December 10, 2025 • 10 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers' Union 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 Australian social media ban for teens under 16 kicked in today - does New Zealand need to follow their lead?
What do we make of the big Nicola Willis - Ruth Richardson debate? Do we think this will happen? And should they bring it to Newstalk ZB?
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):
The Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty, a name
you can trust locally and globally.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Joining me on the Huddle tonight is Jordan Williams from
the Taxpayers Union and Jack Tame, host of Q and
A on TV and Z and here on News Talks
There Be as well. Good evening. Hello you s right
good to have you on the show. Jordan, I'll start
with you. Is any of what you just heard going
to do anything.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Well? I think that we've got a great test case
in Australia that we can take away and see approach.
It's been the social media van for the under sixteens
has been something that in the Free Speech Union, the
board have been staffed, have been pretty actively debating. I'm
a free speech absolutist, but I think that reasonal minds
can differ on it on the basis that whether human
(00:48):
rights are only applicable to adults or applicable to all,
I think that there'd be many parents out there that
would generally be pretty supportive of free speech and pretty
concerned about government over regulation or regulation of what you
posted online when you look at the UK, but might
well be sympathetic to the arguments that actually social media
(01:09):
does a tremendous amount of harm to kids.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Yeah, I just think Jack, if you was if you
were that worried about your kid in social media, you
just wouldn't get them a fine, wouldn't you.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
Ah. I, First of all, I totally agree. I'm just one
hundred percent on the parents need to step up here
as well. Camp that being said, I don't have teenagers yet,
so I can imagine that there's going to be a
bit more pressure coming down the line. It's all well
and good to say parents should be doing more, when
you do you don't have the teenagers yet. I think
a couple of things. First of all, I don't see
why we can't wait six or twelve months and just
(01:41):
see how things go in Australia. Like yep, if you
want to be a fast follower, absolutely, but let's make
sure we see what works and what doesn't in Australia
before we leap to some conclusion. Second of all, if
you think that regulating the social media giants and the
digital giants is important, might I suggest that taxing them
properly could be very high up on the list of
things we need to be doing. And Third, of all,
(02:02):
I'm actually very closely aligned with Jordan when it comes
to free speech, and I do think there are some
pretty big free speech questions here that in my mind
at least aren't yet resolved. So you know, I'm not
convinced that necessarily an outright ban is going to achieve
what we want it to achieve, but I'm open minded
at this stage. Wait and see how things go in Australia.
(02:22):
See if alternative social media platforms pop up for the kids,
and I reckon the six or twelve months, we make
a call.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah, listening to that interview with have you interviewed Carl before?
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Jack?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I'm sure you have. I had an interviewed him before.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
Yeah, I might have.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Yeah, Yeah, there was a lot of learnings, a lot
of waffle talk. It well lost me a little bit.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
I'm not a fan of it. I'm not a fan
of the of the term learnings. I'm certainly not a
fan of the term learnings. I much prefer that the
old fashioned lesson. That being said, if the principle is
taking some lessons from Australia and learning from their experience,
then I'm very much.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Yeah, we did an interview with it. We sit down
with new MPs at the beginning of each new Parliament
for our podcast for MP's and Decks, and he was
actually one of the ones that has had a surprising
business background. But as obviously as a backbench MP seldom
gets into the media. I'd give him a chance.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Ry, Okay, all right, he probably agreed. Do you know
what it is? He's been sitting in a select committee
for too long and now he's been writing a select
committee report and he sounds like a select committee. I
think that might be a problem.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
William hanging around with too many bureaucrats exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Jordan Williams and Jack Tame back on the huddle in
just a sec.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
The Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty the only truly.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Global brand, thirteen minutes away from six on News talks
B Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers Union, Jack Tame You
know Jack, he's here as well. So the debate between
Nicola and Ruth, Jack, why do you think Nicka. I
understand why Ruth Richardson has agreed to do it, but
why would Nicola even suggest doing something like that? But
(04:06):
we'll go to Jordan. Jordan, what do you think the
motive is for Nichola Willis.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Well, I think that the facts aren't on Nichola Willis's side.
You know, she promised the cutspending, she's increased it. She
promised to reduce borrowing, but depending on how you measure,
it's either about the same or it's actually out of
borrowing at a faster rate. And she keeps kicking back
the surplus into touch and our treasury are getting concerned
that the fiscal deficits even larger. So what she's doing
(04:32):
is doing what Grant Robinson would do, really and reaching
to a sort of nineteen nineties far left sort of
caricature of what Ruth did to get the books back
into shape, rather than actually debate the facts. There's a
bit of funny business going on now. We have expressed publicly,
you know, Nichola Willis said yesterday or debate you anywhere, anytime,
(04:54):
and we've said great, Well, we've had offers from newstalk'
thereb to debate next Thursday, after the opening of the books.
That's our preference. But now there's all sorts of things about,
oh well, no, we want to do next year with
perhaps TVNZ or the spin off, which is a taxpayer
fundedlistical website. No, let's debate the books is an opening
(05:15):
of the books next week. Rumor around town is that
Nikola Willis is going to kick the surplus down yet
another year. So when she got elected, the surplus was
four years away, it's still four years away, and next
week it's probably five years away. Well that's what we
should be debating. But I mean, from our perspective, the
purpose of our campaign that's launching tomorrow is to inject
(05:36):
the fiscal truths the you know, the elephants in the room.
While there's lots of talk of asterety and cutting back
in fact, again, as Trusury pointed out, the only savings
that Nichola Willis has made have actually just been deployed
our square and overall the spending is up and the
fiscal position is worse. And look, as much as the
(05:59):
National Party might be upset with us pointing it out,
that's not what the platform was well and what National Party.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Is not what was on the tracker, not what was
written on the packer. Jack, I understand you're back with
this now. Nice to have you here.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Amazing what happens when you when you turn them you
buston off again. Hey, how you go able to communicate?
Speaker 2 (06:19):
It's an incredible feature. Hey, I think that that this
is interesting the Nicola Willis think because it's like, you
know that the ministers don't normally like to debate well anyone,
unless they absolutely have to do in an election year.
So it's like, why would you do this? Do you
think there's something about Do you think she accidentally said,
oh yeah, I should debate her? Or do you think
this was tactical? And do you think having a debate
(06:41):
between the right and the further right is actually quite
a good way to frame come on, but a good
way to frame a debate heading into an election year.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Well, so, first of all, I don't think it was
a mistake. I think if it were a mistake, then
maybe agreeing would be one thing. But the fact that
she said anywhere anytime, I think Nicola Willis, we can
all agree it's probably smart enough that she wouldn't have
said those words unless she actually meant them. Now, whether
or not she actually follows through, I guess we'll find
out next Thursday afternoon. We called it last she didn't
see us, Okay, okay, okay, let's give her the benefit
(07:14):
of the doubt on that front, just just for the
sake of argument, then I would say, from her perspective,
and look at the today's poll, the tax Faer you know,
Curier Pole today, Taxai and Curia Pole today. Nikola Willis
is concerned about centrist boss right and if she, if
she is to think about her support in this in
(07:35):
the so called political center, maybe she thinks that actually
a debate with rth Ruth Richardson isn't going to cost
her massive numbers of centrist voss even if she ends
up losing that debate or is perceived to have losed
that debate. Maybe that is the kind of the political
equation in her head right now. I also wonder if
she's just if she's just an insensitive about about being
(07:57):
a text.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
I think it's the format, Jack, I think it's the former.
I think this is that there is no better opportunity
for her to make one to make her self look
centrist and to make that you know, say, actually I
am spending quite a bit so those attacks from the
left won't stick. But also heading into an election year
and before our budget next May, saying look how crazy
(08:19):
labour looks now, you know, we're having this debate about
how much we should be cutting and look how much
they want to spend Jordan.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Can I just have one thing and not not not
to do Jordan's job for him, but but I mean,
we'll wait and see whether on a lot of surfaces
and pushed back another year. But let us not also
forget that Nichola Willis changed the accounting measure. So we
had obergal this is how we measured that, the surpluses
and deficit. She pushed it. She changed it to obergall x,
which makes it easier to get to a surplus and
(08:46):
still have had to push that surplus back.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
So yeah, on a traditional measure, there's never a surplus.
And that's not again it's not that's not what we
voted for. So it's two things on that, I mean,
on the center side of the problem in the eye.
The ironic situation is the government is taking political heat
to perceived austerity because that's what you read about, you know,
(09:08):
in the media and you see in the talking kads.
But they're not getting the political upside of fixing the
economy by getting the boot of big government off the
neck of the economy. The second is the Tomorrow's campaign
is actually quite funny. It's a classic taxpayers Union tang
in cheek campaign with a point underneath us that the
(09:30):
thing that we find incredible is as a result of
a single piece from Matthew Houton, Nichola Willis has reacted
and turned Tomorrow's campaign into something absolutely enormous, which she
probably could have laughed it off if she if she
had not engaged. They're great for us and great actually
(09:51):
for taxpayers because of injects. You know, the objective's campaign
was to inject the fiscal truth and point out the
elephants in the room and each ca the public about
what Treasury is saying, of how bad the situation is,
and that with the greatest respect to Nikola, she's not
as you say, She's not done what it says on
the pattern.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
And we will get a debate out of all of
this too. Jordan, thank you for that, Jordan Williams and
the text pacing injectaim from Q and eight.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
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.
The Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty, a name
you can trust locally and globally.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Joining me on the Huddle tonight is Jordan Williams from
the Taxpayers Union and Jack Tame, host of Q and
A on TV and Z and here on News Talks
There Be as well. Good evening. Hello you s right
good to have you on the show. Jordan, I'll start
with you. Is any of what you just heard going
to do anything.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Well? I think that we've got a great test case
in Australia that we can take away and see approach.
It's been the social media van for the under sixteens
has been something that in the Free Speech Union, the
board have been staffed, have been pretty actively debating. I'm
a free speech absolutist, but I think that reasonal minds
can differ on it on the basis that whether human
(00:48):
rights are only applicable to adults or applicable to all,
I think that there'd be many parents out there that
would generally be pretty supportive of free speech and pretty
concerned about government over regulation or regulation of what you
posted online when you look at the UK, but might
well be sympathetic to the arguments that actually social media
(01:09):
does a tremendous amount of harm to kids.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Yeah, I just think Jack, if you was if you
were that worried about your kid in social media, you
just wouldn't get them a fine, wouldn't you.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
Ah. I, First of all, I totally agree. I'm just one
hundred percent on the parents need to step up here
as well. Camp that being said, I don't have teenagers yet,
so I can imagine that there's going to be a
bit more pressure coming down the line. It's all well
and good to say parents should be doing more, when
you do you don't have the teenagers yet. I think
a couple of things. First of all, I don't see
why we can't wait six or twelve months and just
(01:41):
see how things go in Australia. Like yep, if you
want to be a fast follower, absolutely, but let's make
sure we see what works and what doesn't in Australia
before we leap to some conclusion. Second of all, if
you think that regulating the social media giants and the
digital giants is important, might I suggest that taxing them
properly could be very high up on the list of
things we need to be doing. And Third, of all,
(02:02):
I'm actually very closely aligned with Jordan when it comes
to free speech, and I do think there are some
pretty big free speech questions here that in my mind
at least aren't yet resolved. So you know, I'm not
convinced that necessarily an outright ban is going to achieve
what we want it to achieve, but I'm open minded
at this stage. Wait and see how things go in Australia.
(02:22):
See if alternative social media platforms pop up for the kids,
and I reckon the six or twelve months, we make
a call.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah, listening to that interview with have you interviewed Carl before?
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Jack?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I'm sure you have. I had an interviewed him before.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
Yeah, I might have.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Yeah, Yeah, there was a lot of learnings, a lot
of waffle talk. It well lost me a little bit.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
I'm not a fan of it. I'm not a fan
of the of the term learnings. I'm certainly not a
fan of the term learnings. I much prefer that the
old fashioned lesson. That being said, if the principle is
taking some lessons from Australia and learning from their experience,
then I'm very much.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Yeah, we did an interview with it. We sit down
with new MPs at the beginning of each new Parliament
for our podcast for MP's and Decks, and he was
actually one of the ones that has had a surprising
business background. But as obviously as a backbench MP seldom
gets into the media. I'd give him a chance.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Ry, Okay, all right, he probably agreed. Do you know
what it is? He's been sitting in a select committee
for too long and now he's been writing a select
committee report and he sounds like a select committee. I
think that might be a problem.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
William hanging around with too many bureaucrats exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Jordan Williams and Jack Tame back on the huddle in
just a sec.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
The Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty the only truly.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Global brand, thirteen minutes away from six on News talks
B Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers Union, Jack Tame You
know Jack, he's here as well. So the debate between
Nicola and Ruth, Jack, why do you think Nicka. I
understand why Ruth Richardson has agreed to do it, but
why would Nicola even suggest doing something like that? But
(04:06):
we'll go to Jordan. Jordan, what do you think the
motive is for Nichola Willis.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Well, I think that the facts aren't on Nichola Willis's side.
You know, she promised the cutspending, she's increased it. She
promised to reduce borrowing, but depending on how you measure,
it's either about the same or it's actually out of
borrowing at a faster rate. And she keeps kicking back
the surplus into touch and our treasury are getting concerned
that the fiscal deficits even larger. So what she's doing
(04:32):
is doing what Grant Robinson would do, really and reaching
to a sort of nineteen nineties far left sort of
caricature of what Ruth did to get the books back
into shape, rather than actually debate the facts. There's a
bit of funny business going on now. We have expressed publicly,
you know, Nichola Willis said yesterday or debate you anywhere, anytime,
(04:54):
and we've said great, Well, we've had offers from newstalk'
thereb to debate next Thursday, after the opening of the books.
That's our preference. But now there's all sorts of things about,
oh well, no, we want to do next year with
perhaps TVNZ or the spin off, which is a taxpayer
fundedlistical website. No, let's debate the books is an opening
(05:15):
of the books next week. Rumor around town is that
Nikola Willis is going to kick the surplus down yet
another year. So when she got elected, the surplus was
four years away, it's still four years away, and next
week it's probably five years away. Well that's what we
should be debating. But I mean, from our perspective, the
purpose of our campaign that's launching tomorrow is to inject
(05:36):
the fiscal truths the you know, the elephants in the room.
While there's lots of talk of asterety and cutting back
in fact, again, as Trusury pointed out, the only savings
that Nichola Willis has made have actually just been deployed
our square and overall the spending is up and the
fiscal position is worse. And look, as much as the
(05:59):
National Party might be upset with us pointing it out,
that's not what the platform was well and what National Party.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Is not what was on the tracker, not what was
written on the packer. Jack, I understand you're back with
this now. Nice to have you here.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Amazing what happens when you when you turn them you
buston off again. Hey, how you go able to communicate?
Speaker 2 (06:19):
It's an incredible feature. Hey, I think that that this
is interesting the Nicola Willis think because it's like, you
know that the ministers don't normally like to debate well anyone,
unless they absolutely have to do in an election year.
So it's like, why would you do this? Do you
think there's something about Do you think she accidentally said,
oh yeah, I should debate her? Or do you think
this was tactical? And do you think having a debate
(06:41):
between the right and the further right is actually quite
a good way to frame come on, but a good
way to frame a debate heading into an election year.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Well, so, first of all, I don't think it was
a mistake. I think if it were a mistake, then
maybe agreeing would be one thing. But the fact that
she said anywhere anytime, I think Nicola Willis, we can
all agree it's probably smart enough that she wouldn't have
said those words unless she actually meant them. Now, whether
or not she actually follows through, I guess we'll find
out next Thursday afternoon. We called it last she didn't
see us, Okay, okay, okay, let's give her the benefit
(07:14):
of the doubt on that front, just just for the
sake of argument, then I would say, from her perspective,
and look at the today's poll, the tax Faer you know,
Curier Pole today, Taxai and Curia Pole today. Nikola Willis
is concerned about centrist boss right and if she, if
she is to think about her support in this in
(07:35):
the so called political center, maybe she thinks that actually
a debate with rth Ruth Richardson isn't going to cost
her massive numbers of centrist voss even if she ends
up losing that debate or is perceived to have losed
that debate. Maybe that is the kind of the political
equation in her head right now. I also wonder if
she's just if she's just an insensitive about about being
(07:57):
a text.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
I think it's the format, Jack, I think it's the former.
I think this is that there is no better opportunity
for her to make one to make her self look
centrist and to make that you know, say, actually I
am spending quite a bit so those attacks from the
left won't stick. But also heading into an election year
and before our budget next May, saying look how crazy
(08:19):
labour looks now, you know, we're having this debate about
how much we should be cutting and look how much
they want to spend Jordan.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Can I just have one thing and not not not
to do Jordan's job for him, but but I mean,
we'll wait and see whether on a lot of surfaces
and pushed back another year. But let us not also
forget that Nichola Willis changed the accounting measure. So we
had obergal this is how we measured that, the surpluses
and deficit. She pushed it. She changed it to obergall x,
which makes it easier to get to a surplus and
(08:46):
still have had to push that surplus back.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
So yeah, on a traditional measure, there's never a surplus.
And that's not again it's not that's not what we
voted for. So it's two things on that, I mean,
on the center side of the problem in the eye.
The ironic situation is the government is taking political heat
to perceived austerity because that's what you read about, you know,
(09:08):
in the media and you see in the talking kads.
But they're not getting the political upside of fixing the
economy by getting the boot of big government off the
neck of the economy. The second is the Tomorrow's campaign
is actually quite funny. It's a classic taxpayers Union tang
in cheek campaign with a point underneath us that the
(09:30):
thing that we find incredible is as a result of
a single piece from Matthew Houton, Nichola Willis has reacted
and turned Tomorrow's campaign into something absolutely enormous, which she
probably could have laughed it off if she if she
had not engaged. They're great for us and great actually
(09:51):
for taxpayers because of injects. You know, the objective's campaign
was to inject the fiscal truth and point out the
elephants in the room and each ca the public about
what Treasury is saying, of how bad the situation is,
and that with the greatest respect to Nikola, she's not
as you say, She's not done what it says on
the pattern.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
And we will get a debate out of all of
this too. Jordan, thank you for that, Jordan Williams and
the text pacing injectaim from Q and eight.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
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
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
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