August 5, 2026 • 35 mins
Christopher Luxon says he supports having another referendum on the MMP voting system if he’s re-elected as he encourages greater support for National so the party can avoid working with “some yahoo and numpty” in Cabinet.
Act leader David Seymour says he’s not opposed to another referendum but suggests Luxon “may not have thought through what he’s saying” regarding ministers from other parties, noting the number of National ministers who had been dismissed this term.
Speaking on Newstalk ZB this morning, Luxon made the statement in response to a listener who had texted in asking whether the PM would address the power held by minor parties in governing arrangements.
Luxon initially pointed to the Government working towards a referendum on whether to extend government terms from three years to four, before saying he was “open” to asking voters whether they were “still supportive of MMP”.
Asked if he would do so if he were Prime Minister next year, Luxon replied: “Yeah, I think I would.”
He added: “I think I would because I actually think, you know, that it is quite right to check in constitutionally and say, is this the system, New Zealand, you still want?
“You know, you voted for this in the 90s, we’ve had a check-in in the [20]10s, 20 years down the road or whatever it has been, is it still where you want to be?”
Luxon went on to talk about his 20-person Cabinet, currently made up of ministers from National, Act and New Zealand First.
He argued the best way to provide a “strong and stable government” was to have as many National ministers in Cabinet as possible.
“When you have to form coalition governments, you don’t have the same values, you don’t have the same policies, you’re not talking to the same people.
“You try and find the common ground and I feel like I have done the best I can in two and a half years to find common ground on the economy, law and order, education and health.
“I think you’ve got to ask the question, I feel like I’ve got responsible, sensible ministers delivering: Mark Mitchell, Todd McCay, Erica Stanford Nicola Willis, Simeon Brown, Chris Bishop, you know, I’ve got amazing people doing incredible work who take it very seriously.
“The question is, I keep saying, I don’t need some yahoo or numpty from some other party around that table, I can do a lot more to get the centre-right agenda, centre being the operative word, done and out the door so think about your vote, November 7, it’s important.”
Asked if his current coalition partners were yahoos and numpties, Luxon replied: “No, I’m just saying I can do better with National Party ministers, I think New Zealand’s better served by that.”
Asked by ZB host Kerre Woodham if he’d prefer Mitchell around the Cabinet table over former National MP and current NZ First candidate Michael Laws, Luxon replied: “You said it.”
Act leader David Seymour defended the work of his ministers. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Speaking to the Herald, Seymour said he wasn’t certain whether Luxon was calling his ministers yahoos and numpties.
“Who knows, I suspect that he’s being a bit free-wheeling and may not have thought through what he’s saying there.”
Seymour noted how several National ministers had been dismissed during this term before pointing to work achieved by Act ministers, including on school attendance and reforms concerning the Holidays Act, Arms Act and the Resource Management Act.
“I’m not here to start bagging other parties’ ministers but I think anyone who’s an objective observer would say that Act ministers have been pretty effective.”
On a referendum, Seymour said he wasn’t opposed but said any change would be unlikely to be implemented until the 2032 or 2035 elections and there were “more urgent problems” to address.
In a statement on social media, Peters commended MMP for having “broke the stranglehold” of Labour and National on “running roughshod over our economy without social licence”.
“Now that the two old parties are losing their grip on power, they want to change the electoral system to favour their falling fortunes.”
Referencing the previous referendums in 1993 and 2011, Peters said people wanted different representation in Parliament than what Labour and National could provide.
“The old parties’ weak and inept attitude to economic sovereignty, immigration, and woke nonsense has seen people move to a part
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 Kerrywood and Morning's podcast from News
Talk sed B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Now only ninety three days remaining until the twenty twenty
sixth general election. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's been in the
top job for nearly three years and it's facing growing
scrutiny over the government's performance on key issues. He's with
us this morning to answer your questions. Prime Minister, Good.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Morning, Good morning Kerry. How are you very well?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Did you get here by private jet.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Or did you you the helicopter into the top of
the ZB building and repelled down the side to come
into your studio today?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Fantastic. Look, you might be doing a very good job,
but that's not what we're hearing. We're hearing you slagging
off business. We're hearing you being entitled and whizzing around
the country on the private jet. We're seeing that you
borrowed more than labor did. That's the narrative.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Well, look, I think we probably need to do a
better job of telling the story of what we have
been doing.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
You're an adman, for the love of all that. Normally
you've got the sausage sell this.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Not But that's what I mean. We've done a great job.
I think when you look at education, when you look
at the story on law and order and what we've
been doing there, we've done a lot of work. In
the economy, we actually we do have an economic upswing
going on in New Zealand. I know it's still tough
and difficult for some New Zealanders and I'm not belittling
that challenge. I mean that's a massive challenge as we've
been dealing with.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Did you underestimate the challenge before you went in?
Speaker 3 (01:27):
No, I don't think so. It's a deep turnaround job.
I mean we inherited not a great inheritance. Now that
there's no point talking about that. I've just got to
we now own it. We've got to fix it, and
that's what we're doing. But also, don't underestimate the size
of the challenge that we've got. I mean we're all
over it. I mean we've gone through COVID, We've gone
through inflation recession, We've gone through Trump's tariffs, we've gone
through Middle East events. You know where the events we
(01:50):
just get up on our foils and then we get
smacked again by another challenge. But you know, actually, when
you look through all of that, you know, the New
Zealand economy is rebounding. It's just that we want more
people to feel the benefits of that. If you're definitely
in the South Island. Yeah, we had unemployment numbers come
out this week. You know, we knew unemployment growth, inflation
would go up slightly because of the quarterly result through
(02:11):
April to June. There's uncertainty. Businesses don't hire, they don't grow,
they don't expand there's rising costs associated with oil costs.
So that's natural. But we've minimized those impacts as best
as we possibly can. And I think when international you know,
economists look at New Zealand and they say, hey, listen, you
know when you see through that we're going to we're
coming through that. So we've got massive growth on manufacturing, services, exports, tourism.
(02:33):
You know, we've got good levels of business, farmer investor confidence.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
How could you have done better?
Speaker 3 (02:39):
I just think we can. I think we can communicate
our story better of what we have been doing. Like
I genuinely think, you know, that's an area where we
need to do a better job at as we get
into this campaign.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
And that's kind of been one of your weaknesses. You
might be really good at the point of headed stuff,
and you might be very good at the management, and
you might be very good one on one. But from
the time we started, really you have had to go
back and explain I didn't mean that, know what I
meant it was, and that wastes time, and it wastes energy,
(03:10):
and it waste.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Sure, but look, I mean I've said right from the
get go. Look, I'm not a career politician. I'm here
because I believe in the country. I choose to do
this job, and I wanted to do this job because
I actually think we have amazing potential. I look around
the world, even two and a half years into it,
and I go, there is no better country position to
do incredibly well for itself. We're here because we want
to improve it for our kids and our grandkids. We're
(03:31):
not prepared to let it go from first world to
second world. You have to re earn that and you
have to, you know, as I keep saying, fix the
basics and build the future, and do the things that
set the country up for the future. And education reform
is one of those things. The trade and investment approach
of growing our exports where we export more to the
world rather than we import into the New Zealand. You know,
there's been a huge focus on that. There's been a
(03:51):
big focus on the biggest bureaucratic nightmare we have as
the RMA reforms. That stops anything from getting done or built,
and it just takes way too long. So those are
the things we're having to do. We're driving a car
and changing the wheel at the same time. And I
get it. You know, there's a lot of noise and
there's a lot of credits, and that just goes with
the territory. But you've got to see through that and
stay connected to the mission and the purpose, which is
(04:11):
to realize the potential that's in this great country.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I you know, I have absolutely no doubt about your
commitment and your capability. It's just frustrating when you have
to go back over and say, well, what I meant
was and you know, yeah, look, I guess there's somebody
else that can do the jas.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
But if you look at the you know, the rotor
of Business Chamber remarks, right, yeah, a lot of people
did understand what I was saying. I was trying to say, hey, listen,
the old world, where labor would dictate terms tell business
what to do, do things to farmers or two business owners.
That's got to stop, and we actually set the settings
up and then get out of the way, and you,
as a business owner, step up and go smack it
and go create the growth and opportunity. Now, some people
(04:52):
got what I was saying, but I don't think I
expressed myself as well as I could it because some
people didn't get that. They thought I was taking a
beat up on small businesses. Yeah, but the point is
I'm imperfect, and we're all in perfect as human beings.
And actually, I think when you're wrong, you sh could
come out and say so, and I think I did.
I said, you know, as a good leader, I think
leaders it's okay to admit you're not perfect and to
say I got that. You know, I could have expressed
(05:14):
myself better, you know, And I think that's important. I
get the politics and it's all a gotcha moment and
you know, blah blahlah, and the media will talk about
it for a week or so. But the point is, actually,
at the end of the day, look, yep, I could
have done that better. I'm said so, I'm sorry that
that offended anybody. I didn't mean to do that. I'm deeply,
deeply committed. The reason I'm here is because we've got
a fantastic country with so much potential, and I think
(05:34):
we not haven't realized it over many decades.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I think what annoyed business owners coming through on the
texts after that was that you haven't got rid of
the red tape. You haven't done your bit of the deal.
You haven't got rid of as much red tape as
you wanted to.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Perhaps no, look, I mean I get that, you know,
and people will say, well, how can you're not change anymore?
We get criticized for having done too much legislation and
too much change and too much churn, as they would say,
when you think about it, when you want to change anything,
you've got to have a policy. You've got to write
it up. You've got to go to a first radio.
It goes out up the public for six months, it
comes back for a second reading, and then a more debate,
(06:09):
then a third reading. Then it becomes a law. So
the process of a democracy is that, you know, that's
when you want to change something, that's the process. But
I think if you look at what we're doing on
RMA reform, what we're doing on fast tracked legislation to
try and get the country unblocked, you know, like it's
just been jammed up with so much bureaucracy and lots
of who we and discussion and debate and meetings, but
no one's actually getting anything done or built. How on
(06:31):
earth do you spend three hundred million dollars discussing Auckland
light rail for six years not a meter of track
or a route's even agreed, you know, how do you
spend one point two billion dollars discussing three waters? You know,
and we didn't get a decision. So we know we've
got some big challenges. You know, we were in the
top ten percent of infrastructure spenders in the world relatively,
but we're in the bottom ten percent of delivery and
we're the worse at managing the assets that we've got.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
You know, I will come back to that, because we
looked at I think so.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
There's quite a lot of challenges, right. I mean that's
distrapp but I mean it's just trying to say you
either have to get into the detail of how you
fix something, otherwise you're just papering over cracks. And I
think people are over that they need it, they need delivery, right, Okay,
I'll go.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
To one of our callers has got a full board. Albert,
good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Good morning morning when you're on air.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Ye Hey, Chris, I like the way that you're running
the economy. You have a plan for everything before you
came in. I believe that Labour thought that the dream
was a plan, like putting up the cycle away for
the Harbor Bridge. So many consultants, so much money wasted.
I see on social media a lot of comments from
(07:38):
Labour saying you didn't fix the economy you said you would.
I would like to see what that interest bill could
have paid for and be made more public to let.
Speaker 5 (07:52):
The common Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
I think people know of New Zealand. How many doctor
visits would that have paid for for the amount of
interest that we had on that wasteful spending of the
sixty billion that there wasn't even spent on a lot
of it on COVID. Yeah, look, I don't see that mentioned.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Yeah, Look, Albert, I think that's a fair challenge, which
is that one of the fundamental problems, you know, like
when you're trying to turn around, you what's the problem
you're trying to solve for Well, when you increase government
spending by eighty four percent, you've either got to raise
taxes or borrow more money. And the last government did
both actually, but they tripled the debt and went from
sixty to one hundred and eighty billion dollars. And you're right,
it's nine billion dollars worth of interest. Now people listening, go, Chris, well,
(08:29):
that's all very interesting. I don't know what billions or
millions actually is. But I could build four brand new
toned in hospitals every single year if I wasn't paying
the interest that was run up by the previous government.
And that's just the interest only. We're not paying down
the debt, we're just paying the interest only on that
and we have maxed out.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
That's why I want you to concentrate more.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
That's a fair challenge to what that could have paid for.
Speaker 5 (08:50):
Ye.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
But then al but at the same time you get
people saying, oh, yeah, all very well and good, but
that COVID was years ago, and what have you done?
Speaker 4 (08:57):
But in reality, I know it's a reality of debt.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Yeah, yeah, no, you're right, and that's the and again
my job is to fix it and try and find
a financial plan that actually, you know, it navigates New
Zealand through that so that we can get that interest
bill down and more important, we start paying off the raw,
you know, the absolute debt that we've got out there.
And that's why I think, you know, it's quite reckless either,
you know, and I get it, And I said at
the very beginning of the year. Election years is the
(09:21):
year when every political party comes to you with a
whole bunch of spending promises and then the only way
you can get to pay for it is tax you more,
or spend more or borrow more. And you know that's
caused so much pain and suffering, particularly to low and
middle income working New Zealanders, because they are the ones
that have got hurt because of the financial mismanagement. Now,
if you run it an economy sensibly and seriously, in
(09:44):
a mature way, you know you're doing it because it's
people lose their jobs. When inflation goes up and interest
rates go up and the economy slows down, people get
laid off. That's the reality of mismanagement of spending and
inflation and interest rates and growth. That's what I got
to fix.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
The other thing is, just before we go to the
break stuff. Did a story of the money that has
been wasted on stop start projects. That's counsels rate payers
as well as taxpayers. Nineteen billion dollars has been wasted.
A we've got to fixate and you reference that with
the infrastructure and perhaps that's with more cross party and
(10:20):
more and agreeing to it an index of works. See
other is how can you possibly justify the perks as
a former CEO, how can you possibly justify the perks
that MPs get in terms of their super and in
terms of licenses when we've got nineteen billion dollars that's
(10:41):
been wasted because of their mismanagement. You can't.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
No, I'm up for that conversation just so I.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Don't want a conversation. I want it gone.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
No, I get that, but just so you understand how
it's set up under legislation, under successive governments that have
done these deals with or and set parliamentary terms and conditions.
Some of it's controlled by the Speaker, a lot of
it's controlled by an independent remuneration authority, and a very
little bit of it's actually controlled by me under Ministerial Services.
The beginning of the parliament, I think there is a
need for us to actually go off and actually think
(11:09):
quite deeply about what, you know, why is it that
you get a completely different superannuation setup, or what the
post post political benefits have been. Now, some of that
is historical, you know, like, but I think that's right.
I think they are legitimate questions to ask. But let's
not pretend the major issue is that the previous government
increased be any bay eighty four percent. A lot of
it was wasteful. We've found fifty billion dollars and three
(11:32):
budgets of just savings in the back office and the
bureaucracy and just the dumb stuff, and that money has
been able to be funding our schools and our healthcare
system and those investments. So we have been better managers
of it. I get the point that you know, we've
been good managers of it, but we have to be
because that's actually how you get cheaper in more classrooms,
that's actually how you do get better healthcare outcomes.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
But I don't think the taxpath thinks we've got value
for money out of our MPs. As a successive government.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
That's a fair challenge. And as I said, I'm in
a difficult place because I don't set those terms and conditions.
There's sort of three actors in all of that conversation,
but I'm very up for us bringing it together and
involving you the other political party leaders as well, to say, hey, listen,
I think in a modern world, you know, there might
be a different way of in a simpler way of
actually doing terms and conditions for MP's as well. And
(12:18):
I've got some very firm views on it myself, but
let's keep saying out there.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
And now on to that discussion News Talk Seed, b
We've got a full board. I will get to you
as soon as we come back from our ad break.
It's ten nineteen News Talk, said b Oh, I'm already
behind to go me ten twenty two. Mark, a question
from you please?
Speaker 5 (12:37):
Oh Kyoda Kiri Kyda Prime Minister from how's everyone going there? Good? Good?
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Here?
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Who are you?
Speaker 5 (12:44):
Mark? Hey, I've got a four year old and like
yourself and like a lot of people around the country,
you know, where we're thinking about the future and how
things are changing rapidly, especially around the AI space right
And I'm just wondering because I listened to a lot
of podcasts and you know, you hear different views in that.
But I'm wondering what preparations you know, within your government
(13:07):
or you know, across the part across the parties, are
you guys having to prepare for conscious AI if everyone's
aware of what that is. I'm wondering is are you
kind of chatting about that and what preparations are you
doing or what are you predicting once conscious AI is
(13:27):
a thing?
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Yeah, really great question, Mark, really great question. There's there's
two flip sides to AI, which is one is it's
a huge productivity left for the country and for the economy.
We're in the bottom quarter on this thing called economic productivity,
embracing more technology, doing things more efficiently, you know, think
about our communications, our healthcare, you know, entertainment, all that stuff.
(13:49):
As there's real upsides to AI, but you're dead right,
there's also a lot that's a real challenge around the
potential dangers and evils of it. We've seen some of
the AI machines actually hacking into systems even in the
last week. Both Anthropic and chat GBT have talked about
that in the last three weeks. The way to deal
with that is it globally, we have to try and
get some common legislative frameworks in place, so us working
(14:10):
with the Australians on an AI strategy. The Brits in
particular have done some good thinking around that, but the
danger is the regulation can't keep up with the innovation
that's happening and the pace of that innovation coming as
quickly as possible. But we do need to work with
other like minded countries on the regulatory frameworks dealing with
global tech firms, particularly around the monitoring of AI and
how we deal with some of the evils and potential
dangers of it. But I also know in New Zealand
(14:32):
that we are behind the pace a little bit, certainly
in a government sense. We haven't been adopting enough technology
and the delivery of our services through to the public,
and there's real potential for us to do that in
a much better job, a much more efficient, higher quality
way as well. So there's pros and cons. You've got
to sort of embrace it so that we can get
the benefits of more productivity and better public servance services.
(14:53):
But equally we've got to work with other countries and
get legislative frameworks in place so we can avoid the
dangers and the perils of it. Which to be honest,
you know, let's be really honest about it. I don't
think anybody has the answer for that, because the technology
is evolving and even when you put legislative frameworks in
place within six months, it's the sort of out of
date within six seconds. Yeah, and so are your list
for AI. Yes, I've created a Minister for Digital which
(15:18):
was yeah. And I really think there's a massive opportunity.
Like if you're in New Zealander dealing with the government,
you have to go off and prove your ID. If
you want a mortgage, you've got to prove your income,
so you've got to go around lots of different places
and I prove all that stuff. We could automate all
of that things and make life a hell of a
lot easier for your resource consents. You know, we could
automate a lot of those things. So there's real upsides.
(15:38):
But Mark's right, there's real downsides potentially where it's coming.
But the answer is not to put our head in
the sand and be blood ites and not engage with
it and work with the messiness and the challenges of
it as well.
Speaker 7 (15:48):
Hi Glenn, good morning promotion.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
How are you good, Glenn?
Speaker 7 (15:52):
How are you going on great, thank you too?
Speaker 3 (15:55):
How much snow down south? Mate?
Speaker 7 (15:58):
Starting to mail here with about you? There's a bit
there's a bit of a round us munch and too
frost around.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Are you wearing long pants?
Speaker 3 (16:05):
I've got long He's probably probably.
Speaker 8 (16:10):
Not sure.
Speaker 7 (16:11):
So you know th time the National Party break backs
for your Prime minister. The first one I've heard you
speak at terraces.
Speaker 9 (16:17):
And I really enjoyed it, and I couldn't get a
chance to talk to you. I talked to Myles and
he explained to me about not doing austerity, not doing
a black budget, holding the deficit so you can take
down the debt and play the lane.
Speaker 7 (16:32):
And check it down.
Speaker 9 (16:33):
He's the only person who's explained it to me. I
haven't heard it from there, and I haven't heard it
from Michela, and that means if I haven't heard it,
I hear everything so the rest of the countries. So
that's quite a strategic thing that you probably haven't really explained. Yep.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Okay, not austerity and not spending money to stimulate to
find away.
Speaker 9 (16:51):
And the second one is your real action campaign, what
I really really want you to get back okay, And
it seems to me at the moment it's we're not
labor and we're not New zeal On first, but it's
not really very positive about what you actually we are,
like a small seat conservative, liberal capitalist seen to write
Martyr's Party. You know, there's a whole lot of really
(17:14):
good stuff about the National Party and not really be
talking about it. You know, you've got we know, we
know what the left again to do, right, we know
about the libertarians small Government Act, that's not us. We
know about you know, populist racism and all the reenophobia
as you know, we don't that's not actually either. And
he's on threat. So I really want to just lean
(17:34):
into what you are and not be scared of it
because most of us like it. That's one most of
us votes for you. So yeah, just please please lean
into it.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Good challenge, Glenn, That's exactly what we want to do
in the campaign. So fix the basics. Build the future.
We've got a great future. Got to do some big
things for our kids and our green kids, and that's
really what we're about.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
If Glenn gets sick of getting up in early morning
to go out into those cold frosts and make money
for the country, he could always be your campaign managers.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Well, I mean it sounds like he isn't it's everything,
so he sounds like a smart guy. So it's just
like a music doing. You might want to come to Parliament.
I'd say very much.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
You loved Glenn just as much as we do. And
I agree with the last caller. Don't sit on the
fence to try and please everyone. Stick your neck out
of it and be honest. Then don't apologize for it. Oh,
we forgot so much advice for you.
Speaker 10 (18:18):
Hello Peter, Yeah, good morning, Prime Minister.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Hey Peter, how are you?
Speaker 10 (18:22):
Kerry good good mote. I spoke to you on the
station three years ago about married him and how much
married him is in amongst the government legislation and all
that sort of. And since ninety ninety collective governments have
paid out two point eight billion. Your government has spent
one hundred and seventy million in the last three years
on married payouts, and you've committed to another one point
(18:42):
four billion for future payouts between twenty five and twenty
twenty nine. My question is when will this stop? Because
you can't. Everybody sees you're a great businessman, but if
a businessman had this empty buck held this hole in
the bucket that they were tipping money into. Wouldn't they
fix the hole in the bucket and then and then
put the money in. But there seems to be a
(19:04):
never ending story and seending our country broke. I mean
major things like the Trump Trump tariff. You recited those. Well,
I think this is as big as that. And it's
holding our country to rentsom for fifteen percent of the
of the population. And it seems that you're scared of
the rhetoric that goes with it. We're all one country,
(19:25):
so let's you know, let's support us one country and
financially we can't who we're tipping it sort of money
into a bucket.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Yeah. Well, look, we have what we call treaty obligations,
and that's about treaty settlements, and I think we've progressed.
I think, you know, ten or twelve extra treaty settlements
over our period of time, either completed or in progress.
You know, that's something that we agreed as a country
back in the nineties, and you know, we think is
on balance. You know, I get that we people who
are against that. There were people who don't think that
goes far enough. But in general, across all the political spectrum.
(19:53):
We've said, actually that's actually kind of important, and honoring
those treaty settlements is kind of quite key. I think
what's been quite exciting with some of the investment though,
is that you're now seeing EWE work with international investors
to build out things like a billion dollars worth of
inland port development and Ruakura for example, or wanting to
partner in some of the energy investments, whether it's been
solar or wind across the country or aquaculture investments. So
(20:16):
these are getting to be some pretty sophisticated corporate entities
that are actually driving a lot of export growth and
bringing a lot of export earnings back home to New Zealand.
And so look, I mean, we we have, you know,
we've we felt there was things that were about out
of balance. That's why we pushed you know, Maori wards
back to local governments to make those local communities to
make those decisions. We didn't believe we needed a separate
Maori Health authority. We disbanded all of that. You know,
(20:38):
there are things you know we've you know you know
that we've we've, but but there is also investment that
goes in to actually power up an economy not just
for Maori, but for all New Zealanders. Through that that
investment being applied and partnered often with other partners to
build out key infrastructure the country needs.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Uh, Peter, good morning to you.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
Wanting for my minister.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
Hey, how are you good?
Speaker 6 (21:01):
I love what you're doing keen supporter, But hey, it's
just one thing i'd like.
Speaker 8 (21:06):
Can I know Nikola dipped to tow in the water
of a few months ago about this charitable trusts.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Yeah, so it's a really good I think I think
we would also be included in that.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Yeah. Look, I mean I think the issue on charitable
trust we made a change at the budget which was
saying because what had happened was some people were forming
charitable trusts and actually that money wasn't for charitable purposes.
It was often for a wealthy family to employ their
children in order to do a bunch of things. I
think we haven't got that one hundred percent right. You know,
when I talk to some of the charities across the country,
it's those that are giving donations over one hundred thousand
(21:40):
dollars that we put the changes around. And I know
Simon Watts and Nicola are going to go back and
have a think about whether there's something we can do
different there, because I don't think we got We were
trying to solve a problem, which was these charitable trusts
that actually weren't being deployed for charitable purposes ultimately, and
the money wasn't getting out to charities. And that's and
in doing that, we may have actually shut off actually
(22:00):
their ability for people who generally are making investments to
charities across the country, we desperately need those funds. That
may have been a disincentive for that. So we're going
to go back and just see what there's any tweaks
when you do that.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
But also what about taxing charities too that operators big business?
Speaker 3 (22:13):
Yeah, and that's right, I mean, and there are some
other big organizations that tanks. Yeah, and you've got to
ask those questions as well. That what we did in
May was actually a bit more surgical and a bit
more specific around these charitable trusts that actually you know,
as I said, were are you going to do.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
About the others that are operating and making good money?
Speaker 5 (22:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Well, we will continue to look at that. I mean,
Ewe's more challenging, but there are other organizations that are
actually presenting as charitable trusts, and actually there's a Charities Commission.
They've got to make those decisions about whether they do
or don't mix it. You know, we've had conversations about
Destiny Church. There's a whole bunch of them around the place,
right that actually legitimately good questions at the Charities Commission
and Louise Upson are looking at.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Rob, good morning to you. You've got a question around charities.
Speaker 6 (22:53):
Are you a good morning? Prime Minister? You may not recall,
but at the end of last year on Carey's show,
I raised with you the issue of the forty four
budgeting services that already fund your minister up and you
were going to look into it. I'd love to hear
what you found when you looked into it, But in
the meantime, I'd be interested to know whether you think
(23:16):
it's fair and ethical that budgeting services should be expected
to work for the government on a pro bono basis
when you are very keen on user pays for the
government services.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
What's your read, Rob? You don't think it's got any
better since we last spoke, not.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
At all at all, and in fact, every day, every
week we get requests from Work and Income kind AURA,
Department of Corrections, Ministry of Justice, Health New Zealand. We're
all New Zealand Navy to offer budgeting advice and financial
libacy education to their clients and in many cases their staff.
But there's no funding they want, they expect us to
(23:55):
do it for nothing.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Yeah, right, and that hasn't been fixed. Can I ask
you a different Can I ask you a different question
on financial literacy? What is your view on what we
should do there? Because you know that is as we
try and do KII savor and savings and investment and
you know and over got to get people your budgetary
advice and financial literacy. But how would we be best
to tackle that? Because there's lots of ideas around that,
(24:17):
you talk to lots of people and lots of different thoughts.
What would be yours?
Speaker 6 (24:21):
There's two things here. One, I'm very very much in
favor of bringing it into school because I think I
think you have you solve on the long term, a
generation leadship because the kids will take it home. But
we have problems right now. And I'll give you a
very brief example.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
It'll have to be we actually, it'll have to be
like one line, Rob.
Speaker 6 (24:43):
Okay, we go into every prison in Auckland is to
teach financial literacy as a part of the rehabilitation program.
But there's no funding for it. Everyone agrees it's a
good thing, but there's no funding for it.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
There's funding for dollars for massage. Yeah, and that's exactly
the madness of the system. So we could Yeah, Rob
raises a very good point, as he did last time
as well. So let me go talk about that one again.
I'll go back to my system and find out what
is going on. I'll follow up on that. Please do
hold me to account. I'm happy to take Rob's number
and give them a call afterwards too.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Text to rights and this is just what we were
talking about, Chris rights to the PM. We seem to
talk about charities all the time, but never outcomes too
many fake charities I think since.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
Chris, yeah, I mean, Rob rais is a really good point.
But I just as I said to you in the break,
the real challenge we've got as a government has We've
got tens of thousands of social service contracts right that
have been built up over decades, like the last thirty
years or so, and the process of actually applying for
funding by the time you get the funding. By then
you get the funding, then you go hire the social
workers you need or the budgetary advisory people you need,
(25:45):
and then you're up for another round of funding again.
And we have to reimagine how we can do that
because all we're managing is complexity, and we're actually just
churning like we do on everything planning, social services provisions,
contracting for these things. And actually we've got to say, look,
there's partners that we can work with on say budgeting services.
It should be like a five to ten year contract
and then you've got certain to hire the right people
(26:07):
to know that next year. I don't have to lay
someone off Prime Minister, no, I know. But so what
I have to do is get the operating system right,
you know, because I can't do whack a mole on
every single problem that we've got with every single social
service provision. And that's what Nicola and I have been
trying to work through what we call the Social Investment
Agency is reimagine a whole different way of doing things. So,
(26:27):
for example, there are some EI organizations that have some
outstanding health organizations as part of their organizations. We've put
fifty million dollars I remember in the very first few
weeks with them, and they've delivered an improvement and immunization
rates for under twos so important because we shouldn't have
hooping cough, and we shouldn't have meningitis and a whole
bunch of things that we can avoid through good vaccination programs.
(26:49):
And they need to build they've got better social license
to make the case for those vaccinations. With the community.
You're better than a government, absolutely, and so why wouldn't
you contract with them long term? Say I'm expecting you
to get it from sixty percent to ninety percent. And
it's Mary non mariy and that's what they've been doing.
They've done an exceptionally good job with non Maori as
much as Maori. And that's the sort of stuff we
(27:11):
want to do a lot more of. But for me,
I've got to run the operating system, and then there's
all these apps that sit on top of it, and
I'm trying to sort of that's what I saying. When
we fix the basics, it's this basic stuff that we
just think, you know, we should be able to do.
Procurement of exit of social services, and yet we create
just complexity for everyone. All we're doing is moving paperwork
around and constantly just doing short term stuff and not
(27:32):
actually doing the long term outcomes that we're trying to
deliver on, which is we know in healthcare, immunization rates
for under twos are really important. First specialist appointments, elective surgery,
weight LISS, emergency department wait times, and the fifth one
is actually can to treatment plans. And so you know
that's the health outcomes. And education, it's attendance services. You
know we're working with different organizations get kids into school. Well,
we have got one hundred and seventy five thousand more
(27:53):
kids back in regular school attendance. It's gone from forty
five to almost seventy percent. And that's good because they're
back in school and they can learn and that sets
them up for higher paying jobs. But you can imagine
everything that you touch. You've got to be clear on
what's the common education and healthcare you're looking for, and
then contract for the outcome rather than just for the funding.
You know, your funding is delivering that outcome. You're buying
(28:14):
an outcome a seense.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
So you're working on thirty year old systems.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
Oh everything. I mean, you think about all of the
IT issues you've heard about recently, like our IT systems,
there is twenty different DHBs. There's not one single medical
health so if you move, you know you got broke
your leg down in Wellington partying or dancing on a
table and a restaurant down there doing what you would do.
But you know, like actually, no one can just pull
up a unified carey wood and medical record, right and
(28:39):
you just think that for interestingly what they do. But
in twenty twenty six, these are sorts of things that
we have to do and that's where embracing the technology
is important, but thinking about the models by which we
do the stuff. So it's hard, right, it is hard,
and everyone wants change like yesterday, and I get it,
but it's just and I'm not making it as an excuse.
I'm just trying to give a sense of the complexity
when I say something like we've got to fix the basics.
(29:01):
This is the stuff we're talking about.
Speaker 8 (29:02):
Okay, morning, good morning mister Luxton.
Speaker 6 (29:09):
Hi.
Speaker 8 (29:09):
I'm traditionally a National Party voter.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
However, I am concerned.
Speaker 8 (29:14):
About the road user charges that you're talking about implementing
Now my understanding is for a for a car, they're
going to be set at the same rate as they
are for a light diesel vehicle, which is seventy seven
dollars per thousand k's. The current excise tax, I understand
is seventy cents in the LITA. So if you've got
(29:35):
a car that's consuming ten leaders per one hundred k
and in today's well that's a relatively thirsty car, you're
paying set currently paying seventy dollars in road user charges
or excise taxes. Under the new regime, you'll be paying
seventy seven dollars. So that's a ten percent increase assuming
(29:56):
that your car is using ten leaders per thousand k's.
If your car is using more are less, I mean,
then you'll be paying a higher percentage break. And on
top of that, there'll be some quite a lot of
hardware that has to be installed in every car in
New Zealand because it's going to be electronic. As my understanding,
(30:17):
who's going to pay for that?
Speaker 3 (30:18):
Yeah. Look, so we're taking a step back and saying, look,
the way we fund our road investment is actually through
excise tax As you know, it hasn't lifted essentially since
twenty twenty, and you know, because we know people are
doing it quite tough, and we sort of said we'd
keep that stable. But the consequences you then don't have
the funds raised to be able to do the road
renewals you need to do, et cetera. The second big
thing that's happening is you've got EV vehicles out there
(30:40):
that are actually essentially not paying their fair share because
they are it's just about weight of vehicle on a
road and whether they are an EV or an EV
truck or whatever it is, they've been treated very differently
from say the petrol vehicles. So we're saying take a
step back, everybody, you take the excite, you move to
a basis where it's much more fair and more equal
about the respect of what vehicle type you've got. It's
(31:03):
about the you know, the wear and tear on our roads,
in our infrastructure that we've really got to manage for.
And that's why the EERUT system is the way we
want to go down the road. So look, I mean,
there's still a lot of detail to work through as
to how the final charges all ultimately end up, but
the intention is to start so that you know particularly
we came at it through the v ling saying it's
not fear that they actually are beating up the roads
(31:25):
with the weight of a car, but because of the
we don't charge them ex size tax because there's no
fuel involved, then they're not making a contribution to those roads.
And so we said, well, listen, as the mix of
our vehicles change and the fuel sources change, actually the
better way to go is just think about kilometers traveled
as the funding mechanism by which you would say that's
a fairer treatment of how people make a contribution to
(31:46):
the road. So I appreciate there'll be swings around about
some people have lots of debate about it. It's not
fully landed yet there's a lot in the detail as
exactly as you've just highlighted with your question.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
Andrew news Talk said, be sorry about the ads, but
we do have to pay for ourselves. We are user pays.
Otherwise we'd be, you know, coming to you looking for
money like Radio New Zealand. Well, yes New Zealand. Yes.
AE Texas says, can we have another referendum on MP
to stop this fars of five percent parties controlling the
outcome of government. Wow, amen to that.
Speaker 5 (32:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Look, I mean I think this is the reality of
it is that rightly or wrongly, New Zealanders have chosen
when they've been given the opportunity in an MMP system.
And if you're running a political party like me as
a national party leader, you know, people vote on election
day and then at the end of that night, my
real work begins, frankly, because I've got to find a
way to form a government with whatever the New Zealand
people have delivered for us on that election day. And
(32:39):
that's why I think New Zealanders need to understand it's
not first past the posts in an MMP system that
is unrealistic. Where in a Western Europeans set up like
you see in France, like you see in the Netherlands, Finland, Germany,
it's the same system. And if you look at those systems,
they've got up to four to eleven party coalitions in
some places, you know, because that's how perverse it's gone.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Well can we do because there'll be a whole generation
of voters who aren't the angry voters of yesteryear who
voted MMP. They didn't vote it in that they voted
against first past the post because of the Longi government
and the Bulger government.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
Sure, and we've had I think you know, Key had
a referendum on it as well, and I think that's
that's something we should consider whether we could should do
it next year. I think we should definitely a referendum
on the four year term and I'm open for saying
WHI should we send it back out to New Zealand
and a Saie still supportive for him?
Speaker 2 (33:26):
Would you do that if you're Prime minister next year?
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Yeah, I think I would. Yeah, I think I would
because I actually think you know, that is quite right
to check in constitutionally say is this the system of
New Zealand you still want? You know, you voted for
this in the nineties, We've had a chicken in the tens,
twenty years down the road or whatever it has been.
Is it still where you want to be? But I
just do want to remind people I have a table
on the tenth floor with twenty seats around. It's called
the Cabinet Room. It's a small room, but it's got
(33:50):
twenty seats around that seats. I want as many National
Party minutes as possible. That's my best way to be
able to give it strong and stable government and to
get things done. When you have to form coalition governments,
you don't have the same values you always you don't
have the same policies. You're not talking to the same people.
You try and find the common ground. I feel like
I have done the best I can in two and
a half years to find common ground on the economy.
(34:11):
Education doesn't it. It does an election year and you've
only been going two years and the full year the
third year has really spent. You know, everyone gets into
election mode, media, everybody. So I think you got to
ask the question. I feel like I've got responsible, sensible
ministers delivering, Mark Mitchell, Todd McClay Erica Stanford, Nichola Willis,
you know, Simon Brown, Chris Bishop, you know, I've got
amazing people doing incredible work who take it very seriously.
(34:34):
And the question is I keep saying, is I don't
need some Yahoo and numpty from some other party around
that table. I can do a lot more to get
the center right, agenda in the center being the operative
word done and out the door. So think about your
vote November seven, that's really important.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Are your other coalition partners full of Yahoo's and Numpties.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
No, I'm just saying I can do better with the
New Zealand with National Party ministers. I think New Zealand's
better served by that.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
You'd rather have Mark Richell than Michael Laws around the table.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
You said it.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings. Listen live to
news Talks it Be from nine am weekdays. Follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Kerrywood and Morning's podcast from News
Talk sed B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Now only ninety three days remaining until the twenty twenty
sixth general election. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's been in the
top job for nearly three years and it's facing growing
scrutiny over the government's performance on key issues. He's with
us this morning to answer your questions. Prime Minister, Good.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Morning, Good morning Kerry. How are you very well?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Did you get here by private jet.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Or did you you the helicopter into the top of
the ZB building and repelled down the side to come
into your studio today?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Fantastic. Look, you might be doing a very good job,
but that's not what we're hearing. We're hearing you slagging
off business. We're hearing you being entitled and whizzing around
the country on the private jet. We're seeing that you
borrowed more than labor did. That's the narrative.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Well, look, I think we probably need to do a
better job of telling the story of what we have
been doing.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
You're an adman, for the love of all that. Normally
you've got the sausage sell this.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Not But that's what I mean. We've done a great job.
I think when you look at education, when you look
at the story on law and order and what we've
been doing there, we've done a lot of work. In
the economy, we actually we do have an economic upswing
going on in New Zealand. I know it's still tough
and difficult for some New Zealanders and I'm not belittling
that challenge. I mean that's a massive challenge as we've
been dealing with.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Did you underestimate the challenge before you went in?
Speaker 3 (01:27):
No, I don't think so. It's a deep turnaround job.
I mean we inherited not a great inheritance. Now that
there's no point talking about that. I've just got to
we now own it. We've got to fix it, and
that's what we're doing. But also, don't underestimate the size
of the challenge that we've got. I mean we're all
over it. I mean we've gone through COVID, We've gone
through inflation recession, We've gone through Trump's tariffs, we've gone
through Middle East events. You know where the events we
(01:50):
just get up on our foils and then we get
smacked again by another challenge. But you know, actually, when
you look through all of that, you know, the New
Zealand economy is rebounding. It's just that we want more
people to feel the benefits of that. If you're definitely
in the South Island. Yeah, we had unemployment numbers come
out this week. You know, we knew unemployment growth, inflation
would go up slightly because of the quarterly result through
(02:11):
April to June. There's uncertainty. Businesses don't hire, they don't grow,
they don't expand there's rising costs associated with oil costs.
So that's natural. But we've minimized those impacts as best
as we possibly can. And I think when international you know,
economists look at New Zealand and they say, hey, listen, you
know when you see through that we're going to we're
coming through that. So we've got massive growth on manufacturing, services, exports, tourism.
(02:33):
You know, we've got good levels of business, farmer investor confidence.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
How could you have done better?
Speaker 3 (02:39):
I just think we can. I think we can communicate
our story better of what we have been doing. Like
I genuinely think, you know, that's an area where we
need to do a better job at as we get
into this campaign.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
And that's kind of been one of your weaknesses. You
might be really good at the point of headed stuff,
and you might be very good at the management, and
you might be very good one on one. But from
the time we started, really you have had to go
back and explain I didn't mean that, know what I
meant it was, and that wastes time, and it wastes energy,
(03:10):
and it waste.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Sure, but look, I mean I've said right from the
get go. Look, I'm not a career politician. I'm here
because I believe in the country. I choose to do
this job, and I wanted to do this job because
I actually think we have amazing potential. I look around
the world, even two and a half years into it,
and I go, there is no better country position to
do incredibly well for itself. We're here because we want
to improve it for our kids and our grandkids. We're
(03:31):
not prepared to let it go from first world to
second world. You have to re earn that and you
have to, you know, as I keep saying, fix the
basics and build the future, and do the things that
set the country up for the future. And education reform
is one of those things. The trade and investment approach
of growing our exports where we export more to the
world rather than we import into the New Zealand. You know,
there's been a huge focus on that. There's been a
(03:51):
big focus on the biggest bureaucratic nightmare we have as
the RMA reforms. That stops anything from getting done or built,
and it just takes way too long. So those are
the things we're having to do. We're driving a car
and changing the wheel at the same time. And I
get it. You know, there's a lot of noise and
there's a lot of credits, and that just goes with
the territory. But you've got to see through that and
stay connected to the mission and the purpose, which is
(04:11):
to realize the potential that's in this great country.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I you know, I have absolutely no doubt about your
commitment and your capability. It's just frustrating when you have
to go back over and say, well, what I meant
was and you know, yeah, look, I guess there's somebody
else that can do the jas.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
But if you look at the you know, the rotor
of Business Chamber remarks, right, yeah, a lot of people
did understand what I was saying. I was trying to say, hey, listen,
the old world, where labor would dictate terms tell business
what to do, do things to farmers or two business owners.
That's got to stop, and we actually set the settings
up and then get out of the way, and you,
as a business owner, step up and go smack it
and go create the growth and opportunity. Now, some people
(04:52):
got what I was saying, but I don't think I
expressed myself as well as I could it because some
people didn't get that. They thought I was taking a
beat up on small businesses. Yeah, but the point is
I'm imperfect, and we're all in perfect as human beings.
And actually, I think when you're wrong, you sh could
come out and say so, and I think I did.
I said, you know, as a good leader, I think
leaders it's okay to admit you're not perfect and to
say I got that. You know, I could have expressed
(05:14):
myself better, you know, And I think that's important. I
get the politics and it's all a gotcha moment and
you know, blah blahlah, and the media will talk about
it for a week or so. But the point is, actually,
at the end of the day, look, yep, I could
have done that better. I'm said so, I'm sorry that
that offended anybody. I didn't mean to do that. I'm deeply,
deeply committed. The reason I'm here is because we've got
a fantastic country with so much potential, and I think
(05:34):
we not haven't realized it over many decades.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I think what annoyed business owners coming through on the
texts after that was that you haven't got rid of
the red tape. You haven't done your bit of the deal.
You haven't got rid of as much red tape as
you wanted to.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Perhaps no, look, I mean I get that, you know,
and people will say, well, how can you're not change anymore?
We get criticized for having done too much legislation and
too much change and too much churn, as they would say,
when you think about it, when you want to change anything,
you've got to have a policy. You've got to write
it up. You've got to go to a first radio.
It goes out up the public for six months, it
comes back for a second reading, and then a more debate,
(06:09):
then a third reading. Then it becomes a law. So
the process of a democracy is that, you know, that's
when you want to change something, that's the process. But
I think if you look at what we're doing on
RMA reform, what we're doing on fast tracked legislation to
try and get the country unblocked, you know, like it's
just been jammed up with so much bureaucracy and lots
of who we and discussion and debate and meetings, but
no one's actually getting anything done or built. How on
(06:31):
earth do you spend three hundred million dollars discussing Auckland
light rail for six years not a meter of track
or a route's even agreed, you know, how do you
spend one point two billion dollars discussing three waters? You know,
and we didn't get a decision. So we know we've
got some big challenges. You know, we were in the
top ten percent of infrastructure spenders in the world relatively,
but we're in the bottom ten percent of delivery and
we're the worse at managing the assets that we've got.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
You know, I will come back to that, because we
looked at I think so.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
There's quite a lot of challenges, right. I mean that's
distrapp but I mean it's just trying to say you
either have to get into the detail of how you
fix something, otherwise you're just papering over cracks. And I
think people are over that they need it, they need delivery, right, Okay,
I'll go.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
To one of our callers has got a full board. Albert,
good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Good morning morning when you're on air.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Ye Hey, Chris, I like the way that you're running
the economy. You have a plan for everything before you
came in. I believe that Labour thought that the dream
was a plan, like putting up the cycle away for
the Harbor Bridge. So many consultants, so much money wasted.
I see on social media a lot of comments from
(07:38):
Labour saying you didn't fix the economy you said you would.
I would like to see what that interest bill could
have paid for and be made more public to let.
Speaker 5 (07:52):
The common Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
I think people know of New Zealand. How many doctor
visits would that have paid for for the amount of
interest that we had on that wasteful spending of the
sixty billion that there wasn't even spent on a lot
of it on COVID. Yeah, look, I don't see that mentioned.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Yeah, Look, Albert, I think that's a fair challenge, which
is that one of the fundamental problems, you know, like
when you're trying to turn around, you what's the problem
you're trying to solve for Well, when you increase government
spending by eighty four percent, you've either got to raise
taxes or borrow more money. And the last government did
both actually, but they tripled the debt and went from
sixty to one hundred and eighty billion dollars. And you're right,
it's nine billion dollars worth of interest. Now people listening, go, Chris, well,
(08:29):
that's all very interesting. I don't know what billions or
millions actually is. But I could build four brand new
toned in hospitals every single year if I wasn't paying
the interest that was run up by the previous government.
And that's just the interest only. We're not paying down
the debt, we're just paying the interest only on that
and we have maxed out.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
That's why I want you to concentrate more.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
That's a fair challenge to what that could have paid for.
Speaker 5 (08:50):
Ye.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
But then al but at the same time you get
people saying, oh, yeah, all very well and good, but
that COVID was years ago, and what have you done?
Speaker 4 (08:57):
But in reality, I know it's a reality of debt.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Yeah, yeah, no, you're right, and that's the and again
my job is to fix it and try and find
a financial plan that actually, you know, it navigates New
Zealand through that so that we can get that interest
bill down and more important, we start paying off the raw,
you know, the absolute debt that we've got out there.
And that's why I think, you know, it's quite reckless either,
you know, and I get it, And I said at
the very beginning of the year. Election years is the
(09:21):
year when every political party comes to you with a
whole bunch of spending promises and then the only way
you can get to pay for it is tax you more,
or spend more or borrow more. And you know that's
caused so much pain and suffering, particularly to low and
middle income working New Zealanders, because they are the ones
that have got hurt because of the financial mismanagement. Now,
if you run it an economy sensibly and seriously, in
(09:44):
a mature way, you know you're doing it because it's
people lose their jobs. When inflation goes up and interest
rates go up and the economy slows down, people get
laid off. That's the reality of mismanagement of spending and
inflation and interest rates and growth. That's what I got
to fix.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
The other thing is, just before we go to the
break stuff. Did a story of the money that has
been wasted on stop start projects. That's counsels rate payers
as well as taxpayers. Nineteen billion dollars has been wasted.
A we've got to fixate and you reference that with
the infrastructure and perhaps that's with more cross party and
(10:20):
more and agreeing to it an index of works. See
other is how can you possibly justify the perks as
a former CEO, how can you possibly justify the perks
that MPs get in terms of their super and in
terms of licenses when we've got nineteen billion dollars that's
(10:41):
been wasted because of their mismanagement. You can't.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
No, I'm up for that conversation just so I.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Don't want a conversation. I want it gone.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
No, I get that, but just so you understand how
it's set up under legislation, under successive governments that have
done these deals with or and set parliamentary terms and conditions.
Some of it's controlled by the Speaker, a lot of
it's controlled by an independent remuneration authority, and a very
little bit of it's actually controlled by me under Ministerial Services.
The beginning of the parliament, I think there is a
need for us to actually go off and actually think
(11:09):
quite deeply about what, you know, why is it that
you get a completely different superannuation setup, or what the
post post political benefits have been. Now, some of that
is historical, you know, like, but I think that's right.
I think they are legitimate questions to ask. But let's
not pretend the major issue is that the previous government
increased be any bay eighty four percent. A lot of
it was wasteful. We've found fifty billion dollars and three
(11:32):
budgets of just savings in the back office and the
bureaucracy and just the dumb stuff, and that money has
been able to be funding our schools and our healthcare
system and those investments. So we have been better managers
of it. I get the point that you know, we've
been good managers of it, but we have to be
because that's actually how you get cheaper in more classrooms,
that's actually how you do get better healthcare outcomes.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
But I don't think the taxpath thinks we've got value
for money out of our MPs. As a successive government.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
That's a fair challenge. And as I said, I'm in
a difficult place because I don't set those terms and conditions.
There's sort of three actors in all of that conversation,
but I'm very up for us bringing it together and
involving you the other political party leaders as well, to say, hey, listen,
I think in a modern world, you know, there might
be a different way of in a simpler way of
actually doing terms and conditions for MP's as well. And
(12:18):
I've got some very firm views on it myself, but
let's keep saying out there.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
And now on to that discussion News Talk Seed, b
We've got a full board. I will get to you
as soon as we come back from our ad break.
It's ten nineteen News Talk, said b Oh, I'm already
behind to go me ten twenty two. Mark, a question
from you please?
Speaker 5 (12:37):
Oh Kyoda Kiri Kyda Prime Minister from how's everyone going there? Good? Good?
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Here?
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Who are you?
Speaker 5 (12:44):
Mark? Hey, I've got a four year old and like
yourself and like a lot of people around the country,
you know, where we're thinking about the future and how
things are changing rapidly, especially around the AI space right
And I'm just wondering because I listened to a lot
of podcasts and you know, you hear different views in that.
But I'm wondering what preparations you know, within your government
(13:07):
or you know, across the part across the parties, are
you guys having to prepare for conscious AI if everyone's
aware of what that is. I'm wondering is are you
kind of chatting about that and what preparations are you
doing or what are you predicting once conscious AI is
(13:27):
a thing?
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Yeah, really great question, Mark, really great question. There's there's
two flip sides to AI, which is one is it's
a huge productivity left for the country and for the economy.
We're in the bottom quarter on this thing called economic productivity,
embracing more technology, doing things more efficiently, you know, think
about our communications, our healthcare, you know, entertainment, all that stuff.
(13:49):
As there's real upsides to AI, but you're dead right,
there's also a lot that's a real challenge around the
potential dangers and evils of it. We've seen some of
the AI machines actually hacking into systems even in the
last week. Both Anthropic and chat GBT have talked about
that in the last three weeks. The way to deal
with that is it globally, we have to try and
get some common legislative frameworks in place, so us working
(14:10):
with the Australians on an AI strategy. The Brits in
particular have done some good thinking around that, but the
danger is the regulation can't keep up with the innovation
that's happening and the pace of that innovation coming as
quickly as possible. But we do need to work with
other like minded countries on the regulatory frameworks dealing with
global tech firms, particularly around the monitoring of AI and
how we deal with some of the evils and potential
dangers of it. But I also know in New Zealand
(14:32):
that we are behind the pace a little bit, certainly
in a government sense. We haven't been adopting enough technology
and the delivery of our services through to the public,
and there's real potential for us to do that in
a much better job, a much more efficient, higher quality
way as well. So there's pros and cons. You've got
to sort of embrace it so that we can get
the benefits of more productivity and better public servance services.
(14:53):
But equally we've got to work with other countries and
get legislative frameworks in place so we can avoid the
dangers and the perils of it. Which to be honest,
you know, let's be really honest about it. I don't
think anybody has the answer for that, because the technology
is evolving and even when you put legislative frameworks in
place within six months, it's the sort of out of
date within six seconds. Yeah, and so are your list
for AI. Yes, I've created a Minister for Digital which
(15:18):
was yeah. And I really think there's a massive opportunity.
Like if you're in New Zealander dealing with the government,
you have to go off and prove your ID. If
you want a mortgage, you've got to prove your income,
so you've got to go around lots of different places
and I prove all that stuff. We could automate all
of that things and make life a hell of a
lot easier for your resource consents. You know, we could
automate a lot of those things. So there's real upsides.
(15:38):
But Mark's right, there's real downsides potentially where it's coming.
But the answer is not to put our head in
the sand and be blood ites and not engage with
it and work with the messiness and the challenges of
it as well.
Speaker 7 (15:48):
Hi Glenn, good morning promotion.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
How are you good, Glenn?
Speaker 7 (15:52):
How are you going on great, thank you too?
Speaker 3 (15:55):
How much snow down south? Mate?
Speaker 7 (15:58):
Starting to mail here with about you? There's a bit
there's a bit of a round us munch and too
frost around.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Are you wearing long pants?
Speaker 3 (16:05):
I've got long He's probably probably.
Speaker 8 (16:10):
Not sure.
Speaker 7 (16:11):
So you know th time the National Party break backs
for your Prime minister. The first one I've heard you
speak at terraces.
Speaker 9 (16:17):
And I really enjoyed it, and I couldn't get a
chance to talk to you. I talked to Myles and
he explained to me about not doing austerity, not doing
a black budget, holding the deficit so you can take
down the debt and play the lane.
Speaker 7 (16:32):
And check it down.
Speaker 9 (16:33):
He's the only person who's explained it to me. I
haven't heard it from there, and I haven't heard it
from Michela, and that means if I haven't heard it,
I hear everything so the rest of the countries. So
that's quite a strategic thing that you probably haven't really explained. Yep.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Okay, not austerity and not spending money to stimulate to
find away.
Speaker 9 (16:51):
And the second one is your real action campaign, what
I really really want you to get back okay, And
it seems to me at the moment it's we're not
labor and we're not New zeal On first, but it's
not really very positive about what you actually we are,
like a small seat conservative, liberal capitalist seen to write
Martyr's Party. You know, there's a whole lot of really
(17:14):
good stuff about the National Party and not really be
talking about it. You know, you've got we know, we
know what the left again to do, right, we know
about the libertarians small Government Act, that's not us. We
know about you know, populist racism and all the reenophobia
as you know, we don't that's not actually either. And
he's on threat. So I really want to just lean
(17:34):
into what you are and not be scared of it
because most of us like it. That's one most of
us votes for you. So yeah, just please please lean
into it.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Good challenge, Glenn, That's exactly what we want to do
in the campaign. So fix the basics. Build the future.
We've got a great future. Got to do some big
things for our kids and our green kids, and that's
really what we're about.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
If Glenn gets sick of getting up in early morning
to go out into those cold frosts and make money
for the country, he could always be your campaign managers.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Well, I mean it sounds like he isn't it's everything,
so he sounds like a smart guy. So it's just
like a music doing. You might want to come to Parliament.
I'd say very much.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
You loved Glenn just as much as we do. And
I agree with the last caller. Don't sit on the
fence to try and please everyone. Stick your neck out
of it and be honest. Then don't apologize for it. Oh,
we forgot so much advice for you.
Speaker 10 (18:18):
Hello Peter, Yeah, good morning, Prime Minister.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Hey Peter, how are you?
Speaker 10 (18:22):
Kerry good good mote. I spoke to you on the
station three years ago about married him and how much
married him is in amongst the government legislation and all
that sort of. And since ninety ninety collective governments have
paid out two point eight billion. Your government has spent
one hundred and seventy million in the last three years
on married payouts, and you've committed to another one point
(18:42):
four billion for future payouts between twenty five and twenty
twenty nine. My question is when will this stop? Because
you can't. Everybody sees you're a great businessman, but if
a businessman had this empty buck held this hole in
the bucket that they were tipping money into. Wouldn't they
fix the hole in the bucket and then and then
put the money in. But there seems to be a
(19:04):
never ending story and seending our country broke. I mean
major things like the Trump Trump tariff. You recited those. Well,
I think this is as big as that. And it's
holding our country to rentsom for fifteen percent of the
of the population. And it seems that you're scared of
the rhetoric that goes with it. We're all one country,
(19:25):
so let's you know, let's support us one country and
financially we can't who we're tipping it sort of money
into a bucket.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Yeah. Well, look, we have what we call treaty obligations,
and that's about treaty settlements, and I think we've progressed.
I think, you know, ten or twelve extra treaty settlements
over our period of time, either completed or in progress.
You know, that's something that we agreed as a country
back in the nineties, and you know, we think is
on balance. You know, I get that we people who
are against that. There were people who don't think that
goes far enough. But in general, across all the political spectrum.
(19:53):
We've said, actually that's actually kind of important, and honoring
those treaty settlements is kind of quite key. I think
what's been quite exciting with some of the investment though,
is that you're now seeing EWE work with international investors
to build out things like a billion dollars worth of
inland port development and Ruakura for example, or wanting to
partner in some of the energy investments, whether it's been
solar or wind across the country or aquaculture investments. So
(20:16):
these are getting to be some pretty sophisticated corporate entities
that are actually driving a lot of export growth and
bringing a lot of export earnings back home to New Zealand.
And so look, I mean, we we have, you know,
we've we felt there was things that were about out
of balance. That's why we pushed you know, Maori wards
back to local governments to make those local communities to
make those decisions. We didn't believe we needed a separate
Maori Health authority. We disbanded all of that. You know,
(20:38):
there are things you know we've you know you know
that we've we've, but but there is also investment that
goes in to actually power up an economy not just
for Maori, but for all New Zealanders. Through that that
investment being applied and partnered often with other partners to
build out key infrastructure the country needs.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Uh, Peter, good morning to you.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
Wanting for my minister.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
Hey, how are you good?
Speaker 6 (21:01):
I love what you're doing keen supporter, But hey, it's
just one thing i'd like.
Speaker 8 (21:06):
Can I know Nikola dipped to tow in the water
of a few months ago about this charitable trusts.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Yeah, so it's a really good I think I think
we would also be included in that.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Yeah. Look, I mean I think the issue on charitable
trust we made a change at the budget which was
saying because what had happened was some people were forming
charitable trusts and actually that money wasn't for charitable purposes.
It was often for a wealthy family to employ their
children in order to do a bunch of things. I
think we haven't got that one hundred percent right. You know,
when I talk to some of the charities across the country,
it's those that are giving donations over one hundred thousand
(21:40):
dollars that we put the changes around. And I know
Simon Watts and Nicola are going to go back and
have a think about whether there's something we can do
different there, because I don't think we got We were
trying to solve a problem, which was these charitable trusts
that actually weren't being deployed for charitable purposes ultimately, and
the money wasn't getting out to charities. And that's and
in doing that, we may have actually shut off actually
(22:00):
their ability for people who generally are making investments to
charities across the country, we desperately need those funds. That
may have been a disincentive for that. So we're going
to go back and just see what there's any tweaks
when you do that.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
But also what about taxing charities too that operators big business?
Speaker 3 (22:13):
Yeah, and that's right, I mean, and there are some
other big organizations that tanks. Yeah, and you've got to
ask those questions as well. That what we did in
May was actually a bit more surgical and a bit
more specific around these charitable trusts that actually you know,
as I said, were are you going to do.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
About the others that are operating and making good money?
Speaker 5 (22:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Well, we will continue to look at that. I mean,
Ewe's more challenging, but there are other organizations that are
actually presenting as charitable trusts, and actually there's a Charities Commission.
They've got to make those decisions about whether they do
or don't mix it. You know, we've had conversations about
Destiny Church. There's a whole bunch of them around the place,
right that actually legitimately good questions at the Charities Commission
and Louise Upson are looking at.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Rob, good morning to you. You've got a question around charities.
Speaker 6 (22:53):
Are you a good morning? Prime Minister? You may not recall,
but at the end of last year on Carey's show,
I raised with you the issue of the forty four
budgeting services that already fund your minister up and you
were going to look into it. I'd love to hear
what you found when you looked into it, But in
the meantime, I'd be interested to know whether you think
(23:16):
it's fair and ethical that budgeting services should be expected
to work for the government on a pro bono basis
when you are very keen on user pays for the
government services.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
What's your read, Rob? You don't think it's got any
better since we last spoke, not.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
At all at all, and in fact, every day, every
week we get requests from Work and Income kind AURA,
Department of Corrections, Ministry of Justice, Health New Zealand. We're
all New Zealand Navy to offer budgeting advice and financial
libacy education to their clients and in many cases their staff.
But there's no funding they want, they expect us to
(23:55):
do it for nothing.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Yeah, right, and that hasn't been fixed. Can I ask
you a different Can I ask you a different question
on financial literacy? What is your view on what we
should do there? Because you know that is as we
try and do KII savor and savings and investment and
you know and over got to get people your budgetary
advice and financial literacy. But how would we be best
to tackle that? Because there's lots of ideas around that,
(24:17):
you talk to lots of people and lots of different thoughts.
What would be yours?
Speaker 6 (24:21):
There's two things here. One, I'm very very much in
favor of bringing it into school because I think I
think you have you solve on the long term, a
generation leadship because the kids will take it home. But
we have problems right now. And I'll give you a
very brief example.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
It'll have to be we actually, it'll have to be
like one line, Rob.
Speaker 6 (24:43):
Okay, we go into every prison in Auckland is to
teach financial literacy as a part of the rehabilitation program.
But there's no funding for it. Everyone agrees it's a
good thing, but there's no funding for it.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
There's funding for dollars for massage. Yeah, and that's exactly
the madness of the system. So we could Yeah, Rob
raises a very good point, as he did last time
as well. So let me go talk about that one again.
I'll go back to my system and find out what
is going on. I'll follow up on that. Please do
hold me to account. I'm happy to take Rob's number
and give them a call afterwards too.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Text to rights and this is just what we were
talking about, Chris rights to the PM. We seem to
talk about charities all the time, but never outcomes too
many fake charities I think since.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
Chris, yeah, I mean, Rob rais is a really good point.
But I just as I said to you in the break,
the real challenge we've got as a government has We've
got tens of thousands of social service contracts right that
have been built up over decades, like the last thirty
years or so, and the process of actually applying for
funding by the time you get the funding. By then
you get the funding, then you go hire the social
workers you need or the budgetary advisory people you need,
(25:45):
and then you're up for another round of funding again.
And we have to reimagine how we can do that
because all we're managing is complexity, and we're actually just
churning like we do on everything planning, social services provisions,
contracting for these things. And actually we've got to say, look,
there's partners that we can work with on say budgeting services.
It should be like a five to ten year contract
and then you've got certain to hire the right people
(26:07):
to know that next year. I don't have to lay
someone off Prime Minister, no, I know. But so what
I have to do is get the operating system right,
you know, because I can't do whack a mole on
every single problem that we've got with every single social
service provision. And that's what Nicola and I have been
trying to work through what we call the Social Investment
Agency is reimagine a whole different way of doing things. So,
(26:27):
for example, there are some EI organizations that have some
outstanding health organizations as part of their organizations. We've put
fifty million dollars I remember in the very first few
weeks with them, and they've delivered an improvement and immunization
rates for under twos so important because we shouldn't have
hooping cough, and we shouldn't have meningitis and a whole
bunch of things that we can avoid through good vaccination programs.
(26:49):
And they need to build they've got better social license
to make the case for those vaccinations. With the community.
You're better than a government, absolutely, and so why wouldn't
you contract with them long term? Say I'm expecting you
to get it from sixty percent to ninety percent. And
it's Mary non mariy and that's what they've been doing.
They've done an exceptionally good job with non Maori as
much as Maori. And that's the sort of stuff we
(27:11):
want to do a lot more of. But for me,
I've got to run the operating system, and then there's
all these apps that sit on top of it, and
I'm trying to sort of that's what I saying. When
we fix the basics, it's this basic stuff that we
just think, you know, we should be able to do.
Procurement of exit of social services, and yet we create
just complexity for everyone. All we're doing is moving paperwork
around and constantly just doing short term stuff and not
(27:32):
actually doing the long term outcomes that we're trying to
deliver on, which is we know in healthcare, immunization rates
for under twos are really important. First specialist appointments, elective surgery,
weight LISS, emergency department wait times, and the fifth one
is actually can to treatment plans. And so you know
that's the health outcomes. And education, it's attendance services. You
know we're working with different organizations get kids into school. Well,
we have got one hundred and seventy five thousand more
(27:53):
kids back in regular school attendance. It's gone from forty
five to almost seventy percent. And that's good because they're
back in school and they can learn and that sets
them up for higher paying jobs. But you can imagine
everything that you touch. You've got to be clear on
what's the common education and healthcare you're looking for, and
then contract for the outcome rather than just for the funding.
You know, your funding is delivering that outcome. You're buying
(28:14):
an outcome a seense.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
So you're working on thirty year old systems.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
Oh everything. I mean, you think about all of the
IT issues you've heard about recently, like our IT systems,
there is twenty different DHBs. There's not one single medical
health so if you move, you know you got broke
your leg down in Wellington partying or dancing on a
table and a restaurant down there doing what you would do.
But you know, like actually, no one can just pull
up a unified carey wood and medical record, right and
(28:39):
you just think that for interestingly what they do. But
in twenty twenty six, these are sorts of things that
we have to do and that's where embracing the technology
is important, but thinking about the models by which we
do the stuff. So it's hard, right, it is hard,
and everyone wants change like yesterday, and I get it,
but it's just and I'm not making it as an excuse.
I'm just trying to give a sense of the complexity
when I say something like we've got to fix the basics.
(29:01):
This is the stuff we're talking about.
Speaker 8 (29:02):
Okay, morning, good morning mister Luxton.
Speaker 6 (29:09):
Hi.
Speaker 8 (29:09):
I'm traditionally a National Party voter.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
However, I am concerned.
Speaker 8 (29:14):
About the road user charges that you're talking about implementing
Now my understanding is for a for a car, they're
going to be set at the same rate as they
are for a light diesel vehicle, which is seventy seven
dollars per thousand k's. The current excise tax, I understand
is seventy cents in the LITA. So if you've got
(29:35):
a car that's consuming ten leaders per one hundred k
and in today's well that's a relatively thirsty car, you're
paying set currently paying seventy dollars in road user charges
or excise taxes. Under the new regime, you'll be paying
seventy seven dollars. So that's a ten percent increase assuming
(29:56):
that your car is using ten leaders per thousand k's.
If your car is using more are less, I mean,
then you'll be paying a higher percentage break. And on
top of that, there'll be some quite a lot of
hardware that has to be installed in every car in
New Zealand because it's going to be electronic. As my understanding,
(30:17):
who's going to pay for that?
Speaker 3 (30:18):
Yeah. Look, so we're taking a step back and saying, look,
the way we fund our road investment is actually through
excise tax As you know, it hasn't lifted essentially since
twenty twenty, and you know, because we know people are
doing it quite tough, and we sort of said we'd
keep that stable. But the consequences you then don't have
the funds raised to be able to do the road
renewals you need to do, et cetera. The second big
thing that's happening is you've got EV vehicles out there
(30:40):
that are actually essentially not paying their fair share because
they are it's just about weight of vehicle on a
road and whether they are an EV or an EV
truck or whatever it is, they've been treated very differently
from say the petrol vehicles. So we're saying take a
step back, everybody, you take the excite, you move to
a basis where it's much more fair and more equal
about the respect of what vehicle type you've got. It's
(31:03):
about the you know, the wear and tear on our roads,
in our infrastructure that we've really got to manage for.
And that's why the EERUT system is the way we
want to go down the road. So look, I mean,
there's still a lot of detail to work through as
to how the final charges all ultimately end up, but
the intention is to start so that you know particularly
we came at it through the v ling saying it's
not fear that they actually are beating up the roads
(31:25):
with the weight of a car, but because of the
we don't charge them ex size tax because there's no
fuel involved, then they're not making a contribution to those roads.
And so we said, well, listen, as the mix of
our vehicles change and the fuel sources change, actually the
better way to go is just think about kilometers traveled
as the funding mechanism by which you would say that's
a fairer treatment of how people make a contribution to
(31:46):
the road. So I appreciate there'll be swings around about
some people have lots of debate about it. It's not
fully landed yet there's a lot in the detail as
exactly as you've just highlighted with your question.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
Andrew news Talk said, be sorry about the ads, but
we do have to pay for ourselves. We are user pays.
Otherwise we'd be, you know, coming to you looking for
money like Radio New Zealand. Well, yes New Zealand. Yes.
AE Texas says, can we have another referendum on MP
to stop this fars of five percent parties controlling the
outcome of government. Wow, amen to that.
Speaker 5 (32:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Look, I mean I think this is the reality of
it is that rightly or wrongly, New Zealanders have chosen
when they've been given the opportunity in an MMP system.
And if you're running a political party like me as
a national party leader, you know, people vote on election
day and then at the end of that night, my
real work begins, frankly, because I've got to find a
way to form a government with whatever the New Zealand
people have delivered for us on that election day. And
(32:39):
that's why I think New Zealanders need to understand it's
not first past the posts in an MMP system that
is unrealistic. Where in a Western Europeans set up like
you see in France, like you see in the Netherlands, Finland, Germany,
it's the same system. And if you look at those systems,
they've got up to four to eleven party coalitions in
some places, you know, because that's how perverse it's gone.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Well can we do because there'll be a whole generation
of voters who aren't the angry voters of yesteryear who
voted MMP. They didn't vote it in that they voted
against first past the post because of the Longi government
and the Bulger government.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
Sure, and we've had I think you know, Key had
a referendum on it as well, and I think that's
that's something we should consider whether we could should do
it next year. I think we should definitely a referendum
on the four year term and I'm open for saying
WHI should we send it back out to New Zealand
and a Saie still supportive for him?
Speaker 2 (33:26):
Would you do that if you're Prime minister next year?
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Yeah, I think I would. Yeah, I think I would
because I actually think you know, that is quite right
to check in constitutionally say is this the system of
New Zealand you still want? You know, you voted for
this in the nineties, We've had a chicken in the tens,
twenty years down the road or whatever it has been.
Is it still where you want to be? But I
just do want to remind people I have a table
on the tenth floor with twenty seats around. It's called
the Cabinet Room. It's a small room, but it's got
(33:50):
twenty seats around that seats. I want as many National
Party minutes as possible. That's my best way to be
able to give it strong and stable government and to
get things done. When you have to form coalition governments,
you don't have the same values you always you don't
have the same policies. You're not talking to the same people.
You try and find the common ground. I feel like
I have done the best I can in two and
a half years to find common ground on the economy.
(34:11):
Education doesn't it. It does an election year and you've
only been going two years and the full year the
third year has really spent. You know, everyone gets into
election mode, media, everybody. So I think you got to
ask the question. I feel like I've got responsible, sensible
ministers delivering, Mark Mitchell, Todd McClay Erica Stanford, Nichola Willis,
you know, Simon Brown, Chris Bishop, you know, I've got
amazing people doing incredible work who take it very seriously.
(34:34):
And the question is I keep saying, is I don't
need some Yahoo and numpty from some other party around
that table. I can do a lot more to get
the center right, agenda in the center being the operative
word done and out the door. So think about your
vote November seven, that's really important.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Are your other coalition partners full of Yahoo's and Numpties.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
No, I'm just saying I can do better with the
New Zealand with National Party ministers. I think New Zealand's
better served by that.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
You'd rather have Mark Richell than Michael Laws around the table.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
You said it.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings. Listen live to
news Talks it Be from nine am weekdays. 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.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com