A former Climate Change Minister believes New Zealand should stay in the Paris Climate Agreement. 

ACT leader David Seymour's announced a policy to leave the global pact unless rules are loosened for our farmers. 

New Zealand First has also floated the idea of withdrawing, as some larger nations have ditched it. 

Tim Groser told Kerre Woodham this goes against public sentiment. 

He says polls indicate a large majority of Kiwis believe we should do our share on climate change. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

A former Climate Change Minister believes New Zealand should stay in the Paris Climate Agreement.&nbsp;
ACT leader David Seymour's announced a policy to leave the global pact unless rules are loosened for our farmers.&nbsp;
New Zealand First has also floated the idea of withdrawing, as some larger nations have ditched it.&nbsp;
Tim Groser told Kerre Woodham this goes against public sentiment.&nbsp;
He says polls indicate a large majority of Kiwis believe we should do our share on climate change.&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

Tim Groser: Former Climate Change Minister on ACT's call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/42c2bae3-d28d-4225-8019-b34d000c1f30/transcript

I'd be getting seriously brassed off if I was a primary school teacher, especially if I was a non-union primary school teacher. The NZEI has been in protracted negotiations with the Public Service Commissioner and the Government over pay and conditions. Every other teaching union has negotiated its own deal for its teachers, its principals, and its support staff, but not the NZEI. The Treaty of Waitangi was a big sticking point for them for a while, but according to Sir Brian Roche, who was on with Mike Hosking this morning, that's no longer the major roadblock it has been.  

At the moment, primary teachers are teaching the new curriculum, and it's amazing. I've seen the homework books. If you've got little ones in your house, primary school students in your house, you will have seen them too. It's your building block stuff. The kids are responding to it because the teachers are presenting it well. They're doing the job already. They're presenting the curriculum, and in my case, I can see that they're doing it well. The children are engaged, they're excited. The older siblings are like, “why didn't we get these books? Why didn't we have these?" They feel like they've missed out, and to a certain extent they have. A whole generation of kids has missed out.  

So they're doing a great job, but they're not getting paid for it because the NZEI is holding out. They're refusing to budge on the pay and conditions negotiations. They chose not to present the latest offer to its members, so the primary teachers couldn't even decide for themselves whether this was a deal they could accept or not. Sir Brian Roche, the Public Service Commissioner, sounds increasingly brassed off. He told Mike Hosking this morning that there is no question that the union works hard for its members, but he does wonder whether the union's acting in the best interests of teachers by failing to even inform its members of the conditions of the latest offer. 

“They work very hard for their union members. There's no question about that and provide a range of services. But on this particular issue, I find it deeply frustrating that our offers are not being put directly to their members.” 

Why would you not? Members of the union have now rejected three proposed settlements. An offer agreed in December was comparable to what secondary teachers accepted last year, but ultimately, when the union took it back to its members, they didn't ratify it. Teachers know there are no lump sums or back pay available in this bargaining round, according to Sir Brian, so every week without settlement is money the teachers aren't receiving – between $50 and $76 per week.  

What exactly is it? What is it that the unions find so repugnant that they cannot bring themselves to even bring it to their members? And if you are a union member, do you accept that your delegates are qualified to make the decisions on your behalf? Do you trust that they will do right by you? Surely, you'd want to see what was being offered, wouldn't you? Or is that what you pay your union dues for? Sir Brian says that he's looking at a way to present the pay and conditions offer to non-union teachers. We've been trying to find how many non-union teachers there are. Apparently that's secret squirrel stuff and it's buried deep – not even AI has the answer to how many non union members of NZEI there are. We're trying to find out. So if you're a non union member, you'd be getting even more frustrated. Apparently, he's bound by confidentiality agreements where he can't present to the non-union members what he's presenting to the union. But he says he's looking for workarounds on that to allow the non-union members to get on and get that extra money in their pockets right now for the work they're doing right now, and many of them are doing really well right now.  

Presumably primary teachers are in the classroom teaching, doing what they do best, so they can't respond. Maybe there's a few home with, you know, head colds or what have you for whatever reason. But I would love to hear your view on whether your union is doing right by you, whether you're like, “Absolutely, hold fast, stay firm, don't give in to the government overlords on this one." But if you are a union member, do you feel that your delegates do right by you? Are you getting value for money from the dues that are deducted from your pay every month or every two weeks?  

When you look at this, it just seems so old fashioned. And I totally get that unions are there for people who don't have a voice, who can't speak up for themselves, who haven't got the bargaining power. But surely articulate, intelligent, capable, self-possessed teachers would be able to bargain their own pay and conditions. Why would you need a union? Why would you need a union delegate to do it for you? And I guess the same goes for, I don't even know who's the big unions anymore. I think you've got the ones for the cleaners, home help. They do a great job because a lot of those people wouldn't be in the position to throw their weight around and demand better pay and conditions. So good if you're doing it on their behalf. But seriously, unions are going to negotiate themselves out of existence soon. They're halfway there already. 

I'd be getting seriously brassed off if I was a primary school teacher, especially if I was a non-union primary school teacher. The NZEI has been in protracted negotiations with the Public Service Commissioner and the Government over pay and conditions. Every other teaching union has negotiated its own deal for its teachers, its principals, and its support staff, but not the NZEI. The Treaty of Waitangi was a big sticking point for them for a while, but according to Sir Brian Roche, who was on with Mike Hosking this morning, that's no longer the major roadblock it has been. &nbsp;
At the moment, primary teachers are teaching the new curriculum, and it's amazing. I've seen the homework books. If you've got little ones in your house, primary school students in your house, you will have seen them too. It's your building block stuff. The kids are responding to it because the teachers are presenting it well. They're doing the job already. They're presenting the curriculum, and in my case, I can see that they're doing it well. The children are engaged, they're excited. The older siblings are like, “why didn't we get these books? Why didn't we have these?" They feel like they've missed out, and to a certain extent they have. A whole generation of kids has missed out. &nbsp;
So they're doing a great job, but they're not getting paid for it because the NZEI is holding out. They're refusing to budge on the pay and conditions negotiations. They chose not to present the latest offer to its members, so the primary teachers couldn't even decide for themselves whether this was a deal they could accept or not. Sir Brian Roche, the Public Service Commissioner, sounds increasingly brassed off. He told Mike Hosking this morning that there is no question that the union works hard for its members, but he does wonder whether the union's acting in the best interests of teachers by failing to even inform its members of the conditions of the latest offer.&nbsp;
“They work very hard for their union members. There's no question about that and provide a range of services. But on this particular issue, I find it deeply frustrating that our offers are not being put directly to their members.”&nbsp;
Why would you not? Members of the union have now rejected three proposed settlements. An offer agreed in December was comparable to what secondary teachers accepted last year, but ultimately, when the union took it back to its members, they didn't ratify it. Teachers know there are no lump sums or back pay available in this bargaining round, according to Sir Brian, so every week without settlement is money the teachers aren't receiving – between $50 and $76 per week. &nbsp;
What exactly is it? What is it that the unions find so repugnant that they cannot bring themselves to even bring it to their members? And if you are a union member, do you accept that your delegates are qualified to make the decisions on your behalf? Do you trust that they will do right by you? Surely, you'd want to see what was being offered, wouldn't you? Or is that what you pay your union dues for? Sir Brian says that he's looking at a way to present the pay and conditions offer to non-union teachers. We've been trying to find how many non-union teachers there are. Apparently that's secret squirrel stuff and it's buried deep – not even AI has the answer to how many non union members of NZEI there are. We're trying to find out. So if you're a non union member, you'd be getting even more frustrated. Apparently, he's bound by confidentiality agreements where he can't present to the non-union members what he's presenting to the union. But he says he's looking for workarounds on that to allow the non-union members to get on and get that extra money in their pockets right now for the work they're doing right now, and many of them are doing really well right now. &nbsp;
Presumably primary teachers are in the classroom teaching, doing what they do best, so they can't respond. Maybe there's a few home with, you know, head colds or what have you for whatever reason. But I would love to hear your view on whether your union is doing right by you, whether you're like, “Absolutely, hold fast, stay firm, don't give in to the government overlords on this one." But if you are a union member, do you feel that your delegates do right by you? Are you getting value for money from the dues that are deducted from your pay every month or every two weeks? &nbsp;
When you look at this, it just seems so old fashioned. And I totally get that unions are there for people who don't have a voice, who can't speak up for themselves, who haven't got the bargaining power. But surely articulate, intelligent, capable, self-possessed teachers would be able to bargain their own pay and conditions. Why would you need a union? Why would you need a union delegate to do it for you? And I guess the same goes for, I don't even know who's the big unions anymore. I think you've got the ones for the cleaners, home help. They do a great job because a lot of those people wouldn't be in the position to throw their weight around and demand better pay and conditions. So good if you're doing it on their behalf. But seriously, unions are going to negotiate themselves out of existence soon. They're halfway there already.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Is the primary teachers' union acting in its members' best interests?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e4dae369-51c7-4a74-bc08-b403018984af/transcript

I just want to get your opinion. This follows a, shall we say, spirited discussion in the office around people who are trapped overseas and how they get home. I'd love to hear from people who might have been in this position before, trapped overseas because of acts of war or closed borders or forces of nature. What did you do and what was your expectation? Did you think it was the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home? And if you had chosen to live overseas and then the world turned mad, again, is it the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home?  

I find it really interesting and a little bit sad that people are complaining the government taxpayer should be doing more to help family members trapped in Dubai because of the enormous disruption to flights caused by the Iranian conflict. Sure, the Government sent a Defence Force plane to Iran last year during the Israel-Iran conflict, and during Covid we partnered with Australia to get stranded travellers out of Wuhan in 2020, but I really don't believe there should be an expectation that if you have chosen to travel or chosen to live in another country and then the mud hits the fan for whatever reason, that you will automatically and immediately be rescued.  

I had family living overseas in London for a while, and if they had suddenly found themselves in the middle of a war, I'd be doing all I could to get them out. And if there was a plane there, I would want them on it, whether it was a government plane, a commercial aircraft, whatever, I would be doing all I could to get them out of there, absolutely. But I wouldn't expect the government taxpayer to do it for me. I have been stranded overseas before when the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull blew up. I was in Paris doing the Paris Marathon, airspace over Europe was closed, travel insurance didn't help, and you were on your own. And there are worse places to be than trapped in Paris in the springtime, I will grant you that. And it was ash blowing into the cities, not Iranian missiles, but statistically right now, although that could change at any minute, there would be more chance of me being run over on the Champs Élysées back then than killed by a missile in Dubai right now.  

But that's statistics and that emotion doesn't come into it, I get that. When your loved ones are stranded overseas, you want them home and you want them safe. But is it on the taxpayer to provide that? I don't think so, but am I being a heartless moll? I've been accused of that before. But I just, you know, I get the emotion, I totally do, because I've been there. You want your loved ones home, you want to get home, but I never assumed that my first port of call would be the Government. 

I just want to get your opinion. This follows a, shall we say, spirited discussion in the office around people who are trapped overseas and how they get home. I'd love to hear from people who might have been in this position before, trapped overseas because of acts of war or closed borders or forces of nature. What did you do and what was your expectation? Did you think it was the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home? And if you had chosen to live overseas and then the world turned mad, again, is it the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home? &nbsp;
I find it really interesting and a little bit sad that people are complaining the government taxpayer should be doing more to help family members trapped in Dubai because of the enormous disruption to flights caused by the Iranian conflict. Sure, the Government sent a Defence Force plane to Iran last year during the Israel-Iran conflict, and during Covid we partnered with Australia to get stranded travellers out of Wuhan in 2020, but I really don't believe there should be an expectation that if you have chosen to travel or chosen to live in another country and then the mud hits the fan for whatever reason, that you will automatically and immediately be rescued. &nbsp;
I had family living overseas in London for a while, and if they had suddenly found themselves in the middle of a war, I'd be doing all I could to get them out. And if there was a plane there, I would want them on it, whether it was a government plane, a commercial aircraft, whatever, I would be doing all I could to get them out of there, absolutely. But I wouldn't expect the government taxpayer to do it for me. I have been stranded overseas before when the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull blew up. I was in Paris doing the Paris Marathon, airspace over Europe was closed, travel insurance didn't help, and you were on your own. And there are worse places to be than trapped in Paris in the springtime, I will grant you that. And it was ash blowing into the cities, not Iranian missiles, but statistically right now, although that could change at any minute, there would be more chance of me being run over on the Champs Élysées back then than killed by a missile in Dubai right now. &nbsp;
But that's statistics and that emotion doesn't come into it, I get that. When your loved ones are stranded overseas, you want them home and you want them safe. But is it on the taxpayer to provide that? I don't think so, but am I being a heartless moll? I've been accused of that before. But I just, you know, I get the emotion, I totally do, because I've been there. You want your loved ones home, you want to get home, but I never assumed that my first port of call would be the Government.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Is it the Government's responsibility to get you home?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/66643532-b45d-4236-8068-b40300020190/transcript

I was listening to the podcast ‘The Rest is Politics’ last night. The speakers were saying that Trump's inclination to invade countries at will, will almost certainly result in nuclear proliferation and will drive countries to find protection in the shadow of Russia and China. The thinking being, what will stop the big orange guy from invading me? Nuclear warheads. Or a mate as big as he is. And then what do you know, a couple of hours later President Macron announced that France is to boost its nuclear arsenal and extend the deterrent to cover other European countries. It's a major development of its nuclear defence policy. The next 50 years, he said, will be an era of nuclear weapons. He said eight other European countries, the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, and Denmark had agreed to participate in a new advanced deterrent strategy. The aim, he said, is to convince potential adversaries that if they have the audacity to attack France, there will be an unsustainable price to be paid. 

Anyway, back to the future we go. Remember MAD magazine, the American satirical magazine? It was huge in the 60s and 70s and took its name from mutually assured destruction. Sure, press the button, but if you press the button, I press the button and we both go. The catchphrase for MAD magazine was “What, me worry?" And yep, we're back there. You just watch those Golden Visas fly off the shelf as wealthy Americans and Europeans look for a safe haven. Our isolation can work to our advantage.  

At the moment, when it comes to nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads, there are nine countries that have them. Russia has around 5,500, the US just over 5,000, China 600 – they're rapidly expanding their stockpile. France has 290 stable and mostly sea based as of yesterday, but today it'll be a different story. The UK 225, India 180, they're increasing their stockpile, Pakistan 170, increasing their stockpile. Israel has kept shtum about how many it has, and North Korea, who would know? But experts say they're actively testing and expanding. You've also got countries that host nuclear weapons: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey host US and NATO weapons. Belarus has Russian tactical nuclear weapons. 

So, 50 years of nuclear weaponry Macron is predicting, where mutually assured destruction is the only thing stopping people from pressing the button. It happened before and we got through it. And it does, I mean, you would have to have a death wish for yourself and your people and your country. But are there any guarantees on human behaviour these days? Given our isolation, will that work to our advantage? Hopefully, to a certain extent. We don't have anything of major military strategic importance. No minerals that you can only find here that can be used to make a super bomb, and then we should be relatively safe.  

As of late February this year, the Active Investor Plus, the Golden Visa program, has seen 573 applications received, 196 applications approved, and you can imagine that that will increase. Coming back to The Rest is Politics’ theory that as a result of America going into Venezuela and attacking Iran, that will see smaller countries looking to buy nuclear weapons to keep themselves safe or looking to cosy up to Russia and China. That theory is all well and good, but we should remember that having nuclear weapons didn't stop the US from attacking Iran. They just neutralised the nukes before they went in. And having Russia as your mate, “don't attack me, I've got Russia in my corner," is all very well and good, but as Syria's Bashar al Assad and Venezuela's Maduro and now the mullahs in Iran have found, Russia right now is all talk and no trousers. It can do a great line in rhetoric and they've given their friends a lot of verbal support, which will be pretty cold comfort, but when it comes to on the ground troops and military resources to go in and back up their mates, they're all tied up in Ukraine right now and Russia won't want to commit to wars on two fronts in two different zones.  

So, mutually assured destruction, the threat of one keeping someone pressing the button keeping you from pressing yours, worked before. Tensions eased and there was a relative period of peace. Can you see the same thing happening again? Tensions will rise, tensions will get high, people will get very nervous, and then we can all relax. Do you see New Zealand's isolation as its best defence?

I was listening to the podcast ‘The Rest is Politics’ last night. The speakers were saying that Trump's inclination to invade countries at will, will almost certainly result in nuclear proliferation and will drive countries to find protection in the shadow of Russia and China. The thinking being, what will stop the big orange guy from invading me? Nuclear warheads. Or a mate as big as he is. And then what do you know, a couple of hours later President Macron announced that France is to boost its nuclear arsenal and extend the deterrent to cover other European countries. It's a major development of its nuclear defence policy. The next 50 years, he said, will be an era of nuclear weapons. He said eight other European countries, the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, and Denmark had agreed to participate in a new advanced deterrent strategy. The aim, he said, is to convince potential adversaries that if they have the audacity to attack France, there will be an unsustainable price to be paid.&nbsp;
Anyway, back to the future we go. Remember MAD magazine, the American satirical magazine? It was huge in the 60s and 70s and took its name from mutually assured destruction. Sure, press the button, but if you press the button, I press the button and we both go. The catchphrase for MAD magazine was “What, me worry?" And yep, we're back there. You just watch those Golden Visas fly off the shelf as wealthy Americans and Europeans look for a safe haven. Our isolation can work to our advantage. &nbsp;
At the moment, when it comes to nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads, there are nine countries that have them. Russia has around 5,500, the US just over 5,000, China 600 – they're rapidly expanding their stockpile. France has 290 stable and mostly sea based as of yesterday, but today it'll be a different story. The UK 225, India 180, they're increasing their stockpile, Pakistan 170, increasing their stockpile. Israel has kept shtum about how many it has, and North Korea, who would know? But experts say they're actively testing and expanding. You've also got countries that host nuclear weapons: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey host US and NATO weapons. Belarus has Russian tactical nuclear weapons.&nbsp;
So, 50 years of nuclear weaponry Macron is predicting, where mutually assured destruction is the only thing stopping people from pressing the button. It happened before and we got through it. And it does, I mean, you would have to have a death wish for yourself and your people and your country. But are there any guarantees on human behaviour these days? Given our isolation, will that work to our advantage? Hopefully, to a certain extent. We don't have anything of major military strategic importance. No minerals that you can only find here that can be used to make a super bomb, and then we should be relatively safe. &nbsp;
As of late February this year, the Active Investor Plus, the Golden Visa program, has seen 573 applications received, 196 applications approved, and you can imagine that that will increase. Coming back to The Rest is Politics’ theory that as a result of America going into Venezuela and attacking Iran, that will see smaller countries looking to buy nuclear weapons to keep themselves safe or looking to cosy up to Russia and China. That theory is all well and good, but we should remember that having nuclear weapons didn't stop the US from attacking Iran. They just neutralised the nukes before they went in. And having Russia as your mate, “don't attack me, I've got Russia in my corner," is all very well and good, but as Syria's Bashar al Assad and Venezuela's Maduro and now the mullahs in Iran have found, Russia right now is all talk and no trousers. It can do a great line in rhetoric and they've given their friends a lot of verbal support, which will be pretty cold comfort, but when it comes to on the ground troops and military resources to go in and back up their mates, they're all tied up in Ukraine right now and Russia won't want to commit to wars on two fronts in two different zones. &nbsp;
So, mutually assured destruction, the threat of one keeping someone pressing the button keeping you from pressing yours, worked before. Tensions eased and there was a relative period of peace. Can you see the same thing happening again? Tensions will rise, tensions will get high, people will get very nervous, and then we can all relax. Do you see New Zealand's isolation as its best defence?

Kerre Woodham: Mutually assured destruction - will it work again?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/2a2bdbc3-ae08-440c-aa80-b4020001047a/transcript

Tim Groser: Former Climate Change Minister on ACT's call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips