December 1, 2024 • 7 mins
The Act Party leader defends carbon farming saying property rights trump land use. But does he defend his PM? Or throw him under the bus? And is he picking a fight with menopausal women that he can't win?
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 (00:00):
Here is a man in the news, the ACT party leader.
I want to start with the hot issue out there
amongst rural New Zealand, or one of them at the
moment anyhow, David Seymour, and that is carbon farming. It's
causing irreparable damage to rural New Zealand and its environment.
Get it right. So what are you going to do
about us?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Well, a couple of things. I mean, let me just
start by saying something that won't make me popular but
needs to be said. He ACT as the party that
stands up for property rights, and a lot of people
come to us and say, well, you know, we shouldn't
have to ask permission to do this and that, and
it's not fear that we have these crazy plans forced
on us by the council and can't get permission to
do irrigation, you know, you name it. But standing on
(00:42):
a principle like property rights also means that you've got
to stand up for the right of a person to
sell their property to a person who's going to use
it for whatever they want. And so that's always a
popular position to take. A more popular position is in
the city your policy is other people should take the bus.
(01:03):
Everyone loves that policy, but of course no one wants
to do it themselves. So I just start with that's
where we stand. Secondly, I think having overseas investment laws
that favored, you know, investment in trees but didn't allow
investment and land was wrong. We're fixing that. We're making
(01:24):
a level playing field provacas investment. Second I don't think
that it's actually been right the way that we've allowed
a whole lot of other environmental damage from trees, such
as slash coming down rivers, and we haven't regulated that.
I think you should be regulated for the harm that
your use of property causes to other people's property.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
That's when Yeah, but David, hang on, I'm going to
stop you. Then what about the bigger picture, the fact
that we become the pine plantation of the South Pacific.
Surely it's in everyone's interests that that doesn't happen. And
a simple fix that would appear to me would be
the one hundred percent allowance for offsetting for planting pine trees.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
No, no other country does it.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
But here's here's the challenge though, right, Like, so, if
you say we've got a big vision and a big picture,
and what you can do, and your property has to
fit into that vision. That sounds like the politics of
the other side. We believe in private property rights and
people's ability to decide what's best for themselves. So yep,
I totally understand issue. And like I say, I know
(02:31):
that the people who say, oh, well, that's that's not right.
There should be a restriction or a band or something.
But I just make the point that ultimately standing up
for the rights of landowner to use the land as
they see fit as how we got this far so far,
and changing that I don't think will be good for
people overall.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Yeah, okay, personal rights to hell with the environment. Are
you causing trouble in the.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
No, no, no, no, did I did say that. I did
say that the real environmental restriction is when you're use
of property effects the health of other people's property. That
I believe we need to tough enough on the overseas
investment and some of the laws around the effects of forestry.
That's how you restrict it. But I always stand for
property rights.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Now, are you causing trouble on the coalition? You are
because you told Jack Taime I was listening to the
interview with the Prime Minister yes, said I on Q
and I you said that the Treaty Principals Bill wasn't
actually a bottom line. So have you played the PM
on this one?
Speaker 2 (03:29):
No, I wouldn't say that. I mean what basically happened
is that Chris said that if we didn't have the
Treaty Principals Bill, we wouldn't have a government. I prefer
not to be talking about coalition negotiations like that, but
of course he says that journalists come to me and
then I've got a reply, and that course leads to
(03:53):
more discussion. So I'm just going to put a stop
on it right here. We always wanted to form a government,
We've formed a coalition, and I'm very proud that in
the Treaty principal spill is raising issues that a lot
of people don't want to talk about that. I believe
we ultimately need to talk about whether our treaty created
(04:13):
a partnership between two collectives based on ancestry, or does
it give everyone equal rights? Now debate's happening New Zealand
isn't a much better way.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
What do you say to the commentators who say that
John Key these days, Sir John Key, wouldn't have stood
for this for a moment. He would have said, well,
you know, you can do what you want, David, but
if you cause too much trouble, I'm going to stand
against you in EPSOM. And John Key would have beaten
you in EPSOM. Would Chris Luckson beat you in EPSOM?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Well, a couple of things that I think the commentator
who said that was Chrispin Lissen. I think the reason
why things are different these days a lot of people
voted for ACT because they wanted a party that would
take a stronger stand on a whole bunch of issues,
which during the John Key we just kind of left
things on AUTOPI A lot of people are national actually
(05:05):
admit that now. Chris Finlinson might not. But you know,
part of the reason that things are different is because
we need someone a little bit stronger in government who says, well, actually,
we do stand for equal rights, we do need to
cut government waste, we do need to get stuck into
red tape and regulation. And if you look at this government,
(05:27):
there's never been an incoming government from the right that
has made so much change so quickly to get rid
of Labour's legacy. It's also the first time that you've
had at the cabin table, and I suspect that you
know that those two facts are not unrelated.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Just a final one. Claire Trevette, probably my favorite writer
in the Heralds, she's very clever, has written a very
good piece over the weekend about getting rid of patches,
referring to National getting rid of the patches for the
gangs and you for getting rid of the patches for
the Men of Paul, a woman who clear described as
a more fharesome group worrying about losing their patches compared
(06:06):
to the gangs. Are you picking a fight you can't
one here, David Seymour.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well, no, I will win the fight, and I've already
had an apology from far Meak. I've said to far Mek, Look,
you guys need to start listening to patient voice. Yes,
you've got to make good decisions to save money and
get the medicine dollar to go further. But if the
thing you ultimately choose is going to annoy all of
the patients will not work for them, then that's a
(06:34):
failure too. So look, you know, in fairness, Farmik made
a lot of these decisions starting last June, so I've
only been responsible for them this year, but that's that's
obviously no excuse. I'm the one that's got to fix it,
and we are doing that, but we're starting a little
bit behind. So watch this space. I don't I don't
quite know where where far Mek are going to end
(06:55):
up on it, but I can tell you I'm certainly
giving them the word that they need to do a
lot better than they head so far.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Well, be wary of those men. A pause, A woman,
David Seymour, thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Yeah, no worse. Thanks Jerny
Here is a man in the news, the ACT party leader.
I want to start with the hot issue out there
amongst rural New Zealand, or one of them at the
moment anyhow, David Seymour, and that is carbon farming. It's
causing irreparable damage to rural New Zealand and its environment.
Get it right. So what are you going to do
about us?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Well, a couple of things. I mean, let me just
start by saying something that won't make me popular but
needs to be said. He ACT as the party that
stands up for property rights, and a lot of people
come to us and say, well, you know, we shouldn't
have to ask permission to do this and that, and
it's not fear that we have these crazy plans forced
on us by the council and can't get permission to
do irrigation, you know, you name it. But standing on
(00:42):
a principle like property rights also means that you've got
to stand up for the right of a person to
sell their property to a person who's going to use
it for whatever they want. And so that's always a
popular position to take. A more popular position is in
the city your policy is other people should take the bus.
(01:03):
Everyone loves that policy, but of course no one wants
to do it themselves. So I just start with that's
where we stand. Secondly, I think having overseas investment laws
that favored, you know, investment in trees but didn't allow
investment and land was wrong. We're fixing that. We're making
(01:24):
a level playing field provacas investment. Second I don't think
that it's actually been right the way that we've allowed
a whole lot of other environmental damage from trees, such
as slash coming down rivers, and we haven't regulated that.
I think you should be regulated for the harm that
your use of property causes to other people's property.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
That's when Yeah, but David, hang on, I'm going to
stop you. Then what about the bigger picture, the fact
that we become the pine plantation of the South Pacific.
Surely it's in everyone's interests that that doesn't happen. And
a simple fix that would appear to me would be
the one hundred percent allowance for offsetting for planting pine trees.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
No, no other country does it.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
But here's here's the challenge though, right, Like, so, if
you say we've got a big vision and a big picture,
and what you can do, and your property has to
fit into that vision. That sounds like the politics of
the other side. We believe in private property rights and
people's ability to decide what's best for themselves. So yep,
I totally understand issue. And like I say, I know
(02:31):
that the people who say, oh, well, that's that's not right.
There should be a restriction or a band or something.
But I just make the point that ultimately standing up
for the rights of landowner to use the land as
they see fit as how we got this far so far,
and changing that I don't think will be good for
people overall.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Yeah, okay, personal rights to hell with the environment. Are
you causing trouble in the.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
No, no, no, no, did I did say that. I did
say that the real environmental restriction is when you're use
of property effects the health of other people's property. That
I believe we need to tough enough on the overseas
investment and some of the laws around the effects of forestry.
That's how you restrict it. But I always stand for
property rights.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Now, are you causing trouble on the coalition? You are
because you told Jack Taime I was listening to the
interview with the Prime Minister yes, said I on Q
and I you said that the Treaty Principals Bill wasn't
actually a bottom line. So have you played the PM
on this one?
Speaker 2 (03:29):
No, I wouldn't say that. I mean what basically happened
is that Chris said that if we didn't have the
Treaty Principals Bill, we wouldn't have a government. I prefer
not to be talking about coalition negotiations like that, but
of course he says that journalists come to me and
then I've got a reply, and that course leads to
(03:53):
more discussion. So I'm just going to put a stop
on it right here. We always wanted to form a government,
We've formed a coalition, and I'm very proud that in
the Treaty principal spill is raising issues that a lot
of people don't want to talk about that. I believe
we ultimately need to talk about whether our treaty created
(04:13):
a partnership between two collectives based on ancestry, or does
it give everyone equal rights? Now debate's happening New Zealand
isn't a much better way.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
What do you say to the commentators who say that
John Key these days, Sir John Key, wouldn't have stood
for this for a moment. He would have said, well,
you know, you can do what you want, David, but
if you cause too much trouble, I'm going to stand
against you in EPSOM. And John Key would have beaten
you in EPSOM. Would Chris Luckson beat you in EPSOM?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Well, a couple of things that I think the commentator
who said that was Chrispin Lissen. I think the reason
why things are different these days a lot of people
voted for ACT because they wanted a party that would
take a stronger stand on a whole bunch of issues,
which during the John Key we just kind of left
things on AUTOPI A lot of people are national actually
(05:05):
admit that now. Chris Finlinson might not. But you know,
part of the reason that things are different is because
we need someone a little bit stronger in government who says, well, actually,
we do stand for equal rights, we do need to
cut government waste, we do need to get stuck into
red tape and regulation. And if you look at this government,
(05:27):
there's never been an incoming government from the right that
has made so much change so quickly to get rid
of Labour's legacy. It's also the first time that you've
had at the cabin table, and I suspect that you
know that those two facts are not unrelated.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Just a final one. Claire Trevette, probably my favorite writer
in the Heralds, she's very clever, has written a very
good piece over the weekend about getting rid of patches,
referring to National getting rid of the patches for the
gangs and you for getting rid of the patches for
the Men of Paul, a woman who clear described as
a more fharesome group worrying about losing their patches compared
(06:06):
to the gangs. Are you picking a fight you can't
one here, David Seymour.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well, no, I will win the fight, and I've already
had an apology from far Meak. I've said to far Mek, Look,
you guys need to start listening to patient voice. Yes,
you've got to make good decisions to save money and
get the medicine dollar to go further. But if the
thing you ultimately choose is going to annoy all of
the patients will not work for them, then that's a
(06:34):
failure too. So look, you know, in fairness, Farmik made
a lot of these decisions starting last June, so I've
only been responsible for them this year, but that's that's
obviously no excuse. I'm the one that's got to fix it,
and we are doing that, but we're starting a little
bit behind. So watch this space. I don't I don't
quite know where where far Mek are going to end
(06:55):
up on it, but I can tell you I'm certainly
giving them the word that they need to do a
lot better than they head so far.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Well, be wary of those men. A pause, A woman,
David Seymour, thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Yeah, no worse. Thanks Jerny
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.