May 18, 2025 • 29 mins
The Government's budget will be announced this coming Thursday.
Taxpayers Union Director Jordan Williams and former Police Minister Stuart Nash join Politics Central for a special pre-budget panel.
They also discuss whether Parliaments standards have slipped, and if the punishment for Te Pāti Māori is severe or justified.
LISTEN ABOVE.
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 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be Jordan. You've you've got got yourself into the
room for the lockup too, I see, so good on
you for that.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Yeah, it was a bit of a silly brew haha.
The Minister of Finance had a bit of a I
think quite an unbecoming spat with the Council of Trade
Union's economists about a year ago, and other groups including
the Taxpayers, Union, Businesses, Zeland, Infrastructure News Zealand among others,
were potentially banned from the budget, which was just stupid.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
It means that basically only those.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
On the on the party sorry government payroll, we're allowed in.
But luckily Treasury have seen since.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Yeah, actually is it are you going to are you
going to regret it? Is it fun being in there?
Or is it just what's it like being in the
pre budget?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
It'll be my eleventh budget and it's really I mean,
the key thing is finding and it's a little bit
I don't mean to make it sound like a game,
but it's it's to find what the politician don't want
you to know, because of course you're bombarded with press releases.
I think one year, the record is about thirty two
be high press releases that come in the pack. But
(01:15):
really you're looking for what the government and the spin
doctors don't want you to find. And that's kind of
the game to if you can, if you can identify
those before, especially in a modern media environment where you
sort of you get sort of one yet one one
lick of the story sort of thing. There's not like
the good old days where there would be days of
(01:36):
rolling coverage and new angles and things. Unfortunately, the media
are so thin. That's no disrespect to you guys that
actually that you know that plays for the government's advantage.
So I would argue when even you know, we went
into bat for the Council of Trade Unions, you know
it won't surprise your listeners that, you know, the lefties
over the Air and the Taxpayers Union don't agree on much,
(01:56):
but we certainly agree that if you've got a legitimate interest,
if you've got like the Taxpayers Union or the counts
of trade unions literally hundreds of thousands of people that
rely on you for you know, what's really going on
inside government, then you should be there.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Hey, just look, I want to take in a little
bit to the pre government the pre budget announcement guys.
But firstly, have you caught up with the announcement that
was made of just an hour or two ago about
the funding for next four years for twenty four hour
urgent care clums you've caught up with that, Stuart.
Speaker 5 (02:26):
I haven't actually caught up with her. That's what level
of funding is that.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
One hundred and sixty four million dollars over the next
I think it's over the next four years. Basically, they
want to have better access and they're saying that it's
going to I'm just quoting Simmy and Brown here because
I haven't interviewed, said the funding boost is going to
mean ninety eight percent of New Zealanders will have access
to in person urgent care within an hour's drive.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
So that's thems in. So that's about three point three
billion dollars of pre budget announcements. Quite a lot there, actually.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Yeah, well that's what I was thinking. Let's go to
you first for that, Jordan, your reaction on that, But
also how significant are is pre budget action to are
we going to is it going to be an anti
climax on the day? But tell us about the pre
budget and announced that your reaction to that, if you've, if
you managed to catch up with it.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
But you know, I've said about ten emails in the
last few hours and I actually I haven't got my
head around Watson bargoed and what's not so I still
don't want to get myself into trouble.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
It's something sliss stream on.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
It's very clear that the government wants a little bit
of a rolling moll over the next twenty four hours
with lots of targeted commns. And this is to what
I mean, by the way the sort of the budget works,
that the government wants the milk as much as they can.
Stew's right, though you know you do the numbers. They
have announced far more new funding than what the total
(03:50):
new funding of this budget is. Of course, you know,
the perception is that Nicola Willis is cutting spending or
has cut spending. Nothing could be further from the truth,
both as a percentage of the economy and inflation in
justin terms, she's spending more than when Grant Robinson leed this.
I mean that it all roads point to and this
is why I actually think that there's going to be
(04:12):
some something. It's quite quite an extraordinary budget because in
order to make the numbers work, they've got to be
making cuts elsewhere. The question is as weird as that,
and all will be revealed on Thursday.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Well, don't we have an obvious one that everyone's been
talking about. And Andrew Vant's got upset about Jordan. I'll
go back to you, Jordan and then go to your student.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Yeah that that that I mean, it was pretty pretty
difficult or pretty pretty dumb politics, But yeah, absolutely it
was inevitable the way that notwithstanding the you know, the
so called brutal cuts that don't exist, you still had
a situation largely as a result of those that mad
(04:54):
change in the law. The last government did no offense
to whereby you you know, you could compare apples and
oranges and somehow, you know, you were you were getting
what was it the teachers or nurses comp comparing themselves
to prison offices, you know, this sort of thing, or
my favorite was the you know, the vet nurses and
the prison officers. You know that it was very clearly
(05:17):
an issue the yere to be tackled.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
But I think there's going to be a lot more.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
We've got a paper coming out in the morning whereby
we put to We've put together a couple of dozen
options where you where the government could reduce spending to
get the books back in the black. You know, we've
just finished our nationwide debt clock tour. You know it's
about ninety two thousand dollars per household the government has borrowed.
(05:43):
We are on an unsustainable path. There's going to it
is actually regardless of what Nikola Willis wants, there's going
to have to be some tough decisions over the next
few years.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Hey, Stuart, what do you make of the pre budget announcements?
Because we've seen that one I've just mentioned to you.
We've seen the defense of twelve billion over four years.
We've got education on math, support and science and innovation, infrastructuring.
I've got quite a list in fun of me. Is
this more than Is this more than we're used to
with pre budget announcements?
Speaker 4 (06:11):
Not really.
Speaker 5 (06:12):
I mean to go to Jordan's first point that he made.
There will be twenty to thirty press releases put out
on budget Day and a lot of the good stuff
will get lost. It's up to the media to sift
through and find out the ones that are actually going
to make the headlines. So what you do is you
release stuff that you think is going to be good
because you don't want it to get lost, like the
(06:32):
one that's I mean just made like the Minister of
Education around something for mass But it also signals that
there's going to be a lot more money spent in
those portfolios because you know, something like education. You don't
come out with your hero your hero policies or your
hero projects pre budget because you want them to make
the news day of the budget, because this is where
(06:53):
you want people to buy into it. But let me
say one other thing. I mean, this government's come out
with a going for growth agenda the to being very
clear about that. Chris Luxeon got in became leader of
the National Party and their Prime Minister on the back
of the fact that he was a businessman, he ran
in New Zealand and therefore he knows how to run
a country. So it's got to be more than just cuts.
Nicola has announced that they've got about one point three
(07:16):
billion to spend, but what they've got to do now
is provide something to the private sector which really turbo
boosts growth. And now I've been talking about accelerate depreciation
for two or three years when I was Minister for
Economic Development, we had papers go through the second stage
of budget. I've even talked to the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Finance about that. So you can't just
(07:36):
cut and hope that we'll feed into a narrative of
going for growth. You've got to provide a financial or
fiscal incentive for businesses to start investing and driving productivity.
So it is something like accelerate depreciation. But announcing that
we're going to cut public servants jobs does not turbo
charge the economy in a way that will create productivity,
(07:59):
wealth and get rid of some of the terms of
billion worth a debt that Jordan's been talking about.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Just before we get into what we want to see
from this budget, what has been the best pre budget
announcement in both your views?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
First, Jordans, I can certainly think of the worst, and
that is the bloody one hundred million dollars for subsidies
for the for the film industry that Nicola willis to
cried in opposition and is now yet now literally borrowing
money to give to Hollywood at a time where Donald
(08:30):
Trump has said he's coming out to get the government,
the countries and governments that are artificially subsidizing a competition
to Hollywood. It's if a nuts in terms in terms
of the good announcement, it's probably the reduction in the
size of what's called the fiscal envelope that that stew
just referred to, and that's the amount of new permanent
(08:53):
spending because the way it works sort of cumulative the increases.
Nicola Willis made a big hoo ha that she has
reduced it, but I mean it's it's still I mean,
when the when labor or the media or the government
talk about cuts, what that actually meaning or what it's
not cuts in the way that that that the average
(09:15):
person thinks it is. It's simply growing the pie or
what the government spends slower.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
And because they predicted out.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Into the future, they say that's a cut, which clearly isn't.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
What did you what was your most exciting pre budget announcement, Stuart?
For good or bad reasons?
Speaker 5 (09:30):
Let's let's roll with Well, well, the worst one would
have to be defense, you know, spinning over two billion
dollars on defense while at the same time telling you know,
women that pay equity isn't important and so you know,
we'd rather have tanks and guns and ships and soldiers
than than pay equity. I think was absolutely I know,
(09:53):
I thought they got that completely wrong and they didn't
manage political risk in a way that someone like Helen
Clark or John Key, both both superb politicians from either
side of the political spectrum, obviously did incredibly well. I
think it was the g will take head on that
my best one. I mean, I'm a huge believer in education.
I mean I used to work in the teristory sector.
(10:13):
I wrote the business case for a university campus and
then meeting ran it. I've got four kids in the
education system and I've had a really bad experience with
one school where I just do not think that the
teacher was up to teaching maths to my form two
year old son. With all due respect to her, she's listening.
So you know, the Minister of Education's expert maths teachers
(10:34):
and tests one hundred million dollars. There is no downside
to that. Kids have got to learn maths. They've got
to be competent maths and when they hit high school,
maths is the basis of economics, of finance, of everything.
We need our young kids to be competent.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Point Stuart I wonder if Judith Collins just wanted to
have guns like yours, Stuart, because they are quite famous
your guns.
Speaker 5 (10:53):
But I'm almost impossible. But you know, two billion dollars
will will go a long way.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
I'm think twenty five bucks a month at a fit
that center. Sorry was that mischievous of me? I'm actually
with just not get distracted about that. Have you got
any just quick follow up on that's Jordan before we
crack on with looking at the actual budget.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
I didn't push.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
We ad a member of staff who's so right way.
He thinks that, you know, you can't justify defense spending
even even the taxpayer union isn't quite there yet. The
thing is due in a geopolitical environment where there's real
international pressure to get your percentage of GDP spending on
defense up. I think that the broader question is is
(11:32):
where that defense money is going? Because our reading of
how the US and OECD with I don't know if
it's OECD or World Bank that define what defense spending is,
it actually can include some quite useful stuff the search
and rescue for example, for example, some infrastructure stuff you
can actually get within that international meaning of defense. So
(11:55):
I sort of kept my power dry a bit on
that one, because the key question of is is it
in defense in terms of wasting money on armored personnel carriers,
or is it stuff that actually ticks off the international
requirements but things that we'll actually use.
Speaker 5 (12:12):
Yeah, well, let's say, Look, I just one thing. I
don't disagree with that, but I don't think we should
be bullied into spending two percent of GDP when we
don't actolutely need to. I mean, you know, I got
a feeling that the money was spending on a twentieth
century defense force when we need twenty first century solutions,
and you know, we've got to play our roles, that
(12:33):
is no doubt. But yeah, but I would like to
see that money spent a hell of a lot smarter
than the announcements that I've seen today.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Yeah, I just my two penas worth. When we did
talk bit of talk back on this, I didn't. I
don't think I got a single bit of pushback on
the defense spending. I think there's a large part of
the public who think we're embarrassed by the fact that
we see we can put up a hang glider or
to an assessmenter as a sort of say it's our
air force. But that's being a little bit mischievous, I'll
be honest with you. Hey, okay, well let's look at
this budget is Jordan? Is this budget? Is this the
(13:02):
one where the government sort of will take the risk
of a few tough announcements. Is it like it as
a free hit because they've got another budget after this
before they have to run for election.
Speaker 4 (13:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
My reading on the National Party caucus is they realize
now that they missed the trick last year, that they wasted.
Last year's budget didn't actually get on top of any
of the big structural stuff. And we're quite an extraordinary
situation about three or four months ago where the Nats
were well, the center right were down a bit in
the polls, and of course a normal political sort of
(13:35):
intuition is that you then hug the center. What I
can tell you is both the focus group and the
poll data showed clearly is that they actually wanted government,
wanted mister Luxeon to stand for something. And I hope
that will be reflected on Thursday, that we actually see
something bold because we've had I mean, come on, how
much rhetoric we had about going for growth, going for growth.
(13:57):
We'll get on with it, and Stue rightly pointed to
accelerated depreciation. He's being a bit soft there. If you
really want to put a rocket under the economy and
go for growth, I would or the tax faser Union
have long argued that best bang for buck is full
expensing of capital items. And that's what Rushie Sonak did,
(14:18):
It's what Donald Trump did the first time around, and
it really would put not only a sort of stimulus
under the economy, but it's the very capital spending that
would result in high productivity, which ultimately makes new zeel
and more prosperous.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Are we going to see tax cuts at all, Stuart?
Do you think?
Speaker 4 (14:37):
No? I don't.
Speaker 5 (14:38):
Do we see tax cuts. We won't see increase in
tax now. But I'm going Jordan, I agree with you.
I mean, expense and capital would just be brilliant. But
I think accelerated appreciation is a way to get around
it as well. I mean the paper that I put
forward and like I said, got quite a way down.
The process was up fifty percent over five years, and
I spoke to a whole lot of men and women
who ran big companies and they said it would be
(14:59):
a game changer in terms of what we spent money on.
So at appreciation law thirty years old, they appreciate an
asset its physical life as opposed to was economic life.
A gain way out of step. But what we're seeing
here is I think, you know, gone of the days
where the general public can expect the government to stimulate
the economy through spending. I think the government has to
(15:20):
provide now the tools for the predate set to stimulate
growth through spending, and you do that through accelerate depreciation
or expensive but you've got to put the tools in place.
I mean I read something where one of the captains
of well Ahead, of one of the think tanks, said,
you know, men and women who run businesses have got
to change their attitude. That does not work. You've got
(15:40):
to provide some form of economic consenter for them to
do that. Capital expending or acceleraty appreciation would do that.
I hope we see that. That would be a game changer.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
I think actually I've got a text from someone saying
what the hell is accelerated depreciation, which would lead me
to the question about are they going to have stuff
in the budget that's for the general public to digest
and go No, none, we love that or is this
more something where we're going to have extended analysis in
the news and people like yourselves, Jordan, are gonna tell
us what the hidden tricks are.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Well, i'll give it.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
I'll see if I can explain it in twenty seconds.
It's the best tax idea most people haven't heard of.
So let's say I'm a business and I have an
expense like wages. I get to write that off my
tax because it's an expense. But I buy a new
piece of cat, a new flang down machine. Okay, I
don't get to deduct that for the purposes of what
(16:32):
I pay income tax, except over the lifetime of the
assets that can be up to you know, it could
be twenty five years, and it depends on the type
of asset. What the Taxpayer's Union is arguing is give
that tax seduction that year, and we actually argue it
should be time limited. So you've got an incentive to
bring forward capital investment. Because look, it is a stimulus.
(16:55):
But unlike a sort of tax simulus where it's you know,
run down to Harvey Norman and you know, spend.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
Your tax cart.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
It's the stimulus on the very sort of cat, very
capital equipment that would make New Zealand more productive.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
And culture basically essentially, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Yeah, but we have questions because we're low productivity the
very investment to increase that.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Yeah, okay, change right.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
But you're going to get some announcements like Minister Stanfords
educational one that that parents with kids at school who
are struggling with maths understands. You're going to get some
like Semians to do with health, which parents and voters understand,
and then you're going to get some I'm really hopeful
of the sort of stuff that Jordan and I are
talking about, where if we went into greater depth, we'd
(17:41):
lose the vast majority of people because it's sort of
a it's a big business finance, tax economics question. But
if you have those though, the men and woman who
drive growth across the country and who are responsible for
big investments will look at this and go wow, okay,
this is fantastic as well. So you've got to have
a mixture of both. You've got to have a meaningful
(18:02):
going for growth agenda that actually does drive growth, but
you've also got to have the social packages that actually
the public expect from a government.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Okay, guys, look, I want to just get you to
hold fire for a second and we're just going to
take a quick break and we'll come back with a
little bit more on this and just a moment where
with Jordan Williams and Stuart Nash talking about anticipations for
the budget and a whole bunch of things around that.
We'll be taking your cause later on in this our
eight hundred and eighty ten eighty, but we'll be back
in a tick. It's twenty seven past three. Yes, welcome back.
(18:37):
We're with Jordan Williams, the Taxpayer Union, Taxpayers Union director
and former police minister. Stuart Nash is also with us,
looking ahead to the government. Actually, Jordan, just quickly, so,
how much do you know about the budget that you
can't share because you've mentioned you've got a handful of
embargoed emails there. What do you know that we don't know?
Speaker 4 (18:54):
No, that's just the normal. That's the normal.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
Before you create a scandal, this is the normal media
unless be No, don't believe me.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
I twist a lot of arms at the behave try
to okay, won't tell me?
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Okay, well, okay, let's stick with you. Then surprises we've had.
I don't know historically what the biggest surprise would have been,
but are you anticipating that Nikola Willison has got any surprises?
And what would you like it to be? Putting aside
accelerated depreciation.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
So the surprises I'd love would be that actually we
see just tough but necessary decisions that we don't continue
to kick the can down the road. On New Zealand's
structural deficit. You know, you'd look at the forecasts. The
last Treasury forecasts were done just before Christmas, and that
they were forecasting that this year's budget not only was
(19:44):
the deficit going to be bigger than last year than
the current year we're in, but that it's going the
deficit's going to winnow amount to more than four percent
of GDP. Then the government alone is spending that's the
difference between its income and its expenditure. I'd be wrapped
if that we could actually tackle that and get it
(20:04):
down in such a way that right now we'll have
surplus in sort of three or four years time. But
then you look at Treasury's long term projections and we're
straight back into deficit deep because really because of NSAID
super and the cost of health spiraling out of control.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, I guess because you're saying it's surprised you're not
expecting those wishes to be fulfilled.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
I mean, full capital expensing would be That's what would
make me very excited. That would be a wonderful surprise,
particularly if it's time limited. But we shall I mean, look, look,
let's be frank well, you know, and on Thursday we
find out whether the government is serious. Is its rhetoric
around getting on top of the box and going for growth?
(20:47):
Is it just a continuation of the last few really, frankly,
a generation of politicians that have just been comm's led
bumper sticker type policy or do they have the mantle?
That's the begun nine. Everything else is just detail, Stuart,
What do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Surprise is looking for something to make you happy on
budget day? Oh hang on a second, Stuart, how before
you start talking, I'll just put you back to here.
That was my fault.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
Where you go?
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Sorry, Stuart.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
Look, I was a Minister of Police, but I was
also Minister for the Economic Development and Minister for Revenue.
I attach, so you know a lot of my comments
today are based around my economic development and tax hat
so I'm more like Jordan.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
I would be.
Speaker 5 (21:30):
So the bottom line is is the government has announced
Mclair has announced she has no money for spending. That's clear,
that's out there. So this is going to be an
austerity budget. Back to Jordan's comment, so what this budget
has to deliver is the means for the private sector
to drive growth in a way that the government can't.
So the government's not going to be spending on roads
(21:50):
or massive infrastructure projects. It hasn't got the money. So
I would be surprised if it doesn't have something, something
major in there that big business well began small actually
can look at and go, wow, this is what I've
needed to buy the kit to drive productivity, because what's
happened in this country term is we've overvalued labor and
(22:13):
undervalued capital. What that means is instead instead of investing
in plants and machinery to drive productivity, we just employ
more people and that is a really unproductive way to
do things. I would be surprised if there isn't a
massive spend on education. I think this minister is doing
a really good job of revamping the education system. We
(22:34):
need to see that continue. I would be surprised if
Simeon hasn't managed to extract something out of health because
he's struggling. I'll be honest with you. We need to
see big investment in the health sector, but again to
drive productivity. I'm a little like Jordan again. I was
surprised at nicholas announcement around the film subsidies, particularly because
(22:55):
Trump has come out and said we're going to put Well, no,
he hasn't said that. He's floating the idea of a
hundred pcent tariff. So if that happens, no one knows
what it actually means, but it could see the death
of the film industry new But expect to see something
that actually is meaningful around the growing for Going for
growth agenda. It's got to be that. Whereas I think
you're going to find a whole lot of keys will
(23:16):
give up on the man who came in because he
ran a business and knew how the economy worked. If
he doesn't deliver, then it's all just smoking mirrors.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Do you guys have agreed with each other? Them far
more than I expecting. I think as if you're just
placed on your board spare for a Stuart there.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Well, actually we do. We now have a spear spot
for the lock up on Thursdays.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Do you want to take that seat? You know we're
going to give it in the CTU.
Speaker 5 (23:38):
But the thing is to what you've got is you've
got two economic pregmatists here, right, and you know we
don't agree around the margins, but we do agree on
the big issues. That is, we're an economy that is
very low multi factor productivity, ie, we work too hard
and we're not smart with how we invest because successive
(23:59):
governments have not provided businesses with the incentives. The tax
incentives are the tool to go and invest.
Speaker 4 (24:06):
Now.
Speaker 5 (24:07):
Now, I think you'll find people on the right and
the leaft agree with that. That is, any education. I'm
a huge believer in the value of education. You've got
to get that right. This Sminster's doing a fantastic job.
Let's hope she's funded to continue to.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Sue's actually explained why we don't like capital gains tax
because every capital gains tax and wealth tax you get,
including the Greens, excludes the family home, which makes the
very problem that's got us into this mess that you
know it disproportionately favors housing.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
It would make it even worse.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Yeah, Hey, guys. I just wanted to end on a
note that's slightly more political, well hell of a lot
more political actually, because I'm not sure when this debate
is going to happen. That Jerry Brown's allowing for the
discussion around the censorship of the Mari Party. But firstly, Stuart,
you'll take on the recommendations from the Privileges Committee for
twenty one day suspension for the leaders in seven days
(24:59):
for Hannah Mighty Clark. What did you make of that
and Jerry's handling of it?
Speaker 5 (25:05):
Subsequently, the Privileges Committee is one of the most powerful
in Parliament. I back at one hundred percent. I think
any party that boats against us, and any major party
that the Nats have said they're going to support it,
Labours come out and said they probably won't. I think
that is a massive, massive political mistake on behalf of Labor.
I think the way the Married Party has behaved is terrible,
(25:29):
but I also think the standards and Parliament have dropped.
It started with Trevor Mallard when he relaxes a dress
standards and it's just continued. And you know, I look
at Parliament now, guys are coming in caftans people. You know,
Rawdi looks like he's off to Hawaiian Party half the time.
Get the standards back. The speaker has the ability to
do that, pull it back and get some bloody respect
in that chain because at the moment the antics set
(25:51):
are going on. Like I said, I think what happens
is the vast majority of good hard work and keywis
look at this. I think it's people behaving badly. It's
a plague in everyone's house. People that their respect for
politicians diminishes and people become disenfranchised.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Well, yeah, I actually agree wholeheartedly Stuart and Jordan. The
other thing is, I mean, Stuart used that wonderful expression
when people say the incredibly powerful, powerful Privileges Committee. But
so far, the impression that we've got until a few
days ago is that the worst you get is a
bit of a telling off after you apologize, and maybe
a day's suspension. And for instance, people ask me about
what you know, Julian Genta, how come you know it's
(26:26):
so much less for her? But I would argue she
should have got more.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
But what's your cake? Was?
Speaker 3 (26:30):
It was during a vote and it was intimidating. It
wasn't actually the Harker. It was the intimidation and going
over to the other side, and then the stumbing their
nose at the legitimacy of the Privileges Committee. Look, I've
worried for some years. I've worried about our institutions being
(26:51):
able to stand up to matters pertaining to Malori, particularly
around corruption in the resource management sector, in conflicts of
interest and things like that, and they put this into
a similar sort of category. I think that it is
really important for the frankly democracy to hold to Party
Malory up to the same standards as everyone else. I
(27:14):
note that the police recently let to Party Malory off
for not only filing a late return, but they still
haven't filed their return as it relates to that the
sort of the electoral donations and the like, And despite
having not done it, police have already said we're going
to let you off with a warning. That is that
(27:34):
is a danger, danger danger that we have. I don't
think it's to tear or anything. I actually think it's
our institutions not having the self confidence to be able
to do their job, and that I find really worrying.
So do I agree, yes, they should be held up.
It is a very serious punishment, particularly to dock the pay.
(27:56):
But this sort of punching someone in parliament, how much
more serious does it get?
Speaker 4 (28:03):
Yeah? No, good on it.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
Hey, guys, I really appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank
you so much. And are you going to accept Jordan's
offered to Stuart to sit next to him at the lockup?
Speaker 4 (28:12):
Look forward to hearing you.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
Take to buy me beer afters.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
I just minded it might need to bear during it.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
I've been a number of lock ups as well, remember,
and it requires a stiff whiskey, not just a beer.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
Hey, thank you so much, guys.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
I really appreciate your time. That is a former police
minister Stuart Nash and the Taxpayers Union director Jordan Williams.
We're going to take your calls after this as well
on your response to with the chat. Actually, you know,
it wasn't an incredible amount of colegiality there, which is
wouldn't it be nice if politics was like that all
the time, where people express, you know, varying opinions and
then acknowledge when they agree with each other and something's
a good idea. But I guess you know, once you're
(28:48):
outside the house, pats things to become a bit more
civil save this lack of civility for inside parliament, don't we?
Speaker 4 (28:54):
But I also want to get your take.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
You will hear Stuart's strong comments and echoed there by
Jordan about the punishment there's meet to party Marie, and
I thought, actually Stuart expressed himself very well there that
this is you know how much and also Jordan's saying
how much more serious would.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
It have to get?
Speaker 2 (29:15):
But the other side of it is that Jerry Brownlee
is going to throw it open for debate, and it's
the potential there's open ended debate, I think, is what
he's going to allow, and that seems to me to
be a sure recipe for potential fulfillerbustering, which is just
extending things out for as long as you can. But
also you'll come in some What are you looking for
(29:35):
in the budget? We've got time for some talk back now.
I eight one hundred and eighty ten eighty. Will there
be any surprises? There's lots of questions around the budget.
What was your favorite to pre budget announcement, et cetera,
et cetera. We're throwing it open. It's over to you
for until we wrap up this out. Just come up
to eighteen minutes too four News Talks Your B eight
hundred and eighty ten eighty.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
For more from the weekend collective, Listen live to News
Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be Jordan. You've you've got got yourself into the
room for the lockup too, I see, so good on
you for that.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Yeah, it was a bit of a silly brew haha.
The Minister of Finance had a bit of a I
think quite an unbecoming spat with the Council of Trade
Union's economists about a year ago, and other groups including
the Taxpayers, Union, Businesses, Zeland, Infrastructure News Zealand among others,
were potentially banned from the budget, which was just stupid.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
It means that basically only those.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
On the on the party sorry government payroll, we're allowed in.
But luckily Treasury have seen since.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Yeah, actually is it are you going to are you
going to regret it? Is it fun being in there?
Or is it just what's it like being in the
pre budget?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
It'll be my eleventh budget and it's really I mean,
the key thing is finding and it's a little bit
I don't mean to make it sound like a game,
but it's it's to find what the politician don't want
you to know, because of course you're bombarded with press releases.
I think one year, the record is about thirty two
be high press releases that come in the pack. But
(01:15):
really you're looking for what the government and the spin
doctors don't want you to find. And that's kind of
the game to if you can, if you can identify
those before, especially in a modern media environment where you
sort of you get sort of one yet one one
lick of the story sort of thing. There's not like
the good old days where there would be days of
(01:36):
rolling coverage and new angles and things. Unfortunately, the media
are so thin. That's no disrespect to you guys that
actually that you know that plays for the government's advantage.
So I would argue when even you know, we went
into bat for the Council of Trade Unions, you know
it won't surprise your listeners that, you know, the lefties
over the Air and the Taxpayers Union don't agree on much,
(01:56):
but we certainly agree that if you've got a legitimate interest,
if you've got like the Taxpayers Union or the counts
of trade unions literally hundreds of thousands of people that
rely on you for you know, what's really going on
inside government, then you should be there.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Hey, just look, I want to take in a little
bit to the pre government the pre budget announcement guys.
But firstly, have you caught up with the announcement that
was made of just an hour or two ago about
the funding for next four years for twenty four hour
urgent care clums you've caught up with that, Stuart.
Speaker 5 (02:26):
I haven't actually caught up with her. That's what level
of funding is that.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
One hundred and sixty four million dollars over the next
I think it's over the next four years. Basically, they
want to have better access and they're saying that it's
going to I'm just quoting Simmy and Brown here because
I haven't interviewed, said the funding boost is going to
mean ninety eight percent of New Zealanders will have access
to in person urgent care within an hour's drive.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
So that's thems in. So that's about three point three
billion dollars of pre budget announcements. Quite a lot there, actually.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Yeah, well that's what I was thinking. Let's go to
you first for that, Jordan, your reaction on that, But
also how significant are is pre budget action to are
we going to is it going to be an anti
climax on the day? But tell us about the pre
budget and announced that your reaction to that, if you've, if
you managed to catch up with it.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
But you know, I've said about ten emails in the
last few hours and I actually I haven't got my
head around Watson bargoed and what's not so I still
don't want to get myself into trouble.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
It's something sliss stream on.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
It's very clear that the government wants a little bit
of a rolling moll over the next twenty four hours
with lots of targeted commns. And this is to what
I mean, by the way the sort of the budget works,
that the government wants the milk as much as they can.
Stew's right, though you know you do the numbers. They
have announced far more new funding than what the total
(03:50):
new funding of this budget is. Of course, you know,
the perception is that Nicola Willis is cutting spending or
has cut spending. Nothing could be further from the truth,
both as a percentage of the economy and inflation in
justin terms, she's spending more than when Grant Robinson leed this.
I mean that it all roads point to and this
is why I actually think that there's going to be
(04:12):
some something. It's quite quite an extraordinary budget because in
order to make the numbers work, they've got to be
making cuts elsewhere. The question is as weird as that,
and all will be revealed on Thursday.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Well, don't we have an obvious one that everyone's been
talking about. And Andrew Vant's got upset about Jordan. I'll
go back to you, Jordan and then go to your student.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Yeah that that that I mean, it was pretty pretty
difficult or pretty pretty dumb politics, But yeah, absolutely it
was inevitable the way that notwithstanding the you know, the
so called brutal cuts that don't exist, you still had
a situation largely as a result of those that mad
(04:54):
change in the law. The last government did no offense
to whereby you you know, you could compare apples and
oranges and somehow, you know, you were you were getting
what was it the teachers or nurses comp comparing themselves
to prison offices, you know, this sort of thing, or
my favorite was the you know, the vet nurses and
the prison officers. You know that it was very clearly
(05:17):
an issue the yere to be tackled.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
But I think there's going to be a lot more.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
We've got a paper coming out in the morning whereby
we put to We've put together a couple of dozen
options where you where the government could reduce spending to
get the books back in the black. You know, we've
just finished our nationwide debt clock tour. You know it's
about ninety two thousand dollars per household the government has borrowed.
(05:43):
We are on an unsustainable path. There's going to it
is actually regardless of what Nikola Willis wants, there's going
to have to be some tough decisions over the next
few years.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Hey, Stuart, what do you make of the pre budget announcements?
Because we've seen that one I've just mentioned to you.
We've seen the defense of twelve billion over four years.
We've got education on math, support and science and innovation, infrastructuring.
I've got quite a list in fun of me. Is
this more than Is this more than we're used to
with pre budget announcements?
Speaker 4 (06:11):
Not really.
Speaker 5 (06:12):
I mean to go to Jordan's first point that he made.
There will be twenty to thirty press releases put out
on budget Day and a lot of the good stuff
will get lost. It's up to the media to sift
through and find out the ones that are actually going
to make the headlines. So what you do is you
release stuff that you think is going to be good
because you don't want it to get lost, like the
(06:32):
one that's I mean just made like the Minister of
Education around something for mass But it also signals that
there's going to be a lot more money spent in
those portfolios because you know, something like education. You don't
come out with your hero your hero policies or your
hero projects pre budget because you want them to make
the news day of the budget, because this is where
(06:53):
you want people to buy into it. But let me
say one other thing. I mean, this government's come out
with a going for growth agenda the to being very
clear about that. Chris Luxeon got in became leader of
the National Party and their Prime Minister on the back
of the fact that he was a businessman, he ran
in New Zealand and therefore he knows how to run
a country. So it's got to be more than just cuts.
Nicola has announced that they've got about one point three
(07:16):
billion to spend, but what they've got to do now
is provide something to the private sector which really turbo
boosts growth. And now I've been talking about accelerate depreciation
for two or three years when I was Minister for
Economic Development, we had papers go through the second stage
of budget. I've even talked to the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Finance about that. So you can't just
(07:36):
cut and hope that we'll feed into a narrative of
going for growth. You've got to provide a financial or
fiscal incentive for businesses to start investing and driving productivity.
So it is something like accelerate depreciation. But announcing that
we're going to cut public servants jobs does not turbo
charge the economy in a way that will create productivity,
(07:59):
wealth and get rid of some of the terms of
billion worth a debt that Jordan's been talking about.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Just before we get into what we want to see
from this budget, what has been the best pre budget
announcement in both your views?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
First, Jordans, I can certainly think of the worst, and
that is the bloody one hundred million dollars for subsidies
for the for the film industry that Nicola willis to
cried in opposition and is now yet now literally borrowing
money to give to Hollywood at a time where Donald
(08:30):
Trump has said he's coming out to get the government,
the countries and governments that are artificially subsidizing a competition
to Hollywood. It's if a nuts in terms in terms
of the good announcement, it's probably the reduction in the
size of what's called the fiscal envelope that that stew
just referred to, and that's the amount of new permanent
(08:53):
spending because the way it works sort of cumulative the increases.
Nicola Willis made a big hoo ha that she has
reduced it, but I mean it's it's still I mean,
when the when labor or the media or the government
talk about cuts, what that actually meaning or what it's
not cuts in the way that that that the average
(09:15):
person thinks it is. It's simply growing the pie or
what the government spends slower.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
And because they predicted out.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Into the future, they say that's a cut, which clearly isn't.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
What did you what was your most exciting pre budget announcement, Stuart?
For good or bad reasons?
Speaker 5 (09:30):
Let's let's roll with Well, well, the worst one would
have to be defense, you know, spinning over two billion
dollars on defense while at the same time telling you know,
women that pay equity isn't important and so you know,
we'd rather have tanks and guns and ships and soldiers
than than pay equity. I think was absolutely I know,
(09:53):
I thought they got that completely wrong and they didn't
manage political risk in a way that someone like Helen
Clark or John Key, both both superb politicians from either
side of the political spectrum, obviously did incredibly well. I
think it was the g will take head on that
my best one. I mean, I'm a huge believer in education.
I mean I used to work in the teristory sector.
(10:13):
I wrote the business case for a university campus and
then meeting ran it. I've got four kids in the
education system and I've had a really bad experience with
one school where I just do not think that the
teacher was up to teaching maths to my form two
year old son. With all due respect to her, she's listening.
So you know, the Minister of Education's expert maths teachers
(10:34):
and tests one hundred million dollars. There is no downside
to that. Kids have got to learn maths. They've got
to be competent maths and when they hit high school,
maths is the basis of economics, of finance, of everything.
We need our young kids to be competent.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Point Stuart I wonder if Judith Collins just wanted to
have guns like yours, Stuart, because they are quite famous
your guns.
Speaker 5 (10:53):
But I'm almost impossible. But you know, two billion dollars
will will go a long way.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
I'm think twenty five bucks a month at a fit
that center. Sorry was that mischievous of me? I'm actually
with just not get distracted about that. Have you got
any just quick follow up on that's Jordan before we
crack on with looking at the actual budget.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
I didn't push.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
We ad a member of staff who's so right way.
He thinks that, you know, you can't justify defense spending
even even the taxpayer union isn't quite there yet. The
thing is due in a geopolitical environment where there's real
international pressure to get your percentage of GDP spending on
defense up. I think that the broader question is is
(11:32):
where that defense money is going? Because our reading of
how the US and OECD with I don't know if
it's OECD or World Bank that define what defense spending is,
it actually can include some quite useful stuff the search
and rescue for example, for example, some infrastructure stuff you
can actually get within that international meaning of defense. So
(11:55):
I sort of kept my power dry a bit on
that one, because the key question of is is it
in defense in terms of wasting money on armored personnel carriers,
or is it stuff that actually ticks off the international
requirements but things that we'll actually use.
Speaker 5 (12:12):
Yeah, well, let's say, Look, I just one thing. I
don't disagree with that, but I don't think we should
be bullied into spending two percent of GDP when we
don't actolutely need to. I mean, you know, I got
a feeling that the money was spending on a twentieth
century defense force when we need twenty first century solutions,
and you know, we've got to play our roles, that
(12:33):
is no doubt. But yeah, but I would like to
see that money spent a hell of a lot smarter
than the announcements that I've seen today.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Yeah, I just my two penas worth. When we did
talk bit of talk back on this, I didn't. I
don't think I got a single bit of pushback on
the defense spending. I think there's a large part of
the public who think we're embarrassed by the fact that
we see we can put up a hang glider or
to an assessmenter as a sort of say it's our
air force. But that's being a little bit mischievous, I'll
be honest with you. Hey, okay, well let's look at
this budget is Jordan? Is this budget? Is this the
(13:02):
one where the government sort of will take the risk
of a few tough announcements. Is it like it as
a free hit because they've got another budget after this
before they have to run for election.
Speaker 4 (13:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
My reading on the National Party caucus is they realize
now that they missed the trick last year, that they wasted.
Last year's budget didn't actually get on top of any
of the big structural stuff. And we're quite an extraordinary
situation about three or four months ago where the Nats
were well, the center right were down a bit in
the polls, and of course a normal political sort of
(13:35):
intuition is that you then hug the center. What I
can tell you is both the focus group and the
poll data showed clearly is that they actually wanted government,
wanted mister Luxeon to stand for something. And I hope
that will be reflected on Thursday, that we actually see
something bold because we've had I mean, come on, how
much rhetoric we had about going for growth, going for growth.
(13:57):
We'll get on with it, and Stue rightly pointed to
accelerated depreciation. He's being a bit soft there. If you
really want to put a rocket under the economy and
go for growth, I would or the tax faser Union
have long argued that best bang for buck is full
expensing of capital items. And that's what Rushie Sonak did,
(14:18):
It's what Donald Trump did the first time around, and
it really would put not only a sort of stimulus
under the economy, but it's the very capital spending that
would result in high productivity, which ultimately makes new zeel
and more prosperous.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Are we going to see tax cuts at all, Stuart?
Do you think?
Speaker 4 (14:37):
No? I don't.
Speaker 5 (14:38):
Do we see tax cuts. We won't see increase in
tax now. But I'm going Jordan, I agree with you.
I mean, expense and capital would just be brilliant. But
I think accelerated appreciation is a way to get around
it as well. I mean the paper that I put
forward and like I said, got quite a way down.
The process was up fifty percent over five years, and
I spoke to a whole lot of men and women
who ran big companies and they said it would be
(14:59):
a game changer in terms of what we spent money on.
So at appreciation law thirty years old, they appreciate an
asset its physical life as opposed to was economic life.
A gain way out of step. But what we're seeing
here is I think, you know, gone of the days
where the general public can expect the government to stimulate
the economy through spending. I think the government has to
(15:20):
provide now the tools for the predate set to stimulate
growth through spending, and you do that through accelerate depreciation
or expensive but you've got to put the tools in place.
I mean I read something where one of the captains
of well Ahead, of one of the think tanks, said,
you know, men and women who run businesses have got
to change their attitude. That does not work. You've got
(15:40):
to provide some form of economic consenter for them to
do that. Capital expending or acceleraty appreciation would do that.
I hope we see that. That would be a game changer.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
I think actually I've got a text from someone saying
what the hell is accelerated depreciation, which would lead me
to the question about are they going to have stuff
in the budget that's for the general public to digest
and go No, none, we love that or is this
more something where we're going to have extended analysis in
the news and people like yourselves, Jordan, are gonna tell
us what the hidden tricks are.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Well, i'll give it.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
I'll see if I can explain it in twenty seconds.
It's the best tax idea most people haven't heard of.
So let's say I'm a business and I have an
expense like wages. I get to write that off my
tax because it's an expense. But I buy a new
piece of cat, a new flang down machine. Okay, I
don't get to deduct that for the purposes of what
(16:32):
I pay income tax, except over the lifetime of the
assets that can be up to you know, it could
be twenty five years, and it depends on the type
of asset. What the Taxpayer's Union is arguing is give
that tax seduction that year, and we actually argue it
should be time limited. So you've got an incentive to
bring forward capital investment. Because look, it is a stimulus.
(16:55):
But unlike a sort of tax simulus where it's you know,
run down to Harvey Norman and you know, spend.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
Your tax cart.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
It's the stimulus on the very sort of cat, very
capital equipment that would make New Zealand more productive.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
And culture basically essentially, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Yeah, but we have questions because we're low productivity the
very investment to increase that.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Yeah, okay, change right.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
But you're going to get some announcements like Minister Stanfords
educational one that that parents with kids at school who
are struggling with maths understands. You're going to get some
like Semians to do with health, which parents and voters understand,
and then you're going to get some I'm really hopeful
of the sort of stuff that Jordan and I are
talking about, where if we went into greater depth, we'd
(17:41):
lose the vast majority of people because it's sort of
a it's a big business finance, tax economics question. But
if you have those though, the men and woman who
drive growth across the country and who are responsible for
big investments will look at this and go wow, okay,
this is fantastic as well. So you've got to have
a mixture of both. You've got to have a meaningful
(18:02):
going for growth agenda that actually does drive growth, but
you've also got to have the social packages that actually
the public expect from a government.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Okay, guys, look, I want to just get you to
hold fire for a second and we're just going to
take a quick break and we'll come back with a
little bit more on this and just a moment where
with Jordan Williams and Stuart Nash talking about anticipations for
the budget and a whole bunch of things around that.
We'll be taking your cause later on in this our
eight hundred and eighty ten eighty, but we'll be back
in a tick. It's twenty seven past three. Yes, welcome back.
(18:37):
We're with Jordan Williams, the Taxpayer Union, Taxpayers Union director
and former police minister. Stuart Nash is also with us,
looking ahead to the government. Actually, Jordan, just quickly, so,
how much do you know about the budget that you
can't share because you've mentioned you've got a handful of
embargoed emails there. What do you know that we don't know?
Speaker 4 (18:54):
No, that's just the normal. That's the normal.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
Before you create a scandal, this is the normal media
unless be No, don't believe me.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
I twist a lot of arms at the behave try
to okay, won't tell me?
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Okay, well, okay, let's stick with you. Then surprises we've had.
I don't know historically what the biggest surprise would have been,
but are you anticipating that Nikola Willison has got any surprises?
And what would you like it to be? Putting aside
accelerated depreciation.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
So the surprises I'd love would be that actually we
see just tough but necessary decisions that we don't continue
to kick the can down the road. On New Zealand's
structural deficit. You know, you'd look at the forecasts. The
last Treasury forecasts were done just before Christmas, and that
they were forecasting that this year's budget not only was
(19:44):
the deficit going to be bigger than last year than
the current year we're in, but that it's going the
deficit's going to winnow amount to more than four percent
of GDP. Then the government alone is spending that's the
difference between its income and its expenditure. I'd be wrapped
if that we could actually tackle that and get it
(20:04):
down in such a way that right now we'll have
surplus in sort of three or four years time. But
then you look at Treasury's long term projections and we're
straight back into deficit deep because really because of NSAID
super and the cost of health spiraling out of control.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, I guess because you're saying it's surprised you're not
expecting those wishes to be fulfilled.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
I mean, full capital expensing would be That's what would
make me very excited. That would be a wonderful surprise,
particularly if it's time limited. But we shall I mean, look, look,
let's be frank well, you know, and on Thursday we
find out whether the government is serious. Is its rhetoric
around getting on top of the box and going for growth?
(20:47):
Is it just a continuation of the last few really, frankly,
a generation of politicians that have just been comm's led
bumper sticker type policy or do they have the mantle?
That's the begun nine. Everything else is just detail, Stuart,
What do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Surprise is looking for something to make you happy on
budget day? Oh hang on a second, Stuart, how before
you start talking, I'll just put you back to here.
That was my fault.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
Where you go?
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Sorry, Stuart.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
Look, I was a Minister of Police, but I was
also Minister for the Economic Development and Minister for Revenue.
I attach, so you know a lot of my comments
today are based around my economic development and tax hat
so I'm more like Jordan.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
I would be.
Speaker 5 (21:30):
So the bottom line is is the government has announced
Mclair has announced she has no money for spending. That's clear,
that's out there. So this is going to be an
austerity budget. Back to Jordan's comment, so what this budget
has to deliver is the means for the private sector
to drive growth in a way that the government can't.
So the government's not going to be spending on roads
(21:50):
or massive infrastructure projects. It hasn't got the money. So
I would be surprised if it doesn't have something, something
major in there that big business well began small actually
can look at and go, wow, this is what I've
needed to buy the kit to drive productivity, because what's
happened in this country term is we've overvalued labor and
(22:13):
undervalued capital. What that means is instead instead of investing
in plants and machinery to drive productivity, we just employ
more people and that is a really unproductive way to
do things. I would be surprised if there isn't a
massive spend on education. I think this minister is doing
a really good job of revamping the education system. We
(22:34):
need to see that continue. I would be surprised if
Simeon hasn't managed to extract something out of health because
he's struggling. I'll be honest with you. We need to
see big investment in the health sector, but again to
drive productivity. I'm a little like Jordan again. I was
surprised at nicholas announcement around the film subsidies, particularly because
(22:55):
Trump has come out and said we're going to put Well, no,
he hasn't said that. He's floating the idea of a
hundred pcent tariff. So if that happens, no one knows
what it actually means, but it could see the death
of the film industry new But expect to see something
that actually is meaningful around the growing for Going for
growth agenda. It's got to be that. Whereas I think
you're going to find a whole lot of keys will
(23:16):
give up on the man who came in because he
ran a business and knew how the economy worked. If
he doesn't deliver, then it's all just smoking mirrors.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Do you guys have agreed with each other? Them far
more than I expecting. I think as if you're just
placed on your board spare for a Stuart there.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Well, actually we do. We now have a spear spot
for the lock up on Thursdays.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Do you want to take that seat? You know we're
going to give it in the CTU.
Speaker 5 (23:38):
But the thing is to what you've got is you've
got two economic pregmatists here, right, and you know we
don't agree around the margins, but we do agree on
the big issues. That is, we're an economy that is
very low multi factor productivity, ie, we work too hard
and we're not smart with how we invest because successive
(23:59):
governments have not provided businesses with the incentives. The tax
incentives are the tool to go and invest.
Speaker 4 (24:06):
Now.
Speaker 5 (24:07):
Now, I think you'll find people on the right and
the leaft agree with that. That is, any education. I'm
a huge believer in the value of education. You've got
to get that right. This Sminster's doing a fantastic job.
Let's hope she's funded to continue to.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Sue's actually explained why we don't like capital gains tax
because every capital gains tax and wealth tax you get,
including the Greens, excludes the family home, which makes the
very problem that's got us into this mess that you
know it disproportionately favors housing.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
It would make it even worse.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Yeah, Hey, guys. I just wanted to end on a
note that's slightly more political, well hell of a lot
more political actually, because I'm not sure when this debate
is going to happen. That Jerry Brown's allowing for the
discussion around the censorship of the Mari Party. But firstly, Stuart,
you'll take on the recommendations from the Privileges Committee for
twenty one day suspension for the leaders in seven days
(24:59):
for Hannah Mighty Clark. What did you make of that
and Jerry's handling of it?
Speaker 5 (25:05):
Subsequently, the Privileges Committee is one of the most powerful
in Parliament. I back at one hundred percent. I think
any party that boats against us, and any major party
that the Nats have said they're going to support it,
Labours come out and said they probably won't. I think
that is a massive, massive political mistake on behalf of Labor.
I think the way the Married Party has behaved is terrible,
(25:29):
but I also think the standards and Parliament have dropped.
It started with Trevor Mallard when he relaxes a dress
standards and it's just continued. And you know, I look
at Parliament now, guys are coming in caftans people. You know,
Rawdi looks like he's off to Hawaiian Party half the time.
Get the standards back. The speaker has the ability to
do that, pull it back and get some bloody respect
in that chain because at the moment the antics set
(25:51):
are going on. Like I said, I think what happens
is the vast majority of good hard work and keywis
look at this. I think it's people behaving badly. It's
a plague in everyone's house. People that their respect for
politicians diminishes and people become disenfranchised.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Well, yeah, I actually agree wholeheartedly Stuart and Jordan. The
other thing is, I mean, Stuart used that wonderful expression
when people say the incredibly powerful, powerful Privileges Committee. But
so far, the impression that we've got until a few
days ago is that the worst you get is a
bit of a telling off after you apologize, and maybe
a day's suspension. And for instance, people ask me about
what you know, Julian Genta, how come you know it's
(26:26):
so much less for her? But I would argue she
should have got more.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
But what's your cake? Was?
Speaker 3 (26:30):
It was during a vote and it was intimidating. It
wasn't actually the Harker. It was the intimidation and going
over to the other side, and then the stumbing their
nose at the legitimacy of the Privileges Committee. Look, I've
worried for some years. I've worried about our institutions being
(26:51):
able to stand up to matters pertaining to Malori, particularly
around corruption in the resource management sector, in conflicts of
interest and things like that, and they put this into
a similar sort of category. I think that it is
really important for the frankly democracy to hold to Party
Malory up to the same standards as everyone else. I
(27:14):
note that the police recently let to Party Malory off
for not only filing a late return, but they still
haven't filed their return as it relates to that the
sort of the electoral donations and the like, And despite
having not done it, police have already said we're going
to let you off with a warning. That is that
(27:34):
is a danger, danger danger that we have. I don't
think it's to tear or anything. I actually think it's
our institutions not having the self confidence to be able
to do their job, and that I find really worrying.
So do I agree, yes, they should be held up.
It is a very serious punishment, particularly to dock the pay.
(27:56):
But this sort of punching someone in parliament, how much
more serious does it get?
Speaker 4 (28:03):
Yeah? No, good on it.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
Hey, guys, I really appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank
you so much. And are you going to accept Jordan's
offered to Stuart to sit next to him at the lockup?
Speaker 4 (28:12):
Look forward to hearing you.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
Take to buy me beer afters.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
I just minded it might need to bear during it.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
I've been a number of lock ups as well, remember,
and it requires a stiff whiskey, not just a beer.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
Hey, thank you so much, guys.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
I really appreciate your time. That is a former police
minister Stuart Nash and the Taxpayers Union director Jordan Williams.
We're going to take your calls after this as well
on your response to with the chat. Actually, you know,
it wasn't an incredible amount of colegiality there, which is
wouldn't it be nice if politics was like that all
the time, where people express, you know, varying opinions and
then acknowledge when they agree with each other and something's
a good idea. But I guess you know, once you're
(28:48):
outside the house, pats things to become a bit more
civil save this lack of civility for inside parliament, don't we?
Speaker 4 (28:54):
But I also want to get your take.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
You will hear Stuart's strong comments and echoed there by
Jordan about the punishment there's meet to party Marie, and
I thought, actually Stuart expressed himself very well there that
this is you know how much and also Jordan's saying
how much more serious would.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
It have to get?
Speaker 2 (29:15):
But the other side of it is that Jerry Brownlee
is going to throw it open for debate, and it's
the potential there's open ended debate, I think, is what
he's going to allow, and that seems to me to
be a sure recipe for potential fulfillerbustering, which is just
extending things out for as long as you can. But
also you'll come in some What are you looking for
(29:35):
in the budget? We've got time for some talk back now.
I eight one hundred and eighty ten eighty. Will there
be any surprises? There's lots of questions around the budget.
What was your favorite to pre budget announcement, et cetera,
et cetera. We're throwing it open. It's over to you
for until we wrap up this out. Just come up
to eighteen minutes too four News Talks Your B eight
hundred and eighty ten eighty.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
For more from the weekend collective, Listen live to News
Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
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 Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!