February 26, 2026 • 16 mins
The debate over asset sales has reared its head again, this time after a very grim result for our national carrier.
Air New Zealand has reported an after tax $40 million loss for the six months to December.
We’ve had a controversial and complicated history when it comes to selling off state assets.
From bailing out banks to the great 90s airport selloff, it’s always been a touchy subject for Kiwis who want to keep everything in house.
But, is it time for us to face facts that maybe privatisation isn’t that bad after all?
Today on The Front Page, Act Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour is with us to chat about what should stay, and what should go.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The debate
over assets sales has reared its head again, this time
after a very grim result for our national carrier in
New Zealand has reported an after tax forty million dollar
(00:29):
loss for the six months to December. We've had a
controversial and complicated history when it comes to selling off
state assets, from bailing out banks to the Great nineties
airport selloff. It's always been a touchy subject for Kiwis
who want to keep everything in house. But is it
time for us to face facts and maybe privatization isn't
(00:52):
that bad after all. Today on the Front Page, ACT
Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour is with
us to chat about what should stay and what should go. So, David,
the airline is blaming global maintenance issues, softer domestic demand
(01:12):
and higher aviation costs. Do you think that they have
a lake to stand on when it comes to this result?
Speaker 3 (01:19):
I guess the question is where does the bad luck
end and the taking responsibility begin? So, yeah, they've had
some bad luck, but I've also had bad luck. Because
of choices that were made earlier about acquiring engines and
retiring planes and so on. The other point I'd make
is that they tell us that they are a flag carrier,
and people say, you know, it's our national carrier. Well,
if it's true that they want to play this role
(01:41):
as being a sort of symbol of New Zealand, let's
look at what they symbolize. I mean, you know, twenty
percent of their annual report is all about their climate policy.
They spend all this time trying to make biofuels and
fly electric planes and take the paper cups out of
the corro lounge because you know, heaven forbid you have
a paper cup while you're flying through the year with
(02:02):
exploding kerosene. They've got to think about the environment people,
you know, it seems to me. And I talk to
these guys and a lot of people I like in
their New Zealand and the people in the front line.
I love as an MPF to fly a lot, to
get around and see people. And you know, at the
same time, I've been saying to them for years, all
these priorities like you know, take off land on time,
(02:23):
good price, you know, customer satisfaction, make sure the lugger derives.
I mean, none of this stuff is complicated, or at
least maybe it is complicated to do, but it's not complicated.
Set the goals. They've made it complicated when actually it's
very simple.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Well, how do you reckon it? Reflects because at the
same time you've got Quantus across the ditch, Australia's national carrier,
reporting a twenty eight percent rise in net profit to
one point six billion. Now I know that there's a
bit completely a different situation. They've obviously got a subsidiary,
cheaper airline alternative, it's a bigger population, it's a lot
more routes, et cetera. But it also does have its
(02:59):
sustainability goals as well. So what is New Zealand or
in New Zealand doing so wrong?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, I question what Quantus's overall goal is. I mean,
I'm sure they're not out there saying our goal is
to pollute as much as possible. But I don't know
that Quantus has taken on research into creating biofuels or
research into electric planes. I mean, they've done a lot
of things, and there's other things I know about that
I'm not talking about by the way, just for anyone
(03:30):
in New Zealand that thinks I'm being unfeared, there's other
stuff we could be talking about that we're not. No, no, no, no,
so that their priorities have been far, far too diffuse.
And that's my point. If there is a symbol of
New Zealand, then we go to ask ourselves as a country.
We want to be rich. We don't want to find
(03:52):
ourselves much poorer than Poland and Hungary and Slovakia, Czech
Republic countries we used to kind of look down on
and take.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
That babies from you know, you know, as adoptees, I mean,
you know, orphans. We used to look down in these countries.
They're overtaking us economically, They've done that in the last
thirty years. We used to compare ourselves with Canada, Australia,
you know, we think we're like Japan, America, UK. We're
now significantly poorer than them, and we got to start
(04:22):
making good choices. And in New Zealand seems to symbolize
making a whole lot of choices to pursue a whole
lot of other goals while our actual performance falls behind.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
And can you not reveal what you know because their
market sensitive.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Because I think that they have a right to a
bit of privacy. But we'll see some of these things
will come out in time.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Well you Pinky's for someone and New Zealand's you can't
say anything.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Yeah, well let's just say I suspect some of their staff.
Over time, we'll talk more.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Do you think the airline is actually serving the New
Zealand taxpayer? Because I had a quick look this morning
to just see just to see how how much are
right and something like Auckland to christ Church if you
want a flexi fare and luggage, if you're going safe
for a wedding or a birthday or something like that
for a long weekend, that's getting up to about four
(05:12):
hundred and fifty five hundred dollars one way. And that's
Aukland to christ Church.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Yeah, it seems like a pretty wild price, right, And
there's a competitor and a lot of people are choosing that.
But I mean, let's just unpack this for a second.
There is a cost. I know, people say it's our
national carrier, it must remain in New Zealand hands and
people can have that. But I just want to tell
you what the cost is. You know, apparently it's worth
about two billion dollars in its market camp. That means
(05:37):
that if we sold what we own fifty percent, we
get about a billion dollars. At the moment, the government
pays four percent on its debt, so we could have
a billion dollars less debt, and that the moment four
percent of a billion dollars is forty million a year.
So taxpayers, we are paying forty million a year in
order to cover the interest on the debt that we're
(05:58):
holding in order to own this thing. That's simple. What's more,
just lost sixty million and a half a year, So
make that one hundred million dollar cost to own the thing. Admittedly,
other times it makes money and that's nice, but on balance,
after the bail arts, we're actually hosing money into this thing,
so it's a cost to own it. Then you say, okay,
well what are we getting for that? Well, there's there's
(06:20):
three basic arguments. I think One is in economical connections.
I think a lot of people would say we're not
getting that. Two is serving regions that wouldn't otherwise be served. Well, actually,
you know what origin air ear chattems sounds here? I mean,
there's all these plucky, upstart airlines that are doing more
for the really underserved regions than in New Zealander, so
(06:40):
they can't claim to be doing that anymore. And then
the other part of it is, well, you know a
sense of pride and it gives us some fulfillment. And
I just asked, well, what exactly are we proud of
given all these performance issues?
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Right? Has that kind of stuff tripped you up? About
an electric plane you don't even you've been trialing it,
you don't even know how to deploy it in your fleet.
Worrying about sustainable aviation fuel all the time, which is
miles more expensive than what you're paying for general fuel,
is all of the stuff tripping you guys up, when
you should just be focusing on flying the existing planes.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
No, it's not distracting us. I know from the outside
it might look like it might be distracting us. I
can assure you, as the CEO of the company, it
is far from distracting us. I think the point you
make around getting back to the fundamentals of the business
is a very important point. You know, as far as
our customer experience is concern knowing the key customer segments
(07:37):
that we serve and making sure that our offering is
aligned to them is very important.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Do you think that we scrutinize these private companies that
we have shares in enough?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Well. I mean, one of the good things about them
being private companies is that there's also a private in
vista that's on the other side of the bargain. And
look at a New Zealand share price. I mean that's
been falling, so it seems that you know a lot
of people in the private sector don't want to own it,
and it's been coming down over the last couple of years.
I think we need to start asking ourselves, you know,
(08:11):
we own something that's a choice, what's the costs, what's
the benefits? Because if we don't start being a little
bit more honest with each other, then you know, we
get all these distractions, all this focism and identity politics,
But the numbers don't lie. We are slowly becoming a
poorer country relative to the ones we like to compare
ourselves with. And the countries we can compare with ourselves
(08:34):
with are the ones that we used to look down
on as being poor and take orphans from. So that's
the choice guys, we're going to take the emotion up,
scrutinize a bit harder, and start being a bit more
analytical about what choices we make.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Do you think that if we sold our stake in
in New Zealand, though, they would have to be some
kind of clause saying that, look, there will be no
bailout in future, there will be no buy back because
in my mind, if they they would still operate as
if that there is a a safety net below them.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Yeah, do you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Well, you go back to the worst possible scenario. I
saw here the duplessy Allen, who I agree with most
of the time, saying, oh, I'm wrong about this because
we needed the airline in COVID. Well, you know, the
truth is that if we had not had public ownership
of Air New Zealand during COVID, you had a country
(09:24):
that was spending all that money, huge billions of dollars
of debt, most of which went into Air New Zealand.
Are you really saying that the New Zealand government, for
the money that it put into bailing out their New Zealand,
could not have persuaded anyone to fly an aeroplane to
New Zealand for two years. I mean, come on, it's
an interesting argument. It's an emotive argument, but it doesn't
(09:45):
stack up once you get into it.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
But I guess what I'm saying is that how do
we guarantee that the business will become more risk averse?
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Well, I mean I think, first of all, we can't.
We can do all sorts of things as a government owner,
but that hasn't worked. We can appoint people, but then
of course you say, well, you know, the other guys
win the election, which they will do at some point
in the next decade. I hope as a Democrat that
there will be changes of government, just not too soon,
and you know, then other people get put on the board.
(10:18):
So it's an inherently political beast, and it's reflecting political choices.
That's the problem with it. That's why I don't believe
that governments should own commercial enterprises, because you can't pursue
political goals and commercial goals. In New Zealand is a
perfect example of trying to do that and failing.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
If we were to seriously consider ourset sales, do you
think that there should be some kind of cross party
collaboration on how that profit will actually be used because
I suppose like you can't sell your house to pay
off your credit card debt because then you have nowhere
to live. So it's like, what should we actually be
using this money for.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
Well, I think it would be useful to have more
cross party agreement on infrastructure. So you've seen that in
the last week. This cross party accord, I think is
a really useful thing to say. Right. You know, it
takes ten years to build something out of concrete. I
think that's too long, but it takes at least ten years.
We have three elections in that cycle. So if you
look at what's happened lately, we had a whole lot
(11:14):
of roads getting built labor in New Zealand. First government
came in in twenty seventeen, canceled all of that, said
they were going to build a bike bridge in a
light rail. Didn't build a break bridge or a light rail,
which is probably a good thing, but meanwhile didn't build
any roads either. Now we're restarting that and what's happened.
A decade's gone by, nothing got built. So getting long
term alignment on infrastructure absolutely critical and it's happening. Maybe
(11:36):
the next thing you do is say, right, well, you know,
we're going to look at all the assets we own
and say, are there things that are losing money not
doing a public service? And actually, if we put more
money into infrastructure, the economy could grow and would all
be wealthier. So I would actually talk more about recycling.
You know, we're not going to say that we're necessarily
going to end up owning less stuff, but it's going
(11:57):
to be stuff that assists the economy to grow, other
than competing with the rest of the economy.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Or even just finding something. And it's funny that you
say infrastructure because it's the first thing that came to
my mind as well. Perhaps using the money to bring
our woefully deteriorating infrastructure all around the country up to standard.
I think that should be something that every party should
agree with, right.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Yeah, And the problem is that no politician has had
their photo taken with underground infrastructure. Now, some people say
some of us probably should, but there aren't the photo
ops for fixing leaky pipes under the ground. That's why
they end up creating catastrophes and then suddenly it gets
political attention when it's too late. We need to have
(12:38):
more cross party consensus that there are some things that
will benefit over a couple of generations. Those things need
to be done and paid for over a couple of generations.
It's all part of New Zealand, I think, becoming a
more mature country.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Yeah, because whenever I see the issue of asset sales
come up, people say, well, we shouldn't be selling our
debt using it to with our debt as a nation.
So something like that would make sense. But I saw
that the New Zealand election study that tracks QWI attitudes
about a range of topics, close to half of the
(13:11):
public agree that privatization of state owned enterprises has gone
too far. I would argue that half isn't too bad. Right.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Well, I mean, my job is to make the case,
and I'm grateful of you giving me the opportunity to say, Okay,
it's costing your forty million bucks and interest payments on
the debt we hold to owning in New Zealand. Do
you think it's worth forty million plus whatever they're just
about to lose? What are you getting for that? And
could you get more for a billion dollars forty million
(13:42):
a year on the interest? Could you get more from owning?
I don't know. Another tunnel under the Harbor Bridge that
might give more growth potential to New Zealand than we
have currently.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
What do you think the voter hates more though asset
sales or the possibility of higher taxes.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Well, that that is that is a choice because the
other way you look at it, you're paying tax to
pay the interest on owning the New Zealand's and so
that that that is a choice, right. But I mean
I would just say, look, I hear what people say,
and I'm listening to what people are saying, but I'm
also I hope bringing something useful to the table, which is, guys,
you know, we are in a state of long term
(14:21):
decline as a country. People are leaving in huge numbers.
We need to change course. We can't just keep doing
what we're currently doing. And you know, I'm up for
having the debate about it. I ask how many of
my colleagues are.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Do you think that the and New Zealand issue is
such a big one because it is seen as a
strategic asset?
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Well, people use these words, but don't I don't know
what they mean. But what if it's a strategic asset,
what's the strategy? No one ever seems to know, you know,
we need to get away from the rhetoric and say, well, practically,
what would happen if there was some real disaster. And
the truth is that for the money we had to
put into bailing Ady in New Zealand, we could have
(15:01):
paid to maintain your services into New Zealand during the crisis.
I mean, you just remember the mal Brays managed to
charter a jet and bring more essential equipment into New
Zealand in the early days of COVID than perhaps the
in New Zealand did considering the amount of money that
went in. So you know, there's always other alternatives, and
so people say it's a strategics. I just say, what strategy?
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Thanks for joining us, David, Thanks Chelsea, Pleasure. That's it
for this episode of The Front Page. You can read
more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzidherld
dot co dot enz The Front Page is hosted and
produced by me Chelsea Daniels Caine. Dicky is our studio operator,
(15:46):
Richard Martin, our producer and.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Editor, and our executive producer.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Is Jane Ye.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Follow the Front Page on the iHeart app or wherever
you get your podcasts and join us next time for
another look beyond the headline.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Four
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The debate
over assets sales has reared its head again, this time
after a very grim result for our national carrier in
New Zealand has reported an after tax forty million dollar
(00:29):
loss for the six months to December. We've had a
controversial and complicated history when it comes to selling off
state assets, from bailing out banks to the Great nineties
airport selloff. It's always been a touchy subject for Kiwis
who want to keep everything in house. But is it
time for us to face facts and maybe privatization isn't
(00:52):
that bad after all. Today on the Front Page, ACT
Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour is with
us to chat about what should stay and what should go. So, David,
the airline is blaming global maintenance issues, softer domestic demand
(01:12):
and higher aviation costs. Do you think that they have
a lake to stand on when it comes to this result?
Speaker 3 (01:19):
I guess the question is where does the bad luck
end and the taking responsibility begin? So, yeah, they've had
some bad luck, but I've also had bad luck. Because
of choices that were made earlier about acquiring engines and
retiring planes and so on. The other point I'd make
is that they tell us that they are a flag carrier,
and people say, you know, it's our national carrier. Well,
if it's true that they want to play this role
(01:41):
as being a sort of symbol of New Zealand, let's
look at what they symbolize. I mean, you know, twenty
percent of their annual report is all about their climate policy.
They spend all this time trying to make biofuels and
fly electric planes and take the paper cups out of
the corro lounge because you know, heaven forbid you have
a paper cup while you're flying through the year with
(02:02):
exploding kerosene. They've got to think about the environment people,
you know, it seems to me. And I talk to
these guys and a lot of people I like in
their New Zealand and the people in the front line.
I love as an MPF to fly a lot, to
get around and see people. And you know, at the
same time, I've been saying to them for years, all
these priorities like you know, take off land on time,
(02:23):
good price, you know, customer satisfaction, make sure the lugger derives.
I mean, none of this stuff is complicated, or at
least maybe it is complicated to do, but it's not complicated.
Set the goals. They've made it complicated when actually it's
very simple.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Well, how do you reckon it? Reflects because at the
same time you've got Quantus across the ditch, Australia's national carrier,
reporting a twenty eight percent rise in net profit to
one point six billion. Now I know that there's a
bit completely a different situation. They've obviously got a subsidiary,
cheaper airline alternative, it's a bigger population, it's a lot
more routes, et cetera. But it also does have its
(02:59):
sustainability goals as well. So what is New Zealand or
in New Zealand doing so wrong?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, I question what Quantus's overall goal is. I mean,
I'm sure they're not out there saying our goal is
to pollute as much as possible. But I don't know
that Quantus has taken on research into creating biofuels or
research into electric planes. I mean, they've done a lot
of things, and there's other things I know about that
I'm not talking about by the way, just for anyone
(03:30):
in New Zealand that thinks I'm being unfeared, there's other
stuff we could be talking about that we're not. No, no, no, no,
so that their priorities have been far, far too diffuse.
And that's my point. If there is a symbol of
New Zealand, then we go to ask ourselves as a country.
We want to be rich. We don't want to find
(03:52):
ourselves much poorer than Poland and Hungary and Slovakia, Czech
Republic countries we used to kind of look down on
and take.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
That babies from you know, you know, as adoptees, I mean,
you know, orphans. We used to look down in these countries.
They're overtaking us economically, They've done that in the last
thirty years. We used to compare ourselves with Canada, Australia,
you know, we think we're like Japan, America, UK. We're
now significantly poorer than them, and we got to start
(04:22):
making good choices. And in New Zealand seems to symbolize
making a whole lot of choices to pursue a whole
lot of other goals while our actual performance falls behind.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
And can you not reveal what you know because their
market sensitive.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Because I think that they have a right to a
bit of privacy. But we'll see some of these things
will come out in time.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Well you Pinky's for someone and New Zealand's you can't
say anything.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Yeah, well let's just say I suspect some of their staff.
Over time, we'll talk more.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Do you think the airline is actually serving the New
Zealand taxpayer? Because I had a quick look this morning
to just see just to see how how much are
right and something like Auckland to christ Church if you
want a flexi fare and luggage, if you're going safe
for a wedding or a birthday or something like that
for a long weekend, that's getting up to about four
(05:12):
hundred and fifty five hundred dollars one way. And that's
Aukland to christ Church.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Yeah, it seems like a pretty wild price, right, And
there's a competitor and a lot of people are choosing that.
But I mean, let's just unpack this for a second.
There is a cost. I know, people say it's our
national carrier, it must remain in New Zealand hands and
people can have that. But I just want to tell
you what the cost is. You know, apparently it's worth
about two billion dollars in its market camp. That means
(05:37):
that if we sold what we own fifty percent, we
get about a billion dollars. At the moment, the government
pays four percent on its debt, so we could have
a billion dollars less debt, and that the moment four
percent of a billion dollars is forty million a year.
So taxpayers, we are paying forty million a year in
order to cover the interest on the debt that we're
(05:58):
holding in order to own this thing. That's simple. What's more,
just lost sixty million and a half a year, So
make that one hundred million dollar cost to own the thing. Admittedly,
other times it makes money and that's nice, but on balance,
after the bail arts, we're actually hosing money into this thing,
so it's a cost to own it. Then you say, okay,
well what are we getting for that? Well, there's there's
(06:20):
three basic arguments. I think One is in economical connections.
I think a lot of people would say we're not
getting that. Two is serving regions that wouldn't otherwise be served. Well, actually,
you know what origin air ear chattems sounds here? I mean,
there's all these plucky, upstart airlines that are doing more
for the really underserved regions than in New Zealander, so
(06:40):
they can't claim to be doing that anymore. And then
the other part of it is, well, you know a
sense of pride and it gives us some fulfillment. And
I just asked, well, what exactly are we proud of
given all these performance issues?
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Right? Has that kind of stuff tripped you up? About
an electric plane you don't even you've been trialing it,
you don't even know how to deploy it in your fleet.
Worrying about sustainable aviation fuel all the time, which is
miles more expensive than what you're paying for general fuel,
is all of the stuff tripping you guys up, when
you should just be focusing on flying the existing planes.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
No, it's not distracting us. I know from the outside
it might look like it might be distracting us. I
can assure you, as the CEO of the company, it
is far from distracting us. I think the point you
make around getting back to the fundamentals of the business
is a very important point. You know, as far as
our customer experience is concern knowing the key customer segments
(07:37):
that we serve and making sure that our offering is
aligned to them is very important.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Do you think that we scrutinize these private companies that
we have shares in enough?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Well. I mean, one of the good things about them
being private companies is that there's also a private in
vista that's on the other side of the bargain. And
look at a New Zealand share price. I mean that's
been falling, so it seems that you know a lot
of people in the private sector don't want to own it,
and it's been coming down over the last couple of years.
I think we need to start asking ourselves, you know,
(08:11):
we own something that's a choice, what's the costs, what's
the benefits? Because if we don't start being a little
bit more honest with each other, then you know, we
get all these distractions, all this focism and identity politics,
But the numbers don't lie. We are slowly becoming a
poorer country relative to the ones we like to compare
ourselves with. And the countries we can compare with ourselves
(08:34):
with are the ones that we used to look down
on as being poor and take orphans from. So that's
the choice guys, we're going to take the emotion up,
scrutinize a bit harder, and start being a bit more
analytical about what choices we make.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Do you think that if we sold our stake in
in New Zealand, though, they would have to be some
kind of clause saying that, look, there will be no
bailout in future, there will be no buy back because
in my mind, if they they would still operate as
if that there is a a safety net below them.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Yeah, do you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Well, you go back to the worst possible scenario. I
saw here the duplessy Allen, who I agree with most
of the time, saying, oh, I'm wrong about this because
we needed the airline in COVID. Well, you know, the
truth is that if we had not had public ownership
of Air New Zealand during COVID, you had a country
(09:24):
that was spending all that money, huge billions of dollars
of debt, most of which went into Air New Zealand.
Are you really saying that the New Zealand government, for
the money that it put into bailing out their New Zealand,
could not have persuaded anyone to fly an aeroplane to
New Zealand for two years. I mean, come on, it's
an interesting argument. It's an emotive argument, but it doesn't
(09:45):
stack up once you get into it.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
But I guess what I'm saying is that how do
we guarantee that the business will become more risk averse?
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Well, I mean I think, first of all, we can't.
We can do all sorts of things as a government owner,
but that hasn't worked. We can appoint people, but then
of course you say, well, you know, the other guys
win the election, which they will do at some point
in the next decade. I hope as a Democrat that
there will be changes of government, just not too soon,
and you know, then other people get put on the board.
(10:18):
So it's an inherently political beast, and it's reflecting political choices.
That's the problem with it. That's why I don't believe
that governments should own commercial enterprises, because you can't pursue
political goals and commercial goals. In New Zealand is a
perfect example of trying to do that and failing.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
If we were to seriously consider ourset sales, do you
think that there should be some kind of cross party
collaboration on how that profit will actually be used because
I suppose like you can't sell your house to pay
off your credit card debt because then you have nowhere
to live. So it's like, what should we actually be
using this money for.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
Well, I think it would be useful to have more
cross party agreement on infrastructure. So you've seen that in
the last week. This cross party accord, I think is
a really useful thing to say. Right. You know, it
takes ten years to build something out of concrete. I
think that's too long, but it takes at least ten years.
We have three elections in that cycle. So if you
look at what's happened lately, we had a whole lot
(11:14):
of roads getting built labor in New Zealand. First government
came in in twenty seventeen, canceled all of that, said
they were going to build a bike bridge in a
light rail. Didn't build a break bridge or a light rail,
which is probably a good thing, but meanwhile didn't build
any roads either. Now we're restarting that and what's happened.
A decade's gone by, nothing got built. So getting long
term alignment on infrastructure absolutely critical and it's happening. Maybe
(11:36):
the next thing you do is say, right, well, you know,
we're going to look at all the assets we own
and say, are there things that are losing money not
doing a public service? And actually, if we put more
money into infrastructure, the economy could grow and would all
be wealthier. So I would actually talk more about recycling.
You know, we're not going to say that we're necessarily
going to end up owning less stuff, but it's going
(11:57):
to be stuff that assists the economy to grow, other
than competing with the rest of the economy.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Or even just finding something. And it's funny that you
say infrastructure because it's the first thing that came to
my mind as well. Perhaps using the money to bring
our woefully deteriorating infrastructure all around the country up to standard.
I think that should be something that every party should
agree with, right.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Yeah, And the problem is that no politician has had
their photo taken with underground infrastructure. Now, some people say
some of us probably should, but there aren't the photo
ops for fixing leaky pipes under the ground. That's why
they end up creating catastrophes and then suddenly it gets
political attention when it's too late. We need to have
(12:38):
more cross party consensus that there are some things that
will benefit over a couple of generations. Those things need
to be done and paid for over a couple of generations.
It's all part of New Zealand, I think, becoming a
more mature country.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Yeah, because whenever I see the issue of asset sales
come up, people say, well, we shouldn't be selling our
debt using it to with our debt as a nation.
So something like that would make sense. But I saw
that the New Zealand election study that tracks QWI attitudes
about a range of topics, close to half of the
(13:11):
public agree that privatization of state owned enterprises has gone
too far. I would argue that half isn't too bad. Right.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Well, I mean, my job is to make the case,
and I'm grateful of you giving me the opportunity to say, Okay,
it's costing your forty million bucks and interest payments on
the debt we hold to owning in New Zealand. Do
you think it's worth forty million plus whatever they're just
about to lose? What are you getting for that? And
could you get more for a billion dollars forty million
(13:42):
a year on the interest? Could you get more from owning?
I don't know. Another tunnel under the Harbor Bridge that
might give more growth potential to New Zealand than we
have currently.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
What do you think the voter hates more though asset
sales or the possibility of higher taxes.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Well, that that is that is a choice because the
other way you look at it, you're paying tax to
pay the interest on owning the New Zealand's and so
that that that is a choice, right. But I mean
I would just say, look, I hear what people say,
and I'm listening to what people are saying, but I'm
also I hope bringing something useful to the table, which is, guys,
you know, we are in a state of long term
(14:21):
decline as a country. People are leaving in huge numbers.
We need to change course. We can't just keep doing
what we're currently doing. And you know, I'm up for
having the debate about it. I ask how many of
my colleagues are.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Do you think that the and New Zealand issue is
such a big one because it is seen as a
strategic asset?
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Well, people use these words, but don't I don't know
what they mean. But what if it's a strategic asset,
what's the strategy? No one ever seems to know, you know,
we need to get away from the rhetoric and say, well, practically,
what would happen if there was some real disaster. And
the truth is that for the money we had to
put into bailing Ady in New Zealand, we could have
(15:01):
paid to maintain your services into New Zealand during the crisis.
I mean, you just remember the mal Brays managed to
charter a jet and bring more essential equipment into New
Zealand in the early days of COVID than perhaps the
in New Zealand did considering the amount of money that
went in. So you know, there's always other alternatives, and
so people say it's a strategics. I just say, what strategy?
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Thanks for joining us, David, Thanks Chelsea, Pleasure. That's it
for this episode of The Front Page. You can read
more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzidherld
dot co dot enz The Front Page is hosted and
produced by me Chelsea Daniels Caine. Dicky is our studio operator,
(15:46):
Richard Martin, our producer and.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Editor, and our executive producer.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Is Jane Ye.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Follow the Front Page on the iHeart app or wherever
you get your podcasts and join us next time for
another look beyond the headline.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Four
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.
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.
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.