any mental health issues because of their firefighting work, or if they get some kind of gradual injury from their firefighting work, or develop cancer because of their firefighting work, they can forget about any ACC entitlements.

Whereas, full-time firefighters get all of that covered.

Which is so wrong. Especially when you consider that volunteers make up 86 percent of the front-line Fire and Emergency New Zealand workforce and are often first responders in emergencies.

In 2023, volunteer firefighters responded to callouts for 70 percent of all motor vehicle crashes, 71 percent of all medical emergencies and 81 percent of vegetation fires.

That’s according to Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown brigade who saw how much of a rort this is and started the petition to try and get a better deal for the volunteers.

But Parliament’s education and workforce committee has said no. Because it doesn’t want to set a precedent - because it doesn’t think it’s practical for all volunteers to get ACC workplace coverage.

The committee says: "While we are sympathetic to the petitioner's arguments, we are concerned about the precedent that extending ACC cover to volunteer firefighters might set.”

I don’t buy that for a minute. Because is the committee saying that, if volunteer firefighters got full ACC cover, then we’d have people doing meals on wheels demanding the same?

So that’s what the committee says about its reason for rejecting the petition. Then the weasel words start: “We would like to take the opportunity to express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who volunteer for this important and challenging work."

Do me a favour!

Heartfelt gratitude would be recognising these people properly. Telling them that, if their “important and challenging work” means one day they find themselves suffering from PTSD, or some other serious injury or cancer because of that "important and challenging work”, then they will be looked after.

That would be “heartfelt gratitude”.

I’m glad I’m not a volunteer firefighter. Because, if I was, I would be brassed-off that an attempt to get volunteer firefighters the same ACC cover as full-time firefighters has gone nowhere.
A petition calling for the change has been rejected by a parliamentary select committee because it doesn’t want to set a precedent. The committee is trotting out all the usual platitudes but the fact remains that volunteer firefighters have just had another kick in the guts.
A bit of background: Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown volunteer brigade started the petition after another volunteer developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but couldn't get any help because he’s a volunteer.
That’s because volunteer firefighters don’t get the same ACC cover and benefits as full-time firefighters. Which means if they suffer from any mental health issues because of their firefighting work, or if they get some kind of gradual injury from their firefighting work, or develop cancer because of their firefighting work, they can forget about any ACC entitlements.
Whereas, full-time firefighters get all of that covered.
Which is so wrong. Especially when you consider that volunteers make up 86 percent of the front-line Fire and Emergency New Zealand workforce and are often first responders in emergencies.
In 2023, volunteer firefighters responded to callouts for 70 percent of all motor vehicle crashes, 71 percent of all medical emergencies and 81 percent of vegetation fires.
That’s according to Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown brigade who saw how much of a rort this is and started the petition to try and get a better deal for the volunteers.
But Parliament’s education and workforce committee has said no. Because it doesn’t want to set a precedent - because it doesn’t think it’s practical for all volunteers to get ACC workplace coverage.
The committee says: "While we are sympathetic to the petitioner's arguments, we are concerned about the precedent that extending ACC cover to volunteer firefighters might set.”
I don’t buy that for a minute. Because is the committee saying that, if volunteer firefighters got full ACC cover, then we’d have people doing meals on wheels demanding the same?
So that’s what the committee says about its reason for rejecting the petition. Then the weasel words start: “We would like to take the opportunity to express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who volunteer for this important and challenging work."
Do me a favour!
Heartfelt gratitude would be recognising these people properly. Telling them that, if their “important and challenging work” means one day they find themselves suffering from PTSD, or some other serious injury or cancer because of that "important and challenging work”, then they will be looked after.
That would be “heartfelt gratitude”.

John MacDonald: Another kick in the guts for our volunteer firefighters

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a9ec0df5-5253-4c73-9389-b3b1001df65b/transcript

Australia pressed go yesterday on the social media ban for kids under-16 and a Parliamentary select committee here thinks we should do the same.

I don’t. Nor does retired district court judge David Harvey, who is saying today that a ban would be a cop-out for parents. He says it would be another example of outsourcing parental authority to the state.

He might have a point, but I think a lot of parents are to blame for the problem people seem to be expecting Parliament to fix. Because a lot of parents have been pushovers when it comes to social media. You go anywhere today, and you’ll see the next generation of pushover parents letting their kids on devices anytime, anywhere.

I’m anti a ban because I just don’t think it’s practical. I don’t see it working.

I know the counterargument to that is that people get around all sorts of laws, so does that mean we shouldn’t have any? Underage kids get their hands on alcohol even though it’s illegal. People on learner licences drive with passengers, even though it’s illegal.

I get that, but it’s still not a very good argument for a law that sounds great, but which I don’t see being great in reality.

The other reason I’m against a social media ban is that the under-16s who would be impacted have already grown up with social media.

It’s ingrained in their lives. It’s a genuine communication tool – schools use it, sports clubs use it.

Tell that though to the MPs on Parliament’s Education and Workforce select committee, which has been looking into the idea of a social media ban for under-16s here in New Zealand.

The committee’s interim report, its final report will be out early in the new year, its interim view is that we need something like that here. The committee also thinks we would need to have a social media regulator to make sure people and the social media companies follow the rules.

Back to retired judge David Harvey, who thinks banning under-16s from social media would be a cop-out for parents.

He says: “Supporters of the ban increasingly frame it as a tool for parents – an additional “lever” to help them say “no” to persistent children. That rationale reflects a growing trend: shifting parental responsibility onto the state.”

He says: “Telling children ‘the law says no’ is not parenting. It is outsourcing authority.”

And I agree.

Australia pressed go yesterday on the social media ban for kids under-16 and a Parliamentary select committee here thinks we should do the same.
I don’t. Nor does retired district court judge David Harvey, who is saying today that a ban would be a cop-out for parents. He says it would be another example of outsourcing parental authority to the state.
He might have a point, but I think a lot of parents are to blame for the problem people seem to be expecting Parliament to fix. Because a lot of parents have been pushovers when it comes to social media. You go anywhere today, and you’ll see the next generation of pushover parents letting their kids on devices anytime, anywhere.
I’m anti a ban because I just don’t think it’s practical. I don’t see it working.
I know the counterargument to that is that people get around all sorts of laws, so does that mean we shouldn’t have any? Underage kids get their hands on alcohol even though it’s illegal. People on learner licences drive with passengers, even though it’s illegal.
I get that, but it’s still not a very good argument for a law that sounds great, but which I don’t see being great in reality.
The other reason I’m against a social media ban is that the under-16s who would be impacted have already grown up with social media.
It’s ingrained in their lives. It’s a genuine communication tool – schools use it, sports clubs use it.
Tell that though to the MPs on Parliament’s Education and Workforce select committee, which has been looking into the idea of a social media ban for under-16s here in New Zealand.
The committee’s interim report, its final report will be out early in the new year, its interim view is that we need something like that here. The committee also thinks we would need to have a social media regulator to make sure people and the social media companies follow the rules.
Back to retired judge David Harvey, who thinks banning under-16s from social media would be a cop-out for parents.
He says: “Supporters of the ban increasingly frame it as a tool for parents – an additional “lever” to help them say “no” to persistent children. That rationale reflects a growing trend: shifting parental responsibility onto the state.”
He says: “Telling children ‘the law says no’ is not parenting. It is outsourcing authority.”
And I agree.

John MacDonald: You won't get me liking any social media ban

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a4b0e5db-86a6-4d4d-9348-b3b00005b281/transcript

There’s a lot to take in with these planning law changes. But what it comes down to is the Government wants people to be able to do more with their own property with less red tape. 

If you want to do something that has no impact on anyone else, you’ll be able to do it. Your house, your castle. 

That’s where there could be a few sticking points, because who determines what impacts others and what doesn’t? But overall, I like what the Government is doing. 

And I know it will have looked for some of the most extreme examples of the current planning laws to sell the changes it’s making. Which is to ditch the Resource Management Act and replace it with a planning act and a natural environment act. 

But you can’t argue with the minister responsible, Chris Bishop, when he says we need to see the end of developers being told one thing by one council planner and something different by another – such as one planner saying front doors have to face the street and another saying they can’t. 

What the Government is saying is that the days of council planners playing god are over. And amen to that. 

So the sorts of things it’s going to let us do without needing consents are things like adding a balcony or a deck or building a garage. 

Chris Bishop says he knows of a guy who wanted to replace a garage on his property but spent nine months arguing with the council, because the council didn’t like the look of the garage. 

It seems a lot of people are saying the devil will be in the detail. And one of the sticking points or potential bones of contention I see is where do you draw the line at what impacts others and what doesn’t. 

For example: the Government wants me to be able to build a deck at my place without a consent, providing it has no impact on others. But what if building that deck means I can see over the fence more easily? 

Overall, though, I’m in favour of letting people do more with their own property with less red tape. 

But how do you feel about it? 

There’s a lot to take in with these planning law changes. But what it comes down to is the Government wants people to be able to do more with their own property with less red tape.&nbsp;
If you want to do something that has no impact on anyone else, you’ll be able to do it. Your house, your castle.&nbsp;
That’s where there could be a few sticking points, because who determines what impacts others and what doesn’t? But overall, I like what the Government is doing.&nbsp;
And I know it will have looked for some of the most extreme examples of the current planning laws to sell the changes it’s making. Which is to ditch the Resource Management Act and replace it with a planning act and a natural environment act.&nbsp;
But you can’t argue with the minister responsible, Chris Bishop, when he says we need to see the end of developers being told one thing by one council planner and something different by another – such as one planner saying front doors have to face the street and another saying they can’t.&nbsp;
What the Government is saying is that the days of council planners playing god are over. And amen to that.&nbsp;
So the sorts of things it’s going to let us do without needing consents are things like adding a balcony or a deck or building a garage.&nbsp;
Chris Bishop says he knows of a guy who wanted to replace a garage on his property but spent nine months arguing with the council, because the council didn’t like the look of the garage.&nbsp;
It seems a lot of people are saying the devil will be in the detail. And one of the sticking points or potential bones of contention I see is where do you draw the line at what impacts others and what doesn’t.&nbsp;
For example: the Government wants me to be able to build a deck at my place without a consent, providing it has no impact on others. But what if building that deck means I can see over the fence more easily?&nbsp;
Overall, though, I’m in favour of letting people do more with their own property with less red tape.&nbsp;
But how do you feel about it?&nbsp;

John MacDonald: Your house is going to be your castle again

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/223526eb-6ec0-45e4-b1b2-b3ae0189fbd2/transcript

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

The SME Stream

In 2 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips