July 16, 2026 • 10 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers' Union and former Labour Minister Phil Goff joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
Councils have been signing iwi partnership agreements before the RMA is replaced - are we worried about this? What is Chris Bishop trying to do?
ACT leader David Seymour is looking into banning smartphones for under-16s. Do we think this is the way to go? Should we wait and figure things out?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
On the huddle of us this evening. We've got Jordan
Williams of the Taxpayers Union in Phil GoF former Labor
ministan Or Klamare. Hello you too, Hello, yeah, hell hell
well thank you now, Jordan, what is going on here,
because it sounds to me like David Cymour in the
act Party want to get rid of this and stop
this from being carried over into the new RMA laws.
What is Chris Bishop of the problem here.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
No, I'm really worried. This is that that last interview
touched on the two things the Taxpayers Union has been
harping on about for some months now. One is that
counselors need, like company directors, very clear statutory rights to
be able to demand information. They are the mind of
the organization. They should be able to say anything, they
(00:41):
be able to mend it whatever information is held by
the council. That bill before Parliament to fix this that
unfortunately we were the germ off because we managed to
convince the previous Minister of Locatement to fix this problem.
Would make the problem even worse and harder to get
information out. That's first. The second, with relation to these
matter agreements, is that councils have been rushing it and
(01:05):
it is just like Simon Wattson's biggest screw up. If
there is one area where the National Party were very
clear prior to the last election that they would not
that they would stop co governance, it was three Waters.
They removed the requirement for co governance, but have turned
a blind eye and let councils ram in exactly the
(01:27):
same model as Nanaiamahota was requiring councils. And here we
have the same thing where that rima replacement bills say
that it puts into place in locks and statute effectively
what agreements the councils put in place prior to that
those bills coming into effect. So what is happening is
(01:49):
they're letting councils and it's the officials here, it's not
the elected officials running away and doing these deals. And
then the reason why they don't let the councilors sort
of keep them up to date along the way as
it then gets the council and it's sort of an
all or nothing and we've got us I'm sorry, couns,
we've got a deadline. We can't go back. We've got
all the parties in agreement and are being stitched up.
(02:11):
But really the responsibility lies with Simon Watts being the minister.
And I'm very sorry to tell listeners that it is
great news that actor is coming out swinging on this.
But it was the same with Three Waters where the
Nats deliberately did not take action, and from what I'm
hearing around the traps, that is, unless we really put
pressure on the government here, the same thing's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
So just answer my question. So is it's Simon Watts
who's the problem here?
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Simon Watts is the Minister of Local Government, but it
is the identical problem in terms of what happened with
the Three Waters here.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
It is the.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
RMA replace which is Chris Chris Bishop. The problem is
he dragging his heels.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
No, the problem is around the cabinet table. The National
Party are desperate not to engage on what is quite
a constitutional.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
So it's okay, So the Nats have got the ick
about race relations and they don't want to go.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I don't want to go back ahead ahead, and so
that if they can just you know, they're literally the
line is and I'm as you can tell, I'm quite
pissed off about us because when we have pot out
email blasts, I've had ministers, including a minister I used
to work for sale. Oh, this is just a taxpayer
union fundraising or whatever. I debate the substance, but that
is absolutely dishonest and on this is just like Three
(03:27):
Waters that they refuse to engage on it. They say, oh, well,
it's not us requiring and it's the councils it's but
it's they are Well, they're about to.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Be tested because to stop it, and they're not prepared
to stop it, then they're the problem. This is the
National Party of US. I Phil, what do you make
of all of this stuff?
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Well, I'm going to be consistent on this. I was
opposed to Three Waters because I didn't think central government
should be dictating to local government what it should be doing.
We were democratically elected, we're accountable to our electors. And
I'm opposed to the National Party and the Coalition's U
turn on the idea that you'd have localism, that the
democratically elected and accountable representatives on council shouldn't be told
(04:06):
what to do about every single thing by central government.
Why the hell do we have local government if central
government overrides it all the time. So what I say
is that local government's close to the people in their area.
That people don't like what the local government's doing, they
can change it, but they don't need to be dictated
to by central government on almost every aspect of what
(04:27):
they are doing. So I'm opposed to the ACT Party
trying to dictate to local government because David Seymour and
Christopher Luxen both said very sincerely, what we're going to
change if we are elected is that we're going to
restore localism. Well they're not. They're telling local government what
it should be doing. It's the electors that should tell
(04:48):
local government what they should be doing, not the central government.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
But reason mines can differ on lots of various telling
local councils what to do, surely it is the role
of central government to number one, ensure those democratically elected
councilors have the tools I able to demand the information
to effectively govern, and to protect that local democratic accountability.
(05:17):
Because of course, what these agreements are all about is
shifting powers out of the democratically elected councils into you know,
unelected body hands based on race.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Yeah, well, Look, I've been relatively recently involved in local government,
and I can tell you that it's not the case
of the officials telling us what to do. They put
their reports to us, they provide information, but councilors make
the decision. And I can't believe that the councilor from
the far North, the council isn't getting the information or
(05:53):
doesn't believe that she has the right. I demand the
information about what's happening. You know, I think that what
Heather order do is but some of the other local
councilors because I think that the particular council we had
on the program isn't necessarily representative of what the other
counselors believe that.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
You had the manner and strength to be able to
steer down officials. Every day I have counselors around the
country approach my team at the Taxpayers Union saying we
can't find out this information. I remember, I think prior
to your time, the late Dick quax On Auckland Council
being unable to get you know that it was the
councilors at the time the largest contract what the key
(06:31):
performance metrics were because he was told I'm sorry counselor
that's operational. This problem of counsel that's being unable to
get information is rife and we're never going to fix
the quality of governance if we don't give counselors the
tools in order to be able to govern. And the
unfortunate thing is the bill before Parliament would actually make
the problem worse.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Well, I got any talk from my own experience, and
that is that any counselor on my counsel that wanted
information from Council, they were entitled to it and they
could get it. And I wish that's the way democracy works,
and why that's why I didn't want three waders and
I didn't want central government. You know, central government came in,
they told us one thing on planning laws and intensification.
(07:16):
Labor and National teamed up together. It was a disaster,
you know, building the three by threes, including on floodplain areas.
Then they came back under the new government and imposed
Plan Change one hundred and twenty and then there was
a difference of opinion in the National Caucus, so the
Council halfway through.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
It, I do have to go back, Yeah, okay, we'll
just go to break raise. Yeah, I appreciate you, Ravey,
it was a good rave. We'll come back and just
to take right, we're back on the huddle Phil Goff
and Jordan Williams film What did you make of David
Seymore coming out with the idea of, instead of banning
social media for the kids, banning the smartphones for under sixteens.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Look, I think they're real problems with the access to
social media platforms by kids, and we all know what
they are. They're equally uninten ended consequences of either banning
their access to those platforms or banning them having smartphones
all together. When I was a kid, you probably well,
you know, you're a bit younger than me, a lot younger.
(08:13):
You know, if I wanted some information, I'd go to
the Encyclopedia Britannica. If I'm a kid today, I pick
up a phone and I access the Internet because that
gives me access to learning materials and things that I
need to know. If I want the news, then I'm
a kid. You know, I won't go out and buy
a newspaper. They probably never did, but they will look
(08:33):
up on what social media is saying about the news. Now,
I think the social media ban in Australia hasn't been successful.
We shouldn't rush into it. But equally, you know, banning
access to social media all together for kids under the
age of sixteen, I think, whether it's David Seymour's plan
or the government's plan, I think is doomed to failure
(08:54):
until they can get it right. So my advice would
be take your time, get it right, do it once,
and do it properly. Because the Australians are rushed into it,
the Brits are about to do the same, and I
think they'll fall on their faces.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Is it not more likely to work, Jordan if we
ban the hardware instead of the soft software.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, we're talking about on this panel before. I mean
reason minds can differ on whether you should ban social
media for under sixteens. The real issue is that you're
creating a sort of surveillance framework in order to police it,
where you have to ship your papers please, or show
your papers. And what it sets up is a regime.
We're basically the government. Well one knows who you are,
so you lose their anonymity, and two a regime. We're
(09:34):
sort of you know, we've we've all been there in
a hotel and in the cargo late at night, you're
on your computer and you might want to, you know,
look up pictures of Muhammad or something where the government
and the government's going to track you and know exactly
who you are.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
I thought you were going down to shame for a minute.
I was that the sexy music.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
That's the problem. That's that there it is. But that's
problem from the free speech perspective is that it sets
up and that's the sort of unintended consequences. So you
can support him on how do you avoid that it
affecting about us?
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Fill did his rave before? But does it? Is it
not more likely to work if you ban the phones
than the social I think it's.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Quite a cute solution. I mean it's civil liberty. It's
a question of whether you think the civil liberties apply
to kids or not well. And also it does force
you to buy instead of hand me down phones, you
have to then buy a kid friendly side.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Stop being such a scrooge. Hey, guys, thank you, look
after yourself. Phil Goff Jordan Williams are huddle this evening
seven away from six.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
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
On the huddle of us this evening. We've got Jordan
Williams of the Taxpayers Union in Phil GoF former Labor
ministan Or Klamare. Hello you too, Hello, yeah, hell hell
well thank you now, Jordan, what is going on here,
because it sounds to me like David Cymour in the
act Party want to get rid of this and stop
this from being carried over into the new RMA laws.
What is Chris Bishop of the problem here.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
No, I'm really worried. This is that that last interview
touched on the two things the Taxpayers Union has been
harping on about for some months now. One is that
counselors need, like company directors, very clear statutory rights to
be able to demand information. They are the mind of
the organization. They should be able to say anything, they
(00:41):
be able to mend it whatever information is held by
the council. That bill before Parliament to fix this that
unfortunately we were the germ off because we managed to
convince the previous Minister of Locatement to fix this problem.
Would make the problem even worse and harder to get
information out. That's first. The second, with relation to these
matter agreements, is that councils have been rushing it and
(01:05):
it is just like Simon Wattson's biggest screw up. If
there is one area where the National Party were very
clear prior to the last election that they would not
that they would stop co governance, it was three Waters.
They removed the requirement for co governance, but have turned
a blind eye and let councils ram in exactly the
(01:27):
same model as Nanaiamahota was requiring councils. And here we
have the same thing where that rima replacement bills say
that it puts into place in locks and statute effectively
what agreements the councils put in place prior to that
those bills coming into effect. So what is happening is
(01:49):
they're letting councils and it's the officials here, it's not
the elected officials running away and doing these deals. And
then the reason why they don't let the councilors sort
of keep them up to date along the way as
it then gets the council and it's sort of an
all or nothing and we've got us I'm sorry, couns,
we've got a deadline. We can't go back. We've got
all the parties in agreement and are being stitched up.
(02:11):
But really the responsibility lies with Simon Watts being the minister.
And I'm very sorry to tell listeners that it is
great news that actor is coming out swinging on this.
But it was the same with Three Waters where the
Nats deliberately did not take action, and from what I'm
hearing around the traps, that is, unless we really put
pressure on the government here, the same thing's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
So just answer my question. So is it's Simon Watts
who's the problem here?
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Simon Watts is the Minister of Local Government, but it
is the identical problem in terms of what happened with
the Three Waters here.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
It is the.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
RMA replace which is Chris Chris Bishop. The problem is
he dragging his heels.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
No, the problem is around the cabinet table. The National
Party are desperate not to engage on what is quite
a constitutional.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
So it's okay, So the Nats have got the ick
about race relations and they don't want to go.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I don't want to go back ahead ahead, and so
that if they can just you know, they're literally the
line is and I'm as you can tell, I'm quite
pissed off about us because when we have pot out
email blasts, I've had ministers, including a minister I used
to work for sale. Oh, this is just a taxpayer
union fundraising or whatever. I debate the substance, but that
is absolutely dishonest and on this is just like Three
(03:27):
Waters that they refuse to engage on it. They say, oh, well,
it's not us requiring and it's the councils it's but
it's they are Well, they're about to.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Be tested because to stop it, and they're not prepared
to stop it, then they're the problem. This is the
National Party of US. I Phil, what do you make
of all of this stuff?
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Well, I'm going to be consistent on this. I was
opposed to Three Waters because I didn't think central government
should be dictating to local government what it should be doing.
We were democratically elected, we're accountable to our electors. And
I'm opposed to the National Party and the Coalition's U
turn on the idea that you'd have localism, that the
democratically elected and accountable representatives on council shouldn't be told
(04:06):
what to do about every single thing by central government.
Why the hell do we have local government if central
government overrides it all the time. So what I say
is that local government's close to the people in their area.
That people don't like what the local government's doing, they
can change it, but they don't need to be dictated
to by central government on almost every aspect of what
(04:27):
they are doing. So I'm opposed to the ACT Party
trying to dictate to local government because David Seymour and
Christopher Luxen both said very sincerely, what we're going to
change if we are elected is that we're going to
restore localism. Well they're not. They're telling local government what
it should be doing. It's the electors that should tell
(04:48):
local government what they should be doing, not the central government.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
But reason mines can differ on lots of various telling
local councils what to do, surely it is the role
of central government to number one, ensure those democratically elected
councilors have the tools I able to demand the information
to effectively govern, and to protect that local democratic accountability.
(05:17):
Because of course, what these agreements are all about is
shifting powers out of the democratically elected councils into you know,
unelected body hands based on race.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Yeah, well, Look, I've been relatively recently involved in local government,
and I can tell you that it's not the case
of the officials telling us what to do. They put
their reports to us, they provide information, but councilors make
the decision. And I can't believe that the councilor from
the far North, the council isn't getting the information or
(05:53):
doesn't believe that she has the right. I demand the
information about what's happening. You know, I think that what
Heather order do is but some of the other local
councilors because I think that the particular council we had
on the program isn't necessarily representative of what the other
counselors believe that.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
You had the manner and strength to be able to
steer down officials. Every day I have counselors around the
country approach my team at the Taxpayers Union saying we
can't find out this information. I remember, I think prior
to your time, the late Dick quax On Auckland Council
being unable to get you know that it was the
councilors at the time the largest contract what the key
(06:31):
performance metrics were because he was told I'm sorry counselor
that's operational. This problem of counsel that's being unable to
get information is rife and we're never going to fix
the quality of governance if we don't give counselors the
tools in order to be able to govern. And the
unfortunate thing is the bill before Parliament would actually make
the problem worse.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Well, I got any talk from my own experience, and
that is that any counselor on my counsel that wanted
information from Council, they were entitled to it and they
could get it. And I wish that's the way democracy works,
and why that's why I didn't want three waders and
I didn't want central government. You know, central government came in,
they told us one thing on planning laws and intensification.
(07:16):
Labor and National teamed up together. It was a disaster,
you know, building the three by threes, including on floodplain areas.
Then they came back under the new government and imposed
Plan Change one hundred and twenty and then there was
a difference of opinion in the National Caucus, so the
Council halfway through.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
It, I do have to go back, Yeah, okay, we'll
just go to break raise. Yeah, I appreciate you, Ravey,
it was a good rave. We'll come back and just
to take right, we're back on the huddle Phil Goff
and Jordan Williams film What did you make of David
Seymore coming out with the idea of, instead of banning
social media for the kids, banning the smartphones for under sixteens.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Look, I think they're real problems with the access to
social media platforms by kids, and we all know what
they are. They're equally uninten ended consequences of either banning
their access to those platforms or banning them having smartphones
all together. When I was a kid, you probably well,
you know, you're a bit younger than me, a lot younger.
(08:13):
You know, if I wanted some information, I'd go to
the Encyclopedia Britannica. If I'm a kid today, I pick
up a phone and I access the Internet because that
gives me access to learning materials and things that I
need to know. If I want the news, then I'm
a kid. You know, I won't go out and buy
a newspaper. They probably never did, but they will look
(08:33):
up on what social media is saying about the news. Now,
I think the social media ban in Australia hasn't been successful.
We shouldn't rush into it. But equally, you know, banning
access to social media all together for kids under the
age of sixteen, I think, whether it's David Seymour's plan
or the government's plan, I think is doomed to failure
(08:54):
until they can get it right. So my advice would
be take your time, get it right, do it once,
and do it properly. Because the Australians are rushed into it,
the Brits are about to do the same, and I
think they'll fall on their faces.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Is it not more likely to work, Jordan if we
ban the hardware instead of the soft software.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, we're talking about on this panel before. I mean
reason minds can differ on whether you should ban social
media for under sixteens. The real issue is that you're
creating a sort of surveillance framework in order to police it,
where you have to ship your papers please, or show
your papers. And what it sets up is a regime.
We're basically the government. Well one knows who you are,
so you lose their anonymity, and two a regime. We're
(09:34):
sort of you know, we've we've all been there in
a hotel and in the cargo late at night, you're
on your computer and you might want to, you know,
look up pictures of Muhammad or something where the government
and the government's going to track you and know exactly
who you are.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
I thought you were going down to shame for a minute.
I was that the sexy music.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
That's the problem. That's that there it is. But that's
problem from the free speech perspective is that it sets
up and that's the sort of unintended consequences. So you
can support him on how do you avoid that it
affecting about us?
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Fill did his rave before? But does it? Is it
not more likely to work if you ban the phones
than the social I think it's.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Quite a cute solution. I mean it's civil liberty. It's
a question of whether you think the civil liberties apply
to kids or not well. And also it does force
you to buy instead of hand me down phones, you
have to then buy a kid friendly side.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Stop being such a scrooge. Hey, guys, thank you, look
after yourself. Phil Goff Jordan Williams are huddle this evening
seven away from six.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
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
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
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.
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