December 12, 2024 • 8 mins
The cost of the Government's new Cook Strait ferries is still unknown - but ACT's David Seymour has offered up some clarity.
On social media, David Seymour said it'd cost 'approximately half' of Labour's proposal - which was projected to be between three and four billion dollars.
But Winston Peters says that's not accurate.
Seymour says people have taken his words too literally.
"When I said half, what I meant is - it's going to be a lot less, like when someone says it's half the price. Often, they don't literally mean half, they mean it's just a lot less, and that's what it will be."
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 (00:00):
Brian Bridge, just how much will our new theories cost us?
There's been a few numbers thrown around about the cost
of the last twenty four hours. David Seymour reckons costings
were quote approximately half the at least three billion dollar
cost of Labour's proposal, but Winston Peter's debunked that on
the Breakfast Show with Head this morning.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
I've got no idea why he made that comment, because
now that's true he said.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
He used the word approximately and approximately could mean a
huge approximation. That was what he said. So in an
attempt to try and squeeze out a bit more information
the act Puney leader David Seymour is with us this evening,
David good evening, Good.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Evening, run.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Why did you who's right? Are you right or is
he right?
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Well, we're both right. I think that who's wrong as
people who have taken my words a little bit literally.
I know a lot of people want to find out
what sort of money the government thinks it will put up.
But when I said half, what I mean is it's
going to be a lot less. Like when someone says
it half the half the price, often they don't mean
literally half. They mean it's just a hell of a
(01:04):
lot less and that's what it will be.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
But you put it in a press release. I mean,
I can't understand if you said that, but to put
it in a press release saying, quote, approximately half the
at least three billion dollar cost. How am I meant
to get tone from that?
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Well?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Sometimes people, maybe I should have said it and you
could have got the tone out of it. I think
that sometimes the problem with writing. We've all been there
with an email that people read a little bit more
literally than we intended, which is in there.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Have you had a telling off from up on high
about this?
Speaker 2 (01:34):
No?
Speaker 3 (01:35):
No, has anyone has.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Has anyone from Luxeon or Willis or mister peters Off
has spoken to you about your approximately half?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
No, no they haven't.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Oh so this is this kind of met culper is
all on you.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
It was no mea culpa. It's simpoint pointing out, clarifying. Well,
put it this way. If I've done anything wrong, I
shouldn't have overestimated how people would interpret this. But of course,
in this environment, the media trying to find out what
it meant, have jumped on half as and a lot
less and said, oh, that must mean exactly half which
it doesn't, and it's part of the reason it's said approximately.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Which has a fiscal conservative You can understand the interest, right,
I mean we're talking about billions of taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Yeah, but I think it's pretty clear we're going into
a negotiation. I mean, if you're trying to get a
builder to quote, you don't go out and say how
much you're prepared to pay, which is never my intention.
A lot of people have jumped on it as oh, well,
he must mean exactly half, and then they say is
it half of this or as half of that, trying
to get a figure. My intention was never so give
a figure. My intention is to point out that where
(02:41):
we were up for a huge amount of money under labor,
now we're up to a fraction of that amount, and
we've saved the taxpayer a huge part by doing things
better and differently, which is what we've been required to
do in just about every area over the past year.
Because people out there are hurting, and why because of
inflation and interest rates? Why because of government waste, which
is what we're going back and you see the inflation
(03:01):
and interest rates come back as a result. But it's
still a tough environment. Out there, which is why we've
got to keep going.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
Is it tough in cabinet? Do you guys get along
you're in Winston.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, we do. I mean, I think one of the
great disappointments for our political opponents is just quite how
collegial and cooperative this government is and how much we've
managed to get through. I think they probably hoped that
it would all be a disaster and would fall apart.
But the sad news for the likes of Labor is
(03:32):
that actually this government's got through probably more than any
other government incoming in its first year. Certainly that I
can remember. It's a true reforming government, and I have
someone who campaigned on real change. With that, I'm very
proud to be part of it and proud of the
contribution that we're making to that real change. If you
look at someone like Chris Hipkins, you know he keeps
(03:53):
going on about the boats because he wants people to
think that the boats will cost more. Well, that may
not even be true. But actually what he's missing is
that those guys were going to blow anywhere from two
point six to three point four billion dollars on the
two port projects at either the end because they bought
(04:14):
the wrong boat. Now you look at the cynicism. If
Chris Hipkins was a patriotic New Zealander and worried about
taxpayers and services for the North and South Island connection,
he'd be looking at, well, what's the total cost going
to be? He's shrying a zero win on his boat.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Here's the thing book for win I think everyone agrees
with you that last government bad in terms of managing
the economy, managing debt, etc. And you know projects like
this are exhibit A. But when it comes down to it,
next year, when around the cabinet table, Winston Peters comes
with a price tag that's more than what you set
(04:52):
in your fiscal envelope because he wants rail enabled.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
What are you going to say, Well, first of all,
I'll be saying, discuss what happens in cabinet. But I
think what's pretty clear to everybody is that you know,
this government can't afford the kind of proflicacy that the
last government had. We know how much we can afford.
We're never going to say what that is, but we're
(05:15):
going to have.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
It's not enough toil enabled, is it. I mean, that's
that's that's a pipe dream. If you think you can
do rail enabled for what you've put in your envelope.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Well, I mean, if you listen to what Winston's saying,
he's very experienced and he's backing himself to get a
better deal than the previous government could. So I think
we've got to back our new Minister of Rail and say, look,
if he can pull off a better deal for everyone,
then we should all be actually supporting him to do so.
There's far too much pulling down in politics as we're
(05:46):
seeing from Labor at the moment.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
When did you find out he was going to be
the Minister of Rail?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Ah well a few few days ago.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
So this is just a new thing. Can you can
you just leavel them with us? What happened?
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Nikola Will has had a plan. Winston comes in and says, nah,
I want to give this another crack. I want to
try and do rail enabled. You guys an't giving me
rail enabled, So give me the portfolio and I'll give
it a crack.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Well, I'm ever going to go into the negotiations between parties.
Only the results for the taxpayer and the people of
New Zealand, and that is that we've got an amount
of money that we're prepared to suspend. We've got a
minister who's determined to get the best policible value for it,
and I think we should all back and to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
All right, how are you going to give us a
bear at the hairdressers?
Speaker 2 (06:37):
To be honest, you can already get a bear or
a coffee at most hairdresses. That there's a rule against it,
but I don't think anyone much is following it or
councils are enforcing it. And if councils are, they really
ought to get some better priorities. However, I think it
is fair to say that hairdressing five thousand people are
businesses thirteen thousand people, billion dollars a year industry. It's
(07:00):
got some crazy rules everything from the number of handbasins
they have to have in their location, inspections they have
from councils for stuff that just doesn't make sense. And
what the Ministry for Regulation is going to do is
actually go on listen to a sector that I don't
think has been listened to for a long time, and
then say, look, these are all the rules you're subject to.
We've decided these ones don't make sense, so they go
(07:21):
These ones can be changed, so we change them. And
at the end of the day, like every sector of
the economy, whether it's early childhood education or agriculture or
anywhere else that the Ministry for Regulations playing, it's about
removing the amount of time that people spend, you know,
trying to comply or actually not doing things because it's
too red tape to try and freeing up people to
(07:42):
do what they want to do, which in the case
of hairdresses and barbers is helping you know, people look
their best.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
David Seymour at Padley to thank you very much for
your time. Appreciate it. For more from hither Duplessy Allen
Drive listen live to news talks it'd be from four
pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on high Hard Radio.
Brian Bridge, just how much will our new theories cost us?
There's been a few numbers thrown around about the cost
of the last twenty four hours. David Seymour reckons costings
were quote approximately half the at least three billion dollar
cost of Labour's proposal, but Winston Peter's debunked that on
the Breakfast Show with Head this morning.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
I've got no idea why he made that comment, because
now that's true he said.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
He used the word approximately and approximately could mean a
huge approximation. That was what he said. So in an
attempt to try and squeeze out a bit more information
the act Puney leader David Seymour is with us this evening,
David good evening, Good.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Evening, run.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Why did you who's right? Are you right or is
he right?
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Well, we're both right. I think that who's wrong as
people who have taken my words a little bit literally.
I know a lot of people want to find out
what sort of money the government thinks it will put up.
But when I said half, what I mean is it's
going to be a lot less. Like when someone says
it half the half the price, often they don't mean
literally half. They mean it's just a hell of a
(01:04):
lot less and that's what it will be.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
But you put it in a press release. I mean,
I can't understand if you said that, but to put
it in a press release saying, quote, approximately half the
at least three billion dollar cost. How am I meant
to get tone from that?
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Well?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Sometimes people, maybe I should have said it and you
could have got the tone out of it. I think
that sometimes the problem with writing. We've all been there
with an email that people read a little bit more
literally than we intended, which is in there.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Have you had a telling off from up on high
about this?
Speaker 2 (01:34):
No?
Speaker 3 (01:35):
No, has anyone has.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Has anyone from Luxeon or Willis or mister peters Off
has spoken to you about your approximately half?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
No, no they haven't.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Oh so this is this kind of met culper is
all on you.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
It was no mea culpa. It's simpoint pointing out, clarifying. Well,
put it this way. If I've done anything wrong, I
shouldn't have overestimated how people would interpret this. But of course,
in this environment, the media trying to find out what
it meant, have jumped on half as and a lot
less and said, oh, that must mean exactly half which
it doesn't, and it's part of the reason it's said approximately.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Which has a fiscal conservative You can understand the interest, right,
I mean we're talking about billions of taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Yeah, but I think it's pretty clear we're going into
a negotiation. I mean, if you're trying to get a
builder to quote, you don't go out and say how
much you're prepared to pay, which is never my intention.
A lot of people have jumped on it as oh, well,
he must mean exactly half, and then they say is
it half of this or as half of that, trying
to get a figure. My intention was never so give
a figure. My intention is to point out that where
(02:41):
we were up for a huge amount of money under labor,
now we're up to a fraction of that amount, and
we've saved the taxpayer a huge part by doing things
better and differently, which is what we've been required to
do in just about every area over the past year.
Because people out there are hurting, and why because of
inflation and interest rates? Why because of government waste, which
is what we're going back and you see the inflation
(03:01):
and interest rates come back as a result. But it's
still a tough environment. Out there, which is why we've
got to keep going.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
Is it tough in cabinet? Do you guys get along
you're in Winston.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, we do. I mean, I think one of the
great disappointments for our political opponents is just quite how
collegial and cooperative this government is and how much we've
managed to get through. I think they probably hoped that
it would all be a disaster and would fall apart.
But the sad news for the likes of Labor is
(03:32):
that actually this government's got through probably more than any
other government incoming in its first year. Certainly that I
can remember. It's a true reforming government, and I have
someone who campaigned on real change. With that, I'm very
proud to be part of it and proud of the
contribution that we're making to that real change. If you
look at someone like Chris Hipkins, you know he keeps
(03:53):
going on about the boats because he wants people to
think that the boats will cost more. Well, that may
not even be true. But actually what he's missing is
that those guys were going to blow anywhere from two
point six to three point four billion dollars on the
two port projects at either the end because they bought
(04:14):
the wrong boat. Now you look at the cynicism. If
Chris Hipkins was a patriotic New Zealander and worried about
taxpayers and services for the North and South Island connection,
he'd be looking at, well, what's the total cost going
to be? He's shrying a zero win on his boat.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Here's the thing book for win I think everyone agrees
with you that last government bad in terms of managing
the economy, managing debt, etc. And you know projects like
this are exhibit A. But when it comes down to it,
next year, when around the cabinet table, Winston Peters comes
with a price tag that's more than what you set
(04:52):
in your fiscal envelope because he wants rail enabled.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
What are you going to say, Well, first of all,
I'll be saying, discuss what happens in cabinet. But I
think what's pretty clear to everybody is that you know,
this government can't afford the kind of proflicacy that the
last government had. We know how much we can afford.
We're never going to say what that is, but we're
(05:15):
going to have.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
It's not enough toil enabled, is it. I mean, that's
that's that's a pipe dream. If you think you can
do rail enabled for what you've put in your envelope.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Well, I mean, if you listen to what Winston's saying,
he's very experienced and he's backing himself to get a
better deal than the previous government could. So I think
we've got to back our new Minister of Rail and say, look,
if he can pull off a better deal for everyone,
then we should all be actually supporting him to do so.
There's far too much pulling down in politics as we're
(05:46):
seeing from Labor at the moment.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
When did you find out he was going to be
the Minister of Rail?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Ah well a few few days ago.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
So this is just a new thing. Can you can
you just leavel them with us? What happened?
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Nikola Will has had a plan. Winston comes in and says, nah,
I want to give this another crack. I want to
try and do rail enabled. You guys an't giving me
rail enabled, So give me the portfolio and I'll give
it a crack.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Well, I'm ever going to go into the negotiations between parties.
Only the results for the taxpayer and the people of
New Zealand, and that is that we've got an amount
of money that we're prepared to suspend. We've got a
minister who's determined to get the best policible value for it,
and I think we should all back and to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
All right, how are you going to give us a
bear at the hairdressers?
Speaker 2 (06:37):
To be honest, you can already get a bear or
a coffee at most hairdresses. That there's a rule against it,
but I don't think anyone much is following it or
councils are enforcing it. And if councils are, they really
ought to get some better priorities. However, I think it
is fair to say that hairdressing five thousand people are
businesses thirteen thousand people, billion dollars a year industry. It's
(07:00):
got some crazy rules everything from the number of handbasins
they have to have in their location, inspections they have
from councils for stuff that just doesn't make sense. And
what the Ministry for Regulation is going to do is
actually go on listen to a sector that I don't
think has been listened to for a long time, and
then say, look, these are all the rules you're subject to.
We've decided these ones don't make sense, so they go
(07:21):
These ones can be changed, so we change them. And
at the end of the day, like every sector of
the economy, whether it's early childhood education or agriculture or
anywhere else that the Ministry for Regulations playing, it's about
removing the amount of time that people spend, you know,
trying to comply or actually not doing things because it's
too red tape to try and freeing up people to
(07:42):
do what they want to do, which in the case
of hairdresses and barbers is helping you know, people look
their best.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
David Seymour at Padley to thank you very much for
your time. Appreciate it. For more from hither Duplessy Allen
Drive listen live to news talks it'd be from four
pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on high Hard Radio.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.