April 29, 2026 • 34 mins
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins is standing by the decision to wait until after the Budget to announce the party's election policies.
The party has come under fire from the Coalition for its lack of policies so far.
Labour's has revealed plans for a Capital Gains Tax, a Future Fund, and a plan to boost the video game sector rebate from 20% to 25%.
It's promised three free doctors visits a year, a change to GP funding, as well as a Family Doctor Loan Scheme.
Hipkins told Kerre Woodham he doesn't want to make promises that can't be kept, and waiting till the Government sets out the finances is the responsible thing to do.
He’s also signalled he’s open to discussions around potentially means-testing Superannuation.
The party is calling for the Super age to remain at 65, but at the same time, government briefings suggest keeping it the same would result in more spending.
Hipkins told Woodham he doesn't back full means-testing, but there are questions about whether someone working full-time on a six-figure salary should get the pension.
He says a conversation would have to be held in a constructive, bipartisan way.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerry Wood and Morning's podcast from
News Talk, said B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
News Talk said B. Indeed, Labor Leader Chris Hipkins, indeed,
Leader of the Opposition. I know you're a bit touchy
about not being invited on Mike Show, but you know
you're always welcome here. Always.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
You always make me feel very well. It's lovely to
be here.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Even if we can have you know, spirited discussion. Now
there's been quite a few bit of text traffic, but
if you have any questions for the Leader of the Opposition,
Colin now eight hundred and eighty ten eighty, we have
lots to talk about, not policy yet, so I assume
that will come after the budget.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
We've said after the budget because so much is changing.
You know, I've been really clear. I don't want to
make promises and then turn around in government and say, oh,
we couldn't do that, you know, we didn't get that right,
or we promise something we can't deliver on. I don't
want to get into that territory. So waiting until the
government have set out the finances, we know what the
economic forecasts are. It is actually right now the responsible
(01:04):
thing to do, and.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
So working for you because every time any party releases
a policy, they go down in the polls.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Well, the National Party of quite desperate at the moment.
They're jumping on anything. They're making up policies for us
at this point because they don't want to talk about
their own policies and they don't want to talk about
what was actually happening in the things that they are
responsible for. My approach is a pretty clear one. You know,
I've set out the priorities for us jobs, health, homes,
cost of living. That's where our policy is going to
be focused. We'll have policies on all the other areas
(01:32):
as well, but that's the central focus for us.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
The last time you were Prime minister, this time, you know,
March twenty twenty three, inflation was a six point seven,
down from a record high of seven point two. You know,
that was driven by food and housing. The last time
you were Prime minister, you weren't managing the economy particularly well.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Well, New Zealand's inflation rate at that point was in
line with the international average.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
It was phenomenally it was phenomally.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
It was phenomenally high, but it was also in line
with the international average at that time. By the time
we left office, it was down to about four point
six and it was still trending down. But that pain
is still baked in. You know, what people experience then
is still backed in. And now we've got inflation going
back up again and that is going to hurt a
lot of people and we do need to do more
to support people through there.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
How would you handle the crisis in Iran? I mean,
what could you do that's different from what the government
is doing.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Well right now? I think there are some things that
the government should be looking at well.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
They are looking at a range of options, yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
And one of them should be looking at diesel, and
they should be looking at road user charges for diesel
users because diesel has such a flow on effect to
the price of everything else. And at the moment a
diesel user, a trucking company, a trade you know, filling
up their ut, they're paying diesel that's more expensive in
some cases than petro. It's come down a little bit
(02:51):
a little bit, so that was the case, you know,
a week or two back. It's a little bit below
petrel again now, but they're paying road user charges on
top of that, and that flows through into higher prices
for everything because everything has to get to the supermarket.
Everything has to get to whereever it needs to go,
and I do think the government should be looking at
that now.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
And what about the food producers, the ones that are
creating the food that need the diesel that the trucks
are picking up.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Quite right, the farmers, I mean farmers will tell you
that diesel is one of their big input costs and
at the moment they're really feeling the pintrum that there's
no short term easy answer here because there's a short
term cost to anything you do. And so if the
government did do something in diesel, yes, there's a short
term cost to that, and that potentially has a longer
term consequence that we need to think about.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
You.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Yeah, so there's every possibility, given the madness in the
world right now, that this will still be going on,
and if you are the government afterwards, you we have
having to deal with that. And so that's something you
would look at, reducing road user charges and the cost
of diesel to our food producers.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
It's an option i I'm putting on the table. I
think the government should have it on the table right now.
We'll make a decision about that closer to the election
when we see what diesel prices are doing closer to
the election and what all the other things that are
going on at that point are.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Allen has a question, A very good morning to you, Ellen.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
Best morning Kerrie and Chris.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
If you do get back into government, are you going
to prioritize Mary and Pacifica in health over everybody else?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
We do want to close the gaps in terms of
healthcare around Marty and Pacific people. We know that Marty
and Pacific, the Martyan Pacific population tend to have higher
concentrations of health needs. But does that mean that there
should be healthcare available to Marty and Pacific people that's
not available to other New Zealanders. No, I don't believe that.
So you did believe it before, Well, I think there was.
(04:39):
I think there was some areas where the previous government
got it wrong. So if you take vaccination, you know,
vaccination was there's a lot of debate around that. I
thought when we said that when it was rolled out,
phasing it so that Marty and Pacifica got access by
age cohort earlier than other New Zealanders, I don't think
that was the right way of approaching that. And I
wo wouldn't do that again.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Seeing as you raised it, I was I'd really like
to clear up what happened with that cabinet paper that
was released in your name that said that double vaccination
of teenage boys wasn't necessary. How could you have a
paper in your name with information in it that you
say what you didn't know.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
About so that the paper that you were talking about
was from March. The issue here was that that advice
was provided to the Ministry of Health around December.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
But it was released in a cabinet paper, as I
understand it, with your name on it.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yes, but it didn't come to us until March and
so and in March, in that very same meeting that
we received that paper, we also removed all of the
relevant vaccine mandates from that age cohort. So you know,
should we have had that access to that earlier? Yes?
Would that have made difference in the decision It might
have made a difference in the decision that we took
(05:54):
back in December had we had that information.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Parents of teenagers were really upset when this information came
out that you didn't trust them to make the right
decision for their kids.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
So I think it's really important that people understand what
the information is. The information was not questioning the safety
of two doses of the vaccine for the vast bulk
of the population, but there was small risk it it
was canvassing, particularly around a mandate, you know, whether there
was a justification from mandate med safest advice. So they
(06:26):
approved vaccination at that point and right the way through,
and it remains the advice today was that two doses
of the vaccine were safe. And the Technical Advisory Group
who penned the advice about the mandate, their advice continued
to be at that time that for the general population.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
We should still be the teenage.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
For the population, that for that teenage population we should
still make two doses available, still encourage two doses. Their
question was whether it should be mandated. And at the
I think was the week after that advice, there was
more advice that said we should make a third dose
available to that same age cohort. So we were getting
a lot of advice. Now, the timing of that advice
(07:06):
was very very Unfortunately that didn't come to us in
December when it would have been much more useful than
in March.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
And when parents were taking their kids to get mandated
to get vaccinated because the kids were missing out on
school sports and things like that because of because of
the climate around vaccination, it meant that kids had to
do had to have vaccines that they might not otherwise
have had.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yes, And so that the advice that the March paper,
the context of that paper was it wasn't actually related
the paper and question wasn't related to vaccine mandates. It
was that I had asked for advice to go to
cabinet about this very issue kids being excluded from extracurricular activities,
any evidence that we had that that was happening, and
(07:49):
how we could avoid that happening, also for the younger
age cohort who at that point still couldn't be vaccinated.
And so that was the paper, and where we arrived
at as a cabinet was that the best way of
dealing with that was just to remove all requirements from
that age cohort. So VACS seen passes, vaccine mandates and everything.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Yeah, Like I was really hot on it. I just thought,
how could you release how could you release a cabinet
paper and then say I didn't know what was in there.
It's either incompetence or.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Well No, that particular paper was about that issue around
extracurricular involvement, and the advice from December was slotted into
that paper. It kind of when you read the paper,
it actually kind of sits slightly out of place with
all of the rest of the advice and the paper.
But at the time all of that requirement was being removed.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Let's not talk about news talk, said b Dave. You
have a question for the leader of the opposition who
is in studio through until eleven.
Speaker 6 (08:47):
Yeah, hello, hello Chris Roger here. I just want to
ask the question if you've become next government or you
Reinstate three Waters and have unelected EUE sitting on the
three or four entities throughout New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
No, we're not going to Reinstate three Waters. I think
the reality is the local water done Well imposed by
this government's costing rate payers up and down the country
a lot more than they should be having to pay.
But undoing local water done Well is just going to
add to that cost, not subtract from it. So I
think we just have to move forward with what the
current government have put in place and try and find
ways to contain the cost as much as we can.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
I thank you, thank you very much for that. I
would said I wasn't going to do COVID again, and
I won't after this one. But three Waters also brought
it mine, Like the COVID spending, thirty odd billion went
to non COVID projects and that's something that your kids,
MI grandkids are going to be paying for for a
(09:47):
very very long time. Well, how would you justify that spending?
Speaker 3 (09:50):
Well, that's the Royal Commission's interpretation of what was COVID
spending and what wasn't. So within that they regarded the
money that we spent and enduring kids could learn from
home during COVID lockdowns, they regarded that as non COVID
spending and that was quite a significance s money.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Okay, what about the cameras on fishing boats.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
I think that that was clearly probably should have been
attributed to a different part of the government budgets. So
M quibble on that school lunch. The COVID nineteen Response
and Recovery Fund was also about the economic recovery as well,
and that included keeping people in jobs and making sure
that we were funding projects. Some of the shove already
projects for example, which the National Government are now busy
(10:32):
cutting ribbons on and saying how good they are. That's
amongst the spending that they're saying shouldn't have happened.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Paul Barrel politics too when you look at where it went.
Hello Shane Jones, thank you and Kushane for some of
the gorgeous facilities in the finals.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
And he seems very keen to claim the credit for that,
despite the fact that the government is part of now
is now part of was saying it was a waste
of money.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Well, a lot of it was. You know, would you
have you learned the I suppose have you learned the
lesson of unintended consequences because there was a lot of that.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Well, yeah, if you look at some of the community
facilities that were funded, I don't think they were a
waste of money. I think that they were actually very
good spending.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
They we know it was put under COVID spending and
necessary spending rather than nice to have spending.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Well, as I said, it was the COVID nineteen Response
and Recovery Fund, So keeping the economy moving, keeping people
in work was a big part of the recovery strategy.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
We'll take a short break and when we come back.
One of my favorite farmers has a question for you.
News Talk said, I hope it is indeed one of
my favorite farmers, and not another farmer with the same
name from the same district. Glenn.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
Good morning, Good morning, Carey, good morning, Chris. Oh no,
it is it is. I've here a tough question for you, Chris,
so betten down the hatches. So twenty twenty seven to
twenty twenty three, twenty seventeen to twenty twenty three, a
lot of New Zeand's measures got way worse. What kids
were stupid, more crime, harder to fill the fridge, harder
(11:56):
to get a doctor. How what's going to be different
this time? And don't say COVID because we've got the
Iraq war. You know they were around water. Deal with
this time? What's going to be different? What have you
learned so that if I vote to you in twenty
between nine, the kids aren't stupid and it's easier to
fill the forage.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Look, I don't think your kids were stupid at all
during any of that period of time. But but what
I what I would say is, you know, one of
the things that I have learned in my time in
politics is sometimes government needs to slow down a little bit.
I think one of the reasons that successive governments have
got things wrong in areas like infrastructure, some of the
decisions made in health and education is because every government's
(12:32):
trying to rush through changes so that they can stand
at the next selection and say, hey, look, here's this
change that we have done that's delivered instant results. And
there are very few problems that governments face that can
be solved with a quick fix. And so I think,
you know, one of my lessons is we need to
slow down a bit. And an area like infrastructure. You know,
I've said to the National Party we're open to taking
(12:53):
some of the politics out of that. On roads, you know,
let's stop arguing about roads. Let's just acknowledge we haven't
maintained them properly. We can't afford all the lovely gold
plated roads that they would like to be able to build.
Let's figure out a plan of what the country can
actually do over the next ten to fifteen years and
then let the road builders get on with it and
try and take some of the politics out of it.
Speaker 5 (13:14):
Supplementary if I could care, yes, supplementaryly yes. How do
you hold the line in the center against the Socialists
and the multi party who are going to be very,
very difficult to manage.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Yeah, I think that's a real issue on both sides
of the political aisle at the moment, because you see
it on the government side as well, where they've got
people you know, to their right flank who want to
pull things, you know, further to the right, and we've
got people to our left who want to pull up
further to the left. And my view on that's pretty clear.
People should still get the government that they vote for.
So if they're voting, you know, more people voted National
(13:45):
from the last election than voted for either ACT or
in New Zealand First, and yet I think ACT in
New Zealand First have been given a disproportionate sway in
this government. And so at the next election, my goal
is to make Labor the biggest party and that means
we should get the biggest say in government and the
smaller parties Yep, there should be some compromise, but they
shouldn't be able to force things through that there's no
public mandate for.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
And I think I'd really like to see because I
really think we can't afford the luxury of ideology right
now for the next six years. I don't think we
can afford the luxury of ideology. I think there really does.
As reading Liam Dan's piece as well, which echoed a
lot of thoughts that have been expressed on the radio.
We National and Labor as the two biggest parties, need
(14:26):
to work together to get us back on track, and
you can be ideological later.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
There are always going to be areas of disagreement. You know,
it's not much of a democracy if everybody just says, look,
vote for us, we'll do the same thing as then
we'll just do it differently.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
We want hospitals that work, and we want ones that
aren't moldy, and we want roads that aren't potholed. I
think the fundamentals are the same.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
The objectives are the same, that's true. But I think
what we've got to do is in areas like building
new hospitals, building new schools, building new roads, fixing the
water pipes, we've got to acknowledge that a whole lot
of that isn't vote winning stuff because it takes such
a long time. You know, building a new motorway is
a te near project. The person who turns the side
(15:08):
is not going to be the person who cuts the ribbon,
So let's just accept that there aren't going to be
votes to be one and doing a lot of the
unsexy part of this.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
As we grow up as voters, and let's just get
on and do it.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
So you know, we've prioritized building the shiny new things
over maintaining what we've already got.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
And lower point is a metaphor for the country.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
Absolutely well, I'll tell you, as Minister of Education, one
of the things that really frustrated me, and when it
comes to school buildings, was that we were having to
replace buildings, not because they shouldn't have been, you know,
still fit for purpose, but because they hadn't been maintained
and they were rotting. And if we'd just maintained to
them properly, we wouldn't have needed to replace them. So
it cost us more having to replace stuff than if
(15:52):
we had properly maintained it. And you look across the
country and you'll find examples of that in every sphere
of public infrastructure, whether at schools, hospitals, roads, water pipes,
the whole lot. And there's no vote in maintaining stuff,
but maintaining stuff is what we need to do a
lot more.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Of Absolutely, please tell me you won't reverse the curriculum.
I am seeing the changes with a nine year old
and a seven year old in the house. The maths
is just fantastic. The Royal Society said, thank god the
curriculum changes have happened. It's not just me, this is
the Royal Society of Mathematicians.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
I think the literacy and numeracy stuff has certainly been
heading in the right direction.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
It's phenomenal and it's a world of difference and you
must see it with your kids.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Yeah, but if you well yes and no. If you
look at the literacy stuff that was building very much
on the structured literacy approach that was being piloted when
we were in government, and they've adopted effectively a similar
approach in maths and that's going well. You get into
more controversy when you get into the social sciences and
the sciences areas.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
We just want the fundamentals, that's what parents were spending
money on.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
But I think so the extra stability in that literacy
and numerous area is certainly something will be aiming for.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
The leader of the Opposition is in studio taking your calls.
Eight hundred and eighty ten eighty. When are you going
to grasp the nettle and raise the retirement age or
just allow for people to get less of a super
at a younger age if they're if they qualify, their
bodies are packing up.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
We do have a challenge around retirement.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
You've got to work with National on NAT show, and I.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Think there does need to be some bipartis an agreement.
I don't think that raising the retirement age is the answer,
but I do think that we need to come up
with some long term consensus around what the answers should be.
The reason I don't think raising the age for everybody
is the answer is you do end up with people
who are physically naked by the time they get to
sixty five, and it tends to be people who have
been in lower income jobs who have less ability to
(17:50):
support themselves, and those are exactly the people who superannuation
should be all about. And so I don't think that
across the board raise of the age is the right answer,
but we're open to conversations about things about it.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
While other countries have been have been grasping the nettle, well,
it's a tough thing to do.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
I get that it's a tough thing to do, and
I think that the Fifth Labor Government actually sort of
grabbed the bull by the horns and establishing Kei We
Saver and gave us something that we can build on.
If you look at what the Aussies did with their
equivalent of Kei We Saver in the nineteen eighties. Took
them several decades, but they built up a scheme now
which means their superannuation costs a refraction of what ours
(18:28):
are because they have a retirement saving scheme that's helping
them out. The Key Savers laid the foundation. There's some
issues around how do you make sure it's fair for
people who are on lower incomes, like the self employed
people who at the moment are not going into Key
Savior because it's a way of giving themselves a pay rise.
If you don't have your money going into key We Savor,
you get a bit more cash in hand. We've got
(18:49):
to deal with those things to make sure it's fairer
for everybody. But I think Key We Save is a
really good start and it's a good foundation to build off.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Should it be means tested for.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
New Zealand superannuation. I wouldn't want to get into full
means testing of New Zealand superannuation. But you know there
are questions, and again I don't want to do this
on a unilateral basis. I think these have to be
conversations across the Parliament about whether somebody who is still
working full time earning a six figure salary should be
claiming superannuation. I'm open to a conversation about that, but
(19:23):
again I think it has to be done in a constructive,
bipartisan way.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
How long will you be talking before anything happens.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Well, I guess it depends that whether there's an appetite
across the Parliament to even have that conversation. But I
just don't think we've seen what happens when parties chop
and change on superannuation. It's how we got into this
mess in the nineteen seventies. What we've got now originated
from parties not being able to agree in the nineteen seventies,
and I think the way we get out of this
mess is we have to try and get some consensus
(19:51):
around it.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
How will you grow the economy? It's in a parlor state.
Whoever we want to blame for that, it's in a
parlor state. And while we're paying that debt, we're not
building roads or hospitals. We're not looking after people who
need help.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
We've got to focus on where the next sort of
generation of jobs for New Zealand are going to come from.
They're going to come from areas that are what i'd
say is adjacent to stuff we're already good at. So
if you take our primary industries, for example, we're really
good at producing food and the ingredients for food. What
can we do that adds value to that? So there's
research and development opportunities in the food space that we
(20:27):
need to do more of, supporting our farmers to add
value to their products. Same with wood. We've got it
growing trees, but what do we do to add value
to them? Was there's more jobs that can be attained
by not exporting raw logs but exporting finished products. There's
emerging areas for New Zealand around digital tech, for example,
and particularly the creative space that provides some great opportunities.
(20:49):
So we're good at making film and television and games.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Gaming is huge.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
Video gaming was the next big thing, so we introduced
a tax rebate in twenty twenty three for the gaming industry,
and it's already paid for itself. The government's already made
more in extra tax than it costs to go of
the you know, the text rebate.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Back and then the likes of Halter because of the.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Growth in the area egretech. You know, Holt is a
great example fintech companies like zero Henry, you know, offering
really innovative fintech products. So find the areas where we're
doing well and say, okay, how do we build more
businesses in those areas. So rather than just say let's
go up onto a whole area which is well entirely new,
let's focus on the things that we know we're good
(21:31):
at and really focus on growing them. And then, you know,
international trade is a big part of that. So you know,
trade agreements are important, but we've got lots of opportunity.
Now we've got an EU Free Trade Agreement, a UK
Free trade Agreement, India Free Trade Agreement, China Free Trade Agreement,
lots of opportunities to grow. We've just got to make
sure that we've got stuff to sell.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Were you just playing hard to get when it came
to the FTA with India, No, you're not giving yourself
away too easily.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
I think there are still risks in that, but we
wanted to make sure we understood it so that we
could be clear on what businesses need to be aware of.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Okay, Lee, good morning to you.
Speaker 7 (22:07):
Good morning. Now I'm in business and I just struggled
to come to terms with what's happened with the public
service under Labor and then you've added sixteen thousand extra
public servants in the two terms you were in the
thirty four percent increase. You've gone from forty seven thousand
(22:28):
people to sixty three thousand people. In this age of
technology and of better working opportunities through it, I cannot
believe you need that amount of people. And it just
really shows me that you guys are totally incoonfident about
running a large company, which what the country is, because
(22:51):
you just could not get away with that in normal business.
Speaker 5 (22:53):
You'd be broke.
Speaker 7 (22:54):
And of course we're broke, and that's because you guys
have just spent so much money on this sort of stuff.
And I just would ask you, if you're going to
get back into power, are you going to take the
number back down to forty seven thousand again? Are you
going to leave the extra sixteen thousand people in place,
so they probably vote for you, so you're probably keep
from there.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Well, look, if all those people weren't doing valuable work,
I'm sure the current government would have got rid of
them by now. The reality is that the populations grow
and the demands on the public sector have grown, and
there are new challenges that the public expect the public
service to deal with. I do think there is opportunities
now though that even weren't available two years ago, let
alone six or seven years ago. AI provides an opportunity
(23:35):
for government to look at some of its processes and
how it can do those more efficiently. The potential to
digitize a lot more government services so that they are
more efficient, I think is growing by the day. We
looked at changing government departments, it systems, for example, hugely
expensive seven or eight years ago. A lot of the
cost of that is coming down dramatically though, And when
(23:58):
you improve the digitization of public services, yeah, there probably
do need to be less people in the back office
doing some of the menual processes that can now be
done to So, yes, I think there's opportunities, but I
think we've got to recognize that the public sector as
a proportion of the population hasn't grown that much. It's
that the population has grown and that citizen demands for
(24:18):
public services have grown.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
I haven't seen a huge demand for the Ministry for Women.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
If you look at areas, I mean, that's only at
the margin. If you look at areas we're grown, say,
take Ministry of Social Development. There's more processing involved, is
more to superinnuitance that you know, that involves more people
at the other end making sure you're getting your superannuation.
If you look at the Ministry of Education, where was
the growth there. It was in curriculum development, including things
(24:45):
like literacy and numerous.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Ensure that spent an absolute fortune on public servants, but
also outsourced to so many contractors. The money spent could
have gone to teachers.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
I think the outsourcing of the curriculum, which is so
here's what's happened since the election. They let go a
lot of the people we'd employed to do the curriculum.
And if now outsourced it a contract, that's what you
it's no cheaper doing outsourcing to contractors. The one area
I'd say, though, so again, take the Ministry of Education again,
begin increasing the number of people managing school buildings during
(25:17):
the time that I was Minister of Education. It's because
there's so much more work to be done. If we'd
maintain those buildings properly in the first place, and had
people doing that work in the first place, we wouldn't
have the bill that we're facing now.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Chloes Warbrick, co leader of the Greens, would like to
be finance minister.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
No, absolutely not. Well, not in a labor government.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
A labor coalition government. You're not going to get there
on your own.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Not in a labor coalition government either.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
As I said, already already have Yeah, I know, but
you're getting closer to the election, and I know your
poll numbers are looking good now, but once you release
policy it might change.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Look, the prime ministership and the finance portfolio should go
to the biggest party that's in government, and I think
that should be non negotiable.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
She might go with that.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
You'll be sorry, I'm not going to go and the
you know we're work with these people. Are those people
right now? We will set that out closer to the election.
You wouldn't work with that, But there are some bottom
lines and clearly, you know, having the finance portfolio held
by a smaller parties just isn't tenable.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Why not if she's the best person for the.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
Job, Because, as I said, the public should get broadly
what they vote for. And you know, when Labor or
National leader government, they have significantly more support generally speaking
than the smaller parties who make up part of the government,
and the governing arrangement arrangements should reflect that.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
At least she's releasing budgets and policies.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Well, and you know, you could critique much of that
on the basis that the economic forecasts and all those
numbers are changing, and I don't think that that's something
that I want to get into right at the moment.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Why three GP visits? I mean, I get a capital
gains tax are targeted capital gains tax, But why in
the name of all that is holy, with all that
is going on, would you put it to three GP
visits for people who don't need it?
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Because keeping people out of hospital, yes, yes, is one
of the best things we can do for the health system,
of course.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
It is, absolutely But why give it to people who
don't need them? Because why are you so obsessed with
universal when there are people who don't need it?
Speaker 3 (27:21):
Because many of those people are also ending up in
hospital with avoidable illness. They are you going to talk
to anyone in a hospital emergency department, They'll tell you
that there are people from across the economic spectrum ending
up in a hospital emergency.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Department wouldn't afford to go to a GPS.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
With conditions that could be dealt with by GPS.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
I think that is absolute, Tosh, well really do. I
think with what's going on, there is so much that
that are targeted Capital gains tax could go towards three
GP visits for every New Zealander is just pines.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
So our overall approaches around shifting their emphasis of the
health system from secondary care tertiary care basically dealing with
you once you're sick, to a much greater focus on prevent.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
So people talking because we've been talking about health who
said they've had three kolonoscopies they've paid for themselves because
of family history which have been worthwhile. They can afford
to pay for colon. They don't need three GP visits.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
So it's not just three GP visits. You've also got
to do more than screening. And you know we've we've
set outside he's going for that's what that's what we're
going to be paying for We're going to be paying
for more screening as well. So we've set out free
civical screening.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Tony doesn't need it or we won't pay for it himself,
thank you.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
But you can make that argument right the way through
the health system. Yes, so you're saying that we should
start means testing people when they arrive in hospital at.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Least give them a tax rebate when they pay for
their health.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
Injurery, I don't agree with that. I think healthcare should
be available to everybody. That is about having a public
health system. If you want to look at what a privatized,
you know, for profit, user pays health system really looks like,
go to the United States and look at the massive
inequalities that they create.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Look at a universal healthcare system in the NHS and
say that's hardly working, is it.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Well, if you look at I mean you can the NHS,
that's sort of matter for the UK. You can plan
for the US. Yes, you can find plenty of examples
of universally available public health systems where the health outcomes
are far better than in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
I just think that that who got into your head
that three GP visits was the cure all.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
I want people to be able to access preventive healthcare
rather than ending up in hospital.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
To do that as well. I want people who can't
afford to go to a GP, who are really concerned
about their health, who are working every hour God sends
and can barely get an appointment. I don't necessarily want
somebody who is even me, I can afford to go
to the GP. I don't need it. Give it to
somebody so they can have six visits to the GP.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Part of the social contract of your paying your taxes
is that you should also get access to public services.
You shouldn't just be paying for public SX for other
people as well.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
When I go to A and E, I'll get it
when I need it.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
And that's the problem. So a lot of people are
just waiting and ending up in A and E rather
than going to the doctor first. I'd rather people went
to the doctor first. Is going to save the country money.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
I okay, we're just not going to agree on this one. Graham,
good morning to you.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Yeah, Hi, Kerry, Chris was game good.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Quick Christian. There's a number of issues that are facing
our economy. Two of the biggest or energy costs and
productivity is talking to your producer about which one to
ask you about, because I think your oil and gas
ban is ideological nonsense, But I'm going to ask you
about productivity. So my view, education is a key to
improving work of productivity, and I think that charter schools
(30:44):
represent a real opportunity for kids that just don't fit
into the current education system. Now, I know you're going
to come back with their more expensive than state schools
and all that sort of stuff, But as a taxpayer,
I'd much rather fund a kid that goes to a
school where they're actually attending and learning something than having
them sit on the doll for the rest of their
life or worse, go on to crime. So are you
(31:06):
going to give up your ideological position with the Teachers'
union and actually back charter schools if you get into power.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
We don't support charter schools in the form that they're
in at the moment, But probably where you and I
would find some agreement is I do think that there
are alternative education models, alternative educations in area where we've
underinvested as a country for those kids who aren't fitting
well within the current mainstream schooling system. I don't think
converting existing mainstream schools into charter schools is the way
(31:34):
of dealing with that. But I think some additional alternative
education options for those kids who are not being well
served by the system is something that we need to
be able to do more of. So, yeah, I recognize
there are some niches there where we need to provide
different choices and different options to those kids so that
(31:55):
we can get them more engaged in their learning.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Hydro. Can you ever imagine New Zealand building another hydro dam?
Speaker 3 (32:02):
There may be some There may be possible. Ye, I
can imagine it.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
Not with Greens and Coalition though hydro. I mean, but
they don't like damaging the environment.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Well, you know, there's always a trade off here. Hydro's
good been very very good for New Zealand, so I
wouldn't rule it out. I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Okay, And where's the money going to come from for
the GPS. It's given that it's going to take time
for a capital gains tax the revenue from that to
flow through.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
So our fiscal plan does that over a four year
forecast period, so it spreads the cost over a four
year forecast, So the revenue from the Capital Gains tax
over a four year period more than covers the cost
of the free GP visits.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
Will it cover the fair pay.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
No, that's something that we will also be setting out
in our fiscal plan around how.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
We're going to do that.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
Well, we'll set that out in the fiscal plan. We've
got a lot of work to do to make sure
that we can balance the budget and that's one of
the reasons we're being very conscientious about not making promises
at this point that we might not be able to afford.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
So people who vote for you, thinking that they're going
to get the fair pay agreement settled might be just appointed. Well,
if we can't afford it, we can't afford it.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
Making sure we reinstate women's rights to fear pay is
something we're absolutely committed to. That doesn't mean, though, that
we can promise settlements on every individual claim within a
three year period. No government could make that promise.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
No national found that.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Well, but they just did. They give up. They gave
up trying. I think that there is a well.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
What was in the coffers and thought where we can
afford it?
Speaker 3 (33:29):
Well, yeah, but I don't think you can say that
and say, oh, women, sorry, you just got to be
paid less because we can't afford to pay you more.
It doesn't matter that we're paying the blokes more to
do the same work.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
I don't think that's the same anyway. That was That
was a whole other ideological things that this is your song.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Why I loved John Farnham. I grew up with John
Farnam was one of the first LP's that I owned
as a kid. You know LP's, remember, but back when
LP's were a thing.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
I think they still are. I think the cool kids
have got LPs in their house.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
Well, you know, I spent a very pleasant time with
a workshop down and put up on a turning LPs
into poppies for Poppy Day a few weeks ago. It
was great fun.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Okay, So, John Farnaman, you're the voice leader of the opposition,
a labor leader. Chris Hopkins will look forward to chatting
with you once you've got some policy that's exciting.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news
talks it be from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Kerry Wood and Morning's podcast from
News Talk, said B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
News Talk said B. Indeed, Labor Leader Chris Hipkins, indeed,
Leader of the Opposition. I know you're a bit touchy
about not being invited on Mike Show, but you know
you're always welcome here. Always.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
You always make me feel very well. It's lovely to
be here.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Even if we can have you know, spirited discussion. Now
there's been quite a few bit of text traffic, but
if you have any questions for the Leader of the Opposition,
Colin now eight hundred and eighty ten eighty, we have
lots to talk about, not policy yet, so I assume
that will come after the budget.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
We've said after the budget because so much is changing.
You know, I've been really clear. I don't want to
make promises and then turn around in government and say, oh,
we couldn't do that, you know, we didn't get that right,
or we promise something we can't deliver on. I don't
want to get into that territory. So waiting until the
government have set out the finances, we know what the
economic forecasts are. It is actually right now the responsible
(01:04):
thing to do, and.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
So working for you because every time any party releases
a policy, they go down in the polls.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Well, the National Party of quite desperate at the moment.
They're jumping on anything. They're making up policies for us
at this point because they don't want to talk about
their own policies and they don't want to talk about
what was actually happening in the things that they are
responsible for. My approach is a pretty clear one. You know,
I've set out the priorities for us jobs, health, homes,
cost of living. That's where our policy is going to
be focused. We'll have policies on all the other areas
(01:32):
as well, but that's the central focus for us.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
The last time you were Prime minister, this time, you know,
March twenty twenty three, inflation was a six point seven,
down from a record high of seven point two. You know,
that was driven by food and housing. The last time
you were Prime minister, you weren't managing the economy particularly well.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Well, New Zealand's inflation rate at that point was in
line with the international average.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
It was phenomenally it was phenomally.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
It was phenomenally high, but it was also in line
with the international average at that time. By the time
we left office, it was down to about four point
six and it was still trending down. But that pain
is still baked in. You know, what people experience then
is still backed in. And now we've got inflation going
back up again and that is going to hurt a
lot of people and we do need to do more
to support people through there.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
How would you handle the crisis in Iran? I mean,
what could you do that's different from what the government
is doing.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Well right now? I think there are some things that
the government should be looking at well.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
They are looking at a range of options, yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
And one of them should be looking at diesel, and
they should be looking at road user charges for diesel
users because diesel has such a flow on effect to
the price of everything else. And at the moment a
diesel user, a trucking company, a trade you know, filling
up their ut, they're paying diesel that's more expensive in
some cases than petro. It's come down a little bit
(02:51):
a little bit, so that was the case, you know,
a week or two back. It's a little bit below
petrel again now, but they're paying road user charges on
top of that, and that flows through into higher prices
for everything because everything has to get to the supermarket.
Everything has to get to whereever it needs to go,
and I do think the government should be looking at
that now.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
And what about the food producers, the ones that are
creating the food that need the diesel that the trucks
are picking up.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Quite right, the farmers, I mean farmers will tell you
that diesel is one of their big input costs and
at the moment they're really feeling the pintrum that there's
no short term easy answer here because there's a short
term cost to anything you do. And so if the
government did do something in diesel, yes, there's a short
term cost to that, and that potentially has a longer
term consequence that we need to think about.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
You.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Yeah, so there's every possibility, given the madness in the
world right now, that this will still be going on,
and if you are the government afterwards, you we have
having to deal with that. And so that's something you
would look at, reducing road user charges and the cost
of diesel to our food producers.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
It's an option i I'm putting on the table. I
think the government should have it on the table right now.
We'll make a decision about that closer to the election
when we see what diesel prices are doing closer to
the election and what all the other things that are
going on at that point are.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Allen has a question, A very good morning to you, Ellen.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
Best morning Kerrie and Chris.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
If you do get back into government, are you going
to prioritize Mary and Pacifica in health over everybody else?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
We do want to close the gaps in terms of
healthcare around Marty and Pacific people. We know that Marty
and Pacific, the Martyan Pacific population tend to have higher
concentrations of health needs. But does that mean that there
should be healthcare available to Marty and Pacific people that's
not available to other New Zealanders. No, I don't believe that.
So you did believe it before, Well, I think there was.
(04:39):
I think there was some areas where the previous government
got it wrong. So if you take vaccination, you know,
vaccination was there's a lot of debate around that. I
thought when we said that when it was rolled out,
phasing it so that Marty and Pacifica got access by
age cohort earlier than other New Zealanders, I don't think
that was the right way of approaching that. And I
wo wouldn't do that again.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Seeing as you raised it, I was I'd really like
to clear up what happened with that cabinet paper that
was released in your name that said that double vaccination
of teenage boys wasn't necessary. How could you have a
paper in your name with information in it that you
say what you didn't know.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
About so that the paper that you were talking about
was from March. The issue here was that that advice
was provided to the Ministry of Health around December.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
But it was released in a cabinet paper, as I
understand it, with your name on it.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yes, but it didn't come to us until March and
so and in March, in that very same meeting that
we received that paper, we also removed all of the
relevant vaccine mandates from that age cohort. So you know,
should we have had that access to that earlier? Yes?
Would that have made difference in the decision It might
have made a difference in the decision that we took
(05:54):
back in December had we had that information.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Parents of teenagers were really upset when this information came
out that you didn't trust them to make the right
decision for their kids.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
So I think it's really important that people understand what
the information is. The information was not questioning the safety
of two doses of the vaccine for the vast bulk
of the population, but there was small risk it it
was canvassing, particularly around a mandate, you know, whether there
was a justification from mandate med safest advice. So they
(06:26):
approved vaccination at that point and right the way through,
and it remains the advice today was that two doses
of the vaccine were safe. And the Technical Advisory Group
who penned the advice about the mandate, their advice continued
to be at that time that for the general population.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
We should still be the teenage.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
For the population, that for that teenage population we should
still make two doses available, still encourage two doses. Their
question was whether it should be mandated. And at the
I think was the week after that advice, there was
more advice that said we should make a third dose
available to that same age cohort. So we were getting
a lot of advice. Now, the timing of that advice
(07:06):
was very very Unfortunately that didn't come to us in
December when it would have been much more useful than
in March.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
And when parents were taking their kids to get mandated
to get vaccinated because the kids were missing out on
school sports and things like that because of because of
the climate around vaccination, it meant that kids had to
do had to have vaccines that they might not otherwise
have had.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yes, And so that the advice that the March paper,
the context of that paper was it wasn't actually related
the paper and question wasn't related to vaccine mandates. It
was that I had asked for advice to go to
cabinet about this very issue kids being excluded from extracurricular activities,
any evidence that we had that that was happening, and
(07:49):
how we could avoid that happening, also for the younger
age cohort who at that point still couldn't be vaccinated.
And so that was the paper, and where we arrived
at as a cabinet was that the best way of
dealing with that was just to remove all requirements from
that age cohort. So VACS seen passes, vaccine mandates and everything.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Yeah, Like I was really hot on it. I just thought,
how could you release how could you release a cabinet
paper and then say I didn't know what was in there.
It's either incompetence or.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Well No, that particular paper was about that issue around
extracurricular involvement, and the advice from December was slotted into
that paper. It kind of when you read the paper,
it actually kind of sits slightly out of place with
all of the rest of the advice and the paper.
But at the time all of that requirement was being removed.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Let's not talk about news talk, said b Dave. You
have a question for the leader of the opposition who
is in studio through until eleven.
Speaker 6 (08:47):
Yeah, hello, hello Chris Roger here. I just want to
ask the question if you've become next government or you
Reinstate three Waters and have unelected EUE sitting on the
three or four entities throughout New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
No, we're not going to Reinstate three Waters. I think
the reality is the local water done Well imposed by
this government's costing rate payers up and down the country
a lot more than they should be having to pay.
But undoing local water done Well is just going to
add to that cost, not subtract from it. So I
think we just have to move forward with what the
current government have put in place and try and find
ways to contain the cost as much as we can.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
I thank you, thank you very much for that. I
would said I wasn't going to do COVID again, and
I won't after this one. But three Waters also brought
it mine, Like the COVID spending, thirty odd billion went
to non COVID projects and that's something that your kids,
MI grandkids are going to be paying for for a
(09:47):
very very long time. Well, how would you justify that spending?
Speaker 3 (09:50):
Well, that's the Royal Commission's interpretation of what was COVID
spending and what wasn't. So within that they regarded the
money that we spent and enduring kids could learn from
home during COVID lockdowns, they regarded that as non COVID
spending and that was quite a significance s money.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Okay, what about the cameras on fishing boats.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
I think that that was clearly probably should have been
attributed to a different part of the government budgets. So
M quibble on that school lunch. The COVID nineteen Response
and Recovery Fund was also about the economic recovery as well,
and that included keeping people in jobs and making sure
that we were funding projects. Some of the shove already
projects for example, which the National Government are now busy
(10:32):
cutting ribbons on and saying how good they are. That's
amongst the spending that they're saying shouldn't have happened.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Paul Barrel politics too when you look at where it went.
Hello Shane Jones, thank you and Kushane for some of
the gorgeous facilities in the finals.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
And he seems very keen to claim the credit for that,
despite the fact that the government is part of now
is now part of was saying it was a waste
of money.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Well, a lot of it was. You know, would you
have you learned the I suppose have you learned the
lesson of unintended consequences because there was a lot of that.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Well, yeah, if you look at some of the community
facilities that were funded, I don't think they were a
waste of money. I think that they were actually very
good spending.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
They we know it was put under COVID spending and
necessary spending rather than nice to have spending.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Well, as I said, it was the COVID nineteen Response
and Recovery Fund, So keeping the economy moving, keeping people
in work was a big part of the recovery strategy.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
We'll take a short break and when we come back.
One of my favorite farmers has a question for you.
News Talk said, I hope it is indeed one of
my favorite farmers, and not another farmer with the same
name from the same district. Glenn.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
Good morning, Good morning, Carey, good morning, Chris. Oh no,
it is it is. I've here a tough question for you, Chris,
so betten down the hatches. So twenty twenty seven to
twenty twenty three, twenty seventeen to twenty twenty three, a
lot of New Zeand's measures got way worse. What kids
were stupid, more crime, harder to fill the fridge, harder
(11:56):
to get a doctor. How what's going to be different
this time? And don't say COVID because we've got the
Iraq war. You know they were around water. Deal with
this time? What's going to be different? What have you
learned so that if I vote to you in twenty
between nine, the kids aren't stupid and it's easier to
fill the forage.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Look, I don't think your kids were stupid at all
during any of that period of time. But but what
I what I would say is, you know, one of
the things that I have learned in my time in
politics is sometimes government needs to slow down a little bit.
I think one of the reasons that successive governments have
got things wrong in areas like infrastructure, some of the
decisions made in health and education is because every government's
(12:32):
trying to rush through changes so that they can stand
at the next selection and say, hey, look, here's this
change that we have done that's delivered instant results. And
there are very few problems that governments face that can
be solved with a quick fix. And so I think,
you know, one of my lessons is we need to
slow down a bit. And an area like infrastructure. You know,
I've said to the National Party we're open to taking
(12:53):
some of the politics out of that. On roads, you know,
let's stop arguing about roads. Let's just acknowledge we haven't
maintained them properly. We can't afford all the lovely gold
plated roads that they would like to be able to build.
Let's figure out a plan of what the country can
actually do over the next ten to fifteen years and
then let the road builders get on with it and
try and take some of the politics out of it.
Speaker 5 (13:14):
Supplementary if I could care, yes, supplementaryly yes. How do
you hold the line in the center against the Socialists
and the multi party who are going to be very,
very difficult to manage.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Yeah, I think that's a real issue on both sides
of the political aisle at the moment, because you see
it on the government side as well, where they've got
people you know, to their right flank who want to
pull things, you know, further to the right, and we've
got people to our left who want to pull up
further to the left. And my view on that's pretty clear.
People should still get the government that they vote for.
So if they're voting, you know, more people voted National
(13:45):
from the last election than voted for either ACT or
in New Zealand First, and yet I think ACT in
New Zealand First have been given a disproportionate sway in
this government. And so at the next election, my goal
is to make Labor the biggest party and that means
we should get the biggest say in government and the
smaller parties Yep, there should be some compromise, but they
shouldn't be able to force things through that there's no
public mandate for.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
And I think I'd really like to see because I
really think we can't afford the luxury of ideology right
now for the next six years. I don't think we
can afford the luxury of ideology. I think there really does.
As reading Liam Dan's piece as well, which echoed a
lot of thoughts that have been expressed on the radio.
We National and Labor as the two biggest parties, need
(14:26):
to work together to get us back on track, and
you can be ideological later.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
There are always going to be areas of disagreement. You know,
it's not much of a democracy if everybody just says, look,
vote for us, we'll do the same thing as then
we'll just do it differently.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
We want hospitals that work, and we want ones that
aren't moldy, and we want roads that aren't potholed. I
think the fundamentals are the same.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
The objectives are the same, that's true. But I think
what we've got to do is in areas like building
new hospitals, building new schools, building new roads, fixing the
water pipes, we've got to acknowledge that a whole lot
of that isn't vote winning stuff because it takes such
a long time. You know, building a new motorway is
a te near project. The person who turns the side
(15:08):
is not going to be the person who cuts the ribbon,
So let's just accept that there aren't going to be
votes to be one and doing a lot of the
unsexy part of this.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
As we grow up as voters, and let's just get
on and do it.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
So you know, we've prioritized building the shiny new things
over maintaining what we've already got.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
And lower point is a metaphor for the country.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
Absolutely well, I'll tell you, as Minister of Education, one
of the things that really frustrated me, and when it
comes to school buildings, was that we were having to
replace buildings, not because they shouldn't have been, you know,
still fit for purpose, but because they hadn't been maintained
and they were rotting. And if we'd just maintained to
them properly, we wouldn't have needed to replace them. So
it cost us more having to replace stuff than if
(15:52):
we had properly maintained it. And you look across the
country and you'll find examples of that in every sphere
of public infrastructure, whether at schools, hospitals, roads, water pipes,
the whole lot. And there's no vote in maintaining stuff,
but maintaining stuff is what we need to do a
lot more.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Of Absolutely, please tell me you won't reverse the curriculum.
I am seeing the changes with a nine year old
and a seven year old in the house. The maths
is just fantastic. The Royal Society said, thank god the
curriculum changes have happened. It's not just me, this is
the Royal Society of Mathematicians.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
I think the literacy and numeracy stuff has certainly been
heading in the right direction.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
It's phenomenal and it's a world of difference and you
must see it with your kids.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Yeah, but if you well yes and no. If you
look at the literacy stuff that was building very much
on the structured literacy approach that was being piloted when
we were in government, and they've adopted effectively a similar
approach in maths and that's going well. You get into
more controversy when you get into the social sciences and
the sciences areas.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
We just want the fundamentals, that's what parents were spending
money on.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
But I think so the extra stability in that literacy
and numerous area is certainly something will be aiming for.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
The leader of the Opposition is in studio taking your calls.
Eight hundred and eighty ten eighty. When are you going
to grasp the nettle and raise the retirement age or
just allow for people to get less of a super
at a younger age if they're if they qualify, their
bodies are packing up.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
We do have a challenge around retirement.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
You've got to work with National on NAT show, and I.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Think there does need to be some bipartis an agreement.
I don't think that raising the retirement age is the answer,
but I do think that we need to come up
with some long term consensus around what the answers should be.
The reason I don't think raising the age for everybody
is the answer is you do end up with people
who are physically naked by the time they get to
sixty five, and it tends to be people who have
been in lower income jobs who have less ability to
(17:50):
support themselves, and those are exactly the people who superannuation
should be all about. And so I don't think that
across the board raise of the age is the right answer,
but we're open to conversations about things about it.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
While other countries have been have been grasping the nettle, well,
it's a tough thing to do.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
I get that it's a tough thing to do, and
I think that the Fifth Labor Government actually sort of
grabbed the bull by the horns and establishing Kei We
Saver and gave us something that we can build on.
If you look at what the Aussies did with their
equivalent of Kei We Saver in the nineteen eighties. Took
them several decades, but they built up a scheme now
which means their superannuation costs a refraction of what ours
(18:28):
are because they have a retirement saving scheme that's helping
them out. The Key Savers laid the foundation. There's some
issues around how do you make sure it's fair for
people who are on lower incomes, like the self employed
people who at the moment are not going into Key
Savior because it's a way of giving themselves a pay rise.
If you don't have your money going into key We Savor,
you get a bit more cash in hand. We've got
(18:49):
to deal with those things to make sure it's fairer
for everybody. But I think Key We Save is a
really good start and it's a good foundation to build off.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Should it be means tested for.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
New Zealand superannuation. I wouldn't want to get into full
means testing of New Zealand superannuation. But you know there
are questions, and again I don't want to do this
on a unilateral basis. I think these have to be
conversations across the Parliament about whether somebody who is still
working full time earning a six figure salary should be
claiming superannuation. I'm open to a conversation about that, but
(19:23):
again I think it has to be done in a constructive,
bipartisan way.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
How long will you be talking before anything happens.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Well, I guess it depends that whether there's an appetite
across the Parliament to even have that conversation. But I
just don't think we've seen what happens when parties chop
and change on superannuation. It's how we got into this
mess in the nineteen seventies. What we've got now originated
from parties not being able to agree in the nineteen seventies,
and I think the way we get out of this
mess is we have to try and get some consensus
(19:51):
around it.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
How will you grow the economy? It's in a parlor state.
Whoever we want to blame for that, it's in a
parlor state. And while we're paying that debt, we're not
building roads or hospitals. We're not looking after people who
need help.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
We've got to focus on where the next sort of
generation of jobs for New Zealand are going to come from.
They're going to come from areas that are what i'd
say is adjacent to stuff we're already good at. So
if you take our primary industries, for example, we're really
good at producing food and the ingredients for food. What
can we do that adds value to that? So there's
research and development opportunities in the food space that we
(20:27):
need to do more of, supporting our farmers to add
value to their products. Same with wood. We've got it
growing trees, but what do we do to add value
to them? Was there's more jobs that can be attained
by not exporting raw logs but exporting finished products. There's
emerging areas for New Zealand around digital tech, for example,
and particularly the creative space that provides some great opportunities.
(20:49):
So we're good at making film and television and games.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Gaming is huge.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
Video gaming was the next big thing, so we introduced
a tax rebate in twenty twenty three for the gaming industry,
and it's already paid for itself. The government's already made
more in extra tax than it costs to go of
the you know, the text rebate.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Back and then the likes of Halter because of the.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
Growth in the area egretech. You know, Holt is a
great example fintech companies like zero Henry, you know, offering
really innovative fintech products. So find the areas where we're
doing well and say, okay, how do we build more
businesses in those areas. So rather than just say let's
go up onto a whole area which is well entirely new,
let's focus on the things that we know we're good
(21:31):
at and really focus on growing them. And then, you know,
international trade is a big part of that. So you know,
trade agreements are important, but we've got lots of opportunity.
Now we've got an EU Free Trade Agreement, a UK
Free trade Agreement, India Free Trade Agreement, China Free Trade Agreement,
lots of opportunities to grow. We've just got to make
sure that we've got stuff to sell.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Were you just playing hard to get when it came
to the FTA with India, No, you're not giving yourself
away too easily.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
I think there are still risks in that, but we
wanted to make sure we understood it so that we
could be clear on what businesses need to be aware of.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Okay, Lee, good morning to you.
Speaker 7 (22:07):
Good morning. Now I'm in business and I just struggled
to come to terms with what's happened with the public
service under Labor and then you've added sixteen thousand extra
public servants in the two terms you were in the
thirty four percent increase. You've gone from forty seven thousand
(22:28):
people to sixty three thousand people. In this age of
technology and of better working opportunities through it, I cannot
believe you need that amount of people. And it just
really shows me that you guys are totally incoonfident about
running a large company, which what the country is, because
(22:51):
you just could not get away with that in normal business.
Speaker 5 (22:53):
You'd be broke.
Speaker 7 (22:54):
And of course we're broke, and that's because you guys
have just spent so much money on this sort of stuff.
And I just would ask you, if you're going to
get back into power, are you going to take the
number back down to forty seven thousand again? Are you
going to leave the extra sixteen thousand people in place,
so they probably vote for you, so you're probably keep
from there.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Well, look, if all those people weren't doing valuable work,
I'm sure the current government would have got rid of
them by now. The reality is that the populations grow
and the demands on the public sector have grown, and
there are new challenges that the public expect the public
service to deal with. I do think there is opportunities
now though that even weren't available two years ago, let
alone six or seven years ago. AI provides an opportunity
(23:35):
for government to look at some of its processes and
how it can do those more efficiently. The potential to
digitize a lot more government services so that they are
more efficient, I think is growing by the day. We
looked at changing government departments, it systems, for example, hugely
expensive seven or eight years ago. A lot of the
cost of that is coming down dramatically though, And when
(23:58):
you improve the digitization of public services, yeah, there probably
do need to be less people in the back office
doing some of the menual processes that can now be
done to So, yes, I think there's opportunities, but I
think we've got to recognize that the public sector as
a proportion of the population hasn't grown that much. It's
that the population has grown and that citizen demands for
(24:18):
public services have grown.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
I haven't seen a huge demand for the Ministry for Women.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
If you look at areas, I mean, that's only at
the margin. If you look at areas we're grown, say,
take Ministry of Social Development. There's more processing involved, is
more to superinnuitance that you know, that involves more people
at the other end making sure you're getting your superannuation.
If you look at the Ministry of Education, where was
the growth there. It was in curriculum development, including things
(24:45):
like literacy and numerous.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Ensure that spent an absolute fortune on public servants, but
also outsourced to so many contractors. The money spent could
have gone to teachers.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
I think the outsourcing of the curriculum, which is so
here's what's happened since the election. They let go a
lot of the people we'd employed to do the curriculum.
And if now outsourced it a contract, that's what you
it's no cheaper doing outsourcing to contractors. The one area
I'd say, though, so again, take the Ministry of Education again,
begin increasing the number of people managing school buildings during
(25:17):
the time that I was Minister of Education. It's because
there's so much more work to be done. If we'd
maintain those buildings properly in the first place, and had
people doing that work in the first place, we wouldn't
have the bill that we're facing now.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Chloes Warbrick, co leader of the Greens, would like to
be finance minister.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
No, absolutely not. Well, not in a labor government.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
A labor coalition government. You're not going to get there
on your own.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Not in a labor coalition government either.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
As I said, already already have Yeah, I know, but
you're getting closer to the election, and I know your
poll numbers are looking good now, but once you release
policy it might change.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Look, the prime ministership and the finance portfolio should go
to the biggest party that's in government, and I think
that should be non negotiable.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
She might go with that.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
You'll be sorry, I'm not going to go and the
you know we're work with these people. Are those people
right now? We will set that out closer to the election.
You wouldn't work with that, But there are some bottom
lines and clearly, you know, having the finance portfolio held
by a smaller parties just isn't tenable.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Why not if she's the best person for the.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
Job, Because, as I said, the public should get broadly
what they vote for. And you know, when Labor or
National leader government, they have significantly more support generally speaking
than the smaller parties who make up part of the government,
and the governing arrangement arrangements should reflect that.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
At least she's releasing budgets and policies.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Well, and you know, you could critique much of that
on the basis that the economic forecasts and all those
numbers are changing, and I don't think that that's something
that I want to get into right at the moment.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Why three GP visits? I mean, I get a capital
gains tax are targeted capital gains tax, But why in
the name of all that is holy, with all that
is going on, would you put it to three GP
visits for people who don't need it?
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Because keeping people out of hospital, yes, yes, is one
of the best things we can do for the health system,
of course.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
It is, absolutely But why give it to people who
don't need them? Because why are you so obsessed with
universal when there are people who don't need it?
Speaker 3 (27:21):
Because many of those people are also ending up in
hospital with avoidable illness. They are you going to talk
to anyone in a hospital emergency department, They'll tell you
that there are people from across the economic spectrum ending
up in a hospital emergency.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Department wouldn't afford to go to a GPS.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
With conditions that could be dealt with by GPS.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
I think that is absolute, Tosh, well really do. I
think with what's going on, there is so much that
that are targeted Capital gains tax could go towards three
GP visits for every New Zealander is just pines.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
So our overall approaches around shifting their emphasis of the
health system from secondary care tertiary care basically dealing with
you once you're sick, to a much greater focus on prevent.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
So people talking because we've been talking about health who
said they've had three kolonoscopies they've paid for themselves because
of family history which have been worthwhile. They can afford
to pay for colon. They don't need three GP visits.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
So it's not just three GP visits. You've also got
to do more than screening. And you know we've we've
set outside he's going for that's what that's what we're
going to be paying for We're going to be paying
for more screening as well. So we've set out free
civical screening.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Tony doesn't need it or we won't pay for it himself,
thank you.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
But you can make that argument right the way through
the health system. Yes, so you're saying that we should
start means testing people when they arrive in hospital at.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Least give them a tax rebate when they pay for
their health.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
Injurery, I don't agree with that. I think healthcare should
be available to everybody. That is about having a public
health system. If you want to look at what a privatized,
you know, for profit, user pays health system really looks like,
go to the United States and look at the massive
inequalities that they create.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Look at a universal healthcare system in the NHS and
say that's hardly working, is it.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Well, if you look at I mean you can the NHS,
that's sort of matter for the UK. You can plan
for the US. Yes, you can find plenty of examples
of universally available public health systems where the health outcomes
are far better than in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
I just think that that who got into your head
that three GP visits was the cure all.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
I want people to be able to access preventive healthcare
rather than ending up in hospital.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
To do that as well. I want people who can't
afford to go to a GP, who are really concerned
about their health, who are working every hour God sends
and can barely get an appointment. I don't necessarily want
somebody who is even me, I can afford to go
to the GP. I don't need it. Give it to
somebody so they can have six visits to the GP.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Part of the social contract of your paying your taxes
is that you should also get access to public services.
You shouldn't just be paying for public SX for other
people as well.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
When I go to A and E, I'll get it
when I need it.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
And that's the problem. So a lot of people are
just waiting and ending up in A and E rather
than going to the doctor first. I'd rather people went
to the doctor first. Is going to save the country money.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
I okay, we're just not going to agree on this one. Graham,
good morning to you.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Yeah, Hi, Kerry, Chris was game good.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Quick Christian. There's a number of issues that are facing
our economy. Two of the biggest or energy costs and
productivity is talking to your producer about which one to
ask you about, because I think your oil and gas
ban is ideological nonsense, But I'm going to ask you
about productivity. So my view, education is a key to
improving work of productivity, and I think that charter schools
(30:44):
represent a real opportunity for kids that just don't fit
into the current education system. Now, I know you're going
to come back with their more expensive than state schools
and all that sort of stuff, But as a taxpayer,
I'd much rather fund a kid that goes to a
school where they're actually attending and learning something than having
them sit on the doll for the rest of their
life or worse, go on to crime. So are you
(31:06):
going to give up your ideological position with the Teachers'
union and actually back charter schools if you get into power.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
We don't support charter schools in the form that they're
in at the moment, But probably where you and I
would find some agreement is I do think that there
are alternative education models, alternative educations in area where we've
underinvested as a country for those kids who aren't fitting
well within the current mainstream schooling system. I don't think
converting existing mainstream schools into charter schools is the way
(31:34):
of dealing with that. But I think some additional alternative
education options for those kids who are not being well
served by the system is something that we need to
be able to do more of. So, yeah, I recognize
there are some niches there where we need to provide
different choices and different options to those kids so that
(31:55):
we can get them more engaged in their learning.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Hydro. Can you ever imagine New Zealand building another hydro dam?
Speaker 3 (32:02):
There may be some There may be possible. Ye, I
can imagine it.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
Not with Greens and Coalition though hydro. I mean, but
they don't like damaging the environment.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Well, you know, there's always a trade off here. Hydro's
good been very very good for New Zealand, so I
wouldn't rule it out. I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Okay, And where's the money going to come from for
the GPS. It's given that it's going to take time
for a capital gains tax the revenue from that to
flow through.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
So our fiscal plan does that over a four year
forecast period, so it spreads the cost over a four
year forecast, So the revenue from the Capital Gains tax
over a four year period more than covers the cost
of the free GP visits.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
Will it cover the fair pay.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
No, that's something that we will also be setting out
in our fiscal plan around how.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
We're going to do that.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
Well, we'll set that out in the fiscal plan. We've
got a lot of work to do to make sure
that we can balance the budget and that's one of
the reasons we're being very conscientious about not making promises
at this point that we might not be able to afford.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
So people who vote for you, thinking that they're going
to get the fair pay agreement settled might be just appointed. Well,
if we can't afford it, we can't afford it.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
Making sure we reinstate women's rights to fear pay is
something we're absolutely committed to. That doesn't mean, though, that
we can promise settlements on every individual claim within a
three year period. No government could make that promise.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
No national found that.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Well, but they just did. They give up. They gave
up trying. I think that there is a well.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
What was in the coffers and thought where we can
afford it?
Speaker 3 (33:29):
Well, yeah, but I don't think you can say that
and say, oh, women, sorry, you just got to be
paid less because we can't afford to pay you more.
It doesn't matter that we're paying the blokes more to
do the same work.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
I don't think that's the same anyway. That was That
was a whole other ideological things that this is your song.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Why I loved John Farnham. I grew up with John
Farnam was one of the first LP's that I owned
as a kid. You know LP's, remember, but back when
LP's were a thing.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
I think they still are. I think the cool kids
have got LPs in their house.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
Well, you know, I spent a very pleasant time with
a workshop down and put up on a turning LPs
into poppies for Poppy Day a few weeks ago. It
was great fun.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Okay, So, John Farnaman, you're the voice leader of the opposition,
a labor leader. Chris Hopkins will look forward to chatting
with you once you've got some policy that's exciting.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news
talks it be from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The MeatEater Podcast
Building on the belief that a deeper understanding of the natural world enriches all of our lives, host Steven Rinella brings an in-depth and relevant look at all outdoor topics including hunting, fishing, nature, conservation, and wild foods. Filled with humor, irreverence, and things that will surprise the hell out of you, each episode welcomes a diverse group of guests who add their own expertise to the vast world of the outdoors. Part of The MeatEater Podcast Network.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.