September 15, 2024 • 13 mins
ACT's leader says Government departments will have to prove race-based policies have value.
Cabinet is circulating a memo to agencies with the instruction to prioritise public services on the basis of need, rather than ethnic identity.
David Seymour says a discussion needs to be had.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
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 carrywood of morning's podcast from News
Talk sed B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Two matters pertaining to Friday when the Prime Minister Christopher
Lexim was in the studio on Friday. Oh I sorry
A text very very early on about that saying why
does the Prime Minister get our questions beforehand? He doesn't.
(00:35):
He gets topics that we're looking maybe to discuss, and
then takes calls from the public. So I have no
idea what Seriously, I promise you, I have no idea
what's going on in a lot of your heads. It's
a complete mystery to me. It's a source of wonderment
(00:55):
and amazement when I open the lines. So I have
no idea what you're going to ask. So all we
do is send in the topics, and we do that
for everybody we have on the show for any amount
of time. So that's just going back to that texture.
We do not send questions, but we do send topics.
And remember that a lot of the questions come from callers,
(01:19):
and we don't set up callers at all. I have
no idea who was going to be phoning in anyway.
To matters pertaining to Friday, when Christopher Luxen was in
the studio, I questioned the makeup of the coalition government,
how it was going, and I said David Seymour's behavior
wasn't very statesman like. Do you think it's an experience
(01:40):
or a maturity that's making David Seymour such a birrundy saddle?
Well he has a construction to say it that Weston
Peters has been I mean I would I never thought
i'd say this, and I'm going to say it. He's
been amazing as a politician and as a deputy Prime minister.
David Seam was acting like a brat, like an intelligent
kid who hasn't been given enough to do. But I
(02:02):
mean there's a lot to do. So actually to David's more,
asked for a rite of reply and joins me, now
good morning to you, good morning carry It wasn't brat.
Some are like Kamala Harris brought some o. This was
more like, why are you causing trouble? You're acting more
like confidence and supply and keeping your own identity rather
than a member of a coalition government.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
In my opinion, well, rather than calling people names as
you have. But it's always useful to point out that
specific actions that concern you. So what exactly are you
concerned about?
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Well more the fact that you said that, And that's
why I let you know. That's why when you ask
for a right reply, I gave it. If I hadn't
said Bratt, then it would have been fine. But it
was my fault. So that's why you're here.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
I suppose surely I don't have to be names to
get on your phone.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
No if it's relevant, No, of course, not if it's
pertaining to the topic at hand. Basically saying that you
don't believe the Prime Minister won't change his mind if
the public really want it. Reground the Treaty Principles Bill,
there is so much work to be done, so much
good work to be done, and yet the Prime Minister
(03:15):
has already said that under the terms of the Coalition
agreement they'll support it to the first reading. And that
is that. And yet that is a large majority of
what you bang the drum on is that, well, I.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Hate to be pre nectative, but the Prime Minister hasn't
said that. The Prime Minister speaks for the government. The
government has no policy on the second reading or anything
beyond the first reading. So far as the treaty Principle's
bill goes what the Cabinet papers is and what the
government's agreed is that parties will be able to vote
(03:50):
their own way. Now, if you want to talk about
the leader of the National Party and I know that
we have a tire of the ncaa nature of us
that sumportant, then yes, that's true. They say they won't
vote for it. As the leader of that I say
that they just might. And I think really you need
to think about is that one in three New Zealanders
(04:11):
do not vote for Labor or National And when you
say that, for the leader of one of those other
parties to actually state their case and stand their crownd
iss amateure or being a brass or whatever other names
you want to call me, it's not me. You're actually
disenfranchising one in three New Zealanders who have an equal
(04:31):
right to have a voice on this country.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
You got eight percent in the latest poll. It's seven percent.
You know, when people say, oh, we need a referendum,
we've just had one. We had one a year ago.
It was called the general election. And I know people
don't vote generally on one policy, but if they really
felt that's what mattered to them the most. Wouldn't you
have seen that reflected in the results of the general election.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Well, the general election delivered a government that's agreed to
advance this policy, then that might be the sixty percent
of people say that they agreed with the treaty principles fell.
But once again, and with the greatest of respect, people
are keen to call names and belittle you and say
(05:19):
that you got this percentage and whatever the pol says.
But I'm just interested in people that want to have
the argument, what is New Zealand the partnership between races,
where background of times your role in the country, or
is it a society based on equal rights? We can
get away from the name call one. I think we're
going to be in a better play right.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
And that's something that you were you know, that was
very very big in front of mind when you were
campaigning huge and you got eight percent of the vote, So,
I mean everybody knows what that was primarily standing. You
were standing for lots of other things. If you look
at a lot of the work that you were doing,
and a lot of the work that you're doing within
(05:59):
government with some of your people who have been made
either outside of cabinet or working with them and are
doing great work. A lot of the work they're things
that people were concerned about, like healthcare based on race.
That is being unwound. Even though you had a very
good line about some of the civil service being like
(06:20):
Japanese warriors still thinking the war was going on. But
you know that is being wound back. The fact that
if you bid for a contract within government it's now
not going to be based on race. That has been
wound back. Where's where's the issue exactly?
Speaker 3 (06:39):
The issue was what our found. The document means that
it's widely reported as creating this partnership between races, and
I can tell you there there's no successful example of
any society that has ever based itself on having two
different types of people that have a different role to
play in the society. The problem is that, yes, we
(07:00):
make a lot of progress, you know, they need not
Race circular that was released on Friday absolutely essential and
I'm proud of it, but you have to ask yourself
why did the Labor Party and its allies go down
the path that we ended up down. It's because underneath
it all, there's a belief that our country has founded
on a partnership between races. It cannot stand. It must
(07:22):
be challenged, and I think that, you know, other than
belittling someone for challenging it, we should actually be asking
which side of that debate do we fall on, and
rather than saying that, you know, a person that votes
for a smaller party doesn't really get fair representation, we
should actually respect the rights of all New Zealand as
is being equals.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
The You know, the fact that you signed a coalition agreement,
this is what was getting me and I couldn't understand
why you were doing because you are incredibly bright, You've
got a lot to offer. I also said that, but
when it comes to the fact that you signed a
coalition agreement, National had to give up ground. Well that's
(08:07):
what you know, horse trading is about when it comes
to forming that coalition government. And they've said they've made
it very clear in the lead up to the campaign.
I mean, it might not be as punicketty as you'd
like it, but my understanding as a voter and as
somebody working in the media is that National was never
going to support it beyond first reading, which they gave
away in the coalition talks. And yet you keep on
(08:31):
about it.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Because I think most reasonable people would say, look, your
obligation is blacked in good faith to be reasonable to
listen to the evidence, make up your mind when all
the facts are known, rather than try and neutralize or
sterilize a commitment before it's even been made. And so
you could just as equally say, well, actually, it's not
(08:55):
fair play to rout something out before you've even seen it.
I'd rather not get into that discussion. Just fake the
point that no one's seen the bill yet. It's some
pop or to make up your mind before you've seen it.
No one's seen how the public reacts. Our job is
to listen to the public the not unreasonable things to say.
(09:16):
A lot of people have to happen to believe them.
Sixty percent, according to a poll published by m z ME,
agree with the principles that we're proposing in broad outline.
I don't think it's an unreasonable version to take, and
certainly not one that deserves nain calling or belittling or
anything like that.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Are you referring to what I said.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Oh, well, you said you got me on the show
because you called me name, because I.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Called you brat. Yes, but I think it's been littling
you anyway, But if you feel very little, then I'm
very sorry about that. Matthew Houghton's piece says it does
Act no harm, that its position is based on willful
or lazy ignorance of European mari and New Zealand history, law, jurisprudence,
and political philosophy to the country like Donald Trump, that
(10:08):
helps ACT connect with an important minority of voters, people
who are articulate, who are passionate, who have very strong
views about some things, but they didn't vote for you.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Ultimately, So what's your point that Matthew Herden doesn't like
the bill, or that not everyone voted for Act that
you are appealing.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
I think he's saying to a minority of voters who
are either refusing to or have their own opinions. I
guess on the treaty and where it stands in its
importance within New Zealand and the rules that are made
around it, and the laws that are made around it,
and the policy that's made around it. So if people
(10:57):
I come back to the point, if people truly truly
felt that that was the single most important thing that
defined the country, would you not have got more votes?
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Well, we've got a record result for ACT and a
very very strong result for a third party in New Zealand.
We have grown one thousand percent in support and the
last four years. So when you put it that way,
you might be onto something. And when you had three
parties that in different ways were campaigning to roll back
(11:32):
the co governance and the division brought about by Labor,
it's not surprising that it was a competitive space and
not everyone that had those police vote for ACTS because
people own the party votes and that can choose how
to use it. So you've tried this basic argument many
times and it is almost as though you're trying to
(11:54):
say that we don't have a right to have a
view or express it. We absolutely do. And if you
do want to get into polling on this issue, well
it's sixty percent. I think you underestimate it your peril.
How many people actually want to see a debate about
what our tree means? Is it a document that divides
us or a document that unites us?
Speaker 2 (12:15):
With equals You talk about a poll where it's very
easy to say yes or no when it comes to
putting a tack on paper. The Green's got almost double
you for Heaven's sake, and in the latest poll, in
the latest political poll went from eight to seven, which
is holding ground, but nonetheless hardly a triumphant kind of
reawakening of angry voters.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
I mean, can you can have as many arguments as
you like that the latest published political poll has acted
nine and a half, but you know, I'm not going
to get into an argument like that. That's not good
for either of us, I think. And as far as
the Green's getting twice as much, I mean, we've got
eleven MPs, I've got fifteen even if you allow actually
(12:57):
they've got fourteen now because they're losing them at a
trims rate. So I'm not sure if your mass is
quite right there. All right, we have to go down
out of ven about following and numbers. You tried to
make the argument a different way, the fact that New
Zealand leeds the headless discussion.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Okay, we have to go. I'm very sorry. We're right
up against the commercial break. Thank you for your time,
and I do apologize for calling you a break.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news
Talks it'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the carrywood of morning's podcast from News
Talk sed B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Two matters pertaining to Friday when the Prime Minister Christopher
Lexim was in the studio on Friday. Oh I sorry
A text very very early on about that saying why
does the Prime Minister get our questions beforehand? He doesn't.
(00:35):
He gets topics that we're looking maybe to discuss, and
then takes calls from the public. So I have no
idea what Seriously, I promise you, I have no idea
what's going on in a lot of your heads. It's
a complete mystery to me. It's a source of wonderment
(00:55):
and amazement when I open the lines. So I have
no idea what you're going to ask. So all we
do is send in the topics, and we do that
for everybody we have on the show for any amount
of time. So that's just going back to that texture.
We do not send questions, but we do send topics.
And remember that a lot of the questions come from callers,
(01:19):
and we don't set up callers at all. I have
no idea who was going to be phoning in anyway.
To matters pertaining to Friday, when Christopher Luxen was in
the studio, I questioned the makeup of the coalition government,
how it was going, and I said David Seymour's behavior
wasn't very statesman like. Do you think it's an experience
(01:40):
or a maturity that's making David Seymour such a birrundy saddle?
Well he has a construction to say it that Weston
Peters has been I mean I would I never thought
i'd say this, and I'm going to say it. He's
been amazing as a politician and as a deputy Prime minister.
David Seam was acting like a brat, like an intelligent
kid who hasn't been given enough to do. But I
(02:02):
mean there's a lot to do. So actually to David's more,
asked for a rite of reply and joins me, now
good morning to you, good morning carry It wasn't brat.
Some are like Kamala Harris brought some o. This was
more like, why are you causing trouble? You're acting more
like confidence and supply and keeping your own identity rather
than a member of a coalition government.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
In my opinion, well, rather than calling people names as
you have. But it's always useful to point out that
specific actions that concern you. So what exactly are you
concerned about?
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Well more the fact that you said that, And that's
why I let you know. That's why when you ask
for a right reply, I gave it. If I hadn't
said Bratt, then it would have been fine. But it
was my fault. So that's why you're here.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
I suppose surely I don't have to be names to
get on your phone.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
No if it's relevant, No, of course, not if it's
pertaining to the topic at hand. Basically saying that you
don't believe the Prime Minister won't change his mind if
the public really want it. Reground the Treaty Principles Bill,
there is so much work to be done, so much
good work to be done, and yet the Prime Minister
(03:15):
has already said that under the terms of the Coalition
agreement they'll support it to the first reading. And that
is that. And yet that is a large majority of
what you bang the drum on is that, well, I.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Hate to be pre nectative, but the Prime Minister hasn't
said that. The Prime Minister speaks for the government. The
government has no policy on the second reading or anything
beyond the first reading. So far as the treaty Principle's
bill goes what the Cabinet papers is and what the
government's agreed is that parties will be able to vote
(03:50):
their own way. Now, if you want to talk about
the leader of the National Party and I know that
we have a tire of the ncaa nature of us
that sumportant, then yes, that's true. They say they won't
vote for it. As the leader of that I say
that they just might. And I think really you need
to think about is that one in three New Zealanders
(04:11):
do not vote for Labor or National And when you
say that, for the leader of one of those other
parties to actually state their case and stand their crownd
iss amateure or being a brass or whatever other names
you want to call me, it's not me. You're actually
disenfranchising one in three New Zealanders who have an equal
(04:31):
right to have a voice on this country.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
You got eight percent in the latest poll. It's seven percent.
You know, when people say, oh, we need a referendum,
we've just had one. We had one a year ago.
It was called the general election. And I know people
don't vote generally on one policy, but if they really
felt that's what mattered to them the most. Wouldn't you
have seen that reflected in the results of the general election.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Well, the general election delivered a government that's agreed to
advance this policy, then that might be the sixty percent
of people say that they agreed with the treaty principles fell.
But once again, and with the greatest of respect, people
are keen to call names and belittle you and say
(05:19):
that you got this percentage and whatever the pol says.
But I'm just interested in people that want to have
the argument, what is New Zealand the partnership between races,
where background of times your role in the country, or
is it a society based on equal rights? We can
get away from the name call one. I think we're
going to be in a better play right.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
And that's something that you were you know, that was
very very big in front of mind when you were
campaigning huge and you got eight percent of the vote, So,
I mean everybody knows what that was primarily standing. You
were standing for lots of other things. If you look
at a lot of the work that you were doing,
and a lot of the work that you're doing within
(05:59):
government with some of your people who have been made
either outside of cabinet or working with them and are
doing great work. A lot of the work they're things
that people were concerned about, like healthcare based on race.
That is being unwound. Even though you had a very
good line about some of the civil service being like
(06:20):
Japanese warriors still thinking the war was going on. But
you know that is being wound back. The fact that
if you bid for a contract within government it's now
not going to be based on race. That has been
wound back. Where's where's the issue exactly?
Speaker 3 (06:39):
The issue was what our found. The document means that
it's widely reported as creating this partnership between races, and
I can tell you there there's no successful example of
any society that has ever based itself on having two
different types of people that have a different role to
play in the society. The problem is that, yes, we
(07:00):
make a lot of progress, you know, they need not
Race circular that was released on Friday absolutely essential and
I'm proud of it, but you have to ask yourself
why did the Labor Party and its allies go down
the path that we ended up down. It's because underneath
it all, there's a belief that our country has founded
on a partnership between races. It cannot stand. It must
(07:22):
be challenged, and I think that, you know, other than
belittling someone for challenging it, we should actually be asking
which side of that debate do we fall on, and
rather than saying that, you know, a person that votes
for a smaller party doesn't really get fair representation, we
should actually respect the rights of all New Zealand as
is being equals.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
The You know, the fact that you signed a coalition agreement,
this is what was getting me and I couldn't understand
why you were doing because you are incredibly bright, You've
got a lot to offer. I also said that, but
when it comes to the fact that you signed a
coalition agreement, National had to give up ground. Well that's
(08:07):
what you know, horse trading is about when it comes
to forming that coalition government. And they've said they've made
it very clear in the lead up to the campaign.
I mean, it might not be as punicketty as you'd
like it, but my understanding as a voter and as
somebody working in the media is that National was never
going to support it beyond first reading, which they gave
away in the coalition talks. And yet you keep on
(08:31):
about it.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Because I think most reasonable people would say, look, your
obligation is blacked in good faith to be reasonable to
listen to the evidence, make up your mind when all
the facts are known, rather than try and neutralize or
sterilize a commitment before it's even been made. And so
you could just as equally say, well, actually, it's not
(08:55):
fair play to rout something out before you've even seen it.
I'd rather not get into that discussion. Just fake the
point that no one's seen the bill yet. It's some
pop or to make up your mind before you've seen it.
No one's seen how the public reacts. Our job is
to listen to the public the not unreasonable things to say.
(09:16):
A lot of people have to happen to believe them.
Sixty percent, according to a poll published by m z ME,
agree with the principles that we're proposing in broad outline.
I don't think it's an unreasonable version to take, and
certainly not one that deserves nain calling or belittling or
anything like that.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Are you referring to what I said.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Oh, well, you said you got me on the show
because you called me name, because I.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Called you brat. Yes, but I think it's been littling
you anyway, But if you feel very little, then I'm
very sorry about that. Matthew Houghton's piece says it does
Act no harm, that its position is based on willful
or lazy ignorance of European mari and New Zealand history, law, jurisprudence,
and political philosophy to the country like Donald Trump, that
(10:08):
helps ACT connect with an important minority of voters, people
who are articulate, who are passionate, who have very strong
views about some things, but they didn't vote for you.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Ultimately, So what's your point that Matthew Herden doesn't like
the bill, or that not everyone voted for Act that
you are appealing.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
I think he's saying to a minority of voters who
are either refusing to or have their own opinions. I
guess on the treaty and where it stands in its
importance within New Zealand and the rules that are made
around it, and the laws that are made around it,
and the policy that's made around it. So if people
(10:57):
I come back to the point, if people truly truly
felt that that was the single most important thing that
defined the country, would you not have got more votes?
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Well, we've got a record result for ACT and a
very very strong result for a third party in New Zealand.
We have grown one thousand percent in support and the
last four years. So when you put it that way,
you might be onto something. And when you had three
parties that in different ways were campaigning to roll back
(11:32):
the co governance and the division brought about by Labor,
it's not surprising that it was a competitive space and
not everyone that had those police vote for ACTS because
people own the party votes and that can choose how
to use it. So you've tried this basic argument many
times and it is almost as though you're trying to
(11:54):
say that we don't have a right to have a
view or express it. We absolutely do. And if you
do want to get into polling on this issue, well
it's sixty percent. I think you underestimate it your peril.
How many people actually want to see a debate about
what our tree means? Is it a document that divides
us or a document that unites us?
Speaker 2 (12:15):
With equals You talk about a poll where it's very
easy to say yes or no when it comes to
putting a tack on paper. The Green's got almost double
you for Heaven's sake, and in the latest poll, in
the latest political poll went from eight to seven, which
is holding ground, but nonetheless hardly a triumphant kind of
reawakening of angry voters.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
I mean, can you can have as many arguments as
you like that the latest published political poll has acted
nine and a half, but you know, I'm not going
to get into an argument like that. That's not good
for either of us, I think. And as far as
the Green's getting twice as much, I mean, we've got
eleven MPs, I've got fifteen even if you allow actually
(12:57):
they've got fourteen now because they're losing them at a
trims rate. So I'm not sure if your mass is
quite right there. All right, we have to go down
out of ven about following and numbers. You tried to
make the argument a different way, the fact that New
Zealand leeds the headless discussion.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Okay, we have to go. I'm very sorry. We're right
up against the commercial break. Thank you for your time,
and I do apologize for calling you a break.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news
Talks it'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.