September 13, 2026 • 7 mins
The Deputy Prime Minister and Act leader comments on his just-released party List, whether he agrees with Winston on Paris and pricing Ag emissions, and why we need more nation-building infrastructure projects in this country.
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 (00:00):
David Seymour is the ACT Party leader. He's also the
Deputy Prime Minister as we count down to the election
less than two months to go. David, pat on the
back time. Good to see in your party list that
your ag guy, Andrew Hoggard, former President of Federated Farmers,
is at the lofty heights of number three. Well done.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Yeah, well, well done, Andrew. A few things about him.
First of all, he told me it'd be much simpler
for him because he's used to being a tight-haired prop,
so number three will make his life less confusing. But
underneath that self-deprecating humour, he's razor-sharp. His grasp of economics
and his knowledge of all things agricultural means that he
(00:44):
can turn a conversation in Cabinet by introducing facts that
are absolutely critical but no one else was aware of.
And he has an authenticity not to... cast shade on
any other party's agricultural spokespeople. But when you talk to Andrew,
you get the feeling you've got the real deal. I
don't know if that's always the case.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Are you going to demand that he's the Minister of
Agriculture in the next coalition government, should you get across
the line? I mean, Winston's demanding immigration ministers.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Well, let's see. I mean, one thing that's clear is
that if it was to be done on merit... in
terms of knowledge and performance and work ethic and connection
with the rural sector, I think you would pick Andrew Hoggart.
Let's see what the numbers are. If we're even in
a position to form government, we've got to work like
(01:36):
hell and get people to give their party a vote
to act to make that happen and to keep the
other guys out. So, you know, there's a lot of
water to go into that particular bridge. But if you
look at the people in the current Parliament, And if
you were going to choose someone on merit to be
the Minister of Agriculture, I think it would be pretty
hard to argue, putting aside politics, that it should not
(01:58):
be Andrew.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Mind you, Todd McClay's done a pretty good job, to
be fair. Look, will some of your sitting MPs be
a bit peeved that you've got your pet, Paul Henry,
at number four? Because you obviously did a deal with
him to get him on board, and he's been very
good for the ACT Party polls, I put it to you.
But you said to him you're going to guarantee him
a place in in Parliament. He's not going to do
all that work for nothing.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Well, I'll put it this way. We did say he'd
have a high ranking, but the ranking he's got is
higher than I thought and that we'd previously discussed. And
the reason for that is that he's got out and
done the work. I think the thing about Paul is
a lot of people know him for a few things
he said on Breakfast TV 15 years ago. What I
(02:42):
realised when I met him and got to know him
over the last two years was is you don't build
and sell off a successful provincial radio station by getting
up at 3 a.m. every morning for 20 years unless
you have a work ethic. And if you look at
him getting around the country, you know, he's spoken, they
tell me, to 7,000 people at about 20 meetings in
(03:06):
the last few weeks. You know, the guy's a machine.
And so... across the ACT family, people respect that he's
actually doing the work. And the same with James Christmas.
I mean, James has knocked on the door of your
near namesake, Mr Mackay, and he's also doing the work.
(03:27):
And that's one thing that ACT people respect is meritocracy.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Okay, that's Hamish Mackay I think we're referencing there. Paris,
when it comes to Paris and pricing ag emissions, for
once are you in total agreement with Winston?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
No, I mean, you know, Winston's, of course, doing the
Winston thing, which is short soundbite, absolute, and, you know,
who knows what happens after the election. What we're saying
is a bit more consistent with ACT, that New Zealand
has a balancing act. Anyone that says, oh, you just
pull out tomorrow and see what happens, I don't think
(04:02):
that's responsible because it's not clear. But anyone that says
we're in it to the hilt and we're going to
send ourselves broke but to remain pure regardless of what
other countries do. I mean, that's totally nuts. It'll make
us broke and actually will increase global emissions because foreign
farmers are generally less efficient in terms of greenhouse gases
(04:25):
per kilogram of protein than our competitors. Well, than we are, sorry. So,
you know, New Zealand needs to very carefully look at
how do we renegotiate a fairer deal for methane. That
was not done. because when Paris was done, we basically
had public officials that are supposed to represent our interests
(04:45):
to the world, and they found they got on a
bit better with the other public officials in Paris. They
ended up representing Paris to us. We need to change that,
get a better deal, team up with countries like Uruguay
that are more methane intensive, and if they're not going
to be reasonable, maybe we should look around, see what
other countries are up to by that stage, and be
prepared to walk. It may be that the cost of
(05:08):
walking are going to become far lower than the cost
of staying in as other countries fail to walk the
talk on their commitments.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Just a couple to quickly finish on. I understand you
haven't been on the city rail link, the underground train system,
the subway, we could almost call it, couldn't we? Subway,
the tube. In Auckland, it's pretty impressive. I went to
an open day, but... It's infrastructure, $ 5. 5 billion of the stuff.
(05:38):
We're going to have to pay for that, obviously. But
surely in this country, David Seymour, we need more kick-ass
infrastructure projects like that. And I'll throw one at you,
Four Lane Highway, Auckland to Whangarei.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Well, I agree with you that we need more infrastructure
for a whole bunch of reasons. You look at Northland,
where I happen to grow up, it's one of the
poorest areas in the world. And the only... real solution
to the social problems and the poverty up there in
the division is called Four Lanes to Kaitaia. I mean,
I don't know if you'd ever get that far, but
(06:13):
once you start connecting people to opportunity and you make
businesses more efficient, then some of the other problems tend
to melt away. So I tend to agree with that.
But we've got to ask ourselves why the costs are
so high. Simon Court has put out, I think, a
very good transport policy where he says, look, at the
very least, when a project is published, the minimum viable option,
(06:37):
the lowest cost way of achieving the goal, should be
published alongside the option that they choose. Because at the moment,
we're building gold-plated stuff. City Rail is a good example
of that. Even the guy that was in charge of
the project, the year we overcooked it, $ 6 billion later,
that doesn't seem so wise. So the ACT Party is
all for more infrastructure, but that doesn't have to mean
(06:59):
more money. It could mean more efficiency.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Hey, David Seymour, I'm out of time. I can't even
talk about you as a child actor. Someone told me
you played a young Sir Ed Hillary when you were
a kid. Maybe we'll talk about that next time.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
OK, I look forward to it.
David Seymour is the ACT Party leader. He's also the
Deputy Prime Minister as we count down to the election
less than two months to go. David, pat on the
back time. Good to see in your party list that
your ag guy, Andrew Hoggard, former President of Federated Farmers,
is at the lofty heights of number three. Well done.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Yeah, well, well done, Andrew. A few things about him.
First of all, he told me it'd be much simpler
for him because he's used to being a tight-haired prop,
so number three will make his life less confusing. But
underneath that self-deprecating humour, he's razor-sharp. His grasp of economics
and his knowledge of all things agricultural means that he
(00:44):
can turn a conversation in Cabinet by introducing facts that
are absolutely critical but no one else was aware of.
And he has an authenticity not to... cast shade on
any other party's agricultural spokespeople. But when you talk to Andrew,
you get the feeling you've got the real deal. I
don't know if that's always the case.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Are you going to demand that he's the Minister of
Agriculture in the next coalition government, should you get across
the line? I mean, Winston's demanding immigration ministers.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Well, let's see. I mean, one thing that's clear is
that if it was to be done on merit... in
terms of knowledge and performance and work ethic and connection
with the rural sector, I think you would pick Andrew Hoggart.
Let's see what the numbers are. If we're even in
a position to form government, we've got to work like
(01:36):
hell and get people to give their party a vote
to act to make that happen and to keep the
other guys out. So, you know, there's a lot of
water to go into that particular bridge. But if you
look at the people in the current Parliament, And if
you were going to choose someone on merit to be
the Minister of Agriculture, I think it would be pretty
hard to argue, putting aside politics, that it should not
(01:58):
be Andrew.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Mind you, Todd McClay's done a pretty good job, to
be fair. Look, will some of your sitting MPs be
a bit peeved that you've got your pet, Paul Henry,
at number four? Because you obviously did a deal with
him to get him on board, and he's been very
good for the ACT Party polls, I put it to you.
But you said to him you're going to guarantee him
a place in in Parliament. He's not going to do
all that work for nothing.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Well, I'll put it this way. We did say he'd
have a high ranking, but the ranking he's got is
higher than I thought and that we'd previously discussed. And
the reason for that is that he's got out and
done the work. I think the thing about Paul is
a lot of people know him for a few things
he said on Breakfast TV 15 years ago. What I
(02:42):
realised when I met him and got to know him
over the last two years was is you don't build
and sell off a successful provincial radio station by getting
up at 3 a.m. every morning for 20 years unless
you have a work ethic. And if you look at
him getting around the country, you know, he's spoken, they
tell me, to 7,000 people at about 20 meetings in
(03:06):
the last few weeks. You know, the guy's a machine.
And so... across the ACT family, people respect that he's
actually doing the work. And the same with James Christmas.
I mean, James has knocked on the door of your
near namesake, Mr Mackay, and he's also doing the work.
(03:27):
And that's one thing that ACT people respect is meritocracy.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Okay, that's Hamish Mackay I think we're referencing there. Paris,
when it comes to Paris and pricing ag emissions, for
once are you in total agreement with Winston?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
No, I mean, you know, Winston's, of course, doing the
Winston thing, which is short soundbite, absolute, and, you know,
who knows what happens after the election. What we're saying
is a bit more consistent with ACT, that New Zealand
has a balancing act. Anyone that says, oh, you just
pull out tomorrow and see what happens, I don't think
(04:02):
that's responsible because it's not clear. But anyone that says
we're in it to the hilt and we're going to
send ourselves broke but to remain pure regardless of what
other countries do. I mean, that's totally nuts. It'll make
us broke and actually will increase global emissions because foreign
farmers are generally less efficient in terms of greenhouse gases
(04:25):
per kilogram of protein than our competitors. Well, than we are, sorry. So,
you know, New Zealand needs to very carefully look at
how do we renegotiate a fairer deal for methane. That
was not done. because when Paris was done, we basically
had public officials that are supposed to represent our interests
(04:45):
to the world, and they found they got on a
bit better with the other public officials in Paris. They
ended up representing Paris to us. We need to change that,
get a better deal, team up with countries like Uruguay
that are more methane intensive, and if they're not going
to be reasonable, maybe we should look around, see what
other countries are up to by that stage, and be
prepared to walk. It may be that the cost of
(05:08):
walking are going to become far lower than the cost
of staying in as other countries fail to walk the
talk on their commitments.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Just a couple to quickly finish on. I understand you
haven't been on the city rail link, the underground train system,
the subway, we could almost call it, couldn't we? Subway,
the tube. In Auckland, it's pretty impressive. I went to
an open day, but... It's infrastructure, $ 5. 5 billion of the stuff.
(05:38):
We're going to have to pay for that, obviously. But
surely in this country, David Seymour, we need more kick-ass
infrastructure projects like that. And I'll throw one at you,
Four Lane Highway, Auckland to Whangarei.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Well, I agree with you that we need more infrastructure
for a whole bunch of reasons. You look at Northland,
where I happen to grow up, it's one of the
poorest areas in the world. And the only... real solution
to the social problems and the poverty up there in
the division is called Four Lanes to Kaitaia. I mean,
I don't know if you'd ever get that far, but
(06:13):
once you start connecting people to opportunity and you make
businesses more efficient, then some of the other problems tend
to melt away. So I tend to agree with that.
But we've got to ask ourselves why the costs are
so high. Simon Court has put out, I think, a
very good transport policy where he says, look, at the
very least, when a project is published, the minimum viable option,
(06:37):
the lowest cost way of achieving the goal, should be
published alongside the option that they choose. Because at the moment,
we're building gold-plated stuff. City Rail is a good example
of that. Even the guy that was in charge of
the project, the year we overcooked it, $ 6 billion later,
that doesn't seem so wise. So the ACT Party is
all for more infrastructure, but that doesn't have to mean
(06:59):
more money. It could mean more efficiency.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Hey, David Seymour, I'm out of time. I can't even
talk about you as a child actor. Someone told me
you played a young Sir Ed Hillary when you were
a kid. Maybe we'll talk about that next time.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
OK, I look forward to it.
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.
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
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.