Finance Minister Nicola Willis unveiled her second budget yesterday - and its big news if you're a business owner, a Kiwisaver member or a teenager on the benefit. What impact will the changes have?
Also, a man who heckled Rail Minister Winston Peters at a press conference earlier this week is facing an employment investigation. Should his behaviour in his own time be subject to an investigation by his bosses?
To answer those questions, economist and Infometrics chief executive Brad Olsen and political commentator Dr Bryce Edwards joined Nick Mills for Friday Faceoff.
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 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from news Talk said B Wellington's official week interview. It's
Friday face off with Qudovic Property Management, a better rental
experience for all. Visit Quovi dot cot. It's head.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Shoining us for Friday Faced Off. Budget special is Info
Metrics Chief executive Brad Olsingham Morning yet Bread, Morning Brad.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
That's all right. I call me whatever. I mean people
people always do.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Especially in the middle of a budget week. And political
commentator doctor Bryce.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Edwards, Good morning, Marena.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
How are we all? Okay, let's let's get let's let's
cut to the chase. I mean, how do we feel
about the budget? Just warm and fuzzy stuff. Will start
with you, Brad. What do you What was your What
was your gut? Don't get into specifics, just your gut.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Look. I mean I called it the switch at budget.
Everyone tries to name budgets that come out. Mind the
switch at budget because it was a switch from you
with funding some things as a government, but you were
having to save in other areas and so it was
money sort of moving from one area to another. I
thought overall, given that the fiscal environment is pretty difficult.
The economic environment is pretty difficult. I was expecting less
(01:22):
than what actually came out, so I was surprised in
a good way of what came out, but some very
truugh tate tough trade offs for government and clearly for
me to speak.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
And you bryce, what did you want?
Speaker 1 (01:34):
You go?
Speaker 4 (01:35):
Look, I'm really hoping that your listeners aren't going to
turn off their stations, turn off the radios, because I
wonder that people might be quite bored about this budget.
And it's moved on so quickly, and I think in
the twenty thirty forty years i've been following budgets, I've
I've never seen the conversation move on so quickly where
people are like, oh, yep, cool budget done and when
(01:57):
I talk about other things. So I just think it
was I mean, it wasn't. I'm not saying it was
a bad budget. It was just a bit of a
yawn budget for me. Nothing particularly surprising. Probably the vestment
boost for business was the big thing for me in
the budget, so it was quite a pro business budget.
I think in the future that might be remembered. And
the pay equity cuts essentially which went announced yesterday, but
(02:18):
I think that will be the lingering thing.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
My next question was going to be, I mean I felt,
rightly or wrong only Bryce that we'd heard most of
the announcements about the budget before the budget day, so
it was not like a big normal budget five hundred
million to hair and four hundred million, because we had
already had all the announcements.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Indeed, and I think Nichol Willis was kind of right
in saying there was no lolly scramble this year. There
were some pretty big chunks of expenditure, but it wasn't
those big sort of announcements like you expect. So we
knew defense was getting billions.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
We knew railways we're going to get out and all those.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Sort of things. We knew they had to spend money
on health and education for lots of reasons, political reality reasons, etc.
But it was the invest boost one of giving the
appreciation ability for businesses to claw back some of that tax.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Brad, Brad, was it abnormal to have like two weeks
of advance you announcements so that come budget day there
was nothing really to it?
Speaker 3 (03:23):
Not really, I mean, we always have pre budget announcements
that lets the government sort of you know, means that
it's not all just concentrated on the one day and
you sort of miss a few of the announcements. I
think what was different is the two we didn't have
announced before budget day, particularly the key we Saver changes
and investment boost. They were not teased, but they were
pretty well almost known around town, Like everyone including myself,
(03:45):
was sort of cottoning on to something around key we savor,
you know. I think most people I talked to seem
to get two out of the three changes that were made.
And then even with investment boost, we didn't know exactly
what level it was, but there seemed to be a
feeling that the government wanted to make a bit of
a tax change. It could be needed to be sort
of small enough that it was affordable, but big enough
to make a bit of a difference to the numbers.
So I feel like because of that, everyone again to
(04:07):
Bryce's point, it was more just that everyone was like, oh, okay,
that was sort of as expected to move on, sort
of nothing to see here. So in a sense, yeah,
it might have been a bit of a yawn budget,
but particularly given the fiscal stance, I mean, that's probably
not a bad thing for government if they'd come out
with something massive. Everyone would have gone, you guys aren't
under control.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
Look, and I think the government will be quite happy
with that. From their point of view. They were dealing
with a difficult fiscal situation, trying to make you know,
two and two equal five, or to get something good
out of this budget. They had to do a bit
of smoking mirrors, I think, but they didn't. They went
after big headlines that would last for a week. They
wanted just to get this out of the way.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Brad, did you forget the feeling like I was getting
the feeling from doing this job that this coalition government
had really forgotten about the man and the ute, the
small time businessman, you know. And I was getting that
loud and clear everywhere I went, and I, you know,
talked to Bish about it in the studio and he said,
watch this budget. Do you reckon that? That's why they
(05:05):
made this announcem because they had done all these big
things and forgotten about the small guy.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
I don't know they've forgotten about them. I think it
was just that there were a various amount of priorities
they were trying to get through and this was the
budget where they went, this is where we can provide
some of that support, and importantly it helps everyone from
the small guy through to the big guy as well,
who are going to employ a lot more people. If
they can get some of those productivity enhancements, they can
you know, buy a bunch of new kit they're going
to have some smarter stuff. But I think also what
(05:31):
the government did this budget is they sort of shifted
a little bit how budgets operate. Now you go back
a couple of years and what happened in you know,
budget twenty twenty two and similar was that they said,
you know what, last year's budget that's locked in all
of the spending that previously happened, It's going to happen
exactly the same, and here's some additional stuff. Because we've
got a bunch of money to spend this year, a
little bit of it last year as well. Government said
you know what, actually we are not committing to everything
(05:53):
that we've done previously. Everything's up for grabs. We're going
to be able to find new, larger levels of spending
by cutting back in other places. The other difference, though,
is that you saw a number of announcements in the
budget yesterday that were actively different levels of means testing,
and that's a different approach from government. It was often
a lot more universal. It's now shifted a lot more
to means testing, and that's in my mind, actually not
(06:15):
a bad thing. Government saying, look, we are still going
to provide support, but we're not going to be the
first protocol. We're going to provide the second support if
whatever is happening first, if your business, if your parents,
if your family can't help, that's when we'll step in.
But we're not going to do it.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
And I think that's going to be quite politically savvy.
It will mean the labor opposition or any of the opposition
can't rarely complain too much about those targeting things because
essentially they're taking money from the top in those means
testing things. So can we say that, yeah, you lose
any government contribution if what you're learning over one hundred
and eighty thousand, What.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Does two hundred and sixty bucks mean to eight?
Speaker 3 (06:49):
Yeah, and so I think they could have gone further
put it this way, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Yeah, absolutely, So means testing isn't something that the left
are going to necessarily campaign against. So yeah, I think
it's probably quite smart.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Should we be concerned about means testing. When it comes
to superannuation, it's.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Not on the table at the moment. I mean, it's
the one area that perhaps should be put its way.
I was a little bit frustrated by some of the
messaging that comes out. I get the coalition politics of it,
but it's still frustrating that in the budget yesterday the
government the country is now spending twenty three billion dollars
on New Zealand Super in the next year. That is
more than just for every other line item apart from health.
(07:28):
It's more the entire education budget. You heard from the
Finance Minister that we're trying to encourage more people to
save for their retirement through the changes to Kipisaver. But
at the same time, the government's put one hundred million
or so to providing rates rebates, but only to Super
Gold card holders. And I'm like, so that's telling me
that we're going to spend a huge amount of money
as a country on Super. We're telling current generation that
(07:49):
they should save for their own retirement, but those who
are currently retired will get government support. There is some
inconsistency there that says, well, we'll pay we need to
pay for the current generation, but the future guys, they'll
sort of just have to hack it themselves.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
What about the Quinte energy payment, Well.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
That's still there as well, again to supernutance and similar
it's still sticking around.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Oh I thought they got rid of it all that.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
No, No, it's still very much there. But again they've sort
of it. It's I guess my worry a little bit
is that for some of this means testing. Again. I
think they could have gone further, and I think there
might be more of that as you go into the future.
But there were some areas where again it's not a
huge huge change, but I think it signals something the
government change for example, around the likes of unemployed teenagers.
If you're an eighteen year or nineteen year old, you
(08:29):
want to go on the job, see could benefit like
the unemployment benefit. Now there's going to be a parental
assistance test, just like you have to do if you
go to university and get some sort of studio.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
It's going to be the contentious part so means testing.
Yes for the wealthy, but for eighteen and nineteen year olds.
I think that's going to hurt a lot of people
and it's going to Yeah, there's going to be a
lot of young people and their families. Maybe I'm speaking
out of self interest here, because yes, I saw that
you said. I thought, oh my god, I now can
I sport my kids up to the age of twenty?
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Can? I ask you, doctor Brice, because you come from
Victoria University, it's your background. It was talked about in
the news this morning that some these kids might actually
just apply to go to university to get to all
the funding and not even turn up and waste everyone's time.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Oh like I'd hesitate to say too much, but yeah,
that happens already.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
As a student. Look, I I probably did a bit
of that as well, and I'd like to think I'm
in an all right place now. I mean I think
I think realistically there is a little bit of horses
for courses there, but it is more the starting point
here where you go. Look that the government I don't
think should just immediately shot out where there is certainly
an ability at that point if you were going to
(09:40):
go to university, you've already got to get means tested
for that same Now for the likes of unemployment support
is still there. I think that's vital to highlight support
is still there. From the government. It's just there is
going to be a first boundary that says, look, government
will not jump in and be absolutely everything to everyone.
First port of call. Government needs to take a step
back in the size of what they do in the state.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
I said that the number and the intro this morning,
I said, the number will be very low for that
because realistically, the people that are the families that are
earning that sort of money, their children are doing things
with their life. They're going getting educated or going to jobs.
It's the lower area. So it's not going to I
guarantee when the numbers come out on this, it's not
going to be that high, is it.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
I won't come back to you on that guarantee.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Do you think.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
I'm just not so convinced of that. I think there's
a lot of middle New Zealand that may end up
being hurt by this and having to deal with those
so called PlayStation kids on the couch and pain.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
But I'm sorry, yeah, well, I'm thinking that their pearents
won't get to the resort or them have the last
resort of them had mean to go and knock on
Social Welfare's hands because they're already taking care of them anyway.
So that's just my thought. Friday face off with doctor
Bryce Edwards and Brad Olsen in the studio. We're chatting
a little bit about the budget. Then we will move on.
(11:00):
We won't bore you too much of you are getting
bored by it, like the good doctor reckons that we
might be getting bored by it. I mean we have
looked at the Key We Saver briefly, but I do
want to elaborate a little bit more. Let's start with you,
Bryce Edwards. Keep we save it up to four percent.
We've got time. That's what everyone Catherine Rich said yesterday.
(11:21):
As long as we get a little bit of time,
we'll be happy with it. Businesses aren't jumping up and
down and screaming from the rooftops. I think, you know,
when you look at Australian's eleven percent or whatever it is,
I mean that little half a percent than then a percent.
I think it's a good idea.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
Key We Saver itself is a good idea. I think
it was a good innovation when it was brought in.
We do have a savings I don't know about crisis,
but certainly a savings problem in New Zealand, where we
need something big, and people saving three percent isn't enough,
So I'm not surprised that it's being compulsorily put up
(11:55):
for both individuals and employers to four percent, and potentially
it should be much higher, but of course I don't know.
It's during a cost of living crisis. Again, if you like,
making people lose more of their wages is going to
hurt some people. At the same time, the government is
(12:15):
taking away some of their contribution. You know, they drop
it used to be one thousand dollars they put in
next year if it was, they dropped it to five hundred.
Now it's what about two fifty. It might not be
that consequential, but it still feels like the government is
loading more onto the individual and I'm not sure this
is optimal for Key Saver. It should be more encouraged
(12:35):
in my view, Brad.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
There shouldn't be much of a fuss about this, should they.
I mean, you know, I mean testing over one hundred
and eighty thousand, Who cares? You know?
Speaker 3 (12:42):
I mean you could have said it at one hundred
and it wouldn't have mattered, right, I mean, look, it's interesting.
I'd sort of probably go further than what the government did,
I would have gone four percent next year and then
keep raising it bier percentage point each year until you
made it to ten. I mean, we know that we
need we need savings. But at some point in the future,
kewis are going to get to retirement age and find
that they don't have any money to live because the
government's going to be broken, They're not going to have
(13:04):
any of their own views. Do you like the key
I think I think out of all the options we've
got on the table, it's not a bad one, and
so raising over time is important, I do think though.
I mean there's been a lot of talk over you know,
it's the government being stingy in that on the government contribution.
Remember that when it was at one thousand dollars and
then eventually got cut to five hundred, there weren't as
many people in the scheme. It was an incentive to
(13:25):
get you in. There are three point three million key
we Saver members at the moment. You don't need a
couple hundred bucks a year to do it.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Because both of you, please tell me why it's not compulsory.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Well, I don't think it needs to be compulsory when
it's opt out. You start with the level of you
are straight and unless you deliberately say otherwise, and that
means that if you are not quite, if you're lazy
like me, and I'm lazy on this front, I'll go
into the scheme because you know what, I like the
set and forget mindset. I don't need to go and
touch it. If I want to be active, if I
want to do something with my savings directly, then I
(13:55):
can totally opt out and then manage my own stuff.
But it says that, look, everyone is going to basically
do savings because it's all but compulsory when it's that
opt out, and there's a bit of a pathway out
the other side. But here's my thing. At a full
time minimum, my age worker, everyone is getting that two
hundred and sixty dollars immediately on that front. And it
(14:15):
suggests to me that if you're giving it to almost
literally everyone, it's not really an incentive to keep sort
of contributing. You're already doing that just by having the
minimum amount going out of your paycheck, so it's not
actually stimulating any more key we saver activity. So yeah,
I don't see why it's there. They could have got
rid of it entirely, and it probably would have saved
them a bit more money.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Okay, right, I want to move on to the big
story of the last couple of weeks. Really, we finally
learned yesterday that the government's pay equity changes will actually
save the government twelve billion over the next four years. Bryce,
I want to ask you this, I mean, how politically
damaging could this will this possibly be?
Speaker 4 (14:55):
I think it's already been politically damaging, but maybe not
quite in the extent that a lot of the critics
have said. I don't think that women have suddenly stopped
voting for the parties of government because of this. I
think there will be a lot of people left, right
and center that will essentially be convinced by the government's
arguments that this scheme had not been totally thought out
(15:19):
properly and that there was a blowout of it, and
that they would prefer some of these billions of dollars
shifted into health education, et cetera. So I don't think
it's as harmful as the critics kind of suggest, but
it will be something that the yeah the government will
have to keep will have trouble. They'll have to deal
(15:40):
with these questions onwards, but they probably helped a bit
by the fact that Labor started to kind of fudge
their answers on it all about whether they are going
to totally reverse this so hip can.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Almost they're not.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Yeah, so they haven't been able to commit to it,
so that takes.
Speaker 4 (15:58):
This thing out of it for the government that will
Labor is not really necessarily in reality disagreeing with them.
So yeah, I think that's the that's the same and
grace for the government Bradley.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
They had to do what they've done, right, They had
no money, they had nothing to play with, playing with
a play set of cards. If they didn't do this.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Well, I think importantly. I mean it was twelve point
eight billion, right, nearly thirteen billion. That's only the thirteen
billion that they've taken out. There are still more money
somewhere in the baselines that they won't tell us for
commercial reasons, that are still in there to pay for
the current set of potential forward pay equity claims that
come through. So it's nearly thirteen billion dollars that was
sitting around there. That's almost the entire operating allowance. As
(16:42):
you sort of move forward into the future, that suggests
that not only the current coalition government, but a labor
led government would have had to have the same sort
of conversation and go, either we're cutting thirteen billion of
funding from other areas health education otherwise, or we're funding
this Now. It's quite clear that it's vital that pay
equity gets settled, But the numbers that were being bandied
about continued to increase exponentially from where they were expected
(17:05):
to under the twenty seventeen law. It was becoming fiscally unsustainable.
Something had to give.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
How damaging is it though, how damage is it going
it'd be for the government.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
I think that the challenge right is that although the
number is huge, I think the way the government went
about the announcement one not being able to talk immediately
about the number. Because now that it has come out,
I think people are starting to understand. You know, it
was massively consequential for the government, But the way it
came about, the way it was messaged out, I mean,
it was that was politically poor in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
I agree with that absolutely.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
You know that that could have been a much better
argued conversation and instead it was sort of just dumped out.
Meant that you had all of these sort of challenges
that came up. But I think Bryce's exactly right. The
fact that no one's been able to commit to putting
it back exactly the same level suggests that again it
was going to be a struggle. It will be a
struggle for any government in the future.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Bryce, I want to start with you on this particular topic.
It was not only budget day for the government, but
it was Wellington City Council's day too. They've just you know,
we've see a ten year plan, big meeting. They've decided
to keep Picconia House, the Kendala Pools stay, and they're
going to try and come to some arrangement to keep
the colorI Events Center open. What's more important to you
(18:13):
keeping these community facilities open, which we have been a
lot of talk about lately, or trying to keep your
rates down.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
If I had to choose between those, I would definitely
say keep those facilities, save them. I'm not sure it
is as simple as that, though. I think there's a
lot of other areas where the council is spending huge
amounts of money that whether it's on bureaucracy, advertising, propaganda,
wasted money on contractors, for water, things that don't really
(18:42):
get fixed, huge areas that savings could be made, and
so I don't believe that we can't afford pagonia house
or swimming pools and have rates that aren't too high.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Bradley. We also saw that the amount of money has
been spent on the cycle ways has been dropped. The
government's obviously tidying about there. They have been dropped. They
decided they will agree to join the government's new wa
have done better, whatever the name of it is. So
they are trying to be a little bit smarter. Is
it because the election's coming up or is it because
(19:18):
they have suddenly worked out that they've been doing some
things a bit wrong.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
I think it's more because, I mean, looking through their
budget that the previous one didn't work. They couldn't come
to an agreement, they weren't able to sort of move
it forward. They had to make some tough calls and
they've had them. I mean, at the very least, at
least the Council have been able to get through and go,
you know what, We've got to come up with a
solution here. We're probably not going to make everyone incredibly happy,
but we've got to come to a compromise and they haven't,
(19:42):
and like all credit to them because one of the
challenges we've had time and time again is that we
haven't had that ability to actually come together and have
some decisions. So the fact that there is, you know,
there's less money going into the likes of Cycle Network.
Those who are pro cycle will be frustrated by that.
Those who are anti cycle ways are probably going to
say that it's not enough. Being cut out in the
middle was generally not a bad place, but I think
as well. I mean you look at some of these
(20:04):
community services and communit the facilities and similar that is
really the decision that councilors have had to go. Well, look,
if the community wants it, then the community's got to
pay for it. If the community doesn't want it and
they want the lower rates, they have to give something up.
You don't get to have lower rates but keep all
the stuff you had before. That is just not a
calculation that will come through. So I think a reasonable
(20:24):
balance where the council has come through. But again this
is going to be a continual thing. Every long term plan,
every annual plan the council goes through, they will have
to stack everything up and go Watson, what's out.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
I haven't had an opportunity to speak to each of
you since Andrew Little put his name in the ring
and things that Andrew Little wanted. He was big on
the community type stuff like pools and community centers and
all that. Suddenly the council's sort of flip flopped about that. Bryce,
what are your thoughts and when you heard that Andrew
Little is going to stand for the mayoral team, what
(20:55):
you going to be?
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Look, I agree with how you've put it. I think
his entry to the race has actually had an impact
on the current council before he's even elected. And I
don't have any doubt that he's going to be elect
a mayor, so you know, I think he's going to
win quite easily. But it's just amazing to see a
politician before they've even become elected, to have a huge
(21:17):
direct impact on decision making. And I happen to agree
with him on his advice to the council not to
sign a lot of these contracts for some of the
things they've already decided when there's about to be a
changing of the guard. And I think that he should
be working through the Labor Party and the Green Party
to sort of have a bit of influence on the
(21:39):
current counselors on that regard.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Have you had anything to do with them? Do you know?
Have you had any association with him?
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Oh, he's been unavoidable for someone in my shoes over
the years. That doesn't mean I'm close to him or no,
I'm really personally, but yeah, I think he's one of
the more competent politicians around, one of the more centrist
politicians around. So I think he's he's out of casting
(22:04):
central for what the Wellington City illiterate want for a mayor.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
After the last time, I wasn't trying to put you
in the corner that I was asking you for because
I've met him twice, once in an interview here and
once over lunch, and he seems like, I'm not a
pushy type guy, So he's not going to be knocking
on Tory Farno's door saying I'm telling you to do this.
He's a very you know, intelligent, smart man that's in
(22:30):
the background looking in saying I think this should be
done rather than jumping up. That's why I was just
trying to get that one, and I think that's right.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Absolutely I mean, probably one of the beest biggest criticisms
you can make of Andrew Little, if you're looking for one,
is boring. Yeah, he's a bit bland.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Yeah, that's the criticism that you can level on him.
Though Jesus, I feel like Wellington would take it.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
That's really what I'm saying that I think that's probably
what Wellington wants.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
He's pragmatic. That's that's the thing that I think that
you know that you're seeing come through at the moment.
The other thing that I must say, I think is
important for any Wellington council race is that the minute
that you sort of declare your south or sort of
mayor elect or similar is when you will lose the
vote badly. Wellington does not stand for that. So I
think it's encouraging to see that, despite you know a
lot of people saying, look, I think he's the front
(23:16):
runner and similar that Andrewlada was still campaigning like he
is running for mayor rather than just assuming he's got it,
and that, in my mat that's a big mark of
respect that he has for voters.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Ethan calls it the coronation.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
Well, yeah, I think Ethan's right because in a sense.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
I don't want to make too much of this, but
the current mayor really was positioned here by some particular
power brokers in the sort of labor sphere. Those same
power brokers are now the people lining up behind Andrew Little.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
So that said about Paul Eagle, yes we did.
Speaker 4 (23:49):
Yeah, diferent power breakers. I think it was more powerful
ones that were behind Tory Fanna.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
You know what, and I totally agree with you, Bryce,
And that's the one thing that I've continuously said that
that's the one downer on it, and it's not a
big downer. I want something exciting. We're an exciting city.
But I'm not I'm not saying that he shouldn't be
me everything.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
You've had that person for the last three years.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Yeah, every time I lead with that, someone hits me
on the job with the same thing. That's just what
you've had. So, Okay, news talks, there be Wellington Mornings.
As you've just heard, it's a Friday's Face Off budget special.
But we're moving along to doing other things. We've got
Bryce Edwards and Brad Olsen in the studio with us right.
A story that's got me going. It's really fired me up.
(24:35):
An employee of a Wellington engineering firm is facing an
employment investigation after heckling Winston Peters the railway station earlier
this week. Brad Olsen, surely someone, I mean, I know
that you're a political junkie, so you're not going to
agree with me, But surely someone can walk down a
railway station platform see a politician that he does or
(24:56):
doesn't like, and yell something out and carry on walking. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
No, I'm with you on that. Oh god, no, I
put it this way. Anyone that actually champions freedom of
speech and similar not at this point go oh, you
know what, he should not have done that, to be fair,
take your lanyard off next time, for goodness sake. Like that. Genuinely,
I think that is almost the only real place that
something went wrong. Now, Equally, I don't think it is
(25:20):
reasonable to go and berate politicians and certainly to swear
at them and similar So if I was going to
be protesting and someone I'd probably would have toned it
down a little bit on touch. But I'm totally alright
with people putting their view across. If ministers want to
do a press stand up at a busy train station
in peak hour traffic. Then they are going to get
some comments through on it.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
And the other thing too, is and I'm not trying
to defend well, I am trying to defend him because
I feel a bit sorry for him. And I'll tell
you the story because you didn't hear. But Melissa, one
of our reporters, went out and met with him. He's
obviously on a very low key and doesn't say anything,
but he opened the door and burst into tears. So
it's a pretty sad, damn story. I mean, you know,
the guy's not a spring chicken and he burst into tears,
(26:01):
so he's obviously affected by it. Bryce, Bryce s Edward,
what do you think?
Speaker 4 (26:04):
Oh, look, I have to endorse everything said. No, when
politicians use to go out into public spaces and use
it for their propaganda purposes, they've got to roll with stuff.
And I don't think Winston Peter's, you know, and was
particularly unhappy with it, but probably probably helped him. He
was probably, for all we know, he planted that person
(26:27):
to come along and yell at him. It was a
good news story for Winston Peter's And no, absolutely we
should allow people to to and.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
You know what, I also feel because I'm I'm going
to be a single handed, you know, person singing for
this guy from the rooftops. But the thing was that
he made a sly comment and kept walking right, you know,
like you.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Know, there was a challenge. He didn't keep walking though,
he stopped.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
If it hold on, hold on, hold on, he said.
He said, look in a mirror. I mean, if someone
said to me, it's pretty insulting. Winston Peters said to him,
he made a sly comment or you know, an aggressive comment.
I'll give you that aggressive comment towards look in them
because he called him an old guy. Why are you
still going your old guy or something like that, he said,
he said, look in a mirror, Sunshine. Now that's pretty insulting. Back.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
Well, I'm in fear on both sides. If you're gonna yell,
you're gonna get yelled back at it.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
I feel like one of them's at home and one
of them it's still at work.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
Oh well, And but there's the thing. I think the
challenge as well though, is from the employer point of view,
they sort of had to do something. I mean, that's
the challenges. I think that everyone in the circumstance is
in a tough position, right, because if you're in the employer,
you're going, well, I've sort of need Now that someone
has identified my employee, I can't just sort of go see, no,
he know evil. I've got to react. But I do
(27:38):
think that there should be put it this way if
in the best case scenario, I feel like someone should
go look, I probably shouldn't have carried on for how
long that conversation went on. I probably shouldn't up the anty.
I'm sorry, let's move on. I can't believe we're still
talking about this.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
It's just a bit of road rage, though.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
Is it just a little bit of road rage flash
in the pan?
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Yeah? Is it road rage?
Speaker 4 (27:59):
I'm surprised we're still talking about it. Yes, it has
employment aspects, which probably has been the gritty part of it,
because there's been people saying, wow, he can expect to
have ramifications for his employment, and there's been a bit
of debate about that. I don't know if anyone is
really disagreeing with his right as an individual to do it.
Some people were saying that he should face the consequences
(28:22):
and employment terms. I'm not I'm not keen on that myself,
but it's a debate.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
Man, if that's if that's the bar for it, I
feel like we're in a bad place as.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
At low bar. Yep, we're in a low bar and
one of them is at work and one of them
isn't you know. I mean that's that's how's let's leave
it at that, and that's not that doesn't feel too
terribly fair to me. Right, let's move on foreign buyers. Brad,
you'll be very interested in this. I know you are
fired up about it. So the government still hasn't formed
a position on whether to allow foreign investors to buy
homes in New Zealand as part of the government's Golden
(28:54):
Visa escheme. The National campaigned on it following foreign buyers,
but Winston Peters has basically he's not a fan. And
he was talking to Hosking the other day and he said,
something's close. I mean you're looking at me like you
know something. Do you know what?
Speaker 1 (29:07):
I know?
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Nothing official? I mean put it away. The conversation that
seems to be going on, and this is now being
bandied about quite a bit, is that the focus is
now will look if you're going to have and try
and entice, you know, people to come to New Zealand
on these golden visas they're offering. It's sort of going
to be hard to do it if you're like, hey,
please come to New Zealand invest some money, but you
can't buy house, so sorry. So I think reasonably now
the government is saying, look, if we can get you
(29:29):
to invest some serious money, what is a reasonable level
that we can get you to buy a house. Previously
the National Party we're campaigning on a two million dollar level.
Now maybe the conversation, and again this has just been
banded about by randoms across the street, seems to be
more in the five to ten million range.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Five to six million, I think it is the number
that's officially that's what you're yeah bandied around. I think
you know, so.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
There's options, there's options. I mean again, I think it
seems reasonable to say to people, if you're going to
bring in a bunch of money, you can probably buy
one of those high value houses that that should be uncontroversial.
It seems like it just needs to work its way
through the coalition.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Steps and quickly. Bryce. We can't expect people to spend
invest ten million building to stay having a business here
and not live in their own home.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Well, I'm more with Winston Peter's on this. I think
it looks dodgy and what sort of society are we
that we just try and bring rich people in and
give them citizens' rights just because they're rich.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
Every country on earth, yeah.
Speaker 4 (30:21):
Every country on Earth we've done are becoming. Yeah, it
just needs a lot of scrutiny.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
Okay, the Friday fat than not.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Oh right, it's that time of the week again. Who
wants to go first? Bryce? You go first because you're
excited by this? Might not?
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Is the whole scandal over the to Party Mari MP's
and their suspension from parliament. I think it was a
low point in parliamentary history. Not because I don't think
they need to be they don't deserve. I'm not saying
they shouldn't be severely punished. I think they did break
the rules and it was serious. But when you yeah,
(31:04):
when you eject people from the House for twenty one day,
is not allowing them to vote. This is what tim pot.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Then what is you don't mind that they're getting.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
For a long time. I don't mind the men kicked
off committees. I don't mind lots of ramifications, but not
not taking away their vote.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Okay, well they were I don't think they were there yesterday.
Speaker 4 (31:26):
I'm talking about a principle here. I'm just talking about
regardless of who's being who's breaking the rules, we shouldn't
allow the government of the day to get rid of oppositions.
What's your hot Hot maybe two? There's a new Wes
Anderson film coming out the Phoenician. Very excited about that.
Walking down here to the studio on Gusney Street. The
(31:47):
new or the old album Ale building is it? It's
just being It's had all the construction stuff taken off.
It is soon to be opened. It's an amazing old building,
maybe one hundred free years old. Yes, of brothel, but
it won't be now. It's going to be restaurants, cafes,
rooftop garden. I think it's gonna be the Gym Wellington
and it's going to make Cousney Street the hot new
(32:10):
space of hospitality.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Oh wow, that's a big plug for it. I'll have
to go and have a look. It's a huge look.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
It hasn't opened yet, but it's it's just that it's
been covered in stuff cover for years and now it's
it's suddenly there to be seen.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Bradley, give us your hots and nots quickly because Bryce
has taken so much time.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Okay, I've got it's not on budget, might not as
butter price is just always at the moment. I had
to buy some on the weekend and it hurt. My
hot though for the week is Toasty Lords. They're doing
a pop up at Press Hall at the moment. The
best toasted sandwiches you will ever eat there there today.
I'm pretty sure they're there tomorrow on Saturday as well,
but they are flipping fantastic toast after the show head off.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
It's good. Next time you're an aug can buy your
butter at Cross cost Go. Cross Goes brings them down
ten dollars Crossco cost Co cost Co. It's getting near
the end of the week. Thank you Brad, brad Olson
and Bryce. Doctor Bryce said was appreciate your boat. Have
a great, fantastic sunny Wellington with our weekend gosh.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news Talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from news Talk said B Wellington's official week interview. It's
Friday face off with Qudovic Property Management, a better rental
experience for all. Visit Quovi dot cot. It's head.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Shoining us for Friday Faced Off. Budget special is Info
Metrics Chief executive Brad Olsingham Morning yet Bread, Morning Brad.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
That's all right. I call me whatever. I mean people
people always do.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Especially in the middle of a budget week. And political
commentator doctor Bryce.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Edwards, Good morning, Marena.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
How are we all? Okay, let's let's get let's let's
cut to the chase. I mean, how do we feel
about the budget? Just warm and fuzzy stuff. Will start
with you, Brad. What do you What was your What
was your gut? Don't get into specifics, just your gut.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Look. I mean I called it the switch at budget.
Everyone tries to name budgets that come out. Mind the
switch at budget because it was a switch from you
with funding some things as a government, but you were
having to save in other areas and so it was
money sort of moving from one area to another. I
thought overall, given that the fiscal environment is pretty difficult.
The economic environment is pretty difficult. I was expecting less
(01:22):
than what actually came out, so I was surprised in
a good way of what came out, but some very
truugh tate tough trade offs for government and clearly for
me to speak.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
And you bryce, what did you want?
Speaker 1 (01:34):
You go?
Speaker 4 (01:35):
Look, I'm really hoping that your listeners aren't going to
turn off their stations, turn off the radios, because I
wonder that people might be quite bored about this budget.
And it's moved on so quickly, and I think in
the twenty thirty forty years i've been following budgets, I've
I've never seen the conversation move on so quickly where
people are like, oh, yep, cool budget done and when
(01:57):
I talk about other things. So I just think it
was I mean, it wasn't. I'm not saying it was
a bad budget. It was just a bit of a
yawn budget for me. Nothing particularly surprising. Probably the vestment
boost for business was the big thing for me in
the budget, so it was quite a pro business budget.
I think in the future that might be remembered. And
the pay equity cuts essentially which went announced yesterday, but
(02:18):
I think that will be the lingering thing.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
My next question was going to be, I mean I felt,
rightly or wrong only Bryce that we'd heard most of
the announcements about the budget before the budget day, so
it was not like a big normal budget five hundred
million to hair and four hundred million, because we had
already had all the announcements.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Indeed, and I think Nichol Willis was kind of right
in saying there was no lolly scramble this year. There
were some pretty big chunks of expenditure, but it wasn't
those big sort of announcements like you expect. So we
knew defense was getting billions.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
We knew railways we're going to get out and all those.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Sort of things. We knew they had to spend money
on health and education for lots of reasons, political reality reasons, etc.
But it was the invest boost one of giving the
appreciation ability for businesses to claw back some of that tax.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Brad, Brad, was it abnormal to have like two weeks
of advance you announcements so that come budget day there
was nothing really to it?
Speaker 3 (03:23):
Not really, I mean, we always have pre budget announcements
that lets the government sort of you know, means that
it's not all just concentrated on the one day and
you sort of miss a few of the announcements. I
think what was different is the two we didn't have
announced before budget day, particularly the key we Saver changes
and investment boost. They were not teased, but they were
pretty well almost known around town, Like everyone including myself,
(03:45):
was sort of cottoning on to something around key we savor,
you know. I think most people I talked to seem
to get two out of the three changes that were made.
And then even with investment boost, we didn't know exactly
what level it was, but there seemed to be a
feeling that the government wanted to make a bit of
a tax change. It could be needed to be sort
of small enough that it was affordable, but big enough
to make a bit of a difference to the numbers.
So I feel like because of that, everyone again to
(04:07):
Bryce's point, it was more just that everyone was like, oh, okay,
that was sort of as expected to move on, sort
of nothing to see here. So in a sense, yeah,
it might have been a bit of a yawn budget,
but particularly given the fiscal stance, I mean, that's probably
not a bad thing for government if they'd come out
with something massive. Everyone would have gone, you guys aren't
under control.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
Look, and I think the government will be quite happy
with that. From their point of view. They were dealing
with a difficult fiscal situation, trying to make you know,
two and two equal five, or to get something good
out of this budget. They had to do a bit
of smoking mirrors, I think, but they didn't. They went
after big headlines that would last for a week. They
wanted just to get this out of the way.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Brad, did you forget the feeling like I was getting
the feeling from doing this job that this coalition government
had really forgotten about the man and the ute, the
small time businessman, you know. And I was getting that
loud and clear everywhere I went, and I, you know,
talked to Bish about it in the studio and he said,
watch this budget. Do you reckon that? That's why they
(05:05):
made this announcem because they had done all these big
things and forgotten about the small guy.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
I don't know they've forgotten about them. I think it
was just that there were a various amount of priorities
they were trying to get through and this was the
budget where they went, this is where we can provide
some of that support, and importantly it helps everyone from
the small guy through to the big guy as well,
who are going to employ a lot more people. If
they can get some of those productivity enhancements, they can
you know, buy a bunch of new kit they're going
to have some smarter stuff. But I think also what
(05:31):
the government did this budget is they sort of shifted
a little bit how budgets operate. Now you go back
a couple of years and what happened in you know,
budget twenty twenty two and similar was that they said,
you know what, last year's budget that's locked in all
of the spending that previously happened, It's going to happen
exactly the same, and here's some additional stuff. Because we've
got a bunch of money to spend this year, a
little bit of it last year as well. Government said
you know what, actually we are not committing to everything
(05:53):
that we've done previously. Everything's up for grabs. We're going
to be able to find new, larger levels of spending
by cutting back in other places. The other difference, though,
is that you saw a number of announcements in the
budget yesterday that were actively different levels of means testing,
and that's a different approach from government. It was often
a lot more universal. It's now shifted a lot more
to means testing, and that's in my mind, actually not
(06:15):
a bad thing. Government saying, look, we are still going
to provide support, but we're not going to be the
first protocol. We're going to provide the second support if
whatever is happening first, if your business, if your parents,
if your family can't help, that's when we'll step in.
But we're not going to do it.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
And I think that's going to be quite politically savvy.
It will mean the labor opposition or any of the opposition
can't rarely complain too much about those targeting things because
essentially they're taking money from the top in those means
testing things. So can we say that, yeah, you lose
any government contribution if what you're learning over one hundred
and eighty thousand, What.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Does two hundred and sixty bucks mean to eight?
Speaker 3 (06:49):
Yeah, and so I think they could have gone further
put it this way, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Yeah, absolutely, So means testing isn't something that the left
are going to necessarily campaign against. So yeah, I think
it's probably quite smart.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Should we be concerned about means testing. When it comes
to superannuation, it's.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Not on the table at the moment. I mean, it's
the one area that perhaps should be put its way.
I was a little bit frustrated by some of the
messaging that comes out. I get the coalition politics of it,
but it's still frustrating that in the budget yesterday the
government the country is now spending twenty three billion dollars
on New Zealand Super in the next year. That is
more than just for every other line item apart from health.
(07:28):
It's more the entire education budget. You heard from the
Finance Minister that we're trying to encourage more people to
save for their retirement through the changes to Kipisaver. But
at the same time, the government's put one hundred million
or so to providing rates rebates, but only to Super
Gold card holders. And I'm like, so that's telling me
that we're going to spend a huge amount of money
as a country on Super. We're telling current generation that
(07:49):
they should save for their own retirement, but those who
are currently retired will get government support. There is some
inconsistency there that says, well, we'll pay we need to
pay for the current generation, but the future guys, they'll
sort of just have to hack it themselves.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
What about the Quinte energy payment, Well.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
That's still there as well, again to supernutance and similar
it's still sticking around.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Oh I thought they got rid of it all that.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
No, No, it's still very much there. But again they've sort
of it. It's I guess my worry a little bit
is that for some of this means testing. Again. I
think they could have gone further, and I think there
might be more of that as you go into the future.
But there were some areas where again it's not a
huge huge change, but I think it signals something the
government change for example, around the likes of unemployed teenagers.
If you're an eighteen year or nineteen year old, you
(08:29):
want to go on the job, see could benefit like
the unemployment benefit. Now there's going to be a parental
assistance test, just like you have to do if you
go to university and get some sort of studio.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
It's going to be the contentious part so means testing.
Yes for the wealthy, but for eighteen and nineteen year olds.
I think that's going to hurt a lot of people
and it's going to Yeah, there's going to be a
lot of young people and their families. Maybe I'm speaking
out of self interest here, because yes, I saw that
you said. I thought, oh my god, I now can
I sport my kids up to the age of twenty?
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Can? I ask you, doctor Brice, because you come from
Victoria University, it's your background. It was talked about in
the news this morning that some these kids might actually
just apply to go to university to get to all
the funding and not even turn up and waste everyone's time.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Oh like I'd hesitate to say too much, but yeah,
that happens already.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
As a student. Look, I I probably did a bit
of that as well, and I'd like to think I'm
in an all right place now. I mean I think
I think realistically there is a little bit of horses
for courses there, but it is more the starting point
here where you go. Look that the government I don't
think should just immediately shot out where there is certainly
an ability at that point if you were going to
(09:40):
go to university, you've already got to get means tested
for that same Now for the likes of unemployment support
is still there. I think that's vital to highlight support
is still there. From the government. It's just there is
going to be a first boundary that says, look, government
will not jump in and be absolutely everything to everyone.
First port of call. Government needs to take a step
back in the size of what they do in the state.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
I said that the number and the intro this morning,
I said, the number will be very low for that
because realistically, the people that are the families that are
earning that sort of money, their children are doing things
with their life. They're going getting educated or going to jobs.
It's the lower area. So it's not going to I
guarantee when the numbers come out on this, it's not
going to be that high, is it.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
I won't come back to you on that guarantee.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Do you think.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
I'm just not so convinced of that. I think there's
a lot of middle New Zealand that may end up
being hurt by this and having to deal with those
so called PlayStation kids on the couch and pain.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
But I'm sorry, yeah, well, I'm thinking that their pearents
won't get to the resort or them have the last
resort of them had mean to go and knock on
Social Welfare's hands because they're already taking care of them anyway.
So that's just my thought. Friday face off with doctor
Bryce Edwards and Brad Olsen in the studio. We're chatting
a little bit about the budget. Then we will move on.
(11:00):
We won't bore you too much of you are getting
bored by it, like the good doctor reckons that we
might be getting bored by it. I mean we have
looked at the Key We Saver briefly, but I do
want to elaborate a little bit more. Let's start with you,
Bryce Edwards. Keep we save it up to four percent.
We've got time. That's what everyone Catherine Rich said yesterday.
(11:21):
As long as we get a little bit of time,
we'll be happy with it. Businesses aren't jumping up and
down and screaming from the rooftops. I think, you know,
when you look at Australian's eleven percent or whatever it is,
I mean that little half a percent than then a percent.
I think it's a good idea.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
Key We Saver itself is a good idea. I think
it was a good innovation when it was brought in.
We do have a savings I don't know about crisis,
but certainly a savings problem in New Zealand, where we
need something big, and people saving three percent isn't enough,
So I'm not surprised that it's being compulsorily put up
(11:55):
for both individuals and employers to four percent, and potentially
it should be much higher, but of course I don't know.
It's during a cost of living crisis. Again, if you like,
making people lose more of their wages is going to
hurt some people. At the same time, the government is
(12:15):
taking away some of their contribution. You know, they drop
it used to be one thousand dollars they put in
next year if it was, they dropped it to five hundred.
Now it's what about two fifty. It might not be
that consequential, but it still feels like the government is
loading more onto the individual and I'm not sure this
is optimal for Key Saver. It should be more encouraged
(12:35):
in my view, Brad.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
There shouldn't be much of a fuss about this, should they.
I mean, you know, I mean testing over one hundred
and eighty thousand, Who cares? You know?
Speaker 3 (12:42):
I mean you could have said it at one hundred
and it wouldn't have mattered, right, I mean, look, it's interesting.
I'd sort of probably go further than what the government did,
I would have gone four percent next year and then
keep raising it bier percentage point each year until you
made it to ten. I mean, we know that we
need we need savings. But at some point in the future,
kewis are going to get to retirement age and find
that they don't have any money to live because the
government's going to be broken, They're not going to have
(13:04):
any of their own views. Do you like the key
I think I think out of all the options we've
got on the table, it's not a bad one, and
so raising over time is important, I do think though.
I mean there's been a lot of talk over you know,
it's the government being stingy in that on the government contribution.
Remember that when it was at one thousand dollars and
then eventually got cut to five hundred, there weren't as
many people in the scheme. It was an incentive to
(13:25):
get you in. There are three point three million key
we Saver members at the moment. You don't need a
couple hundred bucks a year to do it.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Because both of you, please tell me why it's not compulsory.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Well, I don't think it needs to be compulsory when
it's opt out. You start with the level of you
are straight and unless you deliberately say otherwise, and that
means that if you are not quite, if you're lazy
like me, and I'm lazy on this front, I'll go
into the scheme because you know what, I like the
set and forget mindset. I don't need to go and
touch it. If I want to be active, if I
want to do something with my savings directly, then I
(13:55):
can totally opt out and then manage my own stuff.
But it says that, look, everyone is going to basically
do savings because it's all but compulsory when it's that
opt out, and there's a bit of a pathway out
the other side. But here's my thing. At a full
time minimum, my age worker, everyone is getting that two
hundred and sixty dollars immediately on that front. And it
(14:15):
suggests to me that if you're giving it to almost
literally everyone, it's not really an incentive to keep sort
of contributing. You're already doing that just by having the
minimum amount going out of your paycheck, so it's not
actually stimulating any more key we saver activity. So yeah,
I don't see why it's there. They could have got
rid of it entirely, and it probably would have saved
them a bit more money.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Okay, right, I want to move on to the big
story of the last couple of weeks. Really, we finally
learned yesterday that the government's pay equity changes will actually
save the government twelve billion over the next four years. Bryce,
I want to ask you this, I mean, how politically
damaging could this will this possibly be?
Speaker 4 (14:55):
I think it's already been politically damaging, but maybe not
quite in the extent that a lot of the critics
have said. I don't think that women have suddenly stopped
voting for the parties of government because of this. I
think there will be a lot of people left, right
and center that will essentially be convinced by the government's
arguments that this scheme had not been totally thought out
(15:19):
properly and that there was a blowout of it, and
that they would prefer some of these billions of dollars
shifted into health education, et cetera. So I don't think
it's as harmful as the critics kind of suggest, but
it will be something that the yeah the government will
have to keep will have trouble. They'll have to deal
(15:40):
with these questions onwards, but they probably helped a bit
by the fact that Labor started to kind of fudge
their answers on it all about whether they are going
to totally reverse this so hip can.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Almost they're not.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Yeah, so they haven't been able to commit to it,
so that takes.
Speaker 4 (15:58):
This thing out of it for the government that will
Labor is not really necessarily in reality disagreeing with them.
So yeah, I think that's the that's the same and
grace for the government Bradley.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
They had to do what they've done, right, They had
no money, they had nothing to play with, playing with
a play set of cards. If they didn't do this.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Well, I think importantly. I mean it was twelve point
eight billion, right, nearly thirteen billion. That's only the thirteen
billion that they've taken out. There are still more money
somewhere in the baselines that they won't tell us for
commercial reasons, that are still in there to pay for
the current set of potential forward pay equity claims that
come through. So it's nearly thirteen billion dollars that was
sitting around there. That's almost the entire operating allowance. As
(16:42):
you sort of move forward into the future, that suggests
that not only the current coalition government, but a labor
led government would have had to have the same sort
of conversation and go, either we're cutting thirteen billion of
funding from other areas health education otherwise, or we're funding
this Now. It's quite clear that it's vital that pay
equity gets settled, But the numbers that were being bandied
about continued to increase exponentially from where they were expected
(17:05):
to under the twenty seventeen law. It was becoming fiscally unsustainable.
Something had to give.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
How damaging is it though, how damage is it going
it'd be for the government.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
I think that the challenge right is that although the
number is huge, I think the way the government went
about the announcement one not being able to talk immediately
about the number. Because now that it has come out,
I think people are starting to understand. You know, it
was massively consequential for the government, But the way it
came about, the way it was messaged out, I mean,
it was that was politically poor in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
I agree with that absolutely.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
You know that that could have been a much better
argued conversation and instead it was sort of just dumped out.
Meant that you had all of these sort of challenges
that came up. But I think Bryce's exactly right. The
fact that no one's been able to commit to putting
it back exactly the same level suggests that again it
was going to be a struggle. It will be a
struggle for any government in the future.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Bryce, I want to start with you on this particular topic.
It was not only budget day for the government, but
it was Wellington City Council's day too. They've just you know,
we've see a ten year plan, big meeting. They've decided
to keep Picconia House, the Kendala Pools stay, and they're
going to try and come to some arrangement to keep
the colorI Events Center open. What's more important to you
(18:13):
keeping these community facilities open, which we have been a
lot of talk about lately, or trying to keep your
rates down.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
If I had to choose between those, I would definitely
say keep those facilities, save them. I'm not sure it
is as simple as that, though. I think there's a
lot of other areas where the council is spending huge
amounts of money that whether it's on bureaucracy, advertising, propaganda,
wasted money on contractors, for water, things that don't really
(18:42):
get fixed, huge areas that savings could be made, and
so I don't believe that we can't afford pagonia house
or swimming pools and have rates that aren't too high.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Bradley. We also saw that the amount of money has
been spent on the cycle ways has been dropped. The
government's obviously tidying about there. They have been dropped. They
decided they will agree to join the government's new wa
have done better, whatever the name of it is. So
they are trying to be a little bit smarter. Is
it because the election's coming up or is it because
(19:18):
they have suddenly worked out that they've been doing some
things a bit wrong.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
I think it's more because, I mean, looking through their
budget that the previous one didn't work. They couldn't come
to an agreement, they weren't able to sort of move
it forward. They had to make some tough calls and
they've had them. I mean, at the very least, at
least the Council have been able to get through and go,
you know what, We've got to come up with a
solution here. We're probably not going to make everyone incredibly happy,
but we've got to come to a compromise and they haven't,
(19:42):
and like all credit to them because one of the
challenges we've had time and time again is that we
haven't had that ability to actually come together and have
some decisions. So the fact that there is, you know,
there's less money going into the likes of Cycle Network.
Those who are pro cycle will be frustrated by that.
Those who are anti cycle ways are probably going to
say that it's not enough. Being cut out in the
middle was generally not a bad place, but I think
as well. I mean you look at some of these
(20:04):
community services and communit the facilities and similar that is
really the decision that councilors have had to go. Well, look,
if the community wants it, then the community's got to
pay for it. If the community doesn't want it and
they want the lower rates, they have to give something up.
You don't get to have lower rates but keep all
the stuff you had before. That is just not a
calculation that will come through. So I think a reasonable
(20:24):
balance where the council has come through. But again this
is going to be a continual thing. Every long term plan,
every annual plan the council goes through, they will have
to stack everything up and go Watson, what's out.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
I haven't had an opportunity to speak to each of
you since Andrew Little put his name in the ring
and things that Andrew Little wanted. He was big on
the community type stuff like pools and community centers and
all that. Suddenly the council's sort of flip flopped about that. Bryce,
what are your thoughts and when you heard that Andrew
Little is going to stand for the mayoral team, what
(20:55):
you going to be?
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Look, I agree with how you've put it. I think
his entry to the race has actually had an impact
on the current council before he's even elected. And I
don't have any doubt that he's going to be elect
a mayor, so you know, I think he's going to
win quite easily. But it's just amazing to see a
politician before they've even become elected, to have a huge
(21:17):
direct impact on decision making. And I happen to agree
with him on his advice to the council not to
sign a lot of these contracts for some of the
things they've already decided when there's about to be a
changing of the guard. And I think that he should
be working through the Labor Party and the Green Party
to sort of have a bit of influence on the
(21:39):
current counselors on that regard.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Have you had anything to do with them? Do you know?
Have you had any association with him?
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Oh, he's been unavoidable for someone in my shoes over
the years. That doesn't mean I'm close to him or no,
I'm really personally, but yeah, I think he's one of
the more competent politicians around, one of the more centrist
politicians around. So I think he's he's out of casting
(22:04):
central for what the Wellington City illiterate want for a mayor.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
After the last time, I wasn't trying to put you
in the corner that I was asking you for because
I've met him twice, once in an interview here and
once over lunch, and he seems like, I'm not a
pushy type guy, So he's not going to be knocking
on Tory Farno's door saying I'm telling you to do this.
He's a very you know, intelligent, smart man that's in
(22:30):
the background looking in saying I think this should be
done rather than jumping up. That's why I was just
trying to get that one, and I think that's right.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Absolutely I mean, probably one of the beest biggest criticisms
you can make of Andrew Little, if you're looking for one,
is boring. Yeah, he's a bit bland.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Yeah, that's the criticism that you can level on him.
Though Jesus, I feel like Wellington would take it.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
That's really what I'm saying that I think that's probably
what Wellington wants.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
He's pragmatic. That's that's the thing that I think that
you know that you're seeing come through at the moment.
The other thing that I must say, I think is
important for any Wellington council race is that the minute
that you sort of declare your south or sort of
mayor elect or similar is when you will lose the
vote badly. Wellington does not stand for that. So I
think it's encouraging to see that, despite you know a
lot of people saying, look, I think he's the front
(23:16):
runner and similar that Andrewlada was still campaigning like he
is running for mayor rather than just assuming he's got it,
and that, in my mat that's a big mark of
respect that he has for voters.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Ethan calls it the coronation.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
Well, yeah, I think Ethan's right because in a sense.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
I don't want to make too much of this, but
the current mayor really was positioned here by some particular
power brokers in the sort of labor sphere. Those same
power brokers are now the people lining up behind Andrew Little.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
So that said about Paul Eagle, yes we did.
Speaker 4 (23:49):
Yeah, diferent power breakers. I think it was more powerful
ones that were behind Tory Fanna.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
You know what, and I totally agree with you, Bryce,
And that's the one thing that I've continuously said that
that's the one downer on it, and it's not a
big downer. I want something exciting. We're an exciting city.
But I'm not I'm not saying that he shouldn't be
me everything.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
You've had that person for the last three years.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Yeah, every time I lead with that, someone hits me
on the job with the same thing. That's just what
you've had. So, Okay, news talks, there be Wellington Mornings.
As you've just heard, it's a Friday's Face Off budget special.
But we're moving along to doing other things. We've got
Bryce Edwards and Brad Olsen in the studio with us right.
A story that's got me going. It's really fired me up.
(24:35):
An employee of a Wellington engineering firm is facing an
employment investigation after heckling Winston Peters the railway station earlier
this week. Brad Olsen, surely someone, I mean, I know
that you're a political junkie, so you're not going to
agree with me, But surely someone can walk down a
railway station platform see a politician that he does or
(24:56):
doesn't like, and yell something out and carry on walking. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
No, I'm with you on that. Oh god, no, I
put it this way. Anyone that actually champions freedom of
speech and similar not at this point go oh, you
know what, he should not have done that, to be fair,
take your lanyard off next time, for goodness sake. Like that. Genuinely,
I think that is almost the only real place that
something went wrong. Now, Equally, I don't think it is
(25:20):
reasonable to go and berate politicians and certainly to swear
at them and similar So if I was going to
be protesting and someone I'd probably would have toned it
down a little bit on touch. But I'm totally alright
with people putting their view across. If ministers want to
do a press stand up at a busy train station
in peak hour traffic. Then they are going to get
some comments through on it.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
And the other thing too, is and I'm not trying
to defend well, I am trying to defend him because
I feel a bit sorry for him. And I'll tell
you the story because you didn't hear. But Melissa, one
of our reporters, went out and met with him. He's
obviously on a very low key and doesn't say anything,
but he opened the door and burst into tears. So
it's a pretty sad, damn story. I mean, you know,
the guy's not a spring chicken and he burst into tears,
(26:01):
so he's obviously affected by it. Bryce, Bryce s Edward,
what do you think?
Speaker 4 (26:04):
Oh, look, I have to endorse everything said. No, when
politicians use to go out into public spaces and use
it for their propaganda purposes, they've got to roll with stuff.
And I don't think Winston Peter's, you know, and was
particularly unhappy with it, but probably probably helped him. He
was probably, for all we know, he planted that person
(26:27):
to come along and yell at him. It was a
good news story for Winston Peter's And no, absolutely we
should allow people to to and.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
You know what, I also feel because I'm I'm going
to be a single handed, you know, person singing for
this guy from the rooftops. But the thing was that
he made a sly comment and kept walking right, you know,
like you.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Know, there was a challenge. He didn't keep walking though,
he stopped.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
If it hold on, hold on, hold on, he said.
He said, look in a mirror. I mean, if someone
said to me, it's pretty insulting. Winston Peters said to him,
he made a sly comment or you know, an aggressive comment.
I'll give you that aggressive comment towards look in them
because he called him an old guy. Why are you
still going your old guy or something like that, he said,
he said, look in a mirror, Sunshine. Now that's pretty insulting. Back.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
Well, I'm in fear on both sides. If you're gonna yell,
you're gonna get yelled back at it.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
I feel like one of them's at home and one
of them it's still at work.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
Oh well, And but there's the thing. I think the
challenge as well though, is from the employer point of view,
they sort of had to do something. I mean, that's
the challenges. I think that everyone in the circumstance is
in a tough position, right, because if you're in the employer,
you're going, well, I've sort of need Now that someone
has identified my employee, I can't just sort of go see, no,
he know evil. I've got to react. But I do
(27:38):
think that there should be put it this way if
in the best case scenario, I feel like someone should
go look, I probably shouldn't have carried on for how
long that conversation went on. I probably shouldn't up the anty.
I'm sorry, let's move on. I can't believe we're still
talking about this.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
It's just a bit of road rage, though.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
Is it just a little bit of road rage flash
in the pan?
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Yeah? Is it road rage?
Speaker 4 (27:59):
I'm surprised we're still talking about it. Yes, it has
employment aspects, which probably has been the gritty part of it,
because there's been people saying, wow, he can expect to
have ramifications for his employment, and there's been a bit
of debate about that. I don't know if anyone is
really disagreeing with his right as an individual to do it.
Some people were saying that he should face the consequences
(28:22):
and employment terms. I'm not I'm not keen on that myself,
but it's a debate.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
Man, if that's if that's the bar for it, I
feel like we're in a bad place as.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
At low bar. Yep, we're in a low bar and
one of them is at work and one of them
isn't you know. I mean that's that's how's let's leave
it at that, and that's not that doesn't feel too
terribly fair to me. Right, let's move on foreign buyers. Brad,
you'll be very interested in this. I know you are
fired up about it. So the government still hasn't formed
a position on whether to allow foreign investors to buy
homes in New Zealand as part of the government's Golden
(28:54):
Visa escheme. The National campaigned on it following foreign buyers,
but Winston Peters has basically he's not a fan. And
he was talking to Hosking the other day and he said,
something's close. I mean you're looking at me like you
know something. Do you know what?
Speaker 1 (29:07):
I know?
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Nothing official? I mean put it away. The conversation that
seems to be going on, and this is now being
bandied about quite a bit, is that the focus is
now will look if you're going to have and try
and entice, you know, people to come to New Zealand
on these golden visas they're offering. It's sort of going
to be hard to do it if you're like, hey,
please come to New Zealand invest some money, but you
can't buy house, so sorry. So I think reasonably now
the government is saying, look, if we can get you
(29:29):
to invest some serious money, what is a reasonable level
that we can get you to buy a house. Previously
the National Party we're campaigning on a two million dollar level.
Now maybe the conversation, and again this has just been
banded about by randoms across the street, seems to be
more in the five to ten million range.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Five to six million, I think it is the number
that's officially that's what you're yeah bandied around. I think
you know, so.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
There's options, there's options. I mean again, I think it
seems reasonable to say to people, if you're going to
bring in a bunch of money, you can probably buy
one of those high value houses that that should be uncontroversial.
It seems like it just needs to work its way
through the coalition.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Steps and quickly. Bryce. We can't expect people to spend
invest ten million building to stay having a business here
and not live in their own home.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Well, I'm more with Winston Peter's on this. I think
it looks dodgy and what sort of society are we
that we just try and bring rich people in and
give them citizens' rights just because they're rich.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
Every country on earth, yeah.
Speaker 4 (30:21):
Every country on Earth we've done are becoming. Yeah, it
just needs a lot of scrutiny.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
Okay, the Friday fat than not.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Oh right, it's that time of the week again. Who
wants to go first? Bryce? You go first because you're
excited by this? Might not?
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Is the whole scandal over the to Party Mari MP's
and their suspension from parliament. I think it was a
low point in parliamentary history. Not because I don't think
they need to be they don't deserve. I'm not saying
they shouldn't be severely punished. I think they did break
the rules and it was serious. But when you yeah,
(31:04):
when you eject people from the House for twenty one day,
is not allowing them to vote. This is what tim pot.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Then what is you don't mind that they're getting.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
For a long time. I don't mind the men kicked
off committees. I don't mind lots of ramifications, but not
not taking away their vote.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Okay, well they were I don't think they were there yesterday.
Speaker 4 (31:26):
I'm talking about a principle here. I'm just talking about
regardless of who's being who's breaking the rules, we shouldn't
allow the government of the day to get rid of oppositions.
What's your hot Hot maybe two? There's a new Wes
Anderson film coming out the Phoenician. Very excited about that.
Walking down here to the studio on Gusney Street. The
(31:47):
new or the old album Ale building is it? It's
just being It's had all the construction stuff taken off.
It is soon to be opened. It's an amazing old building,
maybe one hundred free years old. Yes, of brothel, but
it won't be now. It's going to be restaurants, cafes,
rooftop garden. I think it's gonna be the Gym Wellington
and it's going to make Cousney Street the hot new
(32:10):
space of hospitality.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Oh wow, that's a big plug for it. I'll have
to go and have a look. It's a huge look.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
It hasn't opened yet, but it's it's just that it's
been covered in stuff cover for years and now it's
it's suddenly there to be seen.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Bradley, give us your hots and nots quickly because Bryce
has taken so much time.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Okay, I've got it's not on budget, might not as
butter price is just always at the moment. I had
to buy some on the weekend and it hurt. My
hot though for the week is Toasty Lords. They're doing
a pop up at Press Hall at the moment. The
best toasted sandwiches you will ever eat there there today.
I'm pretty sure they're there tomorrow on Saturday as well,
but they are flipping fantastic toast after the show head off.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
It's good. Next time you're an aug can buy your
butter at Cross cost Go. Cross Goes brings them down
ten dollars Crossco cost Co cost Co. It's getting near
the end of the week. Thank you Brad, brad Olson
and Bryce. Doctor Bryce said was appreciate your boat. Have
a great, fantastic sunny Wellington with our weekend gosh.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news Talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
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!