Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to on the Tiles. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Deputy political editor of The Herald, Thomas Codlin. Today a
Speaker 1: meeting of deputies, a double deputy and a deputy of
Speaker 1: History of Deputization. Carmel Sipeloni, deputy leader of the Labor
Speaker 1: Party and and former Deputy Prime Minister as well. Thomas
Speaker 1: welcomed to on the Tiles.
Speaker 2: How you doing, I'm doing very well, thank you.
Speaker 1: I wanted to start with Auckland. You know you're you're
Speaker 1: an Auckland and you've been an MP since two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: a spell outside of Parliament, your seeing term, I think,
Speaker 1: but you've you've represented an Auckland electorate for most of
Speaker 1: that time. Calston Labour's trying to win back the city.
Speaker 1: I mean, when did you Did you ever feel last
Speaker 1: year that you were about to lose it to the
Speaker 1: extent that you did.
Speaker 2: I started to feel that decline and support during the
Speaker 2: Auckland lockdown. I was living up there, living the lockdown,
Speaker 2: doing the zoom world, trying to continue with all of
Speaker 2: the work I needed to do as a minister. But
Speaker 2: I could feel it and see it even amongst those
Speaker 2: that I knew, and within my own neighborhood.
Speaker 1: And yeah, that's an experience shared by many of your colleagues.
Speaker 1: There's really it started then, it's a long time ago.
Speaker 1: Did you you know throughs it was what twenty twenty
Speaker 1: one through twenty twenty two to twenty three? Did you
Speaker 1: were you trying to message to the Wellington leadership like, hey,
Speaker 1: let's we're losing up here. We can't afford to lose
Speaker 1: this city. What was What were the discussions like there
Speaker 1: there was retail crime issues, happened after the lockdown, you know,
Speaker 1: a general sense that Wellington was just not quite in
Speaker 1: sync with Auckland.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we did have those conversations. I feel like maybe,
Speaker 2: in hindsight, I and some of the other Auckland MPs
Speaker 2: could have been more assertive on what we felt was
Speaker 2: happening in Auckland. And so there's probably a level of
Speaker 2: regret there that we didn't push a little bit harder.
Speaker 2: I feel like some of the decisions that we made,
Speaker 2: for instance, around how we would address retail crime were
Speaker 2: the right decisions? Were they fast enough? I think that's
Speaker 2: the question that we need to ask ourselves.
Speaker 1: I remember, I think your former colleague Kadie Allen mentioned
Speaker 1: an into your One of your colleagues might have mentioned
Speaker 1: how difficult it was as a labor cabinet some of
Speaker 1: those decisions around crime. I think looking at the additional
Speaker 1: search powers where we're put through last year watches and
Speaker 1: jewelry and other things of high value were added to
Speaker 1: a list of goods prohibited for sale for cash over
Speaker 1: specified value. There's anti porning kind of legislation. That was
Speaker 1: difficult I think for labor to come around to. Did
Speaker 1: you share that difficulty, Well, what wasn't difficult. It was
Speaker 1: the work that we did around our young people. So
Speaker 1: those that were getting into trouble that we're committing the
Speaker 1: ram raids, we had all the evidence. We were fully cognizant.
Speaker 2: Of the fact that they had multi poor, complex issues
Speaker 2: and that we weren't going to be able to resolve
Speaker 2: the issue of them offending and committing crimes against retailers
Speaker 2: unless we got in there and addressed all of the
Speaker 2: issues that were occurring. Now, that program of work was
Speaker 2: actually successful. Even the Minister for Children during scrutiny week
Speaker 2: said that it was. It didn't necessarily do what some
Speaker 2: people wanted, which was to come out looking tough on crime,
Speaker 2: and you know, and and punishing in certain ways these
Speaker 2: young people. But it was the more effective approach and
Speaker 2: it's proved to work.
Speaker 1: In Heinz I think and some of Prisippins Precipicins interviews.
Speaker 1: Surely after he became Prime minister there there was just
Speaker 1: a discussion about that, some of the differences in cabinet
Speaker 1: around the Auckland Lockdownhes was saying, look, I was I
Speaker 1: was sort of pushing. I probably would have gone a
Speaker 1: week faster to lift that lockdown in Auckland. I think
Speaker 1: grant rop And might have been on Society mentioned. This
Speaker 1: is just from memory now, but just Sindra Juams was
Speaker 1: quite wedded to the position that was ultimately taken in
Speaker 1: terms of just stamping out delta. Where were you on
Speaker 1: in that discussion as someone wh.
Speaker 2: I was living in Oakland and I am near the
Speaker 2: end of the Auckland lockdown, I feel like we were
Speaker 2: losing the social license. You know, I saw pretty respectable
Speaker 2: people when I'd go for a walk, completely breaking the rules,
Speaker 2: you know, having people over. And at that point, when
Speaker 2: you've lost social license, you really do need to reassess
Speaker 2: whether it whether or not you can continue. So probably
Speaker 2: would have been down for a reduction in that lockdown,
Speaker 2: ending it much sooner. At the same time, I have
Speaker 2: to say there were some parts of our community that
Speaker 2: were pretty adamant that we needed to continue, and I
Speaker 2: do want to acknowledge disabled people who were really scared
Speaker 2: of getting COVID and what the implications might mean for them,
Speaker 2: and so there were so many things to weigh up.
Speaker 1: Sort of it's interesting looking back at it now. You know,
Speaker 1: Labor's a mainstream party, it has a very broad church support.
Speaker 1: You've got people who well, you know, half the country
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, which is as bad as broad as
Speaker 1: you can get. But then you've got that, you've got
Speaker 1: a core or a small element of your vote which
Speaker 1: is very wedded to the very rigorous stance you took
Speaker 1: on COVID nineteen, and then you've got a much you know,
Speaker 1: there's a spectrum beyond that. Is it impossible to keep
Speaker 1: those two groups of people together, people who were who
Speaker 1: were so wedded to that very stringent early twenty twenty
Speaker 1: position and the people who are probably quite happy with
Speaker 1: where you got to, which is a traffic light and
Speaker 1: then ultimately lifting restrictions altogether.
Speaker 2: I think for a large part of the COVID period,
Speaker 2: not saying that we've got rid of COVID, but the
Speaker 2: intense COVID period, most people were on the same page.
Speaker 2: It was nearing the end of that intense period where
Speaker 2: there started to be much more differing views, and I
Speaker 2: think you started to see a split, and as I said,
Speaker 2: there were some groups of people who very rightly wanted
Speaker 2: to hold on to much harsher measures for a longer
Speaker 2: period of time.
Speaker 1: You held the Social Development Portfolio for the whole six
Speaker 1: years of your time in government. What are you most
Speaker 1: proud of.
Speaker 2: I'm most proud of the work that we did around
Speaker 2: actually addressing incommatequacy and the welfare system. That investment into
Speaker 2: lifting benefits was hugely significant. It was a reversal of
Speaker 2: Ruth Richardson's changes back in nineteen ninety one. But it
Speaker 2: wasn't just that that saw the increase or addressing of incommatequacy,
Speaker 2: lifting their abatement thresholds so that people could earn more
Speaker 2: and still receive the benefit. So work a little bit
Speaker 2: more part time still receive the benefit. But that's the
Speaker 2: income adequacy side of things. And I've always been really
Speaker 2: clear that for me, the welfare system is also about
Speaker 2: supporting people into work. So we made huge investments into
Speaker 2: upskilling and training opportunities, and many of those programs that
Speaker 2: we instigated over the six years that we were in
Speaker 2: were really successful and that's work that I'd want to
Speaker 2: continue as well.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's interesting you should raise that budget twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: which was the benefit increases. So I was looking through this,
Speaker 1: so the cost was three point earlier. Yeah, a lot
Speaker 1: of money, and that was over the four or four years,
Speaker 1: and I think that I was just adding up the
Speaker 1: so of that budget, which I think was a three
Speaker 1: point eight billion dollar over one year, about a billion
Speaker 1: of that was for us. And I was looking at
Speaker 1: the Child Poverty Report for that last night and part
Speaker 1: of me I meant to print it off, but the
Speaker 1: image has decided not to appear on my print up.
Speaker 1: But it lifted. It was estimated to lift between twelve
Speaker 1: and twenty eight thousand more children out of poverty on
Speaker 1: the before housing cost me in the year after it
Speaker 1: was implemented, and between nineteen and thirty three thousand more
Speaker 1: children out of poverty on the after house after housing
Speaker 1: cost measure and that same year, So quite it's probably
Speaker 1: I think of all the budgets, probably the most impactful impactful,
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 2: So, But it was never about one initiative that was
Speaker 2: one of the ones I'm most proud of. But there
Speaker 2: were other measures and policies that we implemented where people
Speaker 2: didn't even know there was an issue. So one of
Speaker 2: those was child support pass on, where sole parents had
Speaker 2: been discriminated against in the welfare system since nineteen thirty six,
Speaker 2: and by passing on child support, I think we were
Speaker 2: forecasts to lift between six to fourteen thousand kids out
Speaker 2: of poverty. So it was always about a suite of
Speaker 2: measures that would help us achieve the main goals.
Speaker 1: Sorry such and pass on child support. That is when
Speaker 1: the sole parent access is the child support through Sorry.
Speaker 2: I'm so. Traditionally, what's happened is that if you're on
Speaker 2: a benefit and you're in a new relationship your kids
Speaker 2: to someone else, and that someone else pays child support.
Speaker 2: If you're in a relationship with someone you're both on benefit,
Speaker 2: you can get that child support. If you're a sole
Speaker 2: parent and you had an ex who was paying child
Speaker 2: support for the children, then that money went to the
Speaker 2: state to subsidize the benefit that you were receiving so
Speaker 2: clearly discriminatory. And as we know, sole parents or children
Speaker 2: and households where there's a sole parent are more likely
Speaker 2: to be living in poverty. So measures like that make
Speaker 2: a difference.
Speaker 1: Now you mentioned before that you see what you see
Speaker 1: the welfare spaces is about helping people into work as well.
Speaker 1: Some that's quite that view often divides people in that
Speaker 1: space you often see. I mean there's big debate about
Speaker 1: the way in which working for families, by seeking to
Speaker 1: encourage people into work, actually penalizes people and pushes them
Speaker 1: into poverty. I mean, do you think could is there
Speaker 1: anything that you are looking at or think could be
Speaker 1: done to ensuring comeadequacy help people but achieve your aim
Speaker 1: of getting people into work as well.
Speaker 2: Well, we certainly hadn't finished what we wanted to do
Speaker 2: with working for families, and we had that under review.
Speaker 2: We made some first step promises in our manifesto going
Speaker 2: into the election, but there was more that needed to occur.
Speaker 2: One thing I would recognize is there is always that
Speaker 2: debate with the in work tax credit and whether or
Speaker 2: not that should be given to war families or not.
Speaker 2: Now I'm not saying that all families don't need financial
Speaker 2: support in some way. But one thing I've always been
Speaker 2: keenly aware of is that for our poorest families there
Speaker 2: are in work expenses that can sometimes make it really
Speaker 2: difficult to work. You know, the additional cost of having
Speaker 2: to move around, transport, the additional costs, even though some
Speaker 2: might be subsidized, not all of it is for childcare.
Speaker 2: And so there are very real in work expenses we
Speaker 2: need to be mindful of for our lowest income working
Speaker 2: families as well.
Speaker 1: Right, So, so yes, for people often talk about marginal
Speaker 1: the marginal text rate issue, and but then obviously transport
Speaker 1: and child here, it does it does mount up? Would
Speaker 1: you be open to I mean, the inwork text credit
Speaker 1: was that was the sort of centerpiece of your Working
Speaker 1: for Families policy of the election. It was national stole
Speaker 1: and then you tuned on part of it. Yeah when
Speaker 1: they got into government, so they and they you tuned
Speaker 1: on the abatement threshold, which was a twenty twenty six change.
Speaker 1: I hope, I'm yeah, And he's going to lift for
Speaker 1: two thousand, that's right, yes, thank you? Would would you
Speaker 1: look at this and just for our listeners following along, So,
Speaker 1: the family text credit is a tax credit that basically
Speaker 1: goes to everyone on a benefit, but also people who
Speaker 1: are in work and receiving Working for Families. It's quite
Speaker 1: a broad based text credit a few hundred thousand families.
Speaker 1: The inwork text credit is only for people who are
Speaker 1: and work, And there is a debate around whether or
Speaker 1: not you should beef up the family tax credit because
Speaker 1: it goes to more people. Would you be interested in
Speaker 1: perhaps broadening the family the work tax credits to help
Speaker 1: people who are only receiving the family tax credit.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't want to kind of preempt what our changes
Speaker 2: might be, but this is a policy that we need
Speaker 2: to look at seriously going into the next election. What
Speaker 2: we were made very aware of when we're in government
Speaker 2: is that if we were going to do anything significant
Speaker 2: that was going to lift children out of poverty, it
Speaker 2: needed to be in the Working for Family space. And
Speaker 2: what we announced in the lead up to the election
Speaker 2: were only first steps that, you know, in terms of
Speaker 2: what we might do with our manifesto, there had to
Speaker 2: be something else that was done through Working for Families
Speaker 2: if we were going to be genuine about lifting children
Speaker 2: out of poverty. So there is definitely more work to
Speaker 2: do in that space.
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to ask you to what I
Speaker 1: would love to twist your arm and give you to
Speaker 1: get you to spill the election manifesto in this podcast.
Speaker 2: We don't have it yet, that we're still consulting. There's
Speaker 2: really nothing to spill it this stage except it is
Speaker 2: an area that we're taking seriously and we're looking at right.
Speaker 1: So, but are you could be interested in looking at that?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's that family tax credit when I
Speaker 1: whenever I profess to be an expert or to even
Speaker 1: talk to a great number of people about this, but
Speaker 1: whenever I do, that is really the thing that everyone sees.
Speaker 1: It's that that family text credit issue is really one
Speaker 1: that people want to see.
Speaker 2: You know, we will look at a range of things
Speaker 2: and and what our overall objectives will be and what
Speaker 2: will help us to achieve that. I think the thing
Speaker 2: to keep in mind, and this is when we were
Speaker 2: weighing things up and looking at it over the course
Speaker 2: of the year or even two years and the lead
Speaker 2: up to the last election, is that unless there's an
Speaker 2: injection of money, then you are going to be taking
Speaker 2: something from someone and giving it to someone else. And
Speaker 2: you know, right now, I don't know whether there are
Speaker 2: any families that could have to lose given the current
Speaker 2: economic climate, and are the cost of living issues that
Speaker 2: people are facing. So you know, these are things that
Speaker 2: we're going to have to discuss over the course of
Speaker 2: the next right.
Speaker 1: And so when you say that this is this is
Speaker 1: this idea that you would take, you would would change
Speaker 1: the way that the scheme works. So you would be
Speaker 1: increasing the eligibility of the in work text credit by
Speaker 1: reducing what other people get somewhere else.
Speaker 2: And so who would stand to lose then, and are
Speaker 2: they in a position to lose really, So you know,
Speaker 2: whatever we look at, we need to be mindful of
Speaker 2: the fact that, yeah, unless there is an injection of money,
Speaker 2: then you don't want to be taking from one group
Speaker 2: to give to another and creating, you know, people that
Speaker 2: are worse off.
Speaker 1: Would you that the the most working for family's tax
Speaker 1: credits I think become are adjusted for inflation, but only
Speaker 1: when inflation exceeds five percent And that's a problem too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it very complex and you can't anticipate what's
Speaker 2: going to happen.
Speaker 1: And very expensive. Are when when it when it when
Speaker 1: it triggers, when it hits five percent but also very
Speaker 1: punitive when inflations through three percent. Well you you, you know,
Speaker 1: Labor's rightly proud of the child poverty impacts of the
Speaker 1: of the benefit indexation that Andrew Beecroft was then Children's
Speaker 1: Commissioner said it was the single greatest thing you could
Speaker 1: do to alleviate at child poverty. That's now been reversed.
Speaker 1: But but would you know, would you look at future
Speaker 1: and actually doing indexation of both benefits and those texts.
Speaker 2: Well, at this stage I can't say that's off the table.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm quite open minded as to what we
Speaker 2: might look at over over the next couple of years
Speaker 2: and the lead up to the election. And I know
Speaker 2: that that issue is very complex. It is difficult to
Speaker 2: be able to ascertain what might happen. And it does
Speaker 2: mean that some years you get a big increase, in
Speaker 2: other years do you just for below the five percent
Speaker 2: and then there's nothing for nothing extra for those that
Speaker 2: are receiving working for families. So it's not off the
Speaker 2: table in terms of something that we might look at.
Speaker 1: I think historically I think the Clark government it was
Speaker 1: indexed and then it was you know that the Key
Speaker 1: government maybe to stop the indexation, so you know it's
Speaker 1: a trend herexation.
Speaker 2: It is also the really hard thing about when you
Speaker 2: come in after a government have changed a whole lot
Speaker 2: of things, because then you're weighing out what you reinstate
Speaker 2: back to what for us, you know, my view, what
Speaker 2: was fair, and then at the same time looking at
Speaker 2: the exciting new things and looking at what is fiscally possible,
Speaker 2: I guess, And so those are some of the considerations.
Speaker 1: Going into what else are you looking at as part
Speaker 1: of the Working for Families review? That's sort of It
Speaker 1: was under review for a long time and there weren't
Speaker 1: many major changes that emerge from it, but possibly because
Speaker 1: changing it is very expensive.
Speaker 2: It's very expensive, and it's very complex. So I can't
Speaker 2: even say that we landed on anything other than what
Speaker 2: we went into the two thousand twenty three election with
Speaker 2: in our manifesto, because we hadn't it was continued to
Speaker 2: look at it and try and ascertain what we could do,
Speaker 2: where we would get the money from to do it,
Speaker 2: and what issues we were trying to address by any
Speaker 2: changes that we're implementing. So obviously child poverty reduction remains
Speaker 2: a focus and a priority for us, and that will
Speaker 2: continue to be a focus and a priority going into
Speaker 2: the next election. There were other issues where there working
Speaker 2: for families. It was the complexity of the system and
Speaker 2: the fact that so many people didn't understand how it worked.
Speaker 1: But it is a nightmareishly complicated system.
Speaker 2: It is it is, and so how do we simplify
Speaker 2: the system so that it's more accessible to New Zealanders
Speaker 2: so they actually understand what they're entitled to, so that
Speaker 2: they can access what they're entitled to and have a
Speaker 2: daily conversation about it as if it's every day because
Speaker 2: people actually get it, as opposed to stab in the dark.
Speaker 2: Am I eligible for something here? Oh? Yeah, I am?
Speaker 1: You know, and then people are hedging and not getting
Speaker 1: everything they are entitled to because they're afraid of getting
Speaker 1: them too much in triggering that's.
Speaker 2: Right of you being overpaid and then at the end
Speaker 2: of the text you having to repay money to in
Speaker 2: then revenue. So there is work around simplicity as well
Speaker 2: to make it more accessible for New Zealanders that I
Speaker 2: think we need to undertake.
Speaker 1: What could you do? You have any idea of what
Speaker 1: we we You could have the.
Speaker 2: Answer if I had the answers. I might have gone
Speaker 2: into the election campaign with a more wholesome working for
Speaker 2: families policy, but we didn't yet have all the answers.
Speaker 2: We just knew Stage one was the boost and the
Speaker 2: threshold lift so that more families could access it.
Speaker 1: Do you think, I mean one of one of the
Speaker 1: other complaints is that you're getting to quite high marginal
Speaker 1: tax rates around you know, people who are families whoever,
Speaker 1: someone full time on the minimum wage was really getting
Speaker 1: smashed just because of high wage inflation. Which is a
Speaker 1: good thing about text policy, well, it has an interface
Speaker 1: with the working for families and I just you know,
Speaker 1: I think of all the if you're taking a step
Speaker 1: back and labor and national fighting over text, but I
Speaker 1: think that the possibly the most difficult thing for labor
Speaker 1: on text is that is that forty eight thousand threshold
Speaker 1: for the thirty percent tax rate kicking and that's this year.
Speaker 1: Is someone on the minimum wage just just just nudging
Speaker 1: that so that they have a couple of hundred dollars
Speaker 1: which would have been textedt thirty percent had threshold not lifted.
Speaker 1: Is that something you know, with your chip poverty reduction,
Speaker 1: with your social development had on that would have been
Speaker 1: difficult as a labor imp because that is that that
Speaker 1: is such a high marginal tax rate, that's such a
Speaker 1: minimum wage income. You know that that is not good
Speaker 1: for you achieving what you wanted to achieve. Having that
Speaker 1: level of.
Speaker 2: Textshold without being backward looking on that looking forward, then
Speaker 2: these are considerations that we need to be very mindful of,
Speaker 2: and we need to be having conversations about chippies. Made
Speaker 2: it really clear that you know, nothing's off the table
Speaker 2: that we're having conversations about tax and our party membership
Speaker 2: is keenly informing that looked like I'm really excited about this,
Speaker 2: and so we and we need to be mindful of
Speaker 2: a range of things, including the interactions with other systems
Speaker 2: like working for families, like the welfare system, and we
Speaker 2: need to be looking at it in that kind of
Speaker 2: fulsome way to make sure that what we end up
Speaker 2: with leads New Zealand to a place where New Zealanders
Speaker 2: are better off.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could, you know, you wouldn't need to
Speaker 1: do it was very costly what the current government did,
Speaker 1: and Labor's prosecuted that ruthlessly, but you know you could
Speaker 1: just lift that forty eight thousand dollars threshold, which you know,
Speaker 1: ensures that that people on a minimum wage would keep
Speaker 1: far more of their of their income over the next
Speaker 1: few years to avoid getting texted their text brackets.
Speaker 2: It's one idea, Thomas, but.
Speaker 1: You know, you could there are many things you could.
Speaker 1: You know, that's just it. You can see why the
Speaker 1: after fourteen years, you know, and obviously that there is
Speaker 1: there is substantially less child poverty impact from lifting the
Speaker 1: seventy thousand dollars threshold and even actually lifting the bottom threshold,
Speaker 1: which is a lot of university students and part time
Speaker 1: you know, schoolwork and stuff. But you can see why
Speaker 1: even child poverty advocates look at that forty eight thousand
Speaker 1: dollars threshold the minimum wage full time and like you know, yes,
Speaker 1: it's a text card and it's a text cut from
Speaker 1: a right wing government, but there is a there is
Speaker 1: a sort of social welfare issue at that level.
Speaker 2: Do you think No, I think we just take away
Speaker 2: all these rather than how.
Speaker 1: Are the text discussions going? You know, you're enjoying kind
Speaker 1: of like as it. I mean, it's horrible going into opposition,
Speaker 1: but it's also quite liberating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean they The conversations are really good. However,
Speaker 2: it's not just tax that we're talking You know, our
Speaker 2: membership has a broad interest across every possible sector and
Speaker 2: area that you can imagine. I guess that the tax
Speaker 2: discussion is the one that seems to garner the most
Speaker 2: media interest, and I understand it has huge implications any
Speaker 2: ideas that we might have anything we might want to do.
Speaker 2: But it's not the only thing that.
Speaker 1: We're talking about. What are you interested in? What are
Speaker 1: the other things we're talking about?
Speaker 2: Oh, we're talking about everything. Housing. Of course, child poverty
Speaker 2: reduction continues to be an issue that's raised by our membership. Tech.
Speaker 2: The other day, I was at the Creative Precinct in
Speaker 2: west Auckland, and myself and the members that were there,
Speaker 2: I had, you know, an amazing experience, but a really
Speaker 2: fruitful conversation afterwards about the role of our creative industries
Speaker 2: and technology and what we might want to see moving
Speaker 2: forward there. So I mean, I could keep going on.
Speaker 2: We're talking about everything as we should be if we
Speaker 2: want to be a future Are you going to some
Speaker 2: of this regional I didn't get to go to the
Speaker 2: regional conferences this year, but apart from the Auckland one, but.
Speaker 1: That would have been an interesting though. Members sort of
Speaker 1: given reading you the Riot Act a bit about Britt
Speaker 1: winning the city back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, but still a lot of support. And
Speaker 2: so you know, these are really robust conversations that happen
Speaker 2: in there. People say what's on their mind. They have
Speaker 2: high expectation of their members of Parliament to their leader,
Speaker 2: their deputy leader, their finance spokesperson, and that's that's the
Speaker 2: Labor Party that we're part of.
Speaker 1: So there's some discontent or perhaps discontents are wrong. Would
Speaker 1: some members wanting to ensure that the leader and the
Speaker 1: parliamentary team doesn't arbitrarily I guess use the captain's call idea.
Speaker 2: It's been a bit of interesting conversation because there's nothing
Speaker 2: there's no such thing formally as a captain's call. And
Speaker 2: if we refer to all of the main policy decisions
Speaker 2: that were announced last year, they did go through they
Speaker 2: did go through a New Zealand Council. So I think
Speaker 2: you know, there was some disappointment with perhaps one or
Speaker 2: two calls that were made, but we need to be
Speaker 2: clear about about how those decisions were made and also
Speaker 2: about this thing called a captain's call, which doesn't technically exist.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's sort of something that the media and politicians
Speaker 1: have created. And it's useful for both the media and
Speaker 1: politicians because I think it's media it's quite useful to
Speaker 1: be able to explain what has been done, and as
Speaker 1: a politician, it's quite good to be able to say
Speaker 1: I have made a captain's call, and I have done this.
Speaker 1: When actually said he made a captain call, well, I
Speaker 1: think I think it was the rule out is a
Speaker 1: kind of I have ruled out for as long as
Speaker 1: I am and I think that sort of colloquialism are
Speaker 1: You're right. I'm not sure whether we ever actually used
Speaker 1: that language, but I think that the it had it
Speaker 1: been put to him as a captain's call, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure whether he would have disagreed with that language.
Speaker 2: I would think he would. I went through went through
Speaker 2: councilaland council, and it also went through caucus. Right.
Speaker 1: So, and your messa to leaders, leaders to the to
Speaker 1: the members as as the current processes are okay or
Speaker 1: would you would you be open to changing them so
Speaker 1: that there is a bit more involvement.
Speaker 2: From always open to change? And you know, I said
Speaker 2: on the New Zealand Council now as Deputy Leader. And
Speaker 2: so I know that there are probably changes that are
Speaker 2: that are coming up, and don't disagree with some of
Speaker 2: those changes, but that one you were talking about kind
Speaker 2: of is quite difficult. Given that there's no formal thing
Speaker 2: called a captain's call, and given the process that policy.
Speaker 1: Went through, members are sort of saying, well that the
Speaker 1: next time a policy decision is made like that, that
Speaker 1: probably want a bit more important.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's hard, I mean yeah, and I mean
Speaker 2: certainly now if our members didn't make their voices heard
Speaker 2: in the last three years ago, say they are making
Speaker 2: their voices heard now and we welcome it.
Speaker 1: So how how are you finding the deputy role? I
Speaker 1: remember your your your predecessor Calvin Davis at a sort
Speaker 1: of open door policy who did a lot of the
Speaker 1: pastoral care for the caucus. Because you know, it's a
Speaker 1: tough job. Are you finding you know, sinking into that role? Ae?
Speaker 1: We but enjoying it.
Speaker 2: I think I was doing a little bit of it
Speaker 2: as a senior cabinet minister anyway, and as someone who's
Speaker 2: been around a little bit longer than a few others,
Speaker 2: you know, I've kind of actively mentored a few people
Speaker 2: that are in there and that have left. And I
Speaker 2: enjoy working with my colleagues, so it's not that difficult.
Speaker 2: You know, the New Zealand Council stuff, well, I get
Speaker 2: along with all the people that are on it, so
Speaker 2: when we get together for our meetings, it's a good
Speaker 2: opportunity to catch up as well as as do all
Speaker 2: of the work that's on the table in front of us.
Speaker 2: So I'm enjoying it.
Speaker 1: Would you ever, would you ever you aspire to be
Speaker 1: the leadership yourself?
Speaker 2: Never seen it? Yeah, And actually even having been Deputy
Speaker 2: Prime Minister last year during what was a difficult time.
Speaker 2: Remember not long after we got made Prime Minister and
Speaker 2: Deputy Prime minister then norm of the country was flooding
Speaker 2: and including my own elite for it. And then you had,
Speaker 2: you know a range of other things happened, including some
Speaker 2: internal things that were really unfortunate with colleagues, and there
Speaker 2: were times when Chippy was out of the country and
Speaker 2: I had to be in the acting role and I
Speaker 2: can tell you it certainly wasn't easy.
Speaker 1: Right, But I prefer to be the two I see, right,
Speaker 1: So never you don't think I prefer to be the
Speaker 1: two I see fair enough. I mean, you know, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't say the same about myself. I'd love to be
Speaker 1: the letter clear. It doesn't listen all the time, so
Speaker 1: I can say that maybe she does. So I mean,
Speaker 1: just just again on this sort of labor policy stuff.
Speaker 1: I know there is a frustration about the texts, the
Speaker 1: texts thing being the main thing that people are debating
Speaker 1: at the moment, But where where do you It does
Speaker 1: seem to be a bit of a debate on the
Speaker 1: capital gains versus wealth tax thing. Where do you? Where
Speaker 1: do you line up on that?
Speaker 2: Oh? Look, I'm open to all of the discussions happening
Speaker 2: on both of those things at the moment, and then
Speaker 2: we'll see where we land with our tax policy closer
Speaker 2: to the election. But there's a lot of work that
Speaker 2: needs to be done before we land on the ultimate
Speaker 2: policies for what we are taking into the election.
Speaker 1: Where were you on the one that we went to
Speaker 1: cabinet last year and was ultimately shut down the we're not.
Speaker 2: We're not supposed to speak about cabinet discussion even afterwards. No,
Speaker 2: I think, you know, otherwise I might not even be
Speaker 2: into cabinet. So I think It's important to maintain the
Speaker 2: confidentiality of kebnet and cabinet discussion, so I won't say
Speaker 2: where I sat.
Speaker 1: The Grant Robinson and David Parker were given allowance to
Speaker 1: sort of say, well, look this is we agree with
Speaker 1: the capital decision, but we weekly put this fordam Well, I.
Speaker 2: Mean it would be us if they didn't. I'm given
Speaker 2: that it was their policy that they had written and
Speaker 2: put forward. Yeah, well, you know, and interesting, I can
Speaker 2: be mysterious an interesting discussion.
Speaker 1: Nonetheless, are you allowed to talk about your celebrity trees
Speaker 1: right and appearance?
Speaker 2: I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Ms your terrible liar and and and and uh and
Speaker 1: and this is an audio podcast. But you were you
Speaker 1: were injured over the over the break and you are
Speaker 1: you're getting better now.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I mean if anyone anyone that's had an
Speaker 2: R Kelly's injury or knows anyone that's had a Kelly's injury,
Speaker 2: it can take a bit of time.
Speaker 1: Well, I I wish you the best of luck in
Speaker 1: any future television appearances that you might you might have which.
Speaker 2: We which could be Q and A or something.
Speaker 1: I hope Jack Tan wouldn't do that. And he's a
Speaker 1: tough interviewer. But you know, I don't think many people
Speaker 1: have heard in Achilles on Q and A. But but
Speaker 1: thank you very much for coming on on the tiles.
Speaker 1: And that was that was on the tiles for another week.
Speaker 1: And I guess was Calma Sipperloni, who was the Labor
Speaker 1: Party a deputy leader and holds a number of portfolios.
Speaker 1: Thanking you very much for joining us, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: That concludes the podcast of this week. We are produced
Speaker 1: by Ethan Sills, so thank you for that and and
Speaker 1: please join us next week for more Amatiles.