June 4, 2025 • 10 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, former Labour Minister Stuart Nash and Jack Tame from ZB's Saturday Mornings and Q&A joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
The Government wants state owned enterprises to pick up its game - or else? Chris Luxon has ruled out asset sales this term, but do we think they're on the horizon?
The Privacy Commissioner has given the thumbs up to Foodstuffs' facial recognition software. Would we mind if this technology was rolled out nation-wide?
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):
Twenty away from six the huddle with New Zealand Southeby's
International Realty Find You're one of a kind.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Actually, I took the boy to the rugby game for
the first time last week. I'll tell you about that shortly.
With me on the huddle we have Stuart Nash and
Jack Tame Highlands. Okay, Nashi, we're obviously being softened up
for asset sales next term. Is it going to fly?
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Sounds like it, doesn't it? And I'm completely gangsta itselves
to be honest, but I do agree with you vaned
MP up North. These guys have got to cut a profit,
but let's be clear, they can also experiment a little better.
I mean, if it's a state owned enterprise like land Corp,
it can be a little bit innovative and try things
that maybe a farmer who has to turn a profit
(00:41):
can't have word ago, so that let them be a
little bit innovative, but also let them why because you know,
we're built on the back of the of the agriculture
and horticulture sector that we are. Some of them, our
farmers are some of the most innovative in the world.
We do it incredibly well, but we need to keep innovating.
And if the state can't lead a lot of innovation,
than who does.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
But Stu, you just told me our farmers are already
super innovative. So why does the state have to innovate
if the farmers are already doing it Like, if it's
going to if it's going to work, farmers will try
it out. You don't need states to try these crazy
ideas out.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Well. One of the reason a lot of them aren't crazy,
but some of them start out crazy and becomes hugely profitable.
And one of the reasons why some of our farmers
are the most profitable in the world is because the
research has been done by the state. I mean, there's
fantastic collaborations between the different universities and the CRIS and
the private sector to drive innovation in a way that
makes us hugely profitable.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Jack, everything that Stu just told me makes me want
to sell Land corpor What about you?
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Well, I think it good point that the one of
the benefits of state owned enterprises is that they can
serve multiple purposes. Right now, we should all expect that
they are turning profits and turning good profits, that they're
turning profits that are comparable to the private sector. But
that being said, they are in a position whereby they
can serve multiple purposes. I mean, and I suggest TV
(02:01):
and D might arguably serve multiple purposes. For example, you like,
what are the multiple purposes well reflecting New Zealand stories
on television in a way that wouldn't necessarily otherwise be possible.
Now you can argue with whether or not there's a
worthwhile purpose, but we don't need to go down that
track now. But my point is that you know, to
Stuart's point, there are often multiple purposes for these state
(02:24):
on enterprises as to whether or not it will fly.
It's my it's my opinion that actually there might be
slightly more public appetite in this economic moment then there
has been in a long time. And just just think
about the way some of those public conversations have been
held around asset sales to things like airports, shares and
auckland and wellings. And I get it that shares sales
and those cities are different to selling off a majority
(02:46):
stake in a State on the enterprise. But I look
at the way that those conversations and debates have been
received and I can see something similar happening in the
next electoral term if this government's re elected. I think
if they spell it out and say, yep, we want
to have this debate, we want to walk off a
couple that actually a lot of voters will support that.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Yeah, I agree with you. Hey Stu, how do you
feel about having your photo taken when you go into
the supermarket so that they can keep the bad guys out?
Speaker 3 (03:10):
I didn't have a problem with this, to be honest.
A retail crime in this country costs the industry about
two point nine billion dollars. Health and safety is huge.
I had to look at the stats on the trial
that is up north. If there was no match to
any bad person, the image was automatically and immediately deleted.
So you know, I don't have a problem with this.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
No, I don't either, Jack You.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
Yeah, from what I understand about the trial, I think
it sounds like they took a whole series of really
smart and reasonable steps around some of those privacy concerns.
I think like consent is a big part of it, right, Like,
if they were to roll this out nationwide, I think
it would be really important that they informed potential customers
that this technology was being used and you know, I
(03:52):
think that's an important element. But personally, you know, do
I have any issue with my face being scanned to
make sure that I'm not a shop list or someone
who's been violent in there still on the past, No problem.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
No, not at all. No, they should go for it, absolutely,
just unleash it. Guys, will take a break. Come back
shortly sixteen away from.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Six the Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty achieve
extraordinary results with unparallel reach.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Back of the Huddle, Jack Tame Stuart Nashjak, what did
you make of the conflicting polls.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
I honest didn't read too much and I think general
trends kind of suggest that it's a bit of a
holding pattern at the moment. As far as his Zeeland, first,
I'd be very pleased with the state of affairs and
I think that's will be well on track to being
returned to the Parliament for the first time after having
been in a coalition. I mean, I'm still kind of
intrigued to see that the Greens are polling as well
(04:41):
as they are, right right, We've obviously had a kind
of horror eighteen months, but yeah, it feels like a
bit of a bit of a holding pattern. I think
increasingly though, we're going to see intensifyd questions about Labour's
past power and you know, the three party coalition with
Party Mardi, Greens and Labor, and more and more pressure
go on Labor to say what they will and won't
(05:02):
do if they do form some sort of you know,
some sort of Colorsian agreement or support agreement with the party. Marty,
I think, you know, it's pretty clear that that's only
the only real, realistic path to power, three party support
deal on the left. And yeah, I think the press
is on.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
There, Stu, could you explain why the Greens keep on
polling as why as well as they do when they
have the weirdest collection of odd balls in there?
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I have absolutely no idea. Not only odd balls, but
their policies are just out of this world. They're no
longer the Green Party. You know, Jeanette fitz Simon's and
by Donald were a couple of environmentals who believed that
they could make more of a difference by working within
the system than outside. And I would argue they did this.
This is a socially radical party. I've called them the
alliance and drag because that's what they sort of look like.
(05:48):
They're no longer an environmental party. They've got the brand,
but it astounds me. The other thing also is, you know,
David Seymour said that book van Velden might have saved
the budget with her pay equity policy. But but it's
tankers party. So we've got a Deputy Prime Minister Peacock
and the rounds. If he's the man in ninety four
percent of key, he's rather someone else. So but I
(06:10):
do agree with are you.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Doing in New Zealand first lines on our skin?
Speaker 3 (06:14):
Isn't it?
Speaker 4 (06:15):
Look?
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Winston and Shane are really the only two that are
resonating in the part of the world that I live in.
But but you know, you're just.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
You're you're out of out of control, out of.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Control do you live in you guys with an Auckland
and well, I live in the provinces, and you know
Labor isn't resonating. Chris simply doesn't. I've been very clear
on this. I do not know why Labor does not
rule out to party marrying. I don't know that.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
I don't know either, don't. I don't think that's because
because Stuart. I reckon, I reckon, they haven't realized how
toxic the Mardi Party are because they're listening to Willy,
and Willy thinks it's fine.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Well, I think it is ellectual poison.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Yeah, here's my here's my random tape. I think one
of the big challenges for Labor is that they have
to convince people that they can have a coherent government
on the left. And I think obviously to Party Mahori
have gone down the protesting kind of thing and that's
working for them. They're doing really well in the polls
and they're connecting with the people they want to connect.
They will very very likely be returned to Parliament and
(07:19):
when at least one, if not all, of the Malordi seats.
But then you look at the Greens and you think, well, strategically,
is it a better idea for the Greens to try
and convince the voting public that they will be a
coherent coalition partner keep in mind, have never been in
cabinet before, or is it a better strategy for them
to also be like to Party Mahori and go down
the more protesting kind of route. And I think at
(07:40):
the moment they're going with the latter option, And I'm
not convinced that from a strategic perspective, if they're going
to convince middle New Zealand that the left can govern,
that that's actually the best approach.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
No, I agree that you can switch strategies in different cycles,
different parts of the cycle.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Right. Look, the interesting thing about this is about sixty
five percent thirty five percent of mums are not voting
for the main parties, So you know, the National and
label ended up with you know, sixty sixty five cents
the vote, So that means there's a hell of a
lot of votes up for grabs. And what people will
look at is, okay, what and Jack's right, what does
a coalition look like? It's not necessarily what does the
(08:14):
label look like? What does national look like? Is what
does the labor the Greens to Party Marror look like?
Get rid of the Party Marray and then still, you know,
Hipkins must be tearing some of his hair out when
he hears some of the pronunciations of the Greens, because
even a lot of their stuff is nutty but possibly acceptable.
But to Party Marrow, like I said, electric poison, rule
them out now before it costs labor absolutely the election.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
I do reckon it is possible, and I've got Nolan's
I take on this, but I do think it's possible
that to Party, Mardi and Labor would come to some
sort of agreement whereby the Party Mardi weren't in cabinets,
like it almost suits their MPs not to be part
of a cabinet.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
And ninety pearts going confidence sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
Exactly if they gave us applying confidence deal and see,
give us a couple of policies, give us appling, We'll
give you Supart confidence and we will retain the capacity
to stand outside of government and hurl stones at you
for the next three years. That would probably suit both sides.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
No, I agree with you.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Do you know either? What this does do is it
opens up the door for New Zealm. First, because you've
got Chris Luckton and serious Chris Lacson that Chris Lacson
is not resonating. Labor has become an urban liberal party
the people that are won around the country talking sense.
And now you've got Winston Peters. Pieter's unshackled from the
responsibilities of There's.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
Only one problem, Stuart. They need some new blood, someone
with experience.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Someone who Jack. I feel like some like a good
man who connects with the rural voter.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Yeah? Good idea?
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Yeah okay, who could have been? Who could it be?
We'll split all those ideas. Thank you, guys, appreciated. It's
going to happen every time he's on a Stuart Nash
Jack tame Our huddles Away from six.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
For more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drey. Listen live to
news Talks It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Twenty away from six the huddle with New Zealand Southeby's
International Realty Find You're one of a kind.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Actually, I took the boy to the rugby game for
the first time last week. I'll tell you about that shortly.
With me on the huddle we have Stuart Nash and
Jack Tame Highlands. Okay, Nashi, we're obviously being softened up
for asset sales next term. Is it going to fly?
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Sounds like it, doesn't it? And I'm completely gangsta itselves
to be honest, but I do agree with you vaned
MP up North. These guys have got to cut a profit,
but let's be clear, they can also experiment a little better.
I mean, if it's a state owned enterprise like land Corp,
it can be a little bit innovative and try things
that maybe a farmer who has to turn a profit
(00:41):
can't have word ago, so that let them be a
little bit innovative, but also let them why because you know,
we're built on the back of the of the agriculture
and horticulture sector that we are. Some of them, our
farmers are some of the most innovative in the world.
We do it incredibly well, but we need to keep innovating.
And if the state can't lead a lot of innovation,
than who does.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
But Stu, you just told me our farmers are already
super innovative. So why does the state have to innovate
if the farmers are already doing it Like, if it's
going to if it's going to work, farmers will try
it out. You don't need states to try these crazy
ideas out.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Well. One of the reason a lot of them aren't crazy,
but some of them start out crazy and becomes hugely profitable.
And one of the reasons why some of our farmers
are the most profitable in the world is because the
research has been done by the state. I mean, there's
fantastic collaborations between the different universities and the CRIS and
the private sector to drive innovation in a way that
makes us hugely profitable.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Jack, everything that Stu just told me makes me want
to sell Land corpor What about you?
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Well, I think it good point that the one of
the benefits of state owned enterprises is that they can
serve multiple purposes. Right now, we should all expect that
they are turning profits and turning good profits, that they're
turning profits that are comparable to the private sector. But
that being said, they are in a position whereby they
can serve multiple purposes. I mean, and I suggest TV
(02:01):
and D might arguably serve multiple purposes. For example, you like,
what are the multiple purposes well reflecting New Zealand stories
on television in a way that wouldn't necessarily otherwise be possible.
Now you can argue with whether or not there's a
worthwhile purpose, but we don't need to go down that
track now. But my point is that you know, to
Stuart's point, there are often multiple purposes for these state
(02:24):
on enterprises as to whether or not it will fly.
It's my it's my opinion that actually there might be
slightly more public appetite in this economic moment then there
has been in a long time. And just just think
about the way some of those public conversations have been
held around asset sales to things like airports, shares and
auckland and wellings. And I get it that shares sales
and those cities are different to selling off a majority
(02:46):
stake in a State on the enterprise. But I look
at the way that those conversations and debates have been
received and I can see something similar happening in the
next electoral term if this government's re elected. I think
if they spell it out and say, yep, we want
to have this debate, we want to walk off a
couple that actually a lot of voters will support that.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Yeah, I agree with you. Hey Stu, how do you
feel about having your photo taken when you go into
the supermarket so that they can keep the bad guys out?
Speaker 3 (03:10):
I didn't have a problem with this, to be honest.
A retail crime in this country costs the industry about
two point nine billion dollars. Health and safety is huge.
I had to look at the stats on the trial
that is up north. If there was no match to
any bad person, the image was automatically and immediately deleted.
So you know, I don't have a problem with this.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
No, I don't either, Jack You.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
Yeah, from what I understand about the trial, I think
it sounds like they took a whole series of really
smart and reasonable steps around some of those privacy concerns.
I think like consent is a big part of it, right, Like,
if they were to roll this out nationwide, I think
it would be really important that they informed potential customers
that this technology was being used and you know, I
(03:52):
think that's an important element. But personally, you know, do
I have any issue with my face being scanned to
make sure that I'm not a shop list or someone
who's been violent in there still on the past, No problem.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
No, not at all. No, they should go for it, absolutely,
just unleash it. Guys, will take a break. Come back
shortly sixteen away from.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Six the Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty achieve
extraordinary results with unparallel reach.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Back of the Huddle, Jack Tame Stuart Nashjak, what did
you make of the conflicting polls.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
I honest didn't read too much and I think general
trends kind of suggest that it's a bit of a
holding pattern at the moment. As far as his Zeeland, first,
I'd be very pleased with the state of affairs and
I think that's will be well on track to being
returned to the Parliament for the first time after having
been in a coalition. I mean, I'm still kind of
intrigued to see that the Greens are polling as well
(04:41):
as they are, right right, We've obviously had a kind
of horror eighteen months, but yeah, it feels like a
bit of a bit of a holding pattern. I think
increasingly though, we're going to see intensifyd questions about Labour's
past power and you know, the three party coalition with
Party Mardi, Greens and Labor, and more and more pressure
go on Labor to say what they will and won't
(05:02):
do if they do form some sort of you know,
some sort of Colorsian agreement or support agreement with the party. Marty,
I think, you know, it's pretty clear that that's only
the only real, realistic path to power, three party support
deal on the left. And yeah, I think the press
is on.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
There, Stu, could you explain why the Greens keep on
polling as why as well as they do when they
have the weirdest collection of odd balls in there?
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I have absolutely no idea. Not only odd balls, but
their policies are just out of this world. They're no
longer the Green Party. You know, Jeanette fitz Simon's and
by Donald were a couple of environmentals who believed that
they could make more of a difference by working within
the system than outside. And I would argue they did this.
This is a socially radical party. I've called them the
alliance and drag because that's what they sort of look like.
(05:48):
They're no longer an environmental party. They've got the brand,
but it astounds me. The other thing also is, you know,
David Seymour said that book van Velden might have saved
the budget with her pay equity policy. But but it's
tankers party. So we've got a Deputy Prime Minister Peacock
and the rounds. If he's the man in ninety four
percent of key, he's rather someone else. So but I
(06:10):
do agree with are you.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Doing in New Zealand first lines on our skin?
Speaker 3 (06:14):
Isn't it?
Speaker 4 (06:15):
Look?
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Winston and Shane are really the only two that are
resonating in the part of the world that I live in.
But but you know, you're just.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
You're you're out of out of control, out of.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Control do you live in you guys with an Auckland
and well, I live in the provinces, and you know
Labor isn't resonating. Chris simply doesn't. I've been very clear
on this. I do not know why Labor does not
rule out to party marrying. I don't know that.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
I don't know either, don't. I don't think that's because
because Stuart. I reckon, I reckon, they haven't realized how
toxic the Mardi Party are because they're listening to Willy,
and Willy thinks it's fine.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Well, I think it is ellectual poison.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Yeah, here's my here's my random tape. I think one
of the big challenges for Labor is that they have
to convince people that they can have a coherent government
on the left. And I think obviously to Party Mahori
have gone down the protesting kind of thing and that's
working for them. They're doing really well in the polls
and they're connecting with the people they want to connect.
They will very very likely be returned to Parliament and
(07:19):
when at least one, if not all, of the Malordi seats.
But then you look at the Greens and you think, well, strategically,
is it a better idea for the Greens to try
and convince the voting public that they will be a
coherent coalition partner keep in mind, have never been in
cabinet before, or is it a better strategy for them
to also be like to Party Mahori and go down
the more protesting kind of route. And I think at
(07:40):
the moment they're going with the latter option, And I'm
not convinced that from a strategic perspective, if they're going
to convince middle New Zealand that the left can govern,
that that's actually the best approach.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
No, I agree that you can switch strategies in different cycles,
different parts of the cycle.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Right. Look, the interesting thing about this is about sixty
five percent thirty five percent of mums are not voting
for the main parties, So you know, the National and
label ended up with you know, sixty sixty five cents
the vote, So that means there's a hell of a
lot of votes up for grabs. And what people will
look at is, okay, what and Jack's right, what does
a coalition look like? It's not necessarily what does the
(08:14):
label look like? What does national look like? Is what
does the labor the Greens to Party Marror look like?
Get rid of the Party Marray and then still, you know,
Hipkins must be tearing some of his hair out when
he hears some of the pronunciations of the Greens, because
even a lot of their stuff is nutty but possibly acceptable.
But to Party Marrow, like I said, electric poison, rule
them out now before it costs labor absolutely the election.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
I do reckon it is possible, and I've got Nolan's
I take on this, but I do think it's possible
that to Party, Mardi and Labor would come to some
sort of agreement whereby the Party Mardi weren't in cabinets,
like it almost suits their MPs not to be part
of a cabinet.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
And ninety pearts going confidence sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
Exactly if they gave us applying confidence deal and see,
give us a couple of policies, give us appling, We'll
give you Supart confidence and we will retain the capacity
to stand outside of government and hurl stones at you
for the next three years. That would probably suit both sides.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
No, I agree with you.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Do you know either? What this does do is it
opens up the door for New Zealm. First, because you've
got Chris Luckton and serious Chris Lacson that Chris Lacson
is not resonating. Labor has become an urban liberal party
the people that are won around the country talking sense.
And now you've got Winston Peters. Pieter's unshackled from the
responsibilities of There's.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
Only one problem, Stuart. They need some new blood, someone
with experience.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Someone who Jack. I feel like some like a good
man who connects with the rural voter.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Yeah? Good idea?
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Yeah okay, who could have been? Who could it be?
We'll split all those ideas. Thank you, guys, appreciated. It's
going to happen every time he's on a Stuart Nash
Jack tame Our huddles Away from six.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
For more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drey. Listen live to
news Talks It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
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.