May 23, 2025 • 5 mins
Opposition leader Chris Hipkins wouldn’t confirm his party’s commitment of returning the $13 billion taken from pay equity schemes by the National Party.
Half of the new spending in the budget came from these cuts.
His colleague Barbara Edmonds, however, says Labour’s committed to finding the money.
Political Editor Jason Walls talks to Heather du Plessis-Allan about the confusion.
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):
Jason Wool's political editors with US now. Hi, Jason, good afternoon.
So what's Labour going to do with pay equity? Are
they going to put all of that thirteen billion back in?
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Listen? If only it was that simple. We actually have
no idea what is going on at this this stage.
It's getting more and more confusing by the day now.
Speaking to reporters yesterday, and we did briefly touch on
this yesterday, Chris Hopkins was unable to commit to returning
the thirteen billion the government saved through this revamping of
the pay equity schemes. And it's pretty a pretty fundamental
(00:29):
question as half of the new spending in the budget
came from these cuts and these reevaluations of that scheme.
So's he's recommitting that thirteen billion would mean either more cuts,
it would mean more taxes or more borrowing if they
decided not to do that. So this morning morning reports
corn Dan probed a little bit further with Labour's Barbara Edmonds.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Have a listen, if you are how would you find
this twelve billion twelve nearly thirteen billion dollars because a
lot of that money has been refunneled back into core
pub services.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
So that's going to be built in. How would you
find that in a future budget.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
We're going to have to find it because we are
committed to it, because again, women are not worth less
and that's our labor value. We don't believe that, so
we are committed to finding that. We will look through
the books carefully.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
So we are committed to finding that. I mean, I
thought that was pretty unambiguous, but if only it was
that easy.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
The position that both Barbara and I have set out
is very very clear. Labor will reverse the government's changes
to pay equity. We'll set out how much that will
cost and how that will pay for it, how we
will pay for that in our fiscal plan that will
set out before the election. We're not in a position
to do that at the moment because we haven't seen
the gut breakdown of where that figure actually comes from.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Okay, so we're back to not confirming if there were
refund the whole thirteen billion dollars. And it's a bit
of a mess from labor because if they got into
government and then decided that they would not repay this
thirteen billion dollars, then all the arguments around cutting women's
paympletely falls apart, and the Prime Minister he was having
a great all time laughing at them up in Auckland.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Yah, Chris Hipkins speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
You know, he was actually for reversing it. The next
day he was actually said it's too hard, it's too difficult,
too complicated. Barbar Edmons is now saying that she would
reverse it all and find the thirteen twelve billion dollars
somewhere else, and Chris sit Cain's still saying he won't
do it. So I mean, like it's very very confusing.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
It's all as clear as much as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Were you at Jonesy's party last night?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
I was at John Z's party last night.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Did you see Jonesy leave and go downstairs to ask
if it was just a free for all with the
tax incentive?
Speaker 2 (02:35):
I leave? Well, listen, I didn't have eyes on Jonesy
the whole time, but he was wearing his beautiful baby
blue suits, so it was really hard to miss. It
was hard to miss him.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
What do you make of this? Because this seems sweet?
I mean the way that this is being portrayed in
this newsdroom article is that the cabinet ministers themselves did
not realize how much this is going to cost.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
It did seem that way, didn't it in terms of
the regulatory impact state, Well, it kind of seemed like this,
this idea about the the capt of the scheme hadn't
really been investigated that much by the ministers in charge.
And of course it's a it's a it's a heck
of a question, isn't it, Because this is a fund
or this is this is a policy that is aiming
to boost businesses coming to New Zealand, and if you've
(03:18):
got a scheme where it would take just a handful
of billion dollar oil rigs or commercial developments to swallow
up most of the money in any given year. So
we put it to the Prime Minister this afternoon and
he actually said that he wasn't really all that concern.
Speaker 5 (03:31):
We're comfortable with what we've estimated it to be and
the impact that it will be annually. The way we've
done it is by actually saying it's twenty percent that
you get to depreciate in the first year, and that's
that's the cat that's in place.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
So there is a cap, but this is that's not
what we're talking about, Laso.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Yeah, it's it's hard to pin down. But nevertheless, this
has gone through the House today. The House is in urgency,
but not before Julianne Gender, who is the obviously the
Greens MP, tried to change the name of the bill.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
Honorable Julian Gender's table to memory. Clause one to change
budget measures to taking money from babies to give tax
breaks for uts is out of order as being not
a serious amendment.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
They'll tell you what, I Heather. It didn't stop there.
Speaker 6 (04:13):
Thecardo men Intos marchs table to memory to clause one
to change budget measures to manifesting trickle down economics is
out of order as not being a serious amendment. Under
change budget measures to let them eat cake measures is
out of order as not being a serious amendment. Und
to change budget measures to let them buy yachts budget
measure is out of order as not being a serious amendment.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
And it went on and on and on. I just thought,
this is a good use of your time in the House.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Oh, it was quite funny.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
I like that she hates utes as well, Like just
how much that would have ripped the knickers of Juliani.
And it just brings me a great deal of pleasure. Hey,
how hungover are You're on a scale of one to ten?
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Oh, like a two. I had a couple of drinks,
so I was getting no. No, I wasn't that bad
I had. I'm in my mid to early thirties. Now
I can't do fredolous things like go out and drink
on a week.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Now I can't even count you are hungover. It's not
mid to early. You don't go backwards in time.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
It's early to mid I'll admit I forgot how old
I get the tea?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
I told you to go get the tea? Did you
go get the tea?
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Well, we've got tea in the press galery.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Office and the tea Jason, don't waste the tea that's
sitting in the post office.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Listen. As I told you yesterday, we're still out for
consultation and we need six to nine months.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Send another staff mean to get the tea because because
they can't just sit there being wasted. Thank you. We'll
talk to you a quarter past six. It's Jason Wall's
political editors.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Jason Wool's political editors with US now. Hi, Jason, good afternoon.
So what's Labour going to do with pay equity? Are
they going to put all of that thirteen billion back in?
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Listen? If only it was that simple. We actually have
no idea what is going on at this this stage.
It's getting more and more confusing by the day now.
Speaking to reporters yesterday, and we did briefly touch on
this yesterday, Chris Hopkins was unable to commit to returning
the thirteen billion the government saved through this revamping of
the pay equity schemes. And it's pretty a pretty fundamental
(00:29):
question as half of the new spending in the budget
came from these cuts and these reevaluations of that scheme.
So's he's recommitting that thirteen billion would mean either more cuts,
it would mean more taxes or more borrowing if they
decided not to do that. So this morning morning reports
corn Dan probed a little bit further with Labour's Barbara Edmonds.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Have a listen, if you are how would you find
this twelve billion twelve nearly thirteen billion dollars because a
lot of that money has been refunneled back into core
pub services.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
So that's going to be built in. How would you
find that in a future budget.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
We're going to have to find it because we are
committed to it, because again, women are not worth less
and that's our labor value. We don't believe that, so
we are committed to finding that. We will look through
the books carefully.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
So we are committed to finding that. I mean, I
thought that was pretty unambiguous, but if only it was
that easy.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
The position that both Barbara and I have set out
is very very clear. Labor will reverse the government's changes
to pay equity. We'll set out how much that will
cost and how that will pay for it, how we
will pay for that in our fiscal plan that will
set out before the election. We're not in a position
to do that at the moment because we haven't seen
the gut breakdown of where that figure actually comes from.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Okay, so we're back to not confirming if there were
refund the whole thirteen billion dollars. And it's a bit
of a mess from labor because if they got into
government and then decided that they would not repay this
thirteen billion dollars, then all the arguments around cutting women's
paympletely falls apart, and the Prime Minister he was having
a great all time laughing at them up in Auckland.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Yah, Chris Hipkins speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
You know, he was actually for reversing it. The next
day he was actually said it's too hard, it's too difficult,
too complicated. Barbar Edmons is now saying that she would
reverse it all and find the thirteen twelve billion dollars
somewhere else, and Chris sit Cain's still saying he won't
do it. So I mean, like it's very very confusing.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
It's all as clear as much as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Were you at Jonesy's party last night?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
I was at John Z's party last night.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Did you see Jonesy leave and go downstairs to ask
if it was just a free for all with the
tax incentive?
Speaker 2 (02:35):
I leave? Well, listen, I didn't have eyes on Jonesy
the whole time, but he was wearing his beautiful baby
blue suits, so it was really hard to miss. It
was hard to miss him.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
What do you make of this? Because this seems sweet?
I mean the way that this is being portrayed in
this newsdroom article is that the cabinet ministers themselves did
not realize how much this is going to cost.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
It did seem that way, didn't it in terms of
the regulatory impact state, Well, it kind of seemed like this,
this idea about the the capt of the scheme hadn't
really been investigated that much by the ministers in charge.
And of course it's a it's a it's a heck
of a question, isn't it, Because this is a fund
or this is this is a policy that is aiming
to boost businesses coming to New Zealand, and if you've
(03:18):
got a scheme where it would take just a handful
of billion dollar oil rigs or commercial developments to swallow
up most of the money in any given year. So
we put it to the Prime Minister this afternoon and
he actually said that he wasn't really all that concern.
Speaker 5 (03:31):
We're comfortable with what we've estimated it to be and
the impact that it will be annually. The way we've
done it is by actually saying it's twenty percent that
you get to depreciate in the first year, and that's
that's the cat that's in place.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
So there is a cap, but this is that's not
what we're talking about, Laso.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Yeah, it's it's hard to pin down. But nevertheless, this
has gone through the House today. The House is in urgency,
but not before Julianne Gender, who is the obviously the
Greens MP, tried to change the name of the bill.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
Honorable Julian Gender's table to memory. Clause one to change
budget measures to taking money from babies to give tax
breaks for uts is out of order as being not
a serious amendment.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
They'll tell you what, I Heather. It didn't stop there.
Speaker 6 (04:13):
Thecardo men Intos marchs table to memory to clause one
to change budget measures to manifesting trickle down economics is
out of order as not being a serious amendment. Under
change budget measures to let them eat cake measures is
out of order as not being a serious amendment. Und
to change budget measures to let them buy yachts budget
measure is out of order as not being a serious amendment.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
And it went on and on and on. I just thought,
this is a good use of your time in the House.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Oh, it was quite funny.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
I like that she hates utes as well, Like just
how much that would have ripped the knickers of Juliani.
And it just brings me a great deal of pleasure. Hey,
how hungover are You're on a scale of one to ten?
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Oh, like a two. I had a couple of drinks,
so I was getting no. No, I wasn't that bad
I had. I'm in my mid to early thirties. Now
I can't do fredolous things like go out and drink
on a week.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Now I can't even count you are hungover. It's not
mid to early. You don't go backwards in time.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
It's early to mid I'll admit I forgot how old
I get the tea?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
I told you to go get the tea? Did you
go get the tea?
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Well, we've got tea in the press galery.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Office and the tea Jason, don't waste the tea that's
sitting in the post office.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Listen. As I told you yesterday, we're still out for
consultation and we need six to nine months.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Send another staff mean to get the tea because because
they can't just sit there being wasted. Thank you. We'll
talk to you a quarter past six. It's Jason Wall's
political editors.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm 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!