May 18, 2025 • 8 mins
We ask the age-old question of the Act leader (soon to be Deputy Prime Minister). What’s in the Budget for farmers?
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):
If David Seymour is the act party leader and David,
(00:02):
next time I speak to you on the country, you'll
be Deputy Prime Minister. Are you counting the sleeps?
Speaker 2 (00:09):
No, we got a budget this week, so a bit
more worried about making sure that we're saving enough money
and putting it into the few things we can afford
at the moment that will make New Zealand a more
productive and prosperous place, while also wrangling that debt that
we inherited back down.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
We'll come back to the budget. Well, I'll divert to
the budget from the budget. That sounds a bit irish,
doesn't it. But in the good old days, David Seymour,
long before your time, Rob Muldoon, Bear and backy budgets,
we used to ask in the farming fraternity, what's in
the budget for farming or for agriculture. We know better
than to ask now, nor do we expect anything. So
(00:51):
there won't be effectively anything in the budget for farming.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Well, there'll be stuff in there that is good for business,
and people sometimes forget that farming is a business. So no,
I think that farmers will actually be pretty happy with
at least one aspect of the budget. However, it's fair
to say that these are not easy times. These are
(01:15):
hungry times. And when they're hungry times for people and
households and businesses and farms up and down the country,
it better be hungry times for the government. You'll see
that with the operating allowance, we're going to increase spending
by less than one percent this year, whereas if you
look at inflations running at two and a half, the
(01:36):
populations ticked up at percent. So we're actually really pulling
back what we're spending compared with the rest of the economy.
And that is absolutely necessary after the blowout of the
preceding five years.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
So you need I was reading this morning two point
five billion of new funding just to maintain existing services.
Now you figure out where that's going to come from,
and chucked in on the side of that, you've committed
something like twelve billion over the next four years for defense,
which is fine and dandy, but I must say, David Seymour,
(02:12):
two billion dollars for five new helicopters seems to be
a hell of an expensive helicopter.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Well, that was my first response. I was sitting at
a meeting. I said, you've got to be kidding it there,
what could be helicopters do. The thing is, you're not
just buying a chopper, You're buying the whole system of
maintenance and parts and all the stuff that goes around it. So, yeah,
it does sound like a lot of money for a helicopter.
(02:40):
You know, it's almost more expensive per helicopter than one
of those Donald Trump gift jets. However, it's built more
a weapon system that you're buying rather than just the
bear chopper.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Well, I'm pleased to hear that, and I hope the
Air Force does a better job of looking after its
choppers than the Navy does with its boats.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Well, we're trying to move on from that.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Chanels all right, Okay, so ok, you've got to find
this money from somewhere sore. Where might it come from?
And I know you can't talk too much ahead of
the budget obviously means testing the key. We say a
contribution from the government would be a bit of a
no brainer, wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Well, if it was, I hope we hadn't missed a
no brainer. But it's also possible that we have reasons
that you might not have thought of. So who knows
about that one.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
But why should someone I don't know earning one hundred
grand or more, even earning sixty or seventy grand or more,
get a subsidy from the government. I can understand why
people at the bottom of the rung might need it well,
but if you're earning one hundred grand, David, why do
you need a subsidy from the government.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
I'm not leaking the budget details here, but because I
love debate, I'll give you here's one reason. Why once
you get over about seventy grand, are you paying thirty
three cents in the dollar in tax? So why should
somebody who pays additional taxes, far more taxes than someone
on a lower income not only get tax harder, but
(04:12):
also have all the benefits cut off from them at
That's one argument you could make, not saying it's true
or I believe it, but that's the answer to your question.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
More public sector cuts in order how much more fat
can you trim from the public sector.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
We'll put it this way. When Grant Robertson came in
the last government on our side had just spent a
budget of seventy six billion dollars, the budget that we inherited.
When we got back in six years later was one
hundred and thirty eight billion dollars. So you do the maths.
(04:51):
They increased spending by fifty two billion in six years,
and yep, there was inflation and yep, a pandemic and
went during that period, But that doesn't explain a sixty
eight percent increase fifty two billion dollars of extra spending
in six years. And all we're doing is going through
(05:13):
and it's taken a while to find where all the
land mines are buried. All we're doing is going through,
canceling stuff that doesn't add up and putting in place
investments that will actually secure our future as a country.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
When will we get a government that's brave enough to
do something around the age of eligibility for national super
Labour doesn't want to do it, Winston doesn't want to
bar of it. You would like to, National would like
to Why don't you do something with luxon and just
call Winston out?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Well, I heard Chris say that he supports it on
the radio this morning, and I was a little bit
surprised because the National Party's policy is to start raising
the age of superannuation in twenty forty four previously, their
policy when they first announced it was to do it
(06:02):
in twenty thirty seven, so even a twenty year delay
was not enough and they pushed it back another seven years.
If the nets are up for it, then so we
know that there will be people who say, we believe that.
You know, some people have hard physical jobs and it's
hard to keep working. I believe we can solve that problem.
(06:25):
It's not worth sending the entire country broke because you
can't solve that problem, and I believe there's ways you
can do it. So, you know, I believe that we
have a duty to start being honest with New Zealanders
because if we don't get our spending under control, then
the fiscal gap, the deficit that is growing and growing
(06:48):
and will keep growing through the twenty thirties, it will
have to be plugged another way. And you've seen the
Greens budget. You know, a thirty three percent tax on
all capital assets over a million bucks. So if you've
got a five million dollar dairy farm and you transfer
it down to another generation, you pay thirty three percent
(07:08):
on the four million that's over the first million. That's
one point three million dollars of Britain's tax giving your
dairy farm to your kids if it's the average value,
now that is totally irresponsible. It will destroy his elin.
But if we don't get our spending under control, somebody
eventually is going to be elected. Are they going to
(07:29):
put new taxes on your assets?
Speaker 1 (07:31):
You must look at just a final comment, you must
look at the Greens and to Party Mary, who are
as nutty as the fruitcake, and think, you know, whatever
Chris Sipkins does, he's in a no win situation. He
cannot form a coalition with those two political parties or
in one case, Activist party because they're unelectable.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Well, I prefer the Canadian term nuttier than squirrel pool.
And you're absolutely right. These people it's not so much
that the numbers don't add up. It's that deep down
they actually believe numbers don't need to add up, and
it's all about the vibe. So I would say that,
you know, the importance of keeping the other guys out
(08:16):
has never been greater. However, I also just say, look
that that doesn't mean that we can coast, and that's
why I'm an act. We've got to keep this government,
but we've also got to keep pushing to make it better,
as we have through this budget process, to save whenever possible,
reduce debt and invest only when it is going to
(08:42):
give us a return for the future.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
David Seymour, Act Party Leader, thank you for your time
on the country. Next time we chat. Next time we chat,
I'm going to call you Deputy Dave.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
You can call me whatever you like your deputy days
double D if you like. See you load up right,
If David Seymour is the act party leader and David,
(00:02):
next time I speak to you on the country, you'll
be Deputy Prime Minister. Are you counting the sleeps?
Speaker 2 (00:09):
No, we got a budget this week, so a bit
more worried about making sure that we're saving enough money
and putting it into the few things we can afford
at the moment that will make New Zealand a more
productive and prosperous place, while also wrangling that debt that
we inherited back down.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
We'll come back to the budget. Well, I'll divert to
the budget from the budget. That sounds a bit irish,
doesn't it. But in the good old days, David Seymour,
long before your time, Rob Muldoon, Bear and backy budgets,
we used to ask in the farming fraternity, what's in
the budget for farming or for agriculture. We know better
than to ask now, nor do we expect anything. So
(00:51):
there won't be effectively anything in the budget for farming.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Well, there'll be stuff in there that is good for business,
and people sometimes forget that farming is a business. So no,
I think that farmers will actually be pretty happy with
at least one aspect of the budget. However, it's fair
to say that these are not easy times. These are
(01:15):
hungry times. And when they're hungry times for people and
households and businesses and farms up and down the country,
it better be hungry times for the government. You'll see
that with the operating allowance, we're going to increase spending
by less than one percent this year, whereas if you
look at inflations running at two and a half, the
(01:36):
populations ticked up at percent. So we're actually really pulling
back what we're spending compared with the rest of the economy.
And that is absolutely necessary after the blowout of the
preceding five years.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
So you need I was reading this morning two point
five billion of new funding just to maintain existing services.
Now you figure out where that's going to come from,
and chucked in on the side of that, you've committed
something like twelve billion over the next four years for defense,
which is fine and dandy, but I must say, David Seymour,
(02:12):
two billion dollars for five new helicopters seems to be
a hell of an expensive helicopter.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Well, that was my first response. I was sitting at
a meeting. I said, you've got to be kidding it there,
what could be helicopters do. The thing is, you're not
just buying a chopper, You're buying the whole system of
maintenance and parts and all the stuff that goes around it. So, yeah,
it does sound like a lot of money for a helicopter.
(02:40):
You know, it's almost more expensive per helicopter than one
of those Donald Trump gift jets. However, it's built more
a weapon system that you're buying rather than just the
bear chopper.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Well, I'm pleased to hear that, and I hope the
Air Force does a better job of looking after its
choppers than the Navy does with its boats.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Well, we're trying to move on from that.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Chanels all right, Okay, so ok, you've got to find
this money from somewhere sore. Where might it come from?
And I know you can't talk too much ahead of
the budget obviously means testing the key. We say a
contribution from the government would be a bit of a
no brainer, wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Well, if it was, I hope we hadn't missed a
no brainer. But it's also possible that we have reasons
that you might not have thought of. So who knows
about that one.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
But why should someone I don't know earning one hundred
grand or more, even earning sixty or seventy grand or more,
get a subsidy from the government. I can understand why
people at the bottom of the rung might need it well,
but if you're earning one hundred grand, David, why do
you need a subsidy from the government.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
I'm not leaking the budget details here, but because I
love debate, I'll give you here's one reason. Why once
you get over about seventy grand, are you paying thirty
three cents in the dollar in tax? So why should
somebody who pays additional taxes, far more taxes than someone
on a lower income not only get tax harder, but
(04:12):
also have all the benefits cut off from them at
That's one argument you could make, not saying it's true
or I believe it, but that's the answer to your question.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
More public sector cuts in order how much more fat
can you trim from the public sector.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
We'll put it this way. When Grant Robertson came in
the last government on our side had just spent a
budget of seventy six billion dollars, the budget that we inherited.
When we got back in six years later was one
hundred and thirty eight billion dollars. So you do the maths.
(04:51):
They increased spending by fifty two billion in six years,
and yep, there was inflation and yep, a pandemic and
went during that period, But that doesn't explain a sixty
eight percent increase fifty two billion dollars of extra spending
in six years. And all we're doing is going through
(05:13):
and it's taken a while to find where all the
land mines are buried. All we're doing is going through,
canceling stuff that doesn't add up and putting in place
investments that will actually secure our future as a country.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
When will we get a government that's brave enough to
do something around the age of eligibility for national super
Labour doesn't want to do it, Winston doesn't want to
bar of it. You would like to, National would like
to Why don't you do something with luxon and just
call Winston out?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Well, I heard Chris say that he supports it on
the radio this morning, and I was a little bit
surprised because the National Party's policy is to start raising
the age of superannuation in twenty forty four previously, their
policy when they first announced it was to do it
(06:02):
in twenty thirty seven, so even a twenty year delay
was not enough and they pushed it back another seven years.
If the nets are up for it, then so we
know that there will be people who say, we believe that.
You know, some people have hard physical jobs and it's
hard to keep working. I believe we can solve that problem.
(06:25):
It's not worth sending the entire country broke because you
can't solve that problem, and I believe there's ways you
can do it. So, you know, I believe that we
have a duty to start being honest with New Zealanders
because if we don't get our spending under control, then
the fiscal gap, the deficit that is growing and growing
(06:48):
and will keep growing through the twenty thirties, it will
have to be plugged another way. And you've seen the
Greens budget. You know, a thirty three percent tax on
all capital assets over a million bucks. So if you've
got a five million dollar dairy farm and you transfer
it down to another generation, you pay thirty three percent
(07:08):
on the four million that's over the first million. That's
one point three million dollars of Britain's tax giving your
dairy farm to your kids if it's the average value,
now that is totally irresponsible. It will destroy his elin.
But if we don't get our spending under control, somebody
eventually is going to be elected. Are they going to
(07:29):
put new taxes on your assets?
Speaker 1 (07:31):
You must look at just a final comment, you must
look at the Greens and to Party Mary, who are
as nutty as the fruitcake, and think, you know, whatever
Chris Sipkins does, he's in a no win situation. He
cannot form a coalition with those two political parties or
in one case, Activist party because they're unelectable.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Well, I prefer the Canadian term nuttier than squirrel pool.
And you're absolutely right. These people it's not so much
that the numbers don't add up. It's that deep down
they actually believe numbers don't need to add up, and
it's all about the vibe. So I would say that,
you know, the importance of keeping the other guys out
(08:16):
has never been greater. However, I also just say, look
that that doesn't mean that we can coast, and that's
why I'm an act. We've got to keep this government,
but we've also got to keep pushing to make it better,
as we have through this budget process, to save whenever possible,
reduce debt and invest only when it is going to
(08:42):
give us a return for the future.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
David Seymour, Act Party Leader, thank you for your time
on the country. Next time we chat. Next time we chat,
I'm going to call you Deputy Dave.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
You can call me whatever you like your deputy days
double D if you like. See you load up right,
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.