September 18, 2024 • 31 mins
Former National Party MP and Minister, acting CEO of Westpac, CEO of TVNZ, and now CEO of Fisher Funds, Simon Power, shares his best and worst money stories with Liam Dann.
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):
Hi, I'm Liam Dan, New Zealand Herald Business Editor at Large,
and welcome to this episode of Money Talks. This is
a podcast about money, but we're not going to tell
you how to get rich, and we're not going to
try and pick the next interest rate move. In this series,
I'll be talking to interesting New Zealanders about how money
has shaped their lives and what they've learned over the years.
(00:29):
For today's podcast, I'm joined by Fisher Funds CEO and
former Cabinet minister Simon Power Curta Simon, Welcome to Money Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Thanks very much, I'm great to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
How long is it at Fisher Funds?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Now about six and a half seven months so middle
of February I started there.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
And how has that been? Quite a shift from TV
and Z chief but almost some familiarity there around sort
of into the finance world.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Yeah. So at Westpac I looked after BT managed funds
for a period there, but also for a slightly longer
period looked after the advice A network and so that,
combined with an everlasting interest in regulation and policy settings,
has meant that it's been a terrific opportunity, too good
to turn down.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Yeah, well, I'll come back to it, because obviously, as
Commerce Minister, you were deeply involved in reform of the
financial market sector and that's something perhaps to have a
look back at. But I want to go right back
here first and just ask you what your first money
memories are, What your first memories of having money in
your hand might be if you as a child.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Yeah, I mean, I guess a couple of things. The
first was, I do remember getting, you know, a five
or a ten dollar note in a Christmas card from
a grandmother back in the way. It's huge, it was
a huge deal, and so I do I do remember
the kind of you know, the having the note in
the hand as it were. And then I have, you know,
(01:51):
reasonably vivid memories of my last couple of years at
school of doing the night melodies New World and Parmerstona
and that might have been kind of two or three
nights a week, and so getting that thirty three or
thirty five dollars a neat or whatever it was a
week in the hand. I definitely remember those those first
(02:12):
associations with money and earning.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Sure, And do you remember what you might have splashed
out on in those days?
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, well, I do remember a particularly vivid, short sleeved
pink shirt with a vertical zip on it as an
early as an early investment box though mainly which sounds
slightly geeky, but that was true, And I've always been
a collector of books, and so I do remember that.
But I and you know, the odd, the odd hot
(02:38):
chocolate record, things like that. But the shirt sounds like
it's very early eighties. Well that's right, I know, that's
exactly right. So that would have been working in the supermarket,
would have been yeah, eighty six, eighty seven, Miami vice
ra correct, right, absolutely right, very good.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
I did read. I read an opinion piece you did
for The Herald a few year back. We mentioned your
father's advice on saving I just wondered, you know, if
you can tell me a little bit about what your
parents did and what they sort of instilled in you
around money.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah. Look, so dad was in cars and retail, and
mum was in retail real estate, and then actually only
recently has stepped back from doing you know, a couple
of days a week in retail as well, now that
she's in her kind of mid seventies. So very much
people associated professions and I guess what was instilled in
(03:31):
me was your work hard, which won't surprise any listeners
to this podcast. I've seen that repeated and the odd
time tuning in. But I do think that as well
as that was the idea that you're never quite sure
when things are going to get hard and so hard,
and so to make sure that a portion of that
(03:52):
has swept into a into a savings account. And that's
something that Lisa and I have tried to instill in
our boys as well. Sure.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Yeah, when you look back at that era, what do
you recall about money and economics through that time? You
were obviously old enough to recall the tail end of
the Muldoon era and the big government and then you know,
coming of age through all those reforms. It's obviously a
hugely influential time in New Zealand's economic history. But what
did you sort of take.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
No, that's great question. So in nineteen eighty four, when
I was in fourth Form as it then was called, Yeah,
I can vividly remember a great teacher, Michael Melbourne, had
the pictures of the fourth Labor Government cabinet up on
our wall in our fourth form home room. I guess
it was called and thinking about how they had come
(04:42):
into office, A couple of things resonated. The first was
just the breaking down of the construct of a different
way of managing the economy, if I can put it
that way. And then secondly, and this stayed with me,
the power of the first term of a government. Right. So,
watching watching Roger Douglas, Richard Prebole, you know that that
(05:05):
band of Mike Moore, I mean, Jeffrey Palmer was an
extraordinary legislator. And so when you know, when I thought
back about the opportunities that first term presented them, that
stuck with me for the next twenty five years. Really wow.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Yeah. And at school, I mean, how early did you
get in you know, did you have an interest in politics?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Well, it sort of started. I had a most wonderful
fifth form history teacher, Missus Robertson, who had us do
a unit on US politics and the sixties, so Kennedy,
Johnny Lively, Nixon, And that has literally stuck with me.
I mean, I'm still a student. I'm still enrolled at
Victoria University, and I'm still a student of US US politics.
(05:49):
I mean, what are you studying. I'm under the very
patient tutelage of two supervisors who are letting me do
a part time PhD in US political leadership, and so
very to be doing that.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
You know, weren't kidding that you will be watching the debate,
which we've dragged you away from the Harris Trump debate.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
On watching it, No question about that. No, And so
that's remained with me actually all the way through since school.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Sure, yeah, we're there are other favorite subjects. I mean,
and and sports. I guess I saw on Wikipedia that
you were a senior rep in two sports, but I
didn't really say what sports.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I don't think that's right. I struggled along in the
second fifteen rugby team and struggled along the cricket team.
So senior might have been. I was old, but I
wasn't a performer at all. In fact, quite the opposite.
I was probleusiastic team members. Well, that's right, and I
was probably more in the you know, when I look
back on it, really I was enjoyed, you know, debate, drama,
(06:48):
school musicals in fact, yeah, and all that on the stage. Yeah,
a little bit, yeah, little bit of So.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Going to university, you you you did law and political science,
I mean in court, you know, there's a sort of
a theatrical element to both aspects of politics. But you know,
did you end up wrestling between the political science side
and the law side? I mean, was there a choice
to be made?
Speaker 2 (07:08):
It's a great question. So I went to practice law
off the back of watching several episodes of LA Law
in the late eighties, and back in those days, I'm
not sure if it's the same now. You had to
do some electives, you know, for first year law, and
I elected to do political science. And I remember sitting
in the back row listening to Professor Margaret Clark, who
(07:30):
talking to us about participating in politics, participating in public policy.
And I can remember sitting in the back of that
classroom and it emptied out and a stats class or
something came in after us, and I was still sitting there, thinking, actually,
that's what I want to do, right, Yeah, And so
law in many respects became the byproduct of wanting to
(07:51):
study political science. And as it turns out, my memory
is my grades were a lot better in political science
than they were in law. Some subjects in law I
enjoyed so much under them twice, so you know.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
I guess it's not quite LA Law though when you
get out to your first firm and Palmers to North
and No.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
But I tell you that that, you know, I went
to work for fitz Herbert Rowe, who to this day
I regard as the most generous employer. They allowed a
you know, twenty eight twenty nine year old to put
their hand up to go into national politics. We're I'd
only been practicing law for four or five years really,
and they were extraordinarily generous and I've never never forgotten that. Sure,
(08:28):
and I did some time as a judy solicitor as
well as doing you know, corporate and commercial or did
some time at Kensington's Swan up here just a short
burst doing property property work. They again were very generous
in taking me on. But look, to be honest, it
wasn't really you know, the way that you were controlling
time wasn't a strength of mine. Yeah, and so probably
(08:48):
probably never destined to be a great, great lawyer, right, Yeah?
Speaker 1 (08:51):
What was money ever a big factor in career choice
at that point? You know, I guess if you're headed
to politics.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Not really, not really, Liam, And I mean when you know,
I was watching friends of mine go on to become
partners and law firms and accounting firms and so on,
And in my early thirties, you know, I was sitting
in opposition, watching you know, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen
and Annick King at the at the height of their powers.
And I wouldn't change that. I wouldn't change that. I
(09:20):
think it was the most incredibly rewarding time. And I
know this is but hackneyed to say, but it was
just such a privilege to sit in one of those
green chairs for a period of time. And no, I
didn't do it for the money.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Can you tell us a little bit about the process
of how you got involved in you know, you know,
in politics, in politics.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah, look, I'd always had an interest. But then when
Dennis Marshall stood down and rang a tiquet, you know,
it must have been nineteen ninety eight, I guess, I'm
guessing now. And in nineteen ninety nine I ran to
be the candidate and I achieved that and then I
won the seat at I guess it must have been
twenty nine or thirty something like that, and we won
(10:08):
it by two hundred and eighty nine votes. And actually,
the readly slightly more interesting thing about that was that
one of the ballot boxes went missing, and so my
recollection is that the act Party saw a judicial review
in Rangaticki, which was had the potential to hold up
how In Clark's government coming into power in nineteen ninety nine.
(10:28):
And actually I'd forgotten largely about it until my valedictory
speech when my old friend from the other side, Trevor Mallard,
yelled out across the house you can give the box now,
so that it wasn't enough votes in the box to
offset the two hundred and eighty nine, and so the
court sat and you go. And that was interesting because
I arrived as a politician with a student loan, and
(10:52):
I must have been one of the first from that
generation to turn up as a member of Parliament with
a student loan. That was different, you know, listening to
Steve Mahari and other education tertiary education ministers talk about
how student loans worked while you're kind of sitting here,
and it was quite a quite interesting Dyna. Was it?
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Was it always national for you? I mean, I guess
you've talked a little bit about some of the you know,
the change that happened in the eighties and things, and
and I guess I'm maybe generalizing, but I think you're
seen as someone who who straddles is a fairly sort
of centrist, kind of able to straddle the party to divide
a bit.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Yes, it was always National and you know, I have
this view on you know, on small on small government.
I believe in the powers of the fundamental market economies.
I believe in I believe in those things very very strongly. Look,
I was I was what the National Party, I guess
would now term as one of their more liberal liberal members.
(11:50):
You know, good good friend Catherine Rich and others of
that time, you know, claim so much, probably Marris Williamson,
others would consider themselves similarly socially liberal. And actually that
the extraordinary thing was, you know, rang Atik potentially quite
a conservative electorate, although I remember, very very independent thinker
(12:10):
is very smart people. It's the home of m MP
Bruce Beatham was from Rangak, so very thoughtful, understand electoral systems,
really clever, clever constituents, and they sort of adopted me
as a sort of liberal lawyer representing you know that
that terrific part of the country.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Yeah, and I guess you haven't trained in economics, but
that sort of those economic values have been instilled in
you or you've seen them through just being out in
the world.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Yeah, I think so. I think it's a great question.
I think that you know intuitively. Another way of thinking
about it is to say that New Zealanders are far
smarter than they are generally given credit for by policymakers,
by those and decision making roles. This idea that you
can only get an idea across through a south and
(13:00):
by it or through a simple message, this is just
not correct, right. New Zealanders are really smart. They understand
the debate, they understand the nuance of debate, they understand
complex reporting. If they're interested in the subject matter, I mean,
step back from it and ask yourself, when was the
last time you could say the New Zealand public got
an election wrong? Right? And actually they don't. They work
(13:23):
out the system that they're operating under. They work out
how to constrain and empower different parties, and they work
out the shape of the government they'd like at any
one time. They work out when they're tired of them,
they work out when they're ready. They're actually really clever.
And I think the more that we can upweight that
conversation to reflect back that level of sophisticated thinking the better.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Yeah, sure, I mean, I guess, you know, talking about
markets and capitalism working, it's obviously the argument works best
when it's working well and you inherited it. The system
is coming in as a cabinet minister two thousand and eight,
you're inherited the GFC, and then subsequently that the finance
(14:06):
company collapses. I am curious to get your sort of
views with a good bit of hindsight now on what
sort of learned I mean, certainly, I would say the
regulatory reform that you oversaw, the introduction of the FMA
and the Financial Markets Conduct Actors as seen something of
a great success. It certainly was very much welcomed by
(14:28):
the industry and seemed to deal with some of the
issues that were there at the time. I mean, do
you sort of look back with pride on that? And also,
you know, are we still fit for purpose now that
you're sitting on the other side.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
I guess yeah, we're very much fit for purpose. Just
answering the second question first, I think that you know,
the thing about regulation of markets is that it should
be done generationally so that there is a surety and
a consistency in the application of regulation, in the way
(15:01):
a regulator interacts with market participants, including of course Mum
and Dad investors. And when I think back on it,
the kind of last time that it had been overhauled
was actually jeff Sir Jeffrey Palmer when he did the
Securities Act legislation. And I spent time with Sir Jeffrey,
you know, understanding the leavers and the depth of knowledge
(15:22):
you had to have to make some of these changes.
Spent a lot of time with industry participants beforehand, testing
you know, ideas, sharing information, and the participants in markets
were really open with me. It was a high trust model.
Nothing everlaked during those discussions that I'm aware of or
that I can recall. And so to that end, working
(15:44):
alongside not only cabinet colleagues like Sir bil English and
others who were very determined to progress with work, you know,
credit has to go to Lean Delzel, who was sitting
on the other side of the house and had started
the Capital Markets Development Task Force when she was minister,
ordered that work from opposition, and then when we moved
to make some changes in government, she was very supportive
(16:07):
of those moves, so a lot of them ended up
being and this is going very much from memory. It's
a long time ago now, but they ended up being
quite bipartisan in nature, which gave markets, I think, reassurance
that it wasn't going to flip on its lid if
there was a change of a change of government. And
I look, it's for others to judge whether it's been
successful or not. I just hope it's brought some stability. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Well, I mean we're going through a fairly sort of
solid downturn right now. There's been the odd construction company gover,
but we haven't seen there is just isn't that tear
of you know, public touch wood at the stage. But
I mean, I guess, you know, it does feel like
the financial sector has been more robust going through through
(16:50):
this this current sort of downturn in Middley. It's a
more heavily signaled downturn than than what we got with
the GFC.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yes, yeah, look, I think that's fair. I recall one
of the big debates being whether participants or those worth
market expertise should be on the governance side of the FMA,
And I think in the end that's the right decision
to have people with knowledge, to have people where if
there are conflicts they can be managed, but people who
(17:18):
have a deeper understanding of you know, as you say,
the toing and frying of market dynamics. And I think
that's proven to be helpful.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Yeah, sure, I mean with the fund manager hat on. Now,
I mean, are there any things you'd like to see
tweak or change to try and sort of supercharge markets
a bit.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Yeah. Look, I think where we're sitting at the moment,
we do need to have a a nationwide discussion about
whether the settings are right on key we Saver. So
you know, we're having broad discussions about whether three or
four percent seems to be the right contribution rate in Australia,
there debating. I think it's between eleven and a half
and twelve. Now listen, where we're very early in the
(18:02):
life cycle of kiwisaver in the sense that you know,
we haven't had anybody go from eighteen to sixty sixty
five yet. I do think though that when it was
first introduced, you know, now we've got maybe one hundred
and ten hundred and eleven billion dollars worth sitting in
sitting in Kiwi savor and the idea of that in
(18:22):
the super fun which I think is at about seventy seven,
is that they would help smooth the cost of universal superannuation.
Now those numbers would indicate to me more of a
tripartid discussion between those three components. Is a better way
to think about it, rather than just having this notion
(18:44):
of two entities or two schemes smoothing the cost there
is there becomes i think an opportunity to have a
conversation about how much is enough? How much is the
right amount. There's always a risk that when you say
three plus three or three plus four are the right
signals that that you know, the New Zealand, the New
(19:05):
Zealand taxpayer or worker or contributor or client is sitting
there saying, all, if the government says those settings are enough,
they must be enough. Yeah, and actually people don't go further,
that's right. So having a bit more of a well,
they don't go further until they're sort of fifty eight
sixty or something like that, and they suddenly see, we
shouldn't time and we should either nervous about having a
(19:27):
conversation about whether the settings are up for you know,
up for debate or not. And I know that policymakers
will be sitting there saying this isn't the right time
to be having that discussion, you know, cost of living
crisis and letter. But actually, you know what, it's exactly
the right time because if you signal these things ahead
of time, you know OCRs down there's some opportunity potentially
(19:50):
with some disposable income people we starting to think about
how they use that disposable income.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Now we may actually have a few few months or
a year of something normal.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
That's right. So that's actually the ideal of set out
a bit of a pathway, have an intelligent conversation and
see where it ends up.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Yeah, would you go as far as like advocating compulsory
super like Australia.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Look, I think the way i'd answer that, and I'm
not trying to be a basive, but the way I
answer that is to say, always interested in a conversation.
I think contribution rates are probably just as important a
conversation as compulsion.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Now the other tricky one because TAM's and my boss
asked me to She said you should ask him should
the super age be raised at some point?
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I think, you know, I think that MMP creates an
environment where there's going to be ongoing discussions about the
right age here, these things will settle for the moment.
You're better off talking about what a pathway might look like,
both on contribution age and other things. If that's the
sensible conversation to have for a government of the day.
(20:55):
Having said that, I'm not going to stick my beaconto
you know what may or may not have come out
of negotiating.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Yes, yeah, yeah, fair enough. You don't have to give
us a headliner. So when we look at your career path,
I mean obviously, you know, into some very senior roles
at west Pac and then now the fund manager. It's
been very much a Minister of Commerce, but it was
was it a sort of a detour to be CEO
of TVNZ, Well.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
I guess if you put it like that. But the
way I would think about it is, you know, I
was at west Pac, had a wonderful set of opportunities,
terrifically enjoyed my time there. You know, I applied to
be the be the CEO. I didn't get the job.
Catherine's doing a great job in that role, and so
I was sort of thinking about, you know, what might
(21:41):
be what might I mean.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Would you have had to maybe go to Australia and
do time in Australia to I don't know. I don't know,
but I mean you're obviously quite committed to New Zealand,
very very and I think that, you know, hopefully that's clear.
And that's one of the great things about Fisher Funds
is you know, you got this two third ownership from
the Toy Founderation based out of the Taranaki Community Trust,
the old Taranaki Community Trust. The chunk of what we
(22:05):
do goes into that community every year. I really, I'm
from the provinces, you know, I don't identify myself as
an Aucklander as such, even though Auckland has been very
good to me. But I'm from the you know, I'm
from the man Or two and I'm delighted to see
those communities do well out of an organization like ours.
But TV and ZED the opportunity came up and I
thought that could be a really interesting thing to do,
(22:26):
given the potential merger with Radio New Zealand. You know,
finding I had a set of skills, I think that
was helpful, some commercial background, but also understand how public
policies built.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
I loved it. I absolutely loved it.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
I mean, it's a tough time. It was always a
tough time, you know.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Tell me at the start of any government or at
the start of any role where where you don't have
challenges and that I just think that's the nature of
going into these roles. But I mean, look, I don't
think it's any great, great secret in the industry. I
had a bit of a soft spot for the news room.
I love the work they did. I spent time down
there when I could, keeping my hands off editorial decisions,
(23:05):
of course, and really enjoyed understanding it. You know, I've
been in front of any of those journalists during my career,
and watching them prepare was very different from being on
the you know, on the receiving end. The merger didn't
go ahead, and that was really what I was there for. Yeah,
so we put in place the strategy to upweight the
digitization and so on, and then it just seemed, as
(23:25):
I think I described to one of your colleagues, the
natural infliction point to say, well, yeah, let's see what
else is different.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Different pathway there, but interesting, I see Aarons is looking
at moving into the building now.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
I've read that somewhere.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Yeah, so it seems like, whether it's a formal or not,
they may end up, you know the nature of media,
end up working closely together.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Well, I think you know, you know, you know this
better than anyone. But the industry has an enormous capacity
to adapt.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Yeah, it's always adapting. Yeah, absolutely. I want to get
into some of our quick fire questions now if I can.
Just going back a bit, I assume what's the poorest
you'd say you've ever been.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Well, I I was an undergraduate student for six years
at Victoria and Wellington. That was of my own doing.
It should have been five, but it was six. And
you know, by the time you hit your sixth year
with a student loan, you partying. Well. I mean, it's
fair to say that I enjoyed a couple of law
papers so much. I did them twice and I genuinely
enjoyed them.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
But att Robertson still beat you for the length of
time that any probably may well have.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
But you know, I'm not big on cans spaghetti now,
put it right here. It's not something I would choose
to choose to eat if I had a choice.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Yeah, how about sort of the other side. I guess
maybe when you've got your first paycheck as a lawyer
or something. But do you remember splashing out and thinking, gosh,
I've got a little bit of money, and if so,
what's the sort of most indulgent purchase you can remember making.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
I don't remember splashing out, but I certainly the most indulgent.
It just actually was after I left TV and zed
at LISTA, and I took the kids to Washington and
to New York, and then I stayed and spent some
time researching and presidential libraries and Jimmy Carter and Atlanta,
Georgia lb J and Austin, Texas, and then Reagan was
(25:19):
part of his study ondoing. And there was a point
where I was sitting in one of those archive rooms
going through materials, thinking, actually, this is very self indulgent,
very self indulgent. But I loved it. So that was
probably the most intill I've done. Yeah. Absolutely, Well. I
don't play, you know, I don't. I'm not very good
at golf. I don't own a boat, so kind of
us politics is my thing.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
You've got a big, big month and a half coming.
One we've been asking is Christopher luxon on the Camp
Payne Trail sort of got caught out, he asked. He
was asked about how much he spent on groceries and
he said sixty dollars because I think he was talking
about stocking up the apartment in Wellington. But how much
do you spend on groce? Is it a big shot
(26:02):
for you?
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Yeah, we've got two or we've got one boy down
at Canterbury University now he is a pretty pretty intense
rugby plant and another one who's six foot four and
a pretty intense basketball player and bass player. So no,
I would say it'll be in the hundreds. So it'd
be you know, probably I'd be guessing, but I would say,
you know, four or five hundred bucks a week at.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Least with teenage boys. It's sometimes hard to get through one.
You have to go back again. Well it's osmosis, isn't it.
They just stand in front of the fridge and when
the mates come over. Yeah, well there's that as well.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Do you buy lotto tickets? And if so, what sort
of amount do you imagine winning?
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Do buy the odd? One? Don't really imagine winning at
any time. And I think I'm always struck by when
the media interview winners how much they want to give away. Yeah,
and I think that's a really interesting phenomena in New Zealand.
But so no, I don't. I don't think a whole
(27:00):
thing to it.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Yeah, I just asked because some people, myself, I wouldn't
like the idea of winning forty million or something because
it's going to turn my life upside down.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
So I just imagine winning one point to which I don't.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
I don't buy the tickets, So that's very little chance.
On a sort of slightly wider scale, And we've touched
on a little bit, but how much is making money
important to you? And how much is that sort of
a byproduct of success for you.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
I don't kind of run out a role because of
what it pays. I run at it because it's going
to be interesting, it's going to be challenging. I know
it sounds trite that the end z component's a big
deal for me, and so that that weighs on a
decision that I might make about a role. I would
say that, you know, anybody that's ever asked me what
(27:48):
they should study at university, I've always just said, do
what you enjoy and it will lead to where it
leads to. You know, some people think of university as
as a ticket to a profession. My view has always been,
and I'm a perpetual student, so my view has always been, actually,
just do what you love and it'll work at a
tough out and that's really important. I mean I can
(28:10):
recall at Westpac, you know, doing one year doing the
final interviews for the graduate program and two of the
most stunning graduates we had. One was a musician and
one was had a master's in psychology. Plenty of great
commerce graduates, but it was just fascinating having people with
a different perspective. So I would say, if you love it,
study it, and what's more, keep studying it. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
One last question. We always ask if you were a
prime minister for a day, if we could magically make
you Prome Minister for a day, And I always ask us, well,
you know, just thinking about back in the days of
being a cabinet minister, did you ever have to fill in?
Speaker 2 (28:49):
No, I don't recall ever being there, but you must have.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
It must have been closed. Depends how many people are out.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Of the country. I think Jerry did a few times.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Yeah, so I guess there is what you might have
thought then and what you might think now. But what
if we could magic that power and actually also give
the Prime minister power to do some of the stuff.
What would be the policy that you would most like
to sort of implement if you had you know that
that kind of power that you think could address some
(29:16):
of the big challenges for New Zealand, the social inequality
and generally you know, create a bit more wealth in
the country.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Education every day of the week when I look at
the statistics and health, justice, welfare, education is the key
to opportunity and giving you know, those that you were
describing earlier who might not have had careers where money
(29:45):
was as much of an opportunity. Education will break that
cycle every time. And so yeah, if I had the
wand I would be going hard on the quality and
on the opportunity both at a compartment compulsory sector and
in the in the tertiary sector as well. I think
that for an economy of our size, that is, you know,
(30:09):
ushly dependent on the rest of the world to a
very very large extent, just having the smartest, most well educated,
most focused workforce and just adding to that global horsepower
that a country of the size has got the potential
to do. I wouldn't do anything above that on a list.
(30:31):
I just think it's the number one thing.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Sure, Look that's great. Soon I'm going to leave it
there so in power. Thanks for being on Money Talks.
Thanks Slam, Thanks for listening to this episode of Money Talks.
If you want to get in touch, drop me a
line Liam dot Dan at nzme dot co dot nz
and you can read more from me at enzidherld dot
co dot nz. Thanks to my producer Ethan Sills and
(30:55):
sound engineer Liam McDonald. Follow Money Talks on iHeartRadio or
wherever you get your podcasts, with new episodes available every Thursday.
Hi, I'm Liam Dan, New Zealand Herald Business Editor at Large,
and welcome to this episode of Money Talks. This is
a podcast about money, but we're not going to tell
you how to get rich, and we're not going to
try and pick the next interest rate move. In this series,
I'll be talking to interesting New Zealanders about how money
has shaped their lives and what they've learned over the years.
(00:29):
For today's podcast, I'm joined by Fisher Funds CEO and
former Cabinet minister Simon Power Curta Simon, Welcome to Money Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Thanks very much, I'm great to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
How long is it at Fisher Funds?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Now about six and a half seven months so middle
of February I started there.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
And how has that been? Quite a shift from TV
and Z chief but almost some familiarity there around sort
of into the finance world.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Yeah. So at Westpac I looked after BT managed funds
for a period there, but also for a slightly longer
period looked after the advice A network and so that,
combined with an everlasting interest in regulation and policy settings,
has meant that it's been a terrific opportunity, too good
to turn down.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Yeah, well, I'll come back to it, because obviously, as
Commerce Minister, you were deeply involved in reform of the
financial market sector and that's something perhaps to have a
look back at. But I want to go right back
here first and just ask you what your first money
memories are, What your first memories of having money in
your hand might be if you as a child.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Yeah, I mean, I guess a couple of things. The
first was, I do remember getting, you know, a five
or a ten dollar note in a Christmas card from
a grandmother back in the way. It's huge, it was
a huge deal, and so I do I do remember
the kind of you know, the having the note in
the hand as it were. And then I have, you know,
(01:51):
reasonably vivid memories of my last couple of years at
school of doing the night melodies New World and Parmerstona
and that might have been kind of two or three
nights a week, and so getting that thirty three or
thirty five dollars a neat or whatever it was a
week in the hand. I definitely remember those those first
(02:12):
associations with money and earning.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Sure, And do you remember what you might have splashed
out on in those days?
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, well, I do remember a particularly vivid, short sleeved
pink shirt with a vertical zip on it as an
early as an early investment box though mainly which sounds
slightly geeky, but that was true, And I've always been
a collector of books, and so I do remember that.
But I and you know, the odd, the odd hot
(02:38):
chocolate record, things like that. But the shirt sounds like
it's very early eighties. Well that's right, I know, that's
exactly right. So that would have been working in the supermarket,
would have been yeah, eighty six, eighty seven, Miami vice
ra correct, right, absolutely right, very good.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
I did read. I read an opinion piece you did
for The Herald a few year back. We mentioned your
father's advice on saving I just wondered, you know, if
you can tell me a little bit about what your
parents did and what they sort of instilled in you
around money.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah. Look, so dad was in cars and retail, and
mum was in retail real estate, and then actually only
recently has stepped back from doing you know, a couple
of days a week in retail as well, now that
she's in her kind of mid seventies. So very much
people associated professions and I guess what was instilled in
(03:31):
me was your work hard, which won't surprise any listeners
to this podcast. I've seen that repeated and the odd
time tuning in. But I do think that as well
as that was the idea that you're never quite sure
when things are going to get hard and so hard,
and so to make sure that a portion of that
(03:52):
has swept into a into a savings account. And that's
something that Lisa and I have tried to instill in
our boys as well. Sure.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Yeah, when you look back at that era, what do
you recall about money and economics through that time? You
were obviously old enough to recall the tail end of
the Muldoon era and the big government and then you know,
coming of age through all those reforms. It's obviously a
hugely influential time in New Zealand's economic history. But what
did you sort of take.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
No, that's great question. So in nineteen eighty four, when
I was in fourth Form as it then was called, Yeah,
I can vividly remember a great teacher, Michael Melbourne, had
the pictures of the fourth Labor Government cabinet up on
our wall in our fourth form home room. I guess
it was called and thinking about how they had come
(04:42):
into office, A couple of things resonated. The first was
just the breaking down of the construct of a different
way of managing the economy, if I can put it
that way. And then secondly, and this stayed with me,
the power of the first term of a government. Right. So,
watching watching Roger Douglas, Richard Prebole, you know that that
(05:05):
band of Mike Moore, I mean, Jeffrey Palmer was an
extraordinary legislator. And so when you know, when I thought
back about the opportunities that first term presented them, that
stuck with me for the next twenty five years. Really wow.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Yeah. And at school, I mean, how early did you
get in you know, did you have an interest in politics?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Well, it sort of started. I had a most wonderful
fifth form history teacher, Missus Robertson, who had us do
a unit on US politics and the sixties, so Kennedy,
Johnny Lively, Nixon, And that has literally stuck with me.
I mean, I'm still a student. I'm still enrolled at
Victoria University, and I'm still a student of US US politics.
(05:49):
I mean, what are you studying. I'm under the very
patient tutelage of two supervisors who are letting me do
a part time PhD in US political leadership, and so
very to be doing that.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
You know, weren't kidding that you will be watching the debate,
which we've dragged you away from the Harris Trump debate.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
On watching it, No question about that. No, And so
that's remained with me actually all the way through since school.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Sure, yeah, we're there are other favorite subjects. I mean,
and and sports. I guess I saw on Wikipedia that
you were a senior rep in two sports, but I
didn't really say what sports.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I don't think that's right. I struggled along in the
second fifteen rugby team and struggled along the cricket team.
So senior might have been. I was old, but I
wasn't a performer at all. In fact, quite the opposite.
I was probleusiastic team members. Well, that's right, and I
was probably more in the you know, when I look
back on it, really I was enjoyed, you know, debate, drama,
(06:48):
school musicals in fact, yeah, and all that on the stage. Yeah,
a little bit, yeah, little bit of So.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Going to university, you you you did law and political science,
I mean in court, you know, there's a sort of
a theatrical element to both aspects of politics. But you know,
did you end up wrestling between the political science side
and the law side? I mean, was there a choice
to be made?
Speaker 2 (07:08):
It's a great question. So I went to practice law
off the back of watching several episodes of LA Law
in the late eighties, and back in those days, I'm
not sure if it's the same now. You had to
do some electives, you know, for first year law, and
I elected to do political science. And I remember sitting
in the back row listening to Professor Margaret Clark, who
(07:30):
talking to us about participating in politics, participating in public policy.
And I can remember sitting in the back of that
classroom and it emptied out and a stats class or
something came in after us, and I was still sitting there, thinking, actually,
that's what I want to do, right, Yeah, And so
law in many respects became the byproduct of wanting to
(07:51):
study political science. And as it turns out, my memory
is my grades were a lot better in political science
than they were in law. Some subjects in law I
enjoyed so much under them twice, so you know.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
I guess it's not quite LA Law though when you
get out to your first firm and Palmers to North
and No.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
But I tell you that that, you know, I went
to work for fitz Herbert Rowe, who to this day
I regard as the most generous employer. They allowed a
you know, twenty eight twenty nine year old to put
their hand up to go into national politics. We're I'd
only been practicing law for four or five years really,
and they were extraordinarily generous and I've never never forgotten that. Sure,
(08:28):
and I did some time as a judy solicitor as
well as doing you know, corporate and commercial or did
some time at Kensington's Swan up here just a short
burst doing property property work. They again were very generous
in taking me on. But look, to be honest, it
wasn't really you know, the way that you were controlling
time wasn't a strength of mine. Yeah, and so probably
(08:48):
probably never destined to be a great, great lawyer, right, Yeah?
Speaker 1 (08:51):
What was money ever a big factor in career choice
at that point? You know, I guess if you're headed
to politics.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Not really, not really, Liam, And I mean when you know,
I was watching friends of mine go on to become
partners and law firms and accounting firms and so on,
And in my early thirties, you know, I was sitting
in opposition, watching you know, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen
and Annick King at the at the height of their powers.
And I wouldn't change that. I wouldn't change that. I
(09:20):
think it was the most incredibly rewarding time. And I
know this is but hackneyed to say, but it was
just such a privilege to sit in one of those
green chairs for a period of time. And no, I
didn't do it for the money.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Can you tell us a little bit about the process
of how you got involved in you know, you know,
in politics, in politics.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah, look, I'd always had an interest. But then when
Dennis Marshall stood down and rang a tiquet, you know,
it must have been nineteen ninety eight, I guess, I'm
guessing now. And in nineteen ninety nine I ran to
be the candidate and I achieved that and then I
won the seat at I guess it must have been
twenty nine or thirty something like that, and we won
(10:08):
it by two hundred and eighty nine votes. And actually,
the readly slightly more interesting thing about that was that
one of the ballot boxes went missing, and so my
recollection is that the act Party saw a judicial review
in Rangaticki, which was had the potential to hold up
how In Clark's government coming into power in nineteen ninety nine.
(10:28):
And actually I'd forgotten largely about it until my valedictory
speech when my old friend from the other side, Trevor Mallard,
yelled out across the house you can give the box now,
so that it wasn't enough votes in the box to
offset the two hundred and eighty nine, and so the
court sat and you go. And that was interesting because
I arrived as a politician with a student loan, and
(10:52):
I must have been one of the first from that
generation to turn up as a member of Parliament with
a student loan. That was different, you know, listening to
Steve Mahari and other education tertiary education ministers talk about
how student loans worked while you're kind of sitting here,
and it was quite a quite interesting Dyna. Was it?
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Was it always national for you? I mean, I guess
you've talked a little bit about some of the you know,
the change that happened in the eighties and things, and
and I guess I'm maybe generalizing, but I think you're
seen as someone who who straddles is a fairly sort
of centrist, kind of able to straddle the party to divide
a bit.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Yes, it was always National and you know, I have
this view on you know, on small on small government.
I believe in the powers of the fundamental market economies.
I believe in I believe in those things very very strongly. Look,
I was I was what the National Party, I guess
would now term as one of their more liberal liberal members.
(11:50):
You know, good good friend Catherine Rich and others of
that time, you know, claim so much, probably Marris Williamson,
others would consider themselves similarly socially liberal. And actually that
the extraordinary thing was, you know, rang Atik potentially quite
a conservative electorate, although I remember, very very independent thinker
(12:10):
is very smart people. It's the home of m MP
Bruce Beatham was from Rangak, so very thoughtful, understand electoral systems,
really clever, clever constituents, and they sort of adopted me
as a sort of liberal lawyer representing you know that
that terrific part of the country.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Yeah, and I guess you haven't trained in economics, but
that sort of those economic values have been instilled in
you or you've seen them through just being out in
the world.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Yeah, I think so. I think it's a great question.
I think that you know intuitively. Another way of thinking
about it is to say that New Zealanders are far
smarter than they are generally given credit for by policymakers,
by those and decision making roles. This idea that you
can only get an idea across through a south and
(13:00):
by it or through a simple message, this is just
not correct, right. New Zealanders are really smart. They understand
the debate, they understand the nuance of debate, they understand
complex reporting. If they're interested in the subject matter, I mean,
step back from it and ask yourself, when was the
last time you could say the New Zealand public got
an election wrong? Right? And actually they don't. They work
(13:23):
out the system that they're operating under. They work out
how to constrain and empower different parties, and they work
out the shape of the government they'd like at any
one time. They work out when they're tired of them,
they work out when they're ready. They're actually really clever.
And I think the more that we can upweight that
conversation to reflect back that level of sophisticated thinking the better.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Yeah, sure, I mean, I guess, you know, talking about
markets and capitalism working, it's obviously the argument works best
when it's working well and you inherited it. The system
is coming in as a cabinet minister two thousand and eight,
you're inherited the GFC, and then subsequently that the finance
(14:06):
company collapses. I am curious to get your sort of
views with a good bit of hindsight now on what
sort of learned I mean, certainly, I would say the
regulatory reform that you oversaw, the introduction of the FMA
and the Financial Markets Conduct Actors as seen something of
a great success. It certainly was very much welcomed by
(14:28):
the industry and seemed to deal with some of the
issues that were there at the time. I mean, do
you sort of look back with pride on that? And also,
you know, are we still fit for purpose now that
you're sitting on the other side.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
I guess yeah, we're very much fit for purpose. Just
answering the second question first, I think that you know,
the thing about regulation of markets is that it should
be done generationally so that there is a surety and
a consistency in the application of regulation, in the way
(15:01):
a regulator interacts with market participants, including of course Mum
and Dad investors. And when I think back on it,
the kind of last time that it had been overhauled
was actually jeff Sir Jeffrey Palmer when he did the
Securities Act legislation. And I spent time with Sir Jeffrey,
you know, understanding the leavers and the depth of knowledge
(15:22):
you had to have to make some of these changes.
Spent a lot of time with industry participants beforehand, testing
you know, ideas, sharing information, and the participants in markets
were really open with me. It was a high trust model.
Nothing everlaked during those discussions that I'm aware of or
that I can recall. And so to that end, working
(15:44):
alongside not only cabinet colleagues like Sir bil English and
others who were very determined to progress with work, you know,
credit has to go to Lean Delzel, who was sitting
on the other side of the house and had started
the Capital Markets Development Task Force when she was minister,
ordered that work from opposition, and then when we moved
to make some changes in government, she was very supportive
(16:07):
of those moves, so a lot of them ended up
being and this is going very much from memory. It's
a long time ago now, but they ended up being
quite bipartisan in nature, which gave markets, I think, reassurance
that it wasn't going to flip on its lid if
there was a change of a change of government. And
I look, it's for others to judge whether it's been
successful or not. I just hope it's brought some stability. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Well, I mean we're going through a fairly sort of
solid downturn right now. There's been the odd construction company gover,
but we haven't seen there is just isn't that tear
of you know, public touch wood at the stage. But
I mean, I guess, you know, it does feel like
the financial sector has been more robust going through through
(16:50):
this this current sort of downturn in Middley. It's a
more heavily signaled downturn than than what we got with
the GFC.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yes, yeah, look, I think that's fair. I recall one
of the big debates being whether participants or those worth
market expertise should be on the governance side of the FMA,
And I think in the end that's the right decision
to have people with knowledge, to have people where if
there are conflicts they can be managed, but people who
(17:18):
have a deeper understanding of you know, as you say,
the toing and frying of market dynamics. And I think
that's proven to be helpful.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Yeah, sure, I mean with the fund manager hat on. Now,
I mean, are there any things you'd like to see
tweak or change to try and sort of supercharge markets
a bit.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Yeah. Look, I think where we're sitting at the moment,
we do need to have a a nationwide discussion about
whether the settings are right on key we Saver. So
you know, we're having broad discussions about whether three or
four percent seems to be the right contribution rate in Australia,
there debating. I think it's between eleven and a half
and twelve. Now listen, where we're very early in the
(18:02):
life cycle of kiwisaver in the sense that you know,
we haven't had anybody go from eighteen to sixty sixty
five yet. I do think though that when it was
first introduced, you know, now we've got maybe one hundred
and ten hundred and eleven billion dollars worth sitting in
sitting in Kiwi savor and the idea of that in
(18:22):
the super fun which I think is at about seventy seven,
is that they would help smooth the cost of universal superannuation.
Now those numbers would indicate to me more of a
tripartid discussion between those three components. Is a better way
to think about it, rather than just having this notion
(18:44):
of two entities or two schemes smoothing the cost there
is there becomes i think an opportunity to have a
conversation about how much is enough? How much is the
right amount. There's always a risk that when you say
three plus three or three plus four are the right
signals that that you know, the New Zealand, the New
(19:05):
Zealand taxpayer or worker or contributor or client is sitting
there saying, all, if the government says those settings are enough,
they must be enough. Yeah, and actually people don't go further,
that's right. So having a bit more of a well,
they don't go further until they're sort of fifty eight
sixty or something like that, and they suddenly see, we
shouldn't time and we should either nervous about having a
(19:27):
conversation about whether the settings are up for you know,
up for debate or not. And I know that policymakers
will be sitting there saying this isn't the right time
to be having that discussion, you know, cost of living
crisis and letter. But actually, you know what, it's exactly
the right time because if you signal these things ahead
of time, you know OCRs down there's some opportunity potentially
(19:50):
with some disposable income people we starting to think about
how they use that disposable income.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Now we may actually have a few few months or
a year of something normal.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
That's right. So that's actually the ideal of set out
a bit of a pathway, have an intelligent conversation and
see where it ends up.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Yeah, would you go as far as like advocating compulsory
super like Australia.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Look, I think the way i'd answer that, and I'm
not trying to be a basive, but the way I
answer that is to say, always interested in a conversation.
I think contribution rates are probably just as important a
conversation as compulsion.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Now the other tricky one because TAM's and my boss
asked me to She said you should ask him should
the super age be raised at some point?
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I think, you know, I think that MMP creates an
environment where there's going to be ongoing discussions about the
right age here, these things will settle for the moment.
You're better off talking about what a pathway might look like,
both on contribution age and other things. If that's the
sensible conversation to have for a government of the day.
(20:55):
Having said that, I'm not going to stick my beaconto
you know what may or may not have come out
of negotiating.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Yes, yeah, yeah, fair enough. You don't have to give
us a headliner. So when we look at your career path,
I mean obviously, you know, into some very senior roles
at west Pac and then now the fund manager. It's
been very much a Minister of Commerce, but it was
was it a sort of a detour to be CEO
of TVNZ, Well.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
I guess if you put it like that. But the
way I would think about it is, you know, I
was at west Pac, had a wonderful set of opportunities,
terrifically enjoyed my time there. You know, I applied to
be the be the CEO. I didn't get the job.
Catherine's doing a great job in that role, and so
I was sort of thinking about, you know, what might
(21:41):
be what might I mean.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Would you have had to maybe go to Australia and
do time in Australia to I don't know. I don't know,
but I mean you're obviously quite committed to New Zealand,
very very and I think that, you know, hopefully that's clear.
And that's one of the great things about Fisher Funds
is you know, you got this two third ownership from
the Toy Founderation based out of the Taranaki Community Trust,
the old Taranaki Community Trust. The chunk of what we
(22:05):
do goes into that community every year. I really, I'm
from the provinces, you know, I don't identify myself as
an Aucklander as such, even though Auckland has been very
good to me. But I'm from the you know, I'm
from the man Or two and I'm delighted to see
those communities do well out of an organization like ours.
But TV and ZED the opportunity came up and I
thought that could be a really interesting thing to do,
(22:26):
given the potential merger with Radio New Zealand. You know,
finding I had a set of skills, I think that
was helpful, some commercial background, but also understand how public
policies built.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
I loved it. I absolutely loved it.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
I mean, it's a tough time. It was always a
tough time, you know.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Tell me at the start of any government or at
the start of any role where where you don't have
challenges and that I just think that's the nature of
going into these roles. But I mean, look, I don't
think it's any great, great secret in the industry. I
had a bit of a soft spot for the news room.
I love the work they did. I spent time down
there when I could, keeping my hands off editorial decisions,
(23:05):
of course, and really enjoyed understanding it. You know, I've
been in front of any of those journalists during my career,
and watching them prepare was very different from being on
the you know, on the receiving end. The merger didn't
go ahead, and that was really what I was there for. Yeah,
so we put in place the strategy to upweight the
digitization and so on, and then it just seemed, as
(23:25):
I think I described to one of your colleagues, the
natural infliction point to say, well, yeah, let's see what
else is different.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Different pathway there, but interesting, I see Aarons is looking
at moving into the building now.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
I've read that somewhere.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Yeah, so it seems like, whether it's a formal or not,
they may end up, you know the nature of media,
end up working closely together.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Well, I think you know, you know, you know this
better than anyone. But the industry has an enormous capacity
to adapt.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Yeah, it's always adapting. Yeah, absolutely. I want to get
into some of our quick fire questions now if I can.
Just going back a bit, I assume what's the poorest
you'd say you've ever been.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Well, I I was an undergraduate student for six years
at Victoria and Wellington. That was of my own doing.
It should have been five, but it was six. And
you know, by the time you hit your sixth year
with a student loan, you partying. Well. I mean, it's
fair to say that I enjoyed a couple of law
papers so much. I did them twice and I genuinely
enjoyed them.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
But att Robertson still beat you for the length of
time that any probably may well have.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
But you know, I'm not big on cans spaghetti now,
put it right here. It's not something I would choose
to choose to eat if I had a choice.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Yeah, how about sort of the other side. I guess
maybe when you've got your first paycheck as a lawyer
or something. But do you remember splashing out and thinking, gosh,
I've got a little bit of money, and if so,
what's the sort of most indulgent purchase you can remember making.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
I don't remember splashing out, but I certainly the most indulgent.
It just actually was after I left TV and zed
at LISTA, and I took the kids to Washington and
to New York, and then I stayed and spent some
time researching and presidential libraries and Jimmy Carter and Atlanta,
Georgia lb J and Austin, Texas, and then Reagan was
(25:19):
part of his study ondoing. And there was a point
where I was sitting in one of those archive rooms
going through materials, thinking, actually, this is very self indulgent,
very self indulgent. But I loved it. So that was
probably the most intill I've done. Yeah. Absolutely, Well. I
don't play, you know, I don't. I'm not very good
at golf. I don't own a boat, so kind of
us politics is my thing.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
You've got a big, big month and a half coming.
One we've been asking is Christopher luxon on the Camp
Payne Trail sort of got caught out, he asked. He
was asked about how much he spent on groceries and
he said sixty dollars because I think he was talking
about stocking up the apartment in Wellington. But how much
do you spend on groce? Is it a big shot
(26:02):
for you?
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Yeah, we've got two or we've got one boy down
at Canterbury University now he is a pretty pretty intense
rugby plant and another one who's six foot four and
a pretty intense basketball player and bass player. So no,
I would say it'll be in the hundreds. So it'd
be you know, probably I'd be guessing, but I would say,
you know, four or five hundred bucks a week at.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Least with teenage boys. It's sometimes hard to get through one.
You have to go back again. Well it's osmosis, isn't it.
They just stand in front of the fridge and when
the mates come over. Yeah, well there's that as well.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Do you buy lotto tickets? And if so, what sort
of amount do you imagine winning?
Speaker 2 (26:39):
Do buy the odd? One? Don't really imagine winning at
any time. And I think I'm always struck by when
the media interview winners how much they want to give away. Yeah,
and I think that's a really interesting phenomena in New Zealand.
But so no, I don't. I don't think a whole
(27:00):
thing to it.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Yeah, I just asked because some people, myself, I wouldn't
like the idea of winning forty million or something because
it's going to turn my life upside down.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
So I just imagine winning one point to which I don't.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
I don't buy the tickets, So that's very little chance.
On a sort of slightly wider scale, And we've touched
on a little bit, but how much is making money
important to you? And how much is that sort of
a byproduct of success for you.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
I don't kind of run out a role because of
what it pays. I run at it because it's going
to be interesting, it's going to be challenging. I know
it sounds trite that the end z component's a big
deal for me, and so that that weighs on a
decision that I might make about a role. I would
say that, you know, anybody that's ever asked me what
(27:48):
they should study at university, I've always just said, do
what you enjoy and it will lead to where it
leads to. You know, some people think of university as
as a ticket to a profession. My view has always been,
and I'm a perpetual student, so my view has always been, actually,
just do what you love and it'll work at a
tough out and that's really important. I mean I can
(28:10):
recall at Westpac, you know, doing one year doing the
final interviews for the graduate program and two of the
most stunning graduates we had. One was a musician and
one was had a master's in psychology. Plenty of great
commerce graduates, but it was just fascinating having people with
a different perspective. So I would say, if you love it,
study it, and what's more, keep studying it. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
One last question. We always ask if you were a
prime minister for a day, if we could magically make
you Prome Minister for a day, And I always ask us, well,
you know, just thinking about back in the days of
being a cabinet minister, did you ever have to fill in?
Speaker 2 (28:49):
No, I don't recall ever being there, but you must have.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
It must have been closed. Depends how many people are out.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Of the country. I think Jerry did a few times.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Yeah, so I guess there is what you might have
thought then and what you might think now. But what
if we could magic that power and actually also give
the Prime minister power to do some of the stuff.
What would be the policy that you would most like
to sort of implement if you had you know that
that kind of power that you think could address some
(29:16):
of the big challenges for New Zealand, the social inequality
and generally you know, create a bit more wealth in
the country.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Education every day of the week when I look at
the statistics and health, justice, welfare, education is the key
to opportunity and giving you know, those that you were
describing earlier who might not have had careers where money
(29:45):
was as much of an opportunity. Education will break that
cycle every time. And so yeah, if I had the
wand I would be going hard on the quality and
on the opportunity both at a compartment compulsory sector and
in the in the tertiary sector as well. I think
that for an economy of our size, that is, you know,
(30:09):
ushly dependent on the rest of the world to a
very very large extent, just having the smartest, most well educated,
most focused workforce and just adding to that global horsepower
that a country of the size has got the potential
to do. I wouldn't do anything above that on a list.
(30:31):
I just think it's the number one thing.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Sure, Look that's great. Soon I'm going to leave it
there so in power. Thanks for being on Money Talks.
Thanks Slam, Thanks for listening to this episode of Money Talks.
If you want to get in touch, drop me a
line Liam dot Dan at nzme dot co dot nz
and you can read more from me at enzidherld dot
co dot nz. Thanks to my producer Ethan Sills and
(30:55):
sound engineer Liam McDonald. Follow Money Talks on iHeartRadio or
wherever you get your podcasts, with new episodes available every Thursday.
Popular Podcasts
Good Game with Sarah Spain
Good Game is your one-stop shop for the biggest stories in women’s sports. Every day, host Sarah Spain gives you the stories, stakes, stars and stats to keep up with your favorite women’s teams, leagues and athletes. Through thoughtful insight, witty banter, and an all around good time, Sarah and friends break down the latest news, talk about the games you can’t miss, and debate the issues of the day. Don’t miss interviews with the people of the moment, whether they be athletes, coaches, reporters, or celebrity fans.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.