An ACT MP is questioning the spending of taxpayer money on a football match.
The Government's supporting a clash between English Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur and Auckland FC at Eden Park as part of its $70 million Major Events package.
ACT MP Todd Stephenson is asking why the match is being subsidised by taxpayers, when neither club is a charity and both are backed by billionaires.
He told Andrew Dickens he’s had a lot of feedback from people in the tourism and hospitality sectors, as well as local councils, asking for a better process around the fund, as they believe there could be better uses of taxpayer money.
As Stephenson understands it, the current system has MBIE seeking out what they think will be a hot gig and then reaching out to the organisation, instead of asking people to come forward.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerry Wood of Morning's podcast from
News Talk said, b.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
We're going to go into another issue here and it's
with ACT MP Todd Stevenson. So Todd is questioning taxpayer
spending on a football match. You may have heard the
Tottenham Hotspur will be playing Auckland f C this winter
at Eden Park. In a social media post, Todd Stevenson
asked why are we subsidizing event featuring billionaire owned football clubs,
(00:34):
saying we're not a chair that they're not charities. Why
do we have to do this now? The funding for
the match is coming from the government's seventy million dollar
Major Events and Tourism package and Louise Upston, who is
the Minister in charge, is quite proud of the whole thing.
So we've got ACT MP Todd Stevenson with me. Now,
can I Todd?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Oh good as this morning Andrew?
Speaker 2 (00:53):
So what's your problem with this? Because everybody else is
doing it all across Australia.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Look, our problem is ACT is always looking for the
best value for taxpayers dollars. This is a slush fund
that's seventy million dollars and in this case we've got
basically taxpayer funding going to two billionaire owned football teams
to hold in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Are you on hands free? Are you on speakerphone?
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
I am sorry, they're not coming through Greil.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Well it just sounds all lickuy, we mate. You actually
sound better if you just use the phone like a phone.
So that's all very good unless you've got someone behind
you who's listening in and is telling you whether you're
doing good or not. No, it's all right, okay, So
you're quite right. These are billionaire sports clubs, particularly Tottenham Hotspurs.
Even though they're in the relegation zone. They might not
be Premier League by the time they actually get down here,
(01:44):
but they're still it's Spurs, man, it's Spurs and ORCINDEFC
also has billionaire backing. But as I mentioned before, many
what would you call them, sovereignties, many, many district councils,
many cities actually have these funds and they use them
to attract people because you're in competition. So you're in
competition with Adelaide, you're in competition with Australia. And if
(02:07):
you don't have that just a seeding money to get
them here, they don't come, so this comes and then
we get the money back when everybody when fifty thousand
people flocked to eat in park and start spending money
in the kings and pubs.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
So look, two arguments I want to address there. First,
in a specific case of football, we've already had the
Ala Galaxy come, west Ham, Wrexham, Boker Juniors. They all
came without any taxpayers money. So you know, I think
in this case to them, Hotsburg would have come anywhere.
They're actually going to be playing in Sydney. But the
(02:41):
second point you make is, yeah, look, particular counsels do
have regional funds. That's up to their taxpayers or their
rate payers. I should say to the side if that's
value for money, really, I'm just questioning, you know, in
this particular case is it necessary. And then we've actually
got the question Andrew of the contestability of this fund.
It's actually not a contested fund in the traditional sense.
(03:03):
MB just come up with a list which they present
to the Minister of these events that they think should
be funded. So I've had a lot of feedback actually
in the last twenty four hours from people out there
involved interest in hospitality and actually local council saying well,
you know, can we look at the process around this,
because it could be actually better spend, better spends for
taxpayers dollars.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Than these that contestability. I guess that relied on the
council or the authority to actually make themselves known to
MB and say we're into this. So for instance, if
Wellington wanted to host Spurs and play them against the
Phoenix or even AFC, they could have said to MB,
we quite liked this gig, or that Forsyth Bar, which
(03:46):
is struggling financially, might say we might quite like this gig.
But you're saying they don't have the chance to do
that or should that just be on their own their
own back because obviously someone has told MB that Hotspur
and AFC is going to be a hot gig in
eden Park.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Yeah, well, as we understand that MB just go out
looking for what they think are going to be hot
gigs and then reach out to the organization. So it's
done by invitation, it's not done publicly, you know, like
asking for people to come forward and then they kind
of go into these discussions. So again that's where I've
been getting some feedback around that, and Look, I Andrew
(04:22):
come from Otago, Southland. If you will know Queenstown, big
tourism area. They're actually not looking for events necessarily, but
they actually need money for hard infrastructure to support tourism.
So I'm just giving you as an example of where we,
you know, maybe could be spending this money in a
different way. But really my broad point is, you know,
ACT is concerned about obviously cost of living. We've obviously
(04:45):
got the fuel crisis. We really need to be careful
about how we're spending government money and we're very you know,
being very critical for a number of years about kind
of government picking winners in this way.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Of course, is that an ideological battle against corporate welfare?
You know, are you automatically against the film rebate scheme
and other rebate schemes?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Well, look, yeah, we have come out about the film
rebate scheme in the past. Look, the unfortunate thing is
a lot of countries involved in the film and television
industry offer these rebates, so it's like a cost of entry.
We totally don't agree with it. We think every country
should be on a level paying field. So you know,
if every country removed those rebates tomorrow, you've been a
much better position, but we want more transparent.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
We're already in control of our own sovereignty and they're
not getting rid of them, and that's the problem. We
are competing with them.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yeah, and that's why we've at the moment obviously taken
the pragmatic view that it's okay to remain, but doesn't
mean we won't question continue to kind of contend yep.
And it's whether it's good spend a taxpayer money.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Todd, I haven't. I just suddenly noticed your name recently.
Are you worried that you know, you might lose your
seat or something because you've done a lot of work
over the last week. We've got this issue, but you've
also got the complaint that government departments have not been
adopting the English name at the top of their letterheads
as fast as you, as a coalition partner would want.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
Yeah, so I've been out on that issue about government
department's rebranding. Not necessarily have to fix all their letterhead immediately,
but we do think there are some simple solutions to
actually uphold what the government has asked for, and that's
kind of basically to have an English name first, doesn't
mean they can't have a TERRAI own name. We've been
very clear about that and we think there are actually
(06:25):
very cost effective ways that that can be done. And
I actually, when I wrote to Judith Collins, the Minister
Responsible pointed out how act Minister Brook van Valden showed
the Department of Internal Affairs herself how it could be
the logo could be updated and just take a digital
first policy.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
How do you feel about Judith, who, of course, when
stopped on the tiles yesterday said well, you know, or
credit to our coalition partner. But this is low on
my lestered priorities right now, all I care about is fuel.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Looks she's obviously got responsibilities around the cabinet table with
the fuel crisis. But look in her letter back to me,
she actually has asked the Public Service Commissioner to look
into this and see how it can be done. Look
and her reply again, we totally agree. We don't want
to make this an expensive exercise, and that's why we've
suggested digital first, phasing the changes over time. So yeah,
(07:17):
I think that she has actually actioned what we wanted,
so we look forward to seeing the outcomes.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
All right, Magan, and I thank you very much Todd Stevenson,
act MP, who as I said, has spectacularly rumbled into
life and had a couple of headlines inside the last week.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
News Talks A B from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Kerry Wood of Morning's podcast from
News Talk said, b.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
We're going to go into another issue here and it's
with ACT MP Todd Stevenson. So Todd is questioning taxpayer
spending on a football match. You may have heard the
Tottenham Hotspur will be playing Auckland f C this winter
at Eden Park. In a social media post, Todd Stevenson
asked why are we subsidizing event featuring billionaire owned football clubs,
(00:34):
saying we're not a chair that they're not charities. Why
do we have to do this now? The funding for
the match is coming from the government's seventy million dollar
Major Events and Tourism package and Louise Upston, who is
the Minister in charge, is quite proud of the whole thing.
So we've got ACT MP Todd Stevenson with me. Now,
can I Todd?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Oh good as this morning Andrew?
Speaker 2 (00:53):
So what's your problem with this? Because everybody else is
doing it all across Australia.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Look, our problem is ACT is always looking for the
best value for taxpayers dollars. This is a slush fund
that's seventy million dollars and in this case we've got
basically taxpayer funding going to two billionaire owned football teams
to hold in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Are you on hands free? Are you on speakerphone?
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
I am sorry, they're not coming through Greil.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Well it just sounds all lickuy, we mate. You actually
sound better if you just use the phone like a phone.
So that's all very good unless you've got someone behind
you who's listening in and is telling you whether you're
doing good or not. No, it's all right, okay, So
you're quite right. These are billionaire sports clubs, particularly Tottenham Hotspurs.
Even though they're in the relegation zone. They might not
be Premier League by the time they actually get down here,
(01:44):
but they're still it's Spurs, man, it's Spurs and ORCINDEFC
also has billionaire backing. But as I mentioned before, many
what would you call them, sovereignties, many, many district councils,
many cities actually have these funds and they use them
to attract people because you're in competition. So you're in
competition with Adelaide, you're in competition with Australia. And if
(02:07):
you don't have that just a seeding money to get
them here, they don't come, so this comes and then
we get the money back when everybody when fifty thousand
people flocked to eat in park and start spending money
in the kings and pubs.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
So look, two arguments I want to address there. First,
in a specific case of football, we've already had the
Ala Galaxy come, west Ham, Wrexham, Boker Juniors. They all
came without any taxpayers money. So you know, I think
in this case to them, Hotsburg would have come anywhere.
They're actually going to be playing in Sydney. But the
(02:41):
second point you make is, yeah, look, particular counsels do
have regional funds. That's up to their taxpayers or their
rate payers. I should say to the side if that's
value for money, really, I'm just questioning, you know, in
this particular case is it necessary. And then we've actually
got the question Andrew of the contestability of this fund.
It's actually not a contested fund in the traditional sense.
(03:03):
MB just come up with a list which they present
to the Minister of these events that they think should
be funded. So I've had a lot of feedback actually
in the last twenty four hours from people out there
involved interest in hospitality and actually local council saying well,
you know, can we look at the process around this,
because it could be actually better spend, better spends for
taxpayers dollars.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Than these that contestability. I guess that relied on the
council or the authority to actually make themselves known to
MB and say we're into this. So for instance, if
Wellington wanted to host Spurs and play them against the
Phoenix or even AFC, they could have said to MB,
we quite liked this gig, or that Forsyth Bar, which
(03:46):
is struggling financially, might say we might quite like this gig.
But you're saying they don't have the chance to do
that or should that just be on their own their
own back because obviously someone has told MB that Hotspur
and AFC is going to be a hot gig in
eden Park.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Yeah, well, as we understand that MB just go out
looking for what they think are going to be hot
gigs and then reach out to the organization. So it's
done by invitation, it's not done publicly, you know, like
asking for people to come forward and then they kind
of go into these discussions. So again that's where I've
been getting some feedback around that, and Look, I Andrew
(04:22):
come from Otago, Southland. If you will know Queenstown, big
tourism area. They're actually not looking for events necessarily, but
they actually need money for hard infrastructure to support tourism.
So I'm just giving you as an example of where we,
you know, maybe could be spending this money in a
different way. But really my broad point is, you know,
ACT is concerned about obviously cost of living. We've obviously
(04:45):
got the fuel crisis. We really need to be careful
about how we're spending government money and we're very you know,
being very critical for a number of years about kind
of government picking winners in this way.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Of course, is that an ideological battle against corporate welfare?
You know, are you automatically against the film rebate scheme
and other rebate schemes?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Well, look, yeah, we have come out about the film
rebate scheme in the past. Look, the unfortunate thing is
a lot of countries involved in the film and television
industry offer these rebates, so it's like a cost of entry.
We totally don't agree with it. We think every country
should be on a level paying field. So you know,
if every country removed those rebates tomorrow, you've been a
much better position, but we want more transparent.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
We're already in control of our own sovereignty and they're
not getting rid of them, and that's the problem. We
are competing with them.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yeah, and that's why we've at the moment obviously taken
the pragmatic view that it's okay to remain, but doesn't
mean we won't question continue to kind of contend yep.
And it's whether it's good spend a taxpayer money.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Todd, I haven't. I just suddenly noticed your name recently.
Are you worried that you know, you might lose your
seat or something because you've done a lot of work
over the last week. We've got this issue, but you've
also got the complaint that government departments have not been
adopting the English name at the top of their letterheads
as fast as you, as a coalition partner would want.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
Yeah, so I've been out on that issue about government
department's rebranding. Not necessarily have to fix all their letterhead immediately,
but we do think there are some simple solutions to
actually uphold what the government has asked for, and that's
kind of basically to have an English name first, doesn't
mean they can't have a TERRAI own name. We've been
very clear about that and we think there are actually
(06:25):
very cost effective ways that that can be done. And
I actually, when I wrote to Judith Collins, the Minister
Responsible pointed out how act Minister Brook van Valden showed
the Department of Internal Affairs herself how it could be
the logo could be updated and just take a digital
first policy.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
How do you feel about Judith, who, of course, when
stopped on the tiles yesterday said well, you know, or
credit to our coalition partner. But this is low on
my lestered priorities right now, all I care about is fuel.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Looks she's obviously got responsibilities around the cabinet table with
the fuel crisis. But look in her letter back to me,
she actually has asked the Public Service Commissioner to look
into this and see how it can be done. Look
and her reply again, we totally agree. We don't want
to make this an expensive exercise, and that's why we've
suggested digital first, phasing the changes over time. So yeah,
(07:17):
I think that she has actually actioned what we wanted,
so we look forward to seeing the outcomes.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
All right, Magan, and I thank you very much Todd Stevenson,
act MP, who as I said, has spectacularly rumbled into
life and had a couple of headlines inside the last week.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
News Talks A B from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
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.
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