Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

If there’s one city council facility in Christchurch that never seems to have a bad word said about it, it’s the He Puna Taimoana hot pools at New Brighton. 

I would actually say that the pools are one of Christchurch’s great post-earthquake success stories. 

 What’s more, they don’t run at a loss. How often can you say that about anything run by a local council? 

 Tell that to city councillor Aaron Keown, though. Because he’s come up with this idea of selling the hot pools to try and get some cash in the door, so the council can avoid increasing rates by about nine percent next year. 

 I’m telling you now. It would be the wrong thing to do. And I don't think it matters whether you’ve been there or not to know how daft an idea this is. Because those pools have become one of Christchurch’s absolute gems. 

I haven’t actually been there for a dip myself. But I know plenty of people who have - and they all rave about it. 

In fact, I was talking to someone this morning who went there for the first time just a few weeks ago. He described it as “exceptional”. 

And if you’re hearing this and thinking ‘oh must give it a go’. Today is your lucky day. Because I checked the online booking system earlier and there are spaces available right now. 

It’s your lucky day because, sometimes, the hot pools can be booked out for days - if not weeks - in advance. That’s how popular they are.  

That was one of the many things that this person I was talking to today loved about going there recently. It wasn’t crowded. It was very well controlled. That’s a booking system for you. 

So why is Aaron Keown even entertaining the idea of selling off the pools? It’s because the council is really struggling to find ways of avoiding that nine percent rates increase next year. 

It’s not the only idea that’s being thrown around the council table. But it’s the only one that I’m dead against. Councillor Sara Templeton, for example, has suggested they could sell-off the Lichfield Street carpark. 

They can do what they want with that, as far as I’m concerned. But leave the hot pools out of this conversation. 

Because not only is it a success story now. It’s been a success story since it opened four-and-a-half years ago. 

It was late May 2020 and the council was predicting that it wouldn’t make any money in its first year. It was executing the pools to run at an $886,000 loss. 

But it went nuts. And, instead of losing money, it made money. In its first year it turned a profit of $109,000. How many council facilities do that? Not just in Christchurch, but anywhere. 

They’d hoped to get 75,000 people through the gates. But they had about 120,000 visitors instead. And in March this year, the 500,000th visitor went through the door. 

At the time, the manager of the pools - Merryn Skipper - said the pools had had a massive positive impact on the local community. 

She said, since the pools opened, Eftpos spending in the New Brighton area has increased on average by 200,000 transactions a month. Which, all up, equate to about 9.4 million extra Eftpos transactions in the area since May 2020.  

It’s a gold mine! So where is councillor Aaron Keown coming from with this idea of his? 

He reckons Ngāi Tahu Tourism would be right up for buying the pools. He says: “With another operator it might be better for the area. Especially if we throw them a consent to build a nice big hotel across the road.” 

Where I think that idea falls over, is the fact that 85 percent of the people who go there are locals. 

Either way, if the council wants to avoid that nine percent rates increase, it needs to come up with other ideas. Flogging-off the hot pools shouldn't be one of them. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I reckon former Labour Party leader David Cunliffe might have just done the best sell job on a capital gains tax that any politician in New Zealand —or anyone for that matter— has ever managed to do. 

It might have something to do with the fact that taxes —of any sort— get people rather fired up, and a lot of people are anti-capital gains tax. In my experience, even people who say they’re on the left side politically hate the idea of paying more tax than they are already. 

But I’ll tell you what, I reckon they’ll be feeling differently after comments from David Cunliffe. 

He was talking on Newstalk ZB this morning ahead of the Labour Party's annual conference this weekend where one of the big things on the agenda is a vote on whether the party will go further with the development of a capital gains tax policy and potentially a wealth tax policy.  

And he painted a picture of a capital gains tax scenario that I think would be far more palatable to most people than how capital gains has been discussed before. Which is allowing to offset a capital gains tax against other income taxes.  

“I think it’s very possible to, over time, use it to offset income tax. So you know, your teachers, doctors, your farmers can take less growth of or a cut in income tax in exchange for realised capital gains —usually excluding the family home— being brought in at some sort of rate. Just broadens the tax base, and we can give offsets elsewhere.” 

Now that in my opinion would do far more favours for most wage and salary owners than some of the tax changes the current Government has introduced.  

Of course, whenever you start talking about tax, reality is more complex than the theory. And even I’m starting to wonder how this scenario David Cunliffe talked about this morning would practically work. 

But, theoretically, I think people would be less against a capital gains tax if they knew they could offset it against their wage or salary. 

The argument for a capital gains tax has always been that it is unfair that we treat different types of income differently. So it's a no-brainer that we do something about it. 

David Cunliffe reckons most voters feel the same. What about you? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Anyone who thinks we can still stick to that pipedream of sport and politics not mixing probably got a hernia or had kittens yesterday morning before and after the All Blacks match against Italy. 

The game itself wasn’t too flash. I think the general consensus is that it was lacklustre. Or the All Blacks were, anyway.

So people not too excited about the actual game. A different story, though, with the players taking the opportunity to show their backing for last week’s treaty principles hīkoi during the pre-match haka. 

And then, after the match, there were players waving the tino rangatiratanga Māori Sovereignty flag on the field.

I’ve got no problem at all with what happened during the haka. But I’m not a hundred percent sure how I feel about the flag stuff. Reason being, that the All Blacks are a national team and using a different flag - other than the official flag - just doesn’t sit right with me.

It’s not that I’m anti-tino rangatiratanga flag. I just don’t think it was appropriate for the All Blacks to use. But, as far as using the haka to make a political point, I’m all good with that.  

Translating what TJ Perenera said leading the haka, he said: “The sovereignty of the land remains, the sovereignty of the people remains, the Treaty of Waitangi remains". 

TJ’s explanation is that it was about expressing unity. And that’s how coach Scott Robertson described it too when he was asked about it after the game.

Razor said it was discussed beforehand and the unity thing was what it was all about. But there are two ways you can define unity. One definition - in terms of what happened yesterday during the haka - is this idea that the Treaty of Waitangi actually unites us all.

The other definition of unity, is that this could be seen as the All Blacks standing in unity with the 42,000 people who were in the hikoi that turned-up at Parliament last week.

Either way, I think the days of trying to keep politics out of sport are over. 

I’m good with TJ and the All Blacks doing what they did. Just like I was good with the Hurricanes women's team earlier this year having a go at the Government during their haka.

And here’s why: 

For me, we’re dreaming if we think we can cherry pick from Māori culture. We seem to be perfectly happy for the haka to be part of the All Blacks machine but some of us want our inclusion of Māori culture to stop right there.

As long as we can use that Māori culture to entertain the crowds, that’s fine. But, for some, it’s a different story if the people whose culture we are happy to milk are getting a bit toey about things.

What I’m getting at, is that we can’t just pick and choose which bits of Māori culture we want to put on show and which bits we don’t.

We can’t just have the show and no tell. And what TJ Perenara and the All Blacks delivered yesterday in Italy was the show and the tell. They showed our Māori culture to the world - as they always have - but they also told the world that it’s not just about the razzamatazz.

They told the world that there’s some stuff going on back home that people aren’t happy about. Particularly the people back home whose culture is on show every time the All Blacks take to the field.

And what’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, as far as I’m concerned.

If we have a problem with what happened yesterday, then the All Blacks may as well ditch the haka altogether.

Because I think it is hugely disrespectful if we think Māori culture is only good for entertaining the crowds. Or selling a product. We might have got away with it in the past. But we’re fools if we think we can get away with it now.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don’t know if I’m going to make any friends in Governors Bay, especially with the people involved with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust.  

Because I think their call that the city council stop charging them interest on a loan it gave them to get the project across the line is, at best, unrealistic. They are dreaming.   

I remember the first time I went to the rebuilt jetty after it was re-opened last year. It was a beautiful evening. Very still. One of those brilliant evenings on the peninsula. And I was really impressed.  

I’d been to the old jetty plenty of times —that was before it was damaged in the earthquakes— but the new jetty was quite something. Still is quite something.   

If you’ve been there, you’ve probably walked up-and-down reading the plaques with the names of all the people and the outfits that gave money to the project. Who only gave money because of those volunteers who decided that the community was going to get its jetty back and who did an absolutely brilliant job making it happen.   

Especially when you consider that the city council originally thought it would cost $7.8 million, and these volunteers managed to get it done for $3.8 million. So around about half as much as the council was talking about.   

They did it after the council decided that, because it was going to cost so much, it wasn’t worth doing.   

Not that it wiped its hands completely, it sold the jetty to the trust for $1 and chipped-in $1.75 million of ratepayer money. It also gave the trust an $850,000 loan at 4% for four-and-a-half years.  

So the jetty is back. Everyone happy.   

Well, not quite. Because after all the heart and soul these volunteers put into raising the money to get it re-built, they’ve run out of puff.  

They’ve worked out that, just to pay the interest on the loan from the city council, they’d have to have the equivalent of a fundraising sausage sizzle every weekend for the next three years. That’s just to pay the interest.  

So this week they’ve been to the council, asking it to drop the interest on the loan. The council has said “no can do”. And I’m with the council.  

For the exact same reason that the council has given to the jetty people – that, if it agreed to flag the interest on their loan, it would set a dangerous precedent.  

Not that the city council is unanimous on this one – Councillor Aaron Keown reckons the council should drop the interest on the loan. He thinks that, instead of setting a dangerous or a problematic precedent, it would actually encourage more community groups to take on these types of projects.   

His view is that if you look at the jetty project, the volunteers managed to get the rebuild done for half the amount the council thought it was going to cost. And he’s saying today that “if it delivers infrastructure at half the price, it is good precedent setting.” 

Which Aaron, with respect, is a pretty weak argument.   

It’s a weak argument because if the council gives on this one, not only will it have other outfits that it’s leant money to knocking on the door wanting their interest waived, it will also have others applying for council loans with 0% interest from the get-go.  

There will be a stampede of people wanting free money from the council, and it will be pretty hard for the council to say no if it gives-in and flags the interest on the loan for the Governors Bay jetty.  

I mean I get what this volunteer group is saying – that after 10 years working on this project, they’re worn out. But they knew when they took out the loan with the council, what the conditions were.  

They knew the terms. It’s not like you or I can go to the bank asking them to stop charging us interest on our mortgage because we’re a bit tired, because it means we have to work more than we really want to.  

The bank would tell us where to go. Which is what the council is doing too, as it should, to the jetty restoration people.  

Yes, the jetty is an asset for the community. Yes, the fact that it’s been re-built much cheaper than what the council thought it would cost is brilliant. Yes, it is another fantastic example of a community recovering from the earthquakes. It ticks all of those boxes. 

But it still doesn’t change my view that the jetty restoration people need to accept the conditions they signed-up to when they took the loan out with the council. And the council is absolutely doing the right thing refusing to stop charging them interest.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this morning for Politics Friday. They discussed whether the new gang patch law will make a difference to crime numbers, and why the Government is pushing on with the boot camp legislation while the trials are ongoing. 

They also discussed behaviour in Parliament, particularly following Erica Stanford’s apology after insulting Jan Tinetti in the House. Is it time for more serious action? Are standards slipping? 

Labour MP Duncan Webb claims Education Minister Erica Stanford has muttered insults in the House for some time. 

Stanford apologised yesterday after Education shadow-minister Jan Tinetti accused her of using a swear word to describe her. 

Parliament's microphones and Hansard recording did not pick it up. 

Webb raised a point of order, and told John MacDonald that Stanford is a repeat offender.  

He says this is just one instance where the Minister over-stepped the mark, and he decided it shouldn't, couldn't continue. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today’s the day when one of the most ridiculous laws we’ve ever seen in this country starts being enforced by the police.  

As of midnight last night, it is illegal for gang members to wear their patches out in public. Not only that - the Government also wants the cops to stop gang members hanging-out together in public.  

As far as I’m concerned, this is just another placebo policy. A policy that might make us feel good but won’t actually make much difference.  

And instead the Government should just be letting the cops do more of the great work they’ve been doing to crack down on the criminal activities we know gang members are involved in.  

The Comancheros are a perfect example. Remember back in September when the cops arrested pretty much every Comanchero member in the country after that three-year undercover operation?  

They charged them with importing and selling drugs, running what was described as a pretty elaborate money laundering scheme, and running military training camps run by a former US marine.  

I know we said at the time that it probably wasn’t going to spell the end of the Comancheros in New Zealand. Well, I did anyway. That’s because they’re a gang that actually has clout and international connections.  

Nevertheless, the police have shown us what can happen if they’re just allowed to get on with it. And if the Government was serious with all its talk about making life difficult for the gangs, then it wouldn’t be telling the cops to go searching for gang patches in hanky drawers.   

What I’m saying is we should be focussing on the crimes already being committed by gang members instead of creating another crime - which is what this new law coming into force today is doing.  

In fact, I’d go as far as agreeing with a gang guy I saw on the news last night who said that this gang patch ban criminalises people for doing something where there are actually no victims.  

Think about it: if you see someone going down the street wearing a gang patch - does that make you a victim? Now you might say, well yes it does because whenever you see a gang patch you might feel uncomfortable.  

But does that make you a victim? I don’t think it does. There are all sorts of people out there who make me feel uncomfortable or intimidated, and they aren’t necessarily gang members.  

Tell that to the new police commissioner Richard Chambers, though, who you might have heard speaking with Mike Hosking a couple of hours ago.  

Mike was talking to him about the new job and asked him what he thought about these new gang laws, and he said “well, funny you should ask”.   

He didn’t actually put it that way, but he did say that in Hastings at three minutes past midnight —mere minutes after the laws came into force— police stopped a gang member travelling in a vehicle. The gang member was wearing a patch, and so they dished out their first charge under the new law.  

The thing is —and the Police Commissioner knows this— stopping one guy in a car is a different kettle of fish from dealing with a whole lot of gang members in one spot.  

Or going into the homes of gang members and having a nosey around for gang patches, because that’s what the cops are expected to do from today. To go through hanky drawers and wardrobes and pull out the patches if there’s a gang member with criminal convictions living there. What a waste of time and resources.  

Another gang person in the news today who I agree with as well is lifetime Black Power member and community advocate Denis O‘Reilly.   

He’s saying: “This legislation is just pandering to an anxious, white, middle-class population, who the research demonstrates are the people least likely to be affected by gang activity.”  

And he’s spot on. 

That’s why I’m calling this a placebo policy. Because making life difficult for gangs isn’t taking their patches off them or throwing the book at them if they’re caught wearing them in public. Because a gang member doesn’t have to wear a patch to tell the world which gang they’re in.  

Making life difficult for them is infiltrating their networks. Cracking down on all the illegal stuff they’re involved in. Which is why I think the gangs are going to be winners in this so-called crackdown on gang patches and gang’s congregating in public. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can’t accuse NZ First MP Shane Jones of being pale, male, and stale. But he is male, and he is stale with these comments of his about the way some MPs are dressing in Parliament. I do agree with him, though, that some of the rules in Parliament need toughening up.   

This has all been stirred-up after the MPs did their haka in Parliament last week.  

Shane Jones and ACT leader David Seymour are saying that the rules governing how things are supposed to run in the House aren't up to scratch.  

I was reading that the toughest personal penalty that an MP can face for playing up in the debating chamber is $1,000. Which is chicken feed when you consider the salaries MPs are on.  

So MPs on Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee are going to look into it and see if they can come up with some stiffer penalties for MPs who break the rules.  

Officially, these rules are known as Standing Orders and it is the Standing Orders Committee which is responsible for reviewing and considering the rules that govern how the House operates.  

So Shane Jones is happy about that. He’s also happy to let the Standing Orders Committee decide what changes might be needed. But he also reckons they need to get tough on dress standards, as well, in Parliament.  

He thinks the way some MPs dress, they look like "scarecrows".    

But I’m not upset about cowboy hats and feathers in Parliament. That’s because Parliament is, after all, the House of Representatives. Meaning the politicians in that House are supposed to be representative of us.  

And, if you’re somewhere right now where there are other people, take a look around. Is everyone dressed the same? Of course they’re not. Are all the guys in suits and ties? I bet they aren’t. And are all the women wearing smart business suits? I bet they’re not, either.  

Whether we like it or not, dress standards generally have changed. You might say they’ve gone backwards. I wouldn’t describe it that way.   

The point I’m making is that Parliament needs to reflect the real world. And the real world includes people dressing in cowboy hats. And feathers too, at times.  

But where I am with Shane Jones and Christopher Luxon, though, is the need to ensure that the rules that determine how Parliament is run and what is expected of MPs and the consequences for breaking those rules need toughening up.  

Reason being that there would not be any other workplace in the country where aggressive behaviour would be tolerated.  

And I’m not being anti-haka here, but what happened in Parliament last week was aggressive. The All Blacks’ haka is aggressive, and the haka in Parliament on Thursday was aggressive. Just like Julie-Anne Genter was aggressive when she went nuts at Matt Doocey in the House earlier this year.  

And that’s where the rules —or, at least, the punishments for breaking the rules— need a good look at.  

Because, just like people wearing cowboy hats and feathers is part of the real world, we should also be seeing our Parliament run in a way that gives MPs the same protections that all workers in this country expect when it comes to not being treated aggressively and being respected. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins says he had no problem with Te Pati Māori's haka in the House last week, during the vote on ACT's Treaty Principle Bill.

David Seymour, the National Party, and Shane Jones have written to Speaker Gerry Brownlee.

They say the Speaker should oversee rule changes at Parliament in light of the disruption.  

Hipkins told John MacDonald it's worth instead looking at Winston Peters, who he describes as one of the worst-behaved MPs.  

He says it's wonderful Jones and Seymour have appointed themselves Parliament's hall monitors, but they could lead by example and speak to their own leaders. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An absolute circus is one way to describe David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.  

Or you could say that the thousands at Parliament today to protest against it is what democracy is all about.  

Either way, if you want to point a finger at anyone for creating this shambles, don’t point it at David Seymour. Point it at Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.  

Who kept telling us last year how much of an expert he was at negotiations. Mergers and acquisitions was what it was all about. And, as we know with negotiations, it often means all parties doing a bit of give and take to get something across the line.   

But for someone who likes to go-on about his real-world business experience, it amazes me that he’s created this shambles by acting in a way that no chief executive would. More on that shortly.  

But I reckon people are thinking less about Christopher Luxon’s negotiation skills and more about his leadership skills right now. And I bet he is ruing the day that he agreed to include this sham in his coalition agreement with David Seymour.  

I also bet he is losing a lot of people’s respect. He’ll know that. If he doesn’t, then someone needs to tell him. His MPs won’t say so, but I bet he’s losing a lot of their respect, as well.  

It’s obvious. You talk to pretty much any National MP about the Treaty Principles Bill and they’ll shuffle uncomfortably in their seat. They’ll look away. They’ll say “oh yes, but not past the first reading” blah blah blah.  

They’ll try not to let it show in their face. But look into their eyes, and you can see the dread.  

That’s because they are embarrassed to be associated with this thing. And they have every right to be embarrassed when you consider that it was only agreed to, to get a deal across the line. Agreed to in a way which means it’s not actually going to go anywhere.  

All it’s going to do is give David Seymour a platform for the next election.  

Now before you start saying “hold on a minute, hold on a minute - it was only the other week mate that you were saying that we —as a country— seem to be incapable of discussing this sort of thing without it turning into a bunfight."  

Yes I did say that. I wasn’t saying I supported the Bill, I was saying that, despite how advanced we think we might be as a society, when push comes to shove, we are incapable of having this “national discussion” that the pointy heads like to bang on about without it turning to custard.  

And we’re seeing that play out today. Which Christopher Luxon knew would happen. He would have known full well that there’d be people who would go nuts over it.   

But he went with it and, as a result, his leadership is looking weaker by the day.  

Because if he had approached his negotiations with David Seymour in a way you would expect a seasoned chief executive to, then he would have done what any chief executive worth their salt does and determine whether a deal is going to do good things or bad things for the interests of the company.  

The best chief executives —and I’m talking the absolute best of the best— what they do, is they base all of their decisions on what’s best for the business or organisation that they lead. And, if they're really good, that can sometimes mean making decisions that might even see them lose their job.  

I’ll let you decide whether the company, in this case, is the National Party or the country. But this deal with Seymour isn’t good for his party and it isn’t good for the country.   

And, if Christopher Luxon is the leader he claims to be, then he needs to show some genuine leadership —some genuine backbone— and use his business skills to get us out of this mess.  

If he doesn’t, he will be toast. He will be toast as far as his MPs are concerned and he’ll be toast as far as the majority of voters are concerned.   

Because, if he did do what I’m saying he needs to do, then I would respect him infinitely more than I will if he does nothing. If he keeps on with this charade, if he keeps on banging on about how unhelpful the Bill is, how divisive it is.  

Keeps on trotting out that nonsense, and then sticks with the plan.  

I don’t care about his leadership experience until I see some genuine leadership in the here-and-now. To get us out of this treaty principles mess.  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.