Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says her party will fight tooth and nail for its tax plan as Labour rules out new taxes beyond its capital gains tax. 

Labour is vowing not to support tax changes proposed by potential coalition partners Te Pāti Māori, the Greens, and Opportunity. 

Swarbrick told Kerre Woodham she wants collaboration because she says it's clear there does need to be tax reform. 

She says people are sick of political tit-for-tat, and her party doesn’t agree with tinkering around the edges. 

But Labour leader Chris Hipkins isn’t budging, telling Woodham there needs to be a public mandate for major changes. 

He says parties are free to advocate for things they were elected on, but if there's no public support for that then the status quo prevails. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says her party will fight tooth and nail for its tax plan as Labour rules out new taxes beyond its capital gains tax.&nbsp;
Labour is vowing not to support tax changes proposed by potential coalition partners Te Pāti Māori, the Greens, and Opportunity.&nbsp;
Swarbrick told Kerre Woodham she wants collaboration because she says it's clear there does need to be tax reform.&nbsp;
She says people are sick of political tit-for-tat, and her party doesn’t agree with tinkering around the edges.&nbsp;
But Labour leader Chris Hipkins isn’t budging, telling Woodham there needs to be a public mandate for major changes.&nbsp;
He says parties are free to advocate for things they were elected on, but if there's no public support for that then the status quo prevails.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Chlöe Swarbrick and Chris Hipkins: Green Party Co-Leader and Labour Leader on election tax promises

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f97b374b-dd6e-427b-8956-b4ab00165b90/transcript

Every bailiff in the country is going to be out in force today, scanning the number plates of parked cars to identify those amongst us who have overdue court fines and reparation. You can run but you cannot hide. And if you can't pay your fines or make arrangements to pay them, your car may well be clamped or towed away to be sold to recoup the parking fines you haven't paid. In July of last year, bailiffs began trialling handheld devices to scan number plates of parked cars and those stopped at some breath testing stations. So far, and this is just since July of last year, the new technology has returned a total of $4,241,867 —no word on the cents— in fines and reparations as of a few days ago. Paul Goldsmith says the message to those who owe money is simple: pay your court fines or you may be walking home. He was on with Mike Hosking this morning and said the swarming of the country with bailiffs is not just about revenue gathering, it's also about raising awareness of court fines. 

“I also heard them saying, “Is this a PR exercise?" Well, yeah, it is an element of PR. We want to actually get the message out that you've got to pay your fines. And so it's pretty sort of simple so that we can spend that money, and it's a good $4 million we can spend that on helping victims out from suffering from the consequences of all this."

Well, quite. Any dollar counts given the parlous state of the country, and getting $4,241,867 back as of just a few days ago is a very good start. So far, bailiffs have scanned well over a quarter of a million number plates and identified 7,148 people with overdue court fines or reparation. Of those, 1,320 people paid on the spot, a further 561 organised a payment arrangement, 404 people had their vehicle seized, 683 had their vehicle clamped. So they're getting on with it. They're not mucking around.  

But while I'm all for people paying what they owe, and I had to come to an arrangement when I was a mad thing many years ago —before I became the sensible voice of reason on the wireless— with the courts to pay off my parking fines, and they were substantial by the time you put the penalties in there, and it took about a year to pay off. But I did pay them off. I'm all for people paying what they owe, but I do hope there'll be some willingness from the courts to work with those who have allowed fines to back up. If you have a bit of disposable income, fines are annoying. They're like, “Ugh, oh well, better pay it." You pay it, you resolve to be more careful next time. But if you are on the bones of your bum, if the couple of days before payday are tight, there is no extra money to go around – a fine can be absolutely disastrous if it comes with another unexpected expense.  

I don't think people who are comfortable have any idea what financial anxiety is like, that gnawing in your stomach, that sick feeling of thinking, “I don't know how I'm going to pay this." And if you get a parking fine or if you haven't got your rego done because you're waiting till next month to get the rego done but then you're sprung, yeah, you know that you owe it, you know that you have to pay, but there's something that needs that money more urgently. It's not all cigarettes and Sky television, it's not all drugs and alcohol. For a lot of either working families or families on benefits trying to get by, they are doing the best with what they have. And I just hope the courts show a little bit of leniency if you enter into a payback arrangement, otherwise, it's just a spiral further and further downwards, which doesn't help anybody.  

And if you need your car for work because you're barely getting by and your car's seized or clamped, you lose your job. Again, it's that debt spiral further and further and further down. Yes, pay what you owe. I've done it when it's been really difficult to do, and I've done it when it's been relatively easy to do. Maybe be proactive. If you've got that technology and you know that somebody owes a fine, get onto it before and get them onto an arrangement before it becomes so big it becomes a debt mountain they simply cannot scale. They'll never see the top of it, they'll never see the back of it. 

Every bailiff in the country is going to be out in force today, scanning the number plates of parked cars to identify those amongst us who have overdue court fines and reparation. You can run but you cannot hide. And if you can't pay your fines or make arrangements to pay them, your car may well be clamped or towed away to be sold to recoup the parking fines you haven't paid. In July of last year, bailiffs began trialling handheld devices to scan number plates of parked cars and those stopped at some breath testing stations. So far, and this is just since July of last year, the new technology has returned a total of $4,241,867 —no word on the cents— in fines and reparations as of a few days ago. Paul Goldsmith says the message to those who owe money is simple: pay your court fines or you may be walking home. He was on with Mike Hosking this morning and said the swarming of the country with bailiffs is not just about revenue gathering, it's also about raising awareness of court fines.&nbsp;
“I also heard them saying, “Is this a PR exercise?" Well, yeah, it is an element of PR. We want to actually get the message out that you've got to pay your fines. And so it's pretty sort of simple so that we can spend that money, and it's a good $4 million we can spend that on helping victims out from suffering from the consequences of all this."
Well, quite. Any dollar counts given the parlous state of the country, and getting $4,241,867 back as of just a few days ago is a very good start. So far, bailiffs have scanned well over a quarter of a million number plates and identified 7,148 people with overdue court fines or reparation. Of those, 1,320 people paid on the spot, a further 561 organised a payment arrangement, 404 people had their vehicle seized, 683 had their vehicle clamped. So they're getting on with it. They're not mucking around. &nbsp;
But while I'm all for people paying what they owe, and I had to come to an arrangement when I was a mad thing many years ago —before I became the sensible voice of reason on the wireless— with the courts to pay off my parking fines, and they were substantial by the time you put the penalties in there, and it took about a year to pay off. But I did pay them off. I'm all for people paying what they owe, but I do hope there'll be some willingness from the courts to work with those who have allowed fines to back up. If you have a bit of disposable income, fines are annoying. They're like, “Ugh, oh well, better pay it." You pay it, you resolve to be more careful next time. But if you are on the bones of your bum, if the couple of days before payday are tight, there is no extra money to go around – a fine can be absolutely disastrous if it comes with another unexpected expense. &nbsp;
I don't think people who are comfortable have any idea what financial anxiety is like, that gnawing in your stomach, that sick feeling of thinking, “I don't know how I'm going to pay this." And if you get a parking fine or if you haven't got your rego done because you're waiting till next month to get the rego done but then you're sprung, yeah, you know that you owe it, you know that you have to pay, but there's something that needs that money more urgently. It's not all cigarettes and Sky television, it's not all drugs and alcohol. For a lot of either working families or families on benefits trying to get by, they are doing the best with what they have. And I just hope the courts show a little bit of leniency if you enter into a payback arrangement, otherwise, it's just a spiral further and further downwards, which doesn't help anybody. &nbsp;
And if you need your car for work because you're barely getting by and your car's seized or clamped, you lose your job. Again, it's that debt spiral further and further and further down. Yes, pay what you owe. I've done it when it's been really difficult to do, and I've done it when it's been relatively easy to do. Maybe be proactive. If you've got that technology and you know that somebody owes a fine, get onto it before and get them onto an arrangement before it becomes so big it becomes a debt mountain they simply cannot scale. They'll never see the top of it, they'll never see the back of it.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: I'm all for paying what you owe, but...

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e72dd30a-4c07-450f-bab0-b4ab001af08d/transcript

Gisborne's Mayor says the council's trying its best when it comes to the issues facing the region's forestry sector. 

The Government's appointed a facilitator to determine whether further intervention may be needed after being made aware of concerns about the approach the Gisborne District Council is taking to land use change. 

Mayor Rehette Stoltz told Kerre Woodham Mornings says they were told to step up consent conditions after Cyclone Gabrielle. 

She says in 2023 they were told they weren't doing enough, now it feels like they're being told they're doing too much. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

Gisborne's Mayor says the council's trying its best when it comes to the issues facing the region's forestry sector.&nbsp;
The Government's appointed a facilitator to determine whether further intervention may be needed after being made aware of concerns about the approach the Gisborne District Council is taking to land use change.&nbsp;
Mayor Rehette Stoltz told Kerre Woodham Mornings says they were told to step up consent conditions after Cyclone Gabrielle.&nbsp;
She says in 2023 they were told they weren't doing enough, now it feels like they're being told they're doing too much.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;

Rehette Stoltz: Gisborne Mayor on the tensions between the City Council and forestry sector over slash

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4688813f-9e78-4e01-90e2-b4ab0013a7b1/transcript

I can imagine 50 years from now, the morning host on ZB 9am to Noon will be nearing retirement and they'll have talked about everything, as I have done over my time here. So, they'll be opening their show on the 18th of August 2076, and they'll say, “Harbour crossing, tunnel or bridge? Meola Reef crossing or a bridge alongside the existing one? 0800 80 10 80.” And 50 years from now, the discussion will begin again and again and again.  

Can you imagine we'll have a second harbour crossing in 50 years? Which is the more likely scenario – the ZB morning host 50 years from now opening it up for discussion, bridge or tunnel, Meola Reef or alongside the existing one, or that you'll be driving over or through the tunnel-crossing, listening to the morning host on Newstalk ZB in 2076? Because it will have been built and there you will be in your driverless car, sipping your morning coffee, listening to the wireless on your car radio while you're going over the harbour crossing.  

It seems like one of those where you just end up going round and round and round in circles, which would be fine if it wasn't costing us so much money. How many reports have there been into another crossing? There was one in 1996 —last century— Transit New Zealand's scoping study identifying the initial bridge and tunnel options. Oh, and then things stepped up again, in 1997 the Auckland Regional Council reviewed dozens of alignment variants. Bit of a lull, then between 2006 and 2009 there were more studies, alignment and corridor protection studies recommending twin tunnels – I remember that, remember the discussions around that 20 years ago. 2010 to 2011, new transport and economic evaluation that looked into add-ons like the Skypath. 2023, the Waitematā Harbour Connections detailed business case presented five shortlisted bridge and tunnel options. 2024 to ‘26, further geotechnical seabed testing and market sounding investment cases by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport.  

And then this month, another reset ordering an independent Crown-led detailed business case alongside a separate $1 million study for a Meola Reef alignment, which is basically a sop to Wayne Brown's ego and will only happen if Auckland Council's willing to pay half a million towards it. You cannot imagine how thrilled I am to be an Auckland ratepayer contributing towards Wayne Brown's ego and a taxpayer paying towards a $1 million ego study. Chris Bishop says the latest independent Crown led detailed business case is necessary. 

“The difference here would be that in the past we've made decisions based on desktop studies, right? So a bunch of people have sat around and looked at a map and gone, “Oh, that'd be quite good," and drawn a line and gone, Let's do that." This time we've actually had a barge in the harbour, we've got the route alignment for a new bridge, we've got the route alignment for the tunnel. There's a lot more work's been done and I appreciate people listening will say, “Oh yeah, yeah, well he would say that," but this, you know, is genuinely true. We're a lot further advanced, we've got a really detailed investment case for both a bridge and a tunnel.  

“The question is always, and has always been with this project, and this is the reason why the ‘08 and 2014 and 2015 and 2016 versions fell over, no one's yet worked out a proper way to pay for it because it's, you know, like it potentially, you know, could bankrupt the transport system or even, you know, the country's fiscal position unless we get it right. So that's the work we're doing right now, and I don't want people to underappreciate the scale of the cost. It's huge.” 

I don't think we underestimate that, but I also know that given the amount of time we've wasted and the money we've wasted on coming up with options and then re-presenting the same options, would have been a good down payment to a lovely firm of Chinese tunnel builders who could have come in, whapped the thing up and pushed off again. We'd be driving over it.  

The only thing that makes me feel marginally better about this decades long time and money wasting exercise is that the first harbour bridge was beset by the same issues. I know we probably think, as I did until I looked into it, God, must have been 20 odd years ago, that our pragmatic, phlegmatic forebears just rolled up their shirt sleeves and threw up the Auckland Harbour Bridge and bloody be done with it because we needed it, but in fact no. It faced intense public, political and technical opposition for decades. North Shore residents and farmers had been agitating for a crossing since the 1860s. So nearly 100 years later the thing was shoved up after much debate.  

So maybe, maybe, maybe we aren't completely and utterly as hopeless this generation as I think we are. These are the same kind of debates, discussions, you would think we would learn from history, wouldn't you? But no. And if ever there was a piece of infrastructure that needed to be looked at by independent consultants, the Infrastructure Commission has a look at it, it cannot be touched politically, we decide on the best option, we toll the thing and be done with it. But it just does not seem to be that simple. It wasn't that simple in 1860 and it's not that simple in 2026. I hope things will have improved by 2076. 

I can imagine 50 years from now, the morning host on ZB 9am to Noon will be nearing retirement and they'll have talked about everything, as I have done over my time here. So, they'll be opening their show on the 18th of August 2076, and they'll say, “Harbour crossing, tunnel or bridge? Meola Reef crossing or a bridge alongside the existing one? 0800 80 10 80.” And 50 years from now, the discussion will begin again and again and again. &nbsp;
Can you imagine we'll have a second harbour crossing in 50 years? Which is the more likely scenario – the ZB morning host 50 years from now opening it up for discussion, bridge or tunnel, Meola Reef or alongside the existing one, or that you'll be driving over or through the tunnel-crossing, listening to the morning host on Newstalk ZB in 2076? Because it will have been built and there you will be in your driverless car, sipping your morning coffee, listening to the wireless on your car radio while you're going over the harbour crossing. &nbsp;
It seems like one of those where you just end up going round and round and round in circles, which would be fine if it wasn't costing us so much money. How many reports have there been into another crossing? There was one in 1996 —last century— Transit New Zealand's scoping study identifying the initial bridge and tunnel options. Oh, and then things stepped up again, in 1997 the Auckland Regional Council reviewed dozens of alignment variants. Bit of a lull, then between 2006 and 2009 there were more studies, alignment and corridor protection studies recommending twin tunnels – I remember that, remember the discussions around that 20 years ago. 2010 to 2011, new transport and economic evaluation that looked into add-ons like the Skypath. 2023, the Waitematā Harbour Connections detailed business case presented five shortlisted bridge and tunnel options. 2024 to ‘26, further geotechnical seabed testing and market sounding investment cases by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport. &nbsp;
And then this month, another reset ordering an independent Crown-led detailed business case alongside a separate $1 million study for a Meola Reef alignment, which is basically a sop to Wayne Brown's ego and will only happen if Auckland Council's willing to pay half a million towards it. You cannot imagine how thrilled I am to be an Auckland ratepayer contributing towards Wayne Brown's ego and a taxpayer paying towards a $1 million ego study. Chris Bishop says the latest independent Crown led detailed business case is necessary.&nbsp;
“The difference here would be that in the past we've made decisions based on desktop studies, right? So a bunch of people have sat around and looked at a map and gone, “Oh, that'd be quite good," and drawn a line and gone, Let's do that." This time we've actually had a barge in the harbour, we've got the route alignment for a new bridge, we've got the route alignment for the tunnel. There's a lot more work's been done and I appreciate people listening will say, “Oh yeah, yeah, well he would say that," but this, you know, is genuinely true. We're a lot further advanced, we've got a really detailed investment case for both a bridge and a tunnel. &nbsp;
“The question is always, and has always been with this project, and this is the reason why the ‘08 and 2014 and 2015 and 2016 versions fell over, no one's yet worked out a proper way to pay for it because it's, you know, like it potentially, you know, could bankrupt the transport system or even, you know, the country's fiscal position unless we get it right. So that's the work we're doing right now, and I don't want people to underappreciate the scale of the cost. It's huge.”&nbsp;
I don't think we underestimate that, but I also know that given the amount of time we've wasted and the money we've wasted on coming up with options and then re-presenting the same options, would have been a good down payment to a lovely firm of Chinese tunnel builders who could have come in, whapped the thing up and pushed off again. We'd be driving over it. &nbsp;
The only thing that makes me feel marginally better about this decades long time and money wasting exercise is that the first harbour bridge was beset by the same issues. I know we probably think, as I did until I looked into it, God, must have been 20 odd years ago, that our pragmatic, phlegmatic forebears just rolled up their shirt sleeves and threw up the Auckland Harbour Bridge and bloody be done with it because we needed it, but in fact no. It faced intense public, political and technical opposition for decades. North Shore residents and farmers had been agitating for a crossing since the 1860s. So nearly 100 years later the thing was shoved up after much debate. &nbsp;
So maybe, maybe, maybe we aren't completely and utterly as hopeless this generation as I think we are. These are the same kind of debates, discussions, you would think we would learn from history, wouldn't you? But no. And if ever there was a piece of infrastructure that needed to be looked at by independent consultants, the Infrastructure Commission has a look at it, it cannot be touched politically, we decide on the best option, we toll the thing and be done with it. But it just does not seem to be that simple. It wasn't that simple in 1860 and it's not that simple in 2026. I hope things will have improved by 2076.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Auckland's harbour crossing - a discussion that goes round in circles

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/96de3eeb-470e-49c2-af8c-b4aa001bdc19/transcript

Chlöe Swarbrick and Chris Hipkins: Green Party Co-Leader and Labour Leader on election tax promises

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips