Today Megan Woods and Matt Doocey joined John MacDonald following the release of the budget.
They discussed the key aspects of it including changes to KiwiSaver, will there be an announcement on the retirement as it sound like Matt is hinting towards? Should parents really support 18 and 19 year olds if they aren't working? And what is in the budget for Canterbury?
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 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News talks'b and as.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We do this time every Friday, it's time for Politics
Friday on the phone today because people in Wellington still
a bit of post budget washer to take care of nationals.
Matt doc you Matte morning John and Lab's Meghan would
Meghan good morning?
Speaker 1 (00:29):
All right?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Can you confirm for me just people have been in
touch asking us and raising this, either of you worthy
to party? Mariy In P's in the house is today
for the budget?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
They were brit all right.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
Oh that's interesting because I was in the house at
the time the budget was being read by Nichola Willison
and I didn't see them, so.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
They're certainly we're to party. Marie Emp's in there. I
think when the budget was being handed out there were
still some people coming in from the Full Court. But
there certainly where to party. Mary in pays in the
house you stay. Anyone can can just check the video
and see.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
That where the co WORTHI were the co leaders there.
Speaker 5 (01:05):
I I can't say for Suitans because that's not where
I sat and I wasn't actually checking, but I can
tell for suitain that there were to mudget Marty imps.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
All right, Matt, where the co leader is there?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Matt, No, they weren't, John, They weren't there for the
budget reading. And quite frankly, I just forgets appalling. The
country has had enough of this and.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
They should have turned up for their job.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
So, Megan Woods, that's nuts, isn't it When you guys
campaign to have them there for the budget.
Speaker 5 (01:31):
Well, it wasn't just us that campaign to have them
there for the budget. The whole premise of why on John,
I will answer the whole reason why this was kicked down,
That the cheme was kicked down the road by Nettal
was to head in there for the budget. So it
wasn't just us. But look, really, questions about who's in
the house is ready for the party you're talking about.
(01:53):
I'm not going to offer any comment on what other
parties are doing.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Right, So you'll admit, despite fudging it a little bit,
you'll admit that the co leaders were not there for
the budget.
Speaker 5 (02:02):
Yesterday you asked if there were to Party Marty imps
in the House. I say yes, they were. In fact,
there was a call taken by a party Marty mpe as,
I said, my attention was not focused on who was
in what feats. I was actually been in the budget
lock up and I was continuing to go through the
go through the documents the budget.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
But you will agree with Mat, he's not telling Porky's
the co leaders of the party, MARII were not these today.
Speaker 5 (02:30):
Look as I said, I genuinely wasn't to do it
taking a role call of who was there. If Metsis
they went there, I take them it is weird. But
you asked the question where to party Marty MP's in
the house yesterday and I said, yes, all.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Right, Matt, do look John, they weren't there.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
And what Megan is describing as clearly some of the
Mardi party members turning up in dribs and drabs later
on and quite frankly Kiwis have to get out of
bed and turn up to work on time. So I
don't see why these people can't do that themselves.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I agree. Let's look further into the budget now, Matt
will start with you, what's an for Canterbury.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, I think there's a range of things.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
If you looked more broadly to the commitment of more
learning coordinators, more classrooms.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
No, no, no, no, I'm asking no, I'm asking specifically for Canterbury.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
You've asked me a question.
Speaker 4 (03:21):
In health, a lot more hospital procedures rolling out of
coresponse for mental health, which I'm responsible for. Over time,
we'll see the commitment of them to christ Church and
border of Canterbury. Budget announcements for Canterbury after ours. If
you want to look at maybe a specific of infrastructure,
(03:41):
we announce the investment into the christ Church prison rebuild
is going to be a pp that will bring jobs
and incomes for our construction.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Just on that, just on that contribution. What is the
what's the contribution to after ours in Canterbury.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
When you look at some of the towns in North
Canterbury for example, There'll be others around Canterbury, but one
that comes to my is Culviden. So we're going to
roll out after ours to twenty seven rural locations and
fifty two remote locations. So that's a considerable investment. What
we're saying across New Zealand is a ninety eight percent
(04:20):
aikiwis were able to drive to an after ours appointment
or maybe have that in their house through remote solutions.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Within one houring it's anohing for christ Church to allevigate
the issue we had certainly last winter with after ours
being overwhelmed and as a result of the emergency department
being overwhelmed. Nothing on that.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Yeah, well that's why we're further supporting the investment into
our hospitals. Not only do we have a twenty four
to seven after our facility, we also have a seven
day a week one in Rickendon and investing more into
our emergency departments as well.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Megan Woods, what could have should have been come in
Canterbory's way do you think?
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Well?
Speaker 5 (05:02):
I think there's a couple of particular issues for me,
one of which really paques my interest is that the
total new social housing places across the whole country five
hundred and fifty funder than this budget, but they're all
going to Auckland. So that's what the release was put
out by Chris Boshof and t Putuka yesterday said. So
(05:23):
you put that against the article we had in the
press today talking about the rise in homelessness that we're seeing,
why christag is missing out, why we're not getting any
more social housing places. We all know we're seeing homelessness
increase and why we're just being completely bia. Well, let's
thing is going there.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Well, Matt, Matt Doocy can explain why that is happening,
why it doesn't happenings.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
I disagree with Megan's framing of the new fund that
we announced yesterday. The funding that's been reprioritized was solely
focused for Mardi. This package has now been made for
more universal coverage across the country.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
So it's just not in Auckland, right.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
I think I think there's just on that. Meghan, just
on that, just on that, I go on.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
Pret on So I'm just going to read from the
press release that that Chris Bishop and Portaker put out yesterday.
This government believes the social housing new funding of one
hundred and twenty eight million over four years will deliver
at least five hundred and fifty more social homes than
Auckland in the twenty twenty five twenty six year That
it's not correct to say that it's across the whole country.
(06:31):
The press release for government put out, see this is
just for Auckland. So I'm talking specifically about the money
that's going towards the new additions to social housing. Why
is it only in Auckland and why are we missing out?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Why is that mean?
Speaker 3 (06:46):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (06:46):
Yeah, Meghan, you've been very selective there and you do
know the social housing housing fund is wider than Auckland
and that was talked about yesterday.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
So what does it mean for What does it mean?
Hold on, Megan? So what does it mean for christ
It's and Canterbury?
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Matt, Well, that's what I was shown before, John.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
When we make announts and some of them are national
about how much more we're putting into social housing, some
of that will go into regional areas e g.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Christ Church and Canterbury.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Just pick up on what Matt and Tyler we're talking
about there the expectation and the budget or from the
budget the parents will financially support their unemployed eighteen and
nineteen year olds. Matt, how's that going to work?
Speaker 4 (07:31):
Well, that is to go through cabinet around the specifics
of the parental test, but basically, if you take a
step back, you can look at it through a means
testing approach and basically what we're saying, if there's an
eighteen or nineteen year old that actually should be an
employment or in education, then we think the parents need
(07:52):
to take some responsibility for that.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Just on that match, just on that match. It sounds
pretty vague for something which is supposed to be a budget.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
No, I think the budget has put out a very
clear principle of what we want to do for eighteen
nineteen year olds who are not an employment in education.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
So we'll be taking that.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
Through the specifics of the parental test. But I think
when you look at the cost to the state through
the job seeker or emergency allowance, I think quite rightly,
and that's why it's been so well received, is that
there needs to be more responsibility for the parents and
not just pushed on to the government.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
But Matt, you'll know as well as I do, and
the student allowance is held up as an example of
how this sort of thing works. But you will know,
and I know that there are people that wrought the system.
There are people worth gazillions whose kids somehow managed to
get a student allowance. This won't be any different.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
Well, I think there is a case to be made,
and I've heard Nikola Willis talk this morning as well
about income thresholds, and I think there will be a
threshold where the parents, if they earn over Quite rightly,
most people would expect that they take some responsibility for
their eighteen or nineteen year old.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Megan, what do you think about this approach?
Speaker 5 (09:07):
Well, I think it biggest belief that this has gone
through a whole budget process and the budgets are just
about putting up principles. They're actually about putting in the costs.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
In details what the budget is.
Speaker 5 (09:19):
And I don't know how they could have modeled that
without actually figuring out what the income three sholds were
going to be, because otherwise how would they figured out
what their savings were going to be. So I don't
buy that. I think the government has to come clean
and tell us what is the income three shold?
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Because we know.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Will Megan Good.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Don't be any clearer, and Nichola Willis has been very clear,
as is the Prime Minister. Is that we're working through
the parental tests that will go through cabinet and that
will decide the thresholds.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
So how did you model the costs? Mat you modeled
the saving.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
Is the parnal test is to go through cabinet and
that will decide the thresholds.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
We know how we know how you modeled it.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
Than that, John and Meghan and the end of the
day that. It's why it's been so well received because
what we do know is we've got people who should
be an employment in education and there is a responsibility
for the parents.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Matt, on your salary, would you be able to afford
your to support your two kids if they were eighteen
nineteen and unemployed?
Speaker 3 (10:28):
Yeah, well, I want to make this less about.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Me, but oh no, and I want to make it
a bit about you. Want to make it real, but I.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Do think it is real.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Could you or could you?
Speaker 4 (10:39):
There is a responsibility when you look at the cost
of the government for eighteen and nineteen year olds who
should be an education or study and it is too
easy for parents.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
And actually when.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
You look at the data, the number of young people
now sitting on benefits has risen astronomical in the last
six years. And we need to make sure that parents
play their part. And if that means who are parental tear,
they will be responsible for some of the cost of that.
I think most keywers would say that's right.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I want to know. Yeah, yeah, anyone banging the table
would thinks is right. But on your salary, could you
afford to support your two kids? You've got two kids?
If they were eighteen nineteen. Could you afford to support them?
Speaker 4 (11:23):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (11:23):
But I think you're framing the argument wrong. John. It's
more about when there is a no hold on. John.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Well, you're not answering the question, Matt. I'm just a
civil question. Yes or no, I.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Will answer it.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
What I'm going to say is that everyone's income situation
is specific what they will do as a parent has
decided actually, this is a cost to me now, so
I'm going to make sure I get my child into
employment in education, and that's what we want parents to
be doing.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Could you afford to do it?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Well, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Everyone's okay, all right, Megan. The two hundred million dollar
commitment for new gas field investments in the budget yesterday,
If you get into government anytime soon, will that go well?
Speaker 5 (12:06):
John, I severely doubt that that won't be paid out.
That this is nothing short of just a gamble from
the government.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Can I can I have an answer the question? Please?
It's getting a bit tiresome not getting answers. If you
get into government, will you get rid of it and
stop it?
Speaker 5 (12:21):
Well? Will we be subsidized in the oil and gas industry?
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Know we won't right.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
It sounds like I, yes, you'll stop it. So Matt,
what what what confidence then can industry have from this
if chances are it'll be ditched if there's a change
of government.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Well, very clearly with the lack of Labour's policy or
making a decision about any position even around pay equity,
whether they would change the legislation we bought in in
the last couple of weeks, it shows that they're not
going to get back into government very soon.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Okay, let's hypothetically, hypothetically, let's say they do. Let's so
they do and Megan says, no, it's not going to
go any further. How can this How can this encourag
an industry which you know is a very slow burn.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Because what a government can do is send very clear signals.
And that's what this fund is about. To ensure that
not only four New Zealanders we have energy security, which
we don't have at the moment, but we need to
move away from basically what the last Labor government did
and help us transition back to coal and actually gas.
(13:31):
Is a way for the next twenty years that can
help us transition to more renewable energy.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
The rest of the world knows about it.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
We were going against the trend without ail and gas
ban and what this does is bring back the gas
industry round the table to start looking for new gas fields.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
All right, let's finish off the side, Megan.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
Do you just have to comment there, Matt, You do
realize that the oil and gas industry spent one billion
dollars after the twenty eighteen no new exploration permits looking
for gas. It is not there. There hasn't been a
commercial fire since the early two thousands. This is your
government gambling with our future. It's time news guys got
on and actually did the work about what does New
(14:15):
Zealand's energy security look like? Because we did to this
past that doesn't exist and it is simply not good
enough to be putting New Zealander's jobs and then comes
at risk, which is what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Well, Megium, That's what people will have a choice about,
won't they. They'll have a choice with labor who wants
to go back to relying on coal or US investing
and security.
Speaker 5 (14:37):
That's just ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
What your ma's what happened under your government and you
were the energy women.
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Do the work right, not doing the work. It's putting
on the minister's desk.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Right speaking of them work and saving for retirement. Megan,
what do you think about the changes to KEEPI saber.
I don't think they've gone far enough. What about you?
Speaker 5 (14:56):
Look, I think that what we're seeing in terms of
the cuts of the government contribution is really going to
be a detriment.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
To people's resiement savings.
Speaker 5 (15:04):
So what we're saying is that if if you're an
eighteen year old, that is fullgoing sixty six thousand dollars
by the time you're retiring, if you're a thirty year old,
it's thirty thousand. I do support I think as good
bringing sixteen is sixteen and seventeen year olds into it.
I think that's a good element. But I think coming
at the expense of actually cussing people's retireability to save
(15:26):
their retirement is another good thing. I also worry that
when you look at the fine print of people being
able to keep it the three percent, that that's something
that has to be applied for every year. But we're
going to have people to think I can't afford to
go to four percent, and they're actually just going to
opt out of it altogether. So I am concerned that
we're going to open up a huge divide about who
(15:47):
has savings for their retirement and who doesn't.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Well, I've got a question for both of you. It's
the same question with you, guys. And when I say
you guys, I'm talking about politicians going to bite the
bullet and realize it's keeping the age of entitlement at
sixty five we can't do, and also keeping a universal benefit.
This is pension we can't do. Matt, you're going to
own up to that one and say, yep for something
(16:11):
we need to sort out. Well, you're going to kick
the can down the road.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Clearly we need to look at it. I'm not here
to make future announcements. You didn't actually give me the
time to answer the question that he gave Meghan and
challenge the information she's putting out there. This is advice
from the Retirement Commissioner. In fact, actually the modeling shows
and it's been made public and reported in the media
the changes under Kiwi Saver where are by the time
(16:35):
someone retires, the changes we've made today will increase their
nest egg from twenty one to twenty eight percent. So
the information that Meghan Pedling is incorrect. And then the
second thing I'd say is a quick shout out to
year thirteen student in Kai Boy High School, Izzie Mullen Winiata,
who took a petition to Parliament to ask for sixteen
(16:57):
and seventeen year olds to get.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
The matched funding from their employer.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
And I know she's had a call from the Revenue
Minister congratulated. If you're on a campaign that's been successful
in the budget.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
All right, some brilliant kicking down the road. So does
the age of entitlment need to go up? Matt, Yes
or no?
Speaker 4 (17:15):
Well, like I say, I'm not going to get ahead
of any announcements. But we're focused on ensuring our key
we Savor program is returning and that's what we've done today.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Is there an announcement coming, Well, that's.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
What I said. I'm not going to get ahead of
any announcement.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Oh so there is going to be an announcement.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Fam welcome.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
That's for you to speculate. John, and I know when
I say something, you're very.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Good at doing that.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Thank you for your time, Matt Doucy, Thanks, John, Meghan
Want thanks for your time.
Speaker 5 (17:46):
Thank you very much. Have a good day, both of you.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Thank you for more from Category Mornings with John McDonald.
Listen live to news talks It'd Be christ Church from
nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News talks'b and as.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We do this time every Friday, it's time for Politics
Friday on the phone today because people in Wellington still
a bit of post budget washer to take care of nationals.
Matt doc you Matte morning John and Lab's Meghan would
Meghan good morning?
Speaker 1 (00:29):
All right?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Can you confirm for me just people have been in
touch asking us and raising this, either of you worthy
to party? Mariy In P's in the house is today
for the budget?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
They were brit all right.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
Oh that's interesting because I was in the house at
the time the budget was being read by Nichola Willison
and I didn't see them, so.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
They're certainly we're to party. Marie Emp's in there. I
think when the budget was being handed out there were
still some people coming in from the Full Court. But
there certainly where to party. Mary in pays in the
house you stay. Anyone can can just check the video
and see.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
That where the co WORTHI were the co leaders there.
Speaker 5 (01:05):
I I can't say for Suitans because that's not where
I sat and I wasn't actually checking, but I can
tell for suitain that there were to mudget Marty imps.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
All right, Matt, where the co leader is there?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Matt, No, they weren't, John, They weren't there for the
budget reading. And quite frankly, I just forgets appalling. The
country has had enough of this and.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
They should have turned up for their job.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
So, Megan Woods, that's nuts, isn't it When you guys
campaign to have them there for the budget.
Speaker 5 (01:31):
Well, it wasn't just us that campaign to have them
there for the budget. The whole premise of why on John,
I will answer the whole reason why this was kicked down,
That the cheme was kicked down the road by Nettal
was to head in there for the budget. So it
wasn't just us. But look, really, questions about who's in
the house is ready for the party you're talking about.
(01:53):
I'm not going to offer any comment on what other
parties are doing.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Right, So you'll admit, despite fudging it a little bit,
you'll admit that the co leaders were not there for
the budget.
Speaker 5 (02:02):
Yesterday you asked if there were to Party Marty imps
in the House. I say yes, they were. In fact,
there was a call taken by a party Marty mpe as,
I said, my attention was not focused on who was
in what feats. I was actually been in the budget
lock up and I was continuing to go through the
go through the documents the budget.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
But you will agree with Mat, he's not telling Porky's
the co leaders of the party, MARII were not these today.
Speaker 5 (02:30):
Look as I said, I genuinely wasn't to do it
taking a role call of who was there. If Metsis
they went there, I take them it is weird. But
you asked the question where to party Marty MP's in
the house yesterday and I said, yes, all.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Right, Matt, do look John, they weren't there.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
And what Megan is describing as clearly some of the
Mardi party members turning up in dribs and drabs later
on and quite frankly Kiwis have to get out of
bed and turn up to work on time. So I
don't see why these people can't do that themselves.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I agree. Let's look further into the budget now, Matt
will start with you, what's an for Canterbury.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, I think there's a range of things.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
If you looked more broadly to the commitment of more
learning coordinators, more classrooms.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
No, no, no, no, I'm asking no, I'm asking specifically for Canterbury.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
You've asked me a question.
Speaker 4 (03:21):
In health, a lot more hospital procedures rolling out of
coresponse for mental health, which I'm responsible for. Over time,
we'll see the commitment of them to christ Church and
border of Canterbury. Budget announcements for Canterbury after ours. If
you want to look at maybe a specific of infrastructure,
(03:41):
we announce the investment into the christ Church prison rebuild
is going to be a pp that will bring jobs
and incomes for our construction.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Just on that, just on that contribution. What is the
what's the contribution to after ours in Canterbury.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
When you look at some of the towns in North
Canterbury for example, There'll be others around Canterbury, but one
that comes to my is Culviden. So we're going to
roll out after ours to twenty seven rural locations and
fifty two remote locations. So that's a considerable investment. What
we're saying across New Zealand is a ninety eight percent
(04:20):
aikiwis were able to drive to an after ours appointment
or maybe have that in their house through remote solutions.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Within one houring it's anohing for christ Church to allevigate
the issue we had certainly last winter with after ours
being overwhelmed and as a result of the emergency department
being overwhelmed. Nothing on that.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Yeah, well that's why we're further supporting the investment into
our hospitals. Not only do we have a twenty four
to seven after our facility, we also have a seven
day a week one in Rickendon and investing more into
our emergency departments as well.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Megan Woods, what could have should have been come in
Canterbory's way do you think?
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Well?
Speaker 5 (05:02):
I think there's a couple of particular issues for me,
one of which really paques my interest is that the
total new social housing places across the whole country five
hundred and fifty funder than this budget, but they're all
going to Auckland. So that's what the release was put
out by Chris Boshof and t Putuka yesterday said. So
(05:23):
you put that against the article we had in the
press today talking about the rise in homelessness that we're seeing,
why christag is missing out, why we're not getting any
more social housing places. We all know we're seeing homelessness
increase and why we're just being completely bia. Well, let's
thing is going there.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Well, Matt, Matt Doocy can explain why that is happening,
why it doesn't happenings.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
I disagree with Megan's framing of the new fund that
we announced yesterday. The funding that's been reprioritized was solely
focused for Mardi. This package has now been made for
more universal coverage across the country.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
So it's just not in Auckland, right.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
I think I think there's just on that. Meghan, just
on that, just on that, I go on.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
Pret on So I'm just going to read from the
press release that that Chris Bishop and Portaker put out yesterday.
This government believes the social housing new funding of one
hundred and twenty eight million over four years will deliver
at least five hundred and fifty more social homes than
Auckland in the twenty twenty five twenty six year That
it's not correct to say that it's across the whole country.
(06:31):
The press release for government put out, see this is
just for Auckland. So I'm talking specifically about the money
that's going towards the new additions to social housing. Why
is it only in Auckland and why are we missing out?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Why is that mean?
Speaker 3 (06:46):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (06:46):
Yeah, Meghan, you've been very selective there and you do
know the social housing housing fund is wider than Auckland
and that was talked about yesterday.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
So what does it mean for What does it mean?
Hold on, Megan? So what does it mean for christ
It's and Canterbury?
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Matt, Well, that's what I was shown before, John.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
When we make announts and some of them are national
about how much more we're putting into social housing, some
of that will go into regional areas e g.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Christ Church and Canterbury.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Just pick up on what Matt and Tyler we're talking
about there the expectation and the budget or from the
budget the parents will financially support their unemployed eighteen and
nineteen year olds. Matt, how's that going to work?
Speaker 4 (07:31):
Well, that is to go through cabinet around the specifics
of the parental test, but basically, if you take a
step back, you can look at it through a means
testing approach and basically what we're saying, if there's an
eighteen or nineteen year old that actually should be an
employment or in education, then we think the parents need
(07:52):
to take some responsibility for that.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Just on that match, just on that match. It sounds
pretty vague for something which is supposed to be a budget.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
No, I think the budget has put out a very
clear principle of what we want to do for eighteen
nineteen year olds who are not an employment in education.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
So we'll be taking that.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
Through the specifics of the parental test. But I think
when you look at the cost to the state through
the job seeker or emergency allowance, I think quite rightly,
and that's why it's been so well received, is that
there needs to be more responsibility for the parents and
not just pushed on to the government.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
But Matt, you'll know as well as I do, and
the student allowance is held up as an example of
how this sort of thing works. But you will know,
and I know that there are people that wrought the system.
There are people worth gazillions whose kids somehow managed to
get a student allowance. This won't be any different.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
Well, I think there is a case to be made,
and I've heard Nikola Willis talk this morning as well
about income thresholds, and I think there will be a
threshold where the parents, if they earn over Quite rightly,
most people would expect that they take some responsibility for
their eighteen or nineteen year old.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Megan, what do you think about this approach?
Speaker 5 (09:07):
Well, I think it biggest belief that this has gone
through a whole budget process and the budgets are just
about putting up principles. They're actually about putting in the costs.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
In details what the budget is.
Speaker 5 (09:19):
And I don't know how they could have modeled that
without actually figuring out what the income three sholds were
going to be, because otherwise how would they figured out
what their savings were going to be. So I don't
buy that. I think the government has to come clean
and tell us what is the income three shold?
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Because we know.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Will Megan Good.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Don't be any clearer, and Nichola Willis has been very clear,
as is the Prime Minister. Is that we're working through
the parental tests that will go through cabinet and that
will decide the thresholds.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
So how did you model the costs? Mat you modeled
the saving.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
Is the parnal test is to go through cabinet and
that will decide the thresholds.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
We know how we know how you modeled it.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
Than that, John and Meghan and the end of the
day that. It's why it's been so well received because
what we do know is we've got people who should
be an employment in education and there is a responsibility
for the parents.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Matt, on your salary, would you be able to afford
your to support your two kids if they were eighteen
nineteen and unemployed?
Speaker 3 (10:28):
Yeah, well, I want to make this less about.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Me, but oh no, and I want to make it
a bit about you. Want to make it real, but I.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Do think it is real.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Could you or could you?
Speaker 4 (10:39):
There is a responsibility when you look at the cost
of the government for eighteen and nineteen year olds who
should be an education or study and it is too
easy for parents.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
And actually when.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
You look at the data, the number of young people
now sitting on benefits has risen astronomical in the last
six years. And we need to make sure that parents
play their part. And if that means who are parental tear,
they will be responsible for some of the cost of that.
I think most keywers would say that's right.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I want to know. Yeah, yeah, anyone banging the table
would thinks is right. But on your salary, could you
afford to support your two kids? You've got two kids?
If they were eighteen nineteen. Could you afford to support them?
Speaker 4 (11:23):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (11:23):
But I think you're framing the argument wrong. John. It's
more about when there is a no hold on. John.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Well, you're not answering the question, Matt. I'm just a
civil question. Yes or no, I.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Will answer it.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
What I'm going to say is that everyone's income situation
is specific what they will do as a parent has
decided actually, this is a cost to me now, so
I'm going to make sure I get my child into
employment in education, and that's what we want parents to
be doing.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Could you afford to do it?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Well, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Everyone's okay, all right, Megan. The two hundred million dollar
commitment for new gas field investments in the budget yesterday,
If you get into government anytime soon, will that go well?
Speaker 5 (12:06):
John, I severely doubt that that won't be paid out.
That this is nothing short of just a gamble from
the government.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Can I can I have an answer the question? Please?
It's getting a bit tiresome not getting answers. If you
get into government, will you get rid of it and
stop it?
Speaker 5 (12:21):
Well? Will we be subsidized in the oil and gas industry?
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Know we won't right.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
It sounds like I, yes, you'll stop it. So Matt,
what what what confidence then can industry have from this
if chances are it'll be ditched if there's a change
of government.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Well, very clearly with the lack of Labour's policy or
making a decision about any position even around pay equity,
whether they would change the legislation we bought in in
the last couple of weeks, it shows that they're not
going to get back into government very soon.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Okay, let's hypothetically, hypothetically, let's say they do. Let's so
they do and Megan says, no, it's not going to
go any further. How can this How can this encourag
an industry which you know is a very slow burn.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Because what a government can do is send very clear signals.
And that's what this fund is about. To ensure that
not only four New Zealanders we have energy security, which
we don't have at the moment, but we need to
move away from basically what the last Labor government did
and help us transition back to coal and actually gas.
(13:31):
Is a way for the next twenty years that can
help us transition to more renewable energy.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
The rest of the world knows about it.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
We were going against the trend without ail and gas
ban and what this does is bring back the gas
industry round the table to start looking for new gas fields.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
All right, let's finish off the side, Megan.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
Do you just have to comment there, Matt, You do
realize that the oil and gas industry spent one billion
dollars after the twenty eighteen no new exploration permits looking
for gas. It is not there. There hasn't been a
commercial fire since the early two thousands. This is your
government gambling with our future. It's time news guys got
on and actually did the work about what does New
(14:15):
Zealand's energy security look like? Because we did to this
past that doesn't exist and it is simply not good
enough to be putting New Zealander's jobs and then comes
at risk, which is what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Well, Megium, That's what people will have a choice about,
won't they. They'll have a choice with labor who wants
to go back to relying on coal or US investing
and security.
Speaker 5 (14:37):
That's just ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
What your ma's what happened under your government and you
were the energy women.
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Do the work right, not doing the work. It's putting
on the minister's desk.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Right speaking of them work and saving for retirement. Megan,
what do you think about the changes to KEEPI saber.
I don't think they've gone far enough. What about you?
Speaker 5 (14:56):
Look, I think that what we're seeing in terms of
the cuts of the government contribution is really going to
be a detriment.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
To people's resiement savings.
Speaker 5 (15:04):
So what we're saying is that if if you're an
eighteen year old, that is fullgoing sixty six thousand dollars
by the time you're retiring, if you're a thirty year old,
it's thirty thousand. I do support I think as good
bringing sixteen is sixteen and seventeen year olds into it.
I think that's a good element. But I think coming
at the expense of actually cussing people's retireability to save
(15:26):
their retirement is another good thing. I also worry that
when you look at the fine print of people being
able to keep it the three percent, that that's something
that has to be applied for every year. But we're
going to have people to think I can't afford to
go to four percent, and they're actually just going to
opt out of it altogether. So I am concerned that
we're going to open up a huge divide about who
(15:47):
has savings for their retirement and who doesn't.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Well, I've got a question for both of you. It's
the same question with you, guys. And when I say
you guys, I'm talking about politicians going to bite the
bullet and realize it's keeping the age of entitlement at
sixty five we can't do, and also keeping a universal benefit.
This is pension we can't do. Matt, you're going to
own up to that one and say, yep for something
(16:11):
we need to sort out. Well, you're going to kick
the can down the road.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Clearly we need to look at it. I'm not here
to make future announcements. You didn't actually give me the
time to answer the question that he gave Meghan and
challenge the information she's putting out there. This is advice
from the Retirement Commissioner. In fact, actually the modeling shows
and it's been made public and reported in the media
the changes under Kiwi Saver where are by the time
(16:35):
someone retires, the changes we've made today will increase their
nest egg from twenty one to twenty eight percent. So
the information that Meghan Pedling is incorrect. And then the
second thing I'd say is a quick shout out to
year thirteen student in Kai Boy High School, Izzie Mullen Winiata,
who took a petition to Parliament to ask for sixteen
(16:57):
and seventeen year olds to get.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
The matched funding from their employer.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
And I know she's had a call from the Revenue
Minister congratulated. If you're on a campaign that's been successful
in the budget.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
All right, some brilliant kicking down the road. So does
the age of entitlment need to go up? Matt, Yes
or no?
Speaker 4 (17:15):
Well, like I say, I'm not going to get ahead
of any announcements. But we're focused on ensuring our key
we Savor program is returning and that's what we've done today.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Is there an announcement coming, Well, that's.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
What I said. I'm not going to get ahead of
any announcement.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Oh so there is going to be an announcement.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Fam welcome.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
That's for you to speculate. John, and I know when
I say something, you're very.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Good at doing that.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Thank you for your time, Matt Doucy, Thanks, John, Meghan
Want thanks for your time.
Speaker 5 (17:46):
Thank you very much. Have a good day, both of you.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Thank you for more from Category Mornings with John McDonald.
Listen live to news talks It'd Be christ Church 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!