June 3, 2025 • 11 mins
The Finance Minister says the latest poll will be a tough read for the Labour Party and Chris Hipkins.
Labour saw a three percent drop in support to sit on 29, Chris Hipkins' preferred Prime Minister rating also fell by 1 percent.
National also saw a drop in support, down 2 percent to sit on 34.
Nicola Willis says even after complaining about their budget - Labour didn't see a jump in support.
"Well, it gives me confidence that New Zealanders get where we are as a country - which is that we're a Government doing a big clean-up job. The books have been left in a mess."
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):
Right, let us get to you to this poll right now.
By the way, the time is eight past six, So
one News is claiming this as a shock result. National
is down two to thirty four percent, Labour is down
three to twenty nine percent, The Greens are up two
to twelve. ACT is down one to eight. New Zealand
First is up one to eight. Anti Patimari is up
(00:20):
one to four. I'm not entirely sure what the shock
there is under these numbers. The National, New Zealand First
and ACT parties have the numbers to govern together. Preferred
Prime Minister luxeun steady on twenty three. Hipkins is down
one to nineteen, Winston Peters is down one to six,
Chloe's up one to five, David Seymour's up one to four,
and Nichola Willis is one one and Nikola Willis, the
Finance Minister, is with us. Now, Hey, Nikola.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
HIV, what's the shock? Well, I suppose if your Labor
and you've been yelling from the rooftops, fire and brimstone,
this budget's the end of all time and then you
lose three points at the pole in your preferred prime
minister rating takes a dive. Then It might be a
bit of a shock, mindn't it I suppose?
Speaker 1 (00:59):
So I mean, are you Are you heartened by the
fact that you haven't got a budget bump?
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Right?
Speaker 1 (01:03):
So that must be disappointing for you because you would
expect that. But are you heartened by the fact that
the pay equity stuff hasn't done you guys that much damage?
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Well, it gives me confidence that New Zealanders get where
we are as a country, which is that where a
government doing a big clean up job. The books have
been left in a mess. We have to do some
pleasant choices to unwind previous spending commitments that are now unaffordable.
And as I said going into the budget, I couldn't
deliver rainbows or unicorns in a responsible way. I felt
(01:30):
the job that we had as a government was to
set out a path back to balance books and debt
reduction while making critical investments for the here and now.
We did that and New Zealanders make clear in that
poll that they would still want us to be the
government of the day. So that is heartening.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Okay, tell me about the road cones. How long before
this tip line starts working and they go through and
get rid of the road cones.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Well, I think the tip lines has been launched today
and as soon as people ring with those good examples,
we now have a very quick way of making sure
that we follow up on them and find out what
the heck's going on. So I think you'll see some
action pretty quickly. Minister van Velden is pretty hot on this,
the Prime Minister is very hot on it, the Minister
(02:15):
of Transports hot on it. So this is one where
the public, by using their voice, can get some action.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Okay, so how does it practically work? So I get home,
I remember where it all happened, I fill out my form.
It goes through to work Safe.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
What happens then look, I imagine and I will acknowledge
I've not been briefed on the operational detail, but I
imagine work Safe would then look into, well, where was that,
which council's jurisdiction was it? In that inquire with the
council as to why that was occurring, guessing the Council
will then make a thousand excuses about why that is
the case and maybe blame a contractor on the way through.
(02:51):
We can learn a lesson from that example of what
went wrong and then ask for correction and ensure that
if there is a policy reason for it, we fix it.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
I've been around long enough to know that this is
by the time they get round, by the time WorkSafe
gets to the council and the council gets to the
traffic management people, blah blah blah, the cones are gone, right,
So this is probably more about freaking them out and
getting them to not put out all those cones in
the first place.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
You got it either, which is to say to those
councils who haven't gone and looked at their traffic management
policies and approaches to see whether they're wasting money on
road cones, here's the heads up. If you don't do it,
you'll be outed as one of the councils that is
having far too much of this going on. Because I'm
sure the Minister will be able to break down by
(03:34):
region and council where the most complaints are coming from.
And what'd that be interesting information?
Speaker 1 (03:39):
It will I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Now.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
How committed are you to helping out these Aussie banks
or the changes to the Triple CFA or are you
prepared to rethink that?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Well, I'm never committed to helping out Ossie banks. That's
not where I come from. I'm on the side of
customers end.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeah, but this is what you're practically doing.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Well, I disagree with that characterization. I've heard Scott Simpson's
interview with you the other day as he set out
what he's attempting to do with this proposed law change
is give the courts a bit more discretion and the
penalties they impose when where banks they have not made
full disclosure.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Always lesser though, because at the moment, as far as
I understand it, the courts are required to impose like
basically complete reimbursement of all fees. Any discretion they have
is to lower how much you're paid.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Well, my view is if harm has been done to
a customer, then it is appropriate that banks should have
to compensate, and the penalties should be significant enough to
make sure that the banks feel it. So the purpose
of a select committee process, as your wel aware, is
to look at well, is the law as it's drafted
going to have the intent of policy makers carried out
(04:53):
or are there other implications? So the select comitty process
is pretty important to me. Let's hear all the views
on is the changed to the law are going to
have the effects that you're suggesting, which is letting banks
off the hook. Because if that's the case, I don't
think Cabinet wants that or is it going to be
more workable for the courts and still be fair and just.
And if that's the case, then it stays. But if
(05:13):
we have to tweak it, we will. That's what Select
committee processes are all about.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Can't understand why you guys are doing it. I mean,
I just don't understand why. Because Scott, if we take
Scott at his word, which ps I do not on this,
he reckons there's been no lobbying from the bank, So
why are you guys doing it?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Look, I understand that it's the advice from officials is
that the last government made significant changes post twenty nineteen
and there's an anomaly whereby there's a small period of
a few years between twenty fifteen and twenty nineteen where
the law is operating differently and they have concerns about
that and they think that this amendment will give appropriate
(05:51):
discretion to the courts. Now, Select committee processes allow for
all views to be heard, and you can be assured
that this mine in particular, and I'm sure others around
the cabinet table will be watching this issue very closely
because I am not in the business of letting the
major Ossie banks off the hook.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Great, okay, well like it. I feel quite reassured by that. Now,
are you going to scale back the key we saver
contributions that MPs get like everybody else's have to cop.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Look, I've looked into this issue and this is actually
a determination for the remuneration.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Oh no, don't do Oh, don't you do that, Nikola,
because what you're about, what you're about to say to
me is MPs don't have a say over this and
we have to leave it to the rem Authority.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Yes. In two thousand and three, the Remuneration Authority made
a determination on superannuation, which is where it currently sits.
They went through some international comparisons and the like and
they have made their recommendations. So that's where it sits
currently and of course is part of the overall compensation
package for MPs. So it is a slightly separate issue
(06:57):
from Kiwi Saber. It is about the employer versus the employee.
We're here the Remuneration Authority acts and the role of
the employer and makes recommendations accordingly. So it's not something
that we have discussed as a cabinet. You should sit it.
I haven't actually seen opposition in p suggest it either,
of course not.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
It's like you guys like Turkey's asking for an early Christmas,
You're not going to be You should do it, Nikolay,
you should do it, and you have the power to
do it. And you know that as well, because you
can override the rem authority if you want to buy legislation.
Do you do you not agree that it's a terrible
look for you guys to be taking as much as
thirty four thousand dollars a year In Key we saver
contributions via the taxpayer. When everybody else and I know
(07:39):
it's not apples for apples, but when everybody else's contribution
via the taxpayer's two hundred and fifty dollars, it looked bad.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Well in this case, heither, I just say that the
employer is making the contribution, so it's not the government
as such. There's a separate issue. So some employers you've got,
of course, make contributions larger than is required by statute.
I think yessure you'relready raising the overall.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
No, the whole thing, Nicola, the whole thing is just
a bad look, right because even if you just use
apples for apples, which is what you're talking about, the
employer contribution you guys are getting. You're getting every dollar
that you put in the taxpayer, the employer puts in
two and a half dollars, right, So up to that's
a huge amount of contribution. Nobody else in the workplace
in New Zealand is getting that. We're getting one dollar
for one dollar from our employers.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
So here's what I do agree with you on, which
is when we're looking at MP's overall pay, I think
that superannuation is a very relevant factor as part of
that overall consideration, because I think the way it should
be thought about is not only what MP's are getting
paid in the here and now, but what benefits a
crue to them after they've served in Parliament, and that
(08:47):
should all be thought of as a package. I think
that that's fair enough. And I'm always been of the
school of thought that says this idea that you need
to be paid really well to be an MP is
wrong because if you're not there for public service, then
what are you doing there? And we actually want to
ensure that people aren't in it for the perks and
the cash. So I agree that it should be considered
(09:09):
as part of that. But I do think it's distinct
from the issue of the government subsidy per se, because
in this sense you've got the remuneration authority taking the
role of the employer. But should the employer consider it
as part of the overall rem package.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
Sure, Okay, now I've done it. I've done something bad
by you, Nikola, not the first time, but unlike that.
I will apologize for it because I suggested that you.
I'm sorry. I suggested you were the MP who may
have been the one who gave her a bollocking at Parliament,
but I think it's probably more likely Amy Adams or
Maggie Barry.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Now I have not caught up with this. I didn't
know that there is a reference to someone giving a bollocking.
I presume you're talking about her book. It sounds like
this might be one of the actual juicy bits. Not
so far, everything I've heard makes me think that it
sounds pretty boring.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
It's so boring. This is that okay, So this is
like that we're clutching at strawsy Nicholas. So anyway, the
National MP looked gleeful. She was an incredibly smart woman,
self assured and well respected by all sides. She wore
tailored suits and sounded as if she were private school educated.
This is why I was thinking it was you.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Well here that can I just say that would be
the first time I have ever been described as having
a posh accent.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Well, and.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
I certainly get emails saying with that woman, learn how
to enunciate. She's got such a broad listen to them,
she needs to be sent to alocution. We know you
sound like me.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
And here she was hair bobbing back and forth with
a flushed face, pointing her finger in my direction. But
I don't think that this doesn't sound like you. It
sounds more like Maggie or Amy, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Yeah, definitely, because I remember I was a pretty juniorine
p during Well, I don't think it was me. I'd
be prepared to be standing standing corrected. But what I
would say is if it was me, I think I
really failed in my duty to news to make a
real impression on Doom, to make her change some of
(11:03):
her Sillier policies. So that so that was a failing
if it was me. But no, I don't think so.
I don't have quite the excellent.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
No, I do not feel that you like aricature doesn't
sound like you, Nicolas. Thank you so much, appreciate it.
Nicola Willis's Finance Minister. For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive,
listen live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Right, let us get to you to this poll right now.
By the way, the time is eight past six, So
one News is claiming this as a shock result. National
is down two to thirty four percent, Labour is down
three to twenty nine percent, The Greens are up two
to twelve. ACT is down one to eight. New Zealand
First is up one to eight. Anti Patimari is up
(00:20):
one to four. I'm not entirely sure what the shock
there is under these numbers. The National, New Zealand First
and ACT parties have the numbers to govern together. Preferred
Prime Minister luxeun steady on twenty three. Hipkins is down
one to nineteen, Winston Peters is down one to six,
Chloe's up one to five, David Seymour's up one to four,
and Nichola Willis is one one and Nikola Willis, the
Finance Minister, is with us. Now, Hey, Nikola.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
HIV, what's the shock? Well, I suppose if your Labor
and you've been yelling from the rooftops, fire and brimstone,
this budget's the end of all time and then you
lose three points at the pole in your preferred prime
minister rating takes a dive. Then It might be a
bit of a shock, mindn't it I suppose?
Speaker 1 (00:59):
So I mean, are you Are you heartened by the
fact that you haven't got a budget bump?
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Right?
Speaker 1 (01:03):
So that must be disappointing for you because you would
expect that. But are you heartened by the fact that
the pay equity stuff hasn't done you guys that much damage?
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Well, it gives me confidence that New Zealanders get where
we are as a country, which is that where a
government doing a big clean up job. The books have
been left in a mess. We have to do some
pleasant choices to unwind previous spending commitments that are now unaffordable.
And as I said going into the budget, I couldn't
deliver rainbows or unicorns in a responsible way. I felt
(01:30):
the job that we had as a government was to
set out a path back to balance books and debt
reduction while making critical investments for the here and now.
We did that and New Zealanders make clear in that
poll that they would still want us to be the
government of the day. So that is heartening.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Okay, tell me about the road cones. How long before
this tip line starts working and they go through and
get rid of the road cones.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Well, I think the tip lines has been launched today
and as soon as people ring with those good examples,
we now have a very quick way of making sure
that we follow up on them and find out what
the heck's going on. So I think you'll see some
action pretty quickly. Minister van Velden is pretty hot on this,
the Prime Minister is very hot on it, the Minister
(02:15):
of Transports hot on it. So this is one where
the public, by using their voice, can get some action.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Okay, so how does it practically work? So I get home,
I remember where it all happened, I fill out my form.
It goes through to work Safe.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
What happens then look, I imagine and I will acknowledge
I've not been briefed on the operational detail, but I
imagine work Safe would then look into, well, where was that,
which council's jurisdiction was it? In that inquire with the
council as to why that was occurring, guessing the Council
will then make a thousand excuses about why that is
the case and maybe blame a contractor on the way through.
(02:51):
We can learn a lesson from that example of what
went wrong and then ask for correction and ensure that
if there is a policy reason for it, we fix it.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
I've been around long enough to know that this is
by the time they get round, by the time WorkSafe
gets to the council and the council gets to the
traffic management people, blah blah blah, the cones are gone, right,
So this is probably more about freaking them out and
getting them to not put out all those cones in
the first place.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
You got it either, which is to say to those
councils who haven't gone and looked at their traffic management
policies and approaches to see whether they're wasting money on
road cones, here's the heads up. If you don't do it,
you'll be outed as one of the councils that is
having far too much of this going on. Because I'm
sure the Minister will be able to break down by
(03:34):
region and council where the most complaints are coming from.
And what'd that be interesting information?
Speaker 1 (03:39):
It will I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Now.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
How committed are you to helping out these Aussie banks
or the changes to the Triple CFA or are you
prepared to rethink that?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Well, I'm never committed to helping out Ossie banks. That's
not where I come from. I'm on the side of
customers end.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeah, but this is what you're practically doing.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Well, I disagree with that characterization. I've heard Scott Simpson's
interview with you the other day as he set out
what he's attempting to do with this proposed law change
is give the courts a bit more discretion and the
penalties they impose when where banks they have not made
full disclosure.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Always lesser though, because at the moment, as far as
I understand it, the courts are required to impose like
basically complete reimbursement of all fees. Any discretion they have
is to lower how much you're paid.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Well, my view is if harm has been done to
a customer, then it is appropriate that banks should have
to compensate, and the penalties should be significant enough to
make sure that the banks feel it. So the purpose
of a select committee process, as your wel aware, is
to look at well, is the law as it's drafted
going to have the intent of policy makers carried out
(04:53):
or are there other implications? So the select comitty process
is pretty important to me. Let's hear all the views
on is the changed to the law are going to
have the effects that you're suggesting, which is letting banks
off the hook. Because if that's the case, I don't
think Cabinet wants that or is it going to be
more workable for the courts and still be fair and just.
And if that's the case, then it stays. But if
(05:13):
we have to tweak it, we will. That's what Select
committee processes are all about.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Can't understand why you guys are doing it. I mean,
I just don't understand why. Because Scott, if we take
Scott at his word, which ps I do not on this,
he reckons there's been no lobbying from the bank, So
why are you guys doing it?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Look, I understand that it's the advice from officials is
that the last government made significant changes post twenty nineteen
and there's an anomaly whereby there's a small period of
a few years between twenty fifteen and twenty nineteen where
the law is operating differently and they have concerns about
that and they think that this amendment will give appropriate
(05:51):
discretion to the courts. Now, Select committee processes allow for
all views to be heard, and you can be assured
that this mine in particular, and I'm sure others around
the cabinet table will be watching this issue very closely
because I am not in the business of letting the
major Ossie banks off the hook.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Great, okay, well like it. I feel quite reassured by that. Now,
are you going to scale back the key we saver
contributions that MPs get like everybody else's have to cop.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Look, I've looked into this issue and this is actually
a determination for the remuneration.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Oh no, don't do Oh, don't you do that, Nikola,
because what you're about, what you're about to say to
me is MPs don't have a say over this and
we have to leave it to the rem Authority.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Yes. In two thousand and three, the Remuneration Authority made
a determination on superannuation, which is where it currently sits.
They went through some international comparisons and the like and
they have made their recommendations. So that's where it sits
currently and of course is part of the overall compensation
package for MPs. So it is a slightly separate issue
(06:57):
from Kiwi Saber. It is about the employer versus the employee.
We're here the Remuneration Authority acts and the role of
the employer and makes recommendations accordingly. So it's not something
that we have discussed as a cabinet. You should sit it.
I haven't actually seen opposition in p suggest it either,
of course not.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
It's like you guys like Turkey's asking for an early Christmas,
You're not going to be You should do it, Nikolay,
you should do it, and you have the power to
do it. And you know that as well, because you
can override the rem authority if you want to buy legislation.
Do you do you not agree that it's a terrible
look for you guys to be taking as much as
thirty four thousand dollars a year In Key we saver
contributions via the taxpayer. When everybody else and I know
(07:39):
it's not apples for apples, but when everybody else's contribution
via the taxpayer's two hundred and fifty dollars, it looked bad.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Well in this case, heither, I just say that the
employer is making the contribution, so it's not the government
as such. There's a separate issue. So some employers you've got,
of course, make contributions larger than is required by statute.
I think yessure you'relready raising the overall.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
No, the whole thing, Nicola, the whole thing is just
a bad look, right because even if you just use
apples for apples, which is what you're talking about, the
employer contribution you guys are getting. You're getting every dollar
that you put in the taxpayer, the employer puts in
two and a half dollars, right, So up to that's
a huge amount of contribution. Nobody else in the workplace
in New Zealand is getting that. We're getting one dollar
for one dollar from our employers.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
So here's what I do agree with you on, which
is when we're looking at MP's overall pay, I think
that superannuation is a very relevant factor as part of
that overall consideration, because I think the way it should
be thought about is not only what MP's are getting
paid in the here and now, but what benefits a
crue to them after they've served in Parliament, and that
(08:47):
should all be thought of as a package. I think
that that's fair enough. And I'm always been of the
school of thought that says this idea that you need
to be paid really well to be an MP is
wrong because if you're not there for public service, then
what are you doing there? And we actually want to
ensure that people aren't in it for the perks and
the cash. So I agree that it should be considered
(09:09):
as part of that. But I do think it's distinct
from the issue of the government subsidy per se, because
in this sense you've got the remuneration authority taking the
role of the employer. But should the employer consider it
as part of the overall rem package.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
Sure, Okay, now I've done it. I've done something bad
by you, Nikola, not the first time, but unlike that.
I will apologize for it because I suggested that you.
I'm sorry. I suggested you were the MP who may
have been the one who gave her a bollocking at Parliament,
but I think it's probably more likely Amy Adams or
Maggie Barry.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Now I have not caught up with this. I didn't
know that there is a reference to someone giving a bollocking.
I presume you're talking about her book. It sounds like
this might be one of the actual juicy bits. Not
so far, everything I've heard makes me think that it
sounds pretty boring.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
It's so boring. This is that okay, So this is
like that we're clutching at strawsy Nicholas. So anyway, the
National MP looked gleeful. She was an incredibly smart woman,
self assured and well respected by all sides. She wore
tailored suits and sounded as if she were private school educated.
This is why I was thinking it was you.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Well here that can I just say that would be
the first time I have ever been described as having
a posh accent.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Well, and.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
I certainly get emails saying with that woman, learn how
to enunciate. She's got such a broad listen to them,
she needs to be sent to alocution. We know you
sound like me.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
And here she was hair bobbing back and forth with
a flushed face, pointing her finger in my direction. But
I don't think that this doesn't sound like you. It
sounds more like Maggie or Amy, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Yeah, definitely, because I remember I was a pretty juniorine
p during Well, I don't think it was me. I'd
be prepared to be standing standing corrected. But what I
would say is if it was me, I think I
really failed in my duty to news to make a
real impression on Doom, to make her change some of
(11:03):
her Sillier policies. So that so that was a failing
if it was me. But no, I don't think so.
I don't have quite the excellent.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
No, I do not feel that you like aricature doesn't
sound like you, Nicolas. Thank you so much, appreciate it.
Nicola Willis's Finance Minister. For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive,
listen live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.