April 30, 2025 • 10 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Kiwiblog writer and Curia pollster David Farrar 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!
Wellington City Council has voted in favour of supporting lowering the voting age to 16 in local body elections. This is never going to go anywhere - is it?
The Government's latest curriculum update involves teaching students about financial literacy. Do we think schools should be teaching this - or should it be taught at home?
What do we make of Nicola's almost zero-budget one day on? Do we agree with Nicola's plan - or should she be going further?
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):
On the Huddle of Us. We have David Farrahkiria Polster
and QBI blog writer obviously, and then Jack Tame hosted
Q and AS and Saturday mornings on zb Hollo you too, Okay,
David thought on Wellington City Council doing this.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Oh, it's just ridiculous. I'm sorry. I've actually polled on
do people think sixteen and seventeen year old should vote?
And hugely unpopular, like around twenty percent. I think it's
a good idea that children should be voting. And the
reason this always comes from people on the left is
because what respect when you're sixteen seventeen. You're not paying
a mortgage, you're not paying rates, you're not even paying rent,
(00:37):
you're not really paying taxes. You might be earn here,
but you know tex at that rates there, So of
course you think everything the left proposers is a wonderful idea.
So when labor politicians say let's lower up to sixteen,
what they're actually saying is we want more votes, etcetera.
Eighteen is your age of adulthood. And I've never been convinced,
(01:01):
you know, if you're saying sixteen year olds are bright
enough to vote? Also a fifteen year old, so a
fourteen year old, so it really comes down to what
should it be and eighteen I think it's free standard.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
I mean jack that, I mean, I take the point
that sometimes you have to do things that are symbolic.
But this thing has been killed by this government. It
is such a redundant thing to do.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Yeah, I don't think it's going anywhere. I think being
kind of acknowledged that in fact, I mean, this is
just a they're just voting on a motion to put
this to lg NZ, right, So it's not like they're
actually you know, this is going to be passed and
any times then the actually going to we're actually going
to see this. I mean, I think at the same time,
you know, it would be unreasonable for us to assert
that they can't, you know, to use your line walk
(01:45):
into a garment. At the same time, to a certain extent,
if they had spent a day debating this and vast
council resources, I think would have a much greater reason
to be upset. But to go back to a line
that that being used in that interview, you know, it's
in just thing he's said that you know, there shouldn't
be taxation without representation, And I think I think that
you know there is some veenis in that argument, But
(02:08):
can either of you correct me? Here? Am I right
in thinking that that sixteen year olds, because they can't
own property, won't be paying rates? Thus the taxation without
representation argument doesn't necessarily apply to very good.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Our sixteen year old is not allowed to own property.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Jack, I just I think that's right.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
I could be wrong, So I'm going on flying by
the seat of my pants.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Now, well, do you have to be David? I didn't
know this.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
I think it's eighteen, don't Yeah, I think legally, let's
let's double check that before we commit to that life.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
That's fascinating.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Okay, listen, David, it was worth checking that.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Yeah, financial financial literacy in schools, David, I take it
that we don't teach may I may actually have been
convinced by Erica Stanford. I don't want to, like, I
don't want to overload our teachers, but and I feel
like this is something that parents should be teaching the kids.
But obviously there are a bunch of things up here
don't teach their kids, so we have to. So therefore
it's in schools. Do you agree.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Yeah, look, I think this definitely falls into that care. Agree.
I could even say there's probably some parents who could
do with going to that financial literacy course. But it's
just so important what the days have gone of the
nineteen fifties and sixties where you can just leave school,
work hard for ten years and buy the house and
(03:26):
live there for forty years and keep the same job. Today,
if you want to own a house one day, you
need to be saving from when you're at school. Actually,
you need a savings culture early on. So I think
financial literacy as part of that savings culture is a
very good idea. But yeah, yeah, make sure it's not
(03:46):
being taught at the expense of English and mathematics. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Well, I don't think it is, Jack, because it's in
the social studies category right where largely what they do
there is they just color and maps, don't they.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
I think it's no.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
I mean, do you have a better social studies experience,
not just.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Because we were Yeah, I think so, Yeah, I think we.
I think we let a lot of things about the world.
But I think, I mean this is kind of like
a like low level applied maths or applied economics in
a way.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Isn't it.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
And one thing that I reckon, like, I support it,
I don't have a problem with it, And I think,
you know, if we're all slightly more financially literally, there
would be a great thing. But one thing I would
say is that I reckon younger people today are actually
a little more financially literate than maybe the generations before them,
because of lots of online tools and you know, even
the barriers to kind of owning shares and training and
(04:34):
being engaged with public exchanges like you think about shares,
is that that has totally changed the game for.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
A lot of young people.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
And even when people go into their you know, get
into their first jobs and are enrolled in key we
say to them, for example, they're able to see the
impact of compound interest and the impact of you know,
changing you know, share prices and stuff a whole lot
more than they might have been able to in the past.
So I reckon that, Yeah, younger people today are maybe
actually slightly more financially literate than we give them.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Maybe so, Hey, Laura the German has had a look
at it. It is eighteen and it is because you
have to be legally party to a contract.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
For land as well as as well as for like that,
just just to be just a triple check. I would
never go against Laura the German because Laura.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Jack wants you to look at it it's land as well.
Can you please do that for Jack? Yeah, she's she's German.
All right, we'll take a break, come back shortly back
with the huddle. Jack. Laura looked it up and you
can own land at any age, but your age will
be noted on the title.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
There you go.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
You did you already know this? Did you already know this?
And then set this whole thing up so that you
could look like you're really smart on air.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
I think I'm accidentally structured why I thought was a
good argument against young people voting in local body elections,
and then I fact checked my own argument and found
it actually, I'm not entirely correct, and then I fact
checked the fact checking. But look the number of the
number of under eighteen year olds who own land and
thus pay.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Rates on New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
I would have thought it was infinitesimal to at least.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Yeah, totally. Now, David, do you think Nikola has done
a brilliant job curtailing her new spending or should she
have gone further.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Probably done as much as you can, because here's the reality.
When you talk about that operational allowance, most of us
is needed for non discretion you stuff, just that increased
population and aging and health. So when they actually say
we've only got like one point one billion instead of
three billion dollars, effectively everyone else is taking a hair cut.
(06:35):
So yeah, I think it's probably. I mean, don't get
me wrong, there's definitely more you could can't. But then
you're getting into not just efficiency saving, but we're going
to disestablish programs. You might be saying, Okay, we can't
afford fine you or anymore.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
No, no, what about we can't afford the women's ministry
and we cut that load of nonsense.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Music of my years. There are around ten ministries that
could happily be moved.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
We go on, David, name them. Okay, the Women's Ministry
needs to go. What else?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Well, here's the thing. All those demographic ones, woman, Pacific,
MARII affairs, they all get ignored by the government. If
you moved them all together into a high powered ministry
of social equity, they actually would probably be have more
impact with government than all these small micro ministries a.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Lot of them. Okay, that's four, give me another you know,
owe me another six. You said there were ten.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Well, well, if you really want me to get going,
I actually would mooge the entire public service into twelve
mega ministries. You have one in the law and order space,
one in the economic space, one in the health, one
in the education Like we've got four education agencies? Did
qa pec that? And you have one chief exector for
the sector, one minister for the seat. So you reduced
(08:01):
can kind of like what was done with mb Yes,
but more successfully.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Yes. Are you liking the sound of this, Jack, Because
David and I what obviously can see that there is
room for Nicola to go even harder.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Do you know, in principle, I have absolutely no problem
with that, with the concept of breaking up those, you know,
instead of having those kind of disparate demographic ministries, considering
in principle the idea of merging them, I think there
potentially are big efficiencies to be made.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I mean, where the raw not.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Now is the time for that kind of reform of
the public sector might be up for up for debate,
But yeah, I mean I think I think David's core
point is right in.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
That now is now the time, Jack, because we are
in a financial we are running structural deficits that are
so bad apparently we're at the bottom of the oecd
for it. We need to save huge amounts of money.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Yeah, yeah, we do. And and you know, when you
look at that operating allows I feel like we're not
going to have a full kind of measure of Williss's
or the impact of Nicola Willis's actions until we can
see how her kind of redirecting and reprioritization of money
across different ministries and causes, like what the true effect
of that is. Because when we're talking about our operating allowance,
(09:13):
we're efectively talk about new money, right, and we need
to think about not just the new money, but also
the money that's going to be kind of being shifted around.
But yeah, I mean, yeah, yeah, maybe, although whether or
not that would be in the short term interests of growth,
which is of course what this government has kind of
been their political fortunes on for the time being, Whether
or not in the short term that would be in
(09:34):
the interests of growth and massive reforms to the public sector,
you know, potentially thousands of thousands of more public servants
facing redundancy, that kind of thing. It might not be,
but then again, maybe we would look back at it
in ten years time and go, Actually, those were the
reforms that have allowed New Zealand to climb out of
a structural deficit that was, you know, basically not moving
(09:54):
for the time being.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
You know, the path the.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Surface of the time being looks scarcely believable. I think,
you know in anyone's for you regardless.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Of the totally agree. Hey guys, thank you so much,
really appreciate both your time. That David Farrah and Jack Tamer.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
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. We have David Farrahkiria Polster
and QBI blog writer obviously, and then Jack Tame hosted
Q and AS and Saturday mornings on zb Hollo you too, Okay,
David thought on Wellington City Council doing this.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Oh, it's just ridiculous. I'm sorry. I've actually polled on
do people think sixteen and seventeen year old should vote?
And hugely unpopular, like around twenty percent. I think it's
a good idea that children should be voting. And the
reason this always comes from people on the left is
because what respect when you're sixteen seventeen. You're not paying
a mortgage, you're not paying rates, you're not even paying rent,
(00:37):
you're not really paying taxes. You might be earn here,
but you know tex at that rates there, So of
course you think everything the left proposers is a wonderful idea.
So when labor politicians say let's lower up to sixteen,
what they're actually saying is we want more votes, etcetera.
Eighteen is your age of adulthood. And I've never been convinced,
(01:01):
you know, if you're saying sixteen year olds are bright
enough to vote? Also a fifteen year old, so a
fourteen year old, so it really comes down to what
should it be and eighteen I think it's free standard.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
I mean jack that, I mean, I take the point
that sometimes you have to do things that are symbolic.
But this thing has been killed by this government. It
is such a redundant thing to do.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Yeah, I don't think it's going anywhere. I think being
kind of acknowledged that in fact, I mean, this is
just a they're just voting on a motion to put
this to lg NZ, right, So it's not like they're
actually you know, this is going to be passed and
any times then the actually going to we're actually going
to see this. I mean, I think at the same time,
you know, it would be unreasonable for us to assert
that they can't, you know, to use your line walk
(01:45):
into a garment. At the same time, to a certain extent,
if they had spent a day debating this and vast
council resources, I think would have a much greater reason
to be upset. But to go back to a line
that that being used in that interview, you know, it's
in just thing he's said that you know, there shouldn't
be taxation without representation, And I think I think that
you know there is some veenis in that argument, But
(02:08):
can either of you correct me? Here? Am I right
in thinking that that sixteen year olds, because they can't
own property, won't be paying rates? Thus the taxation without
representation argument doesn't necessarily apply to very good.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Our sixteen year old is not allowed to own property.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Jack, I just I think that's right.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
I could be wrong, So I'm going on flying by
the seat of my pants.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Now, well, do you have to be David? I didn't
know this.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
I think it's eighteen, don't Yeah, I think legally, let's
let's double check that before we commit to that life.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
That's fascinating.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Okay, listen, David, it was worth checking that.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Yeah, financial financial literacy in schools, David, I take it
that we don't teach may I may actually have been
convinced by Erica Stanford. I don't want to, like, I
don't want to overload our teachers, but and I feel
like this is something that parents should be teaching the kids.
But obviously there are a bunch of things up here
don't teach their kids, so we have to. So therefore
it's in schools. Do you agree.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Yeah, look, I think this definitely falls into that care. Agree.
I could even say there's probably some parents who could
do with going to that financial literacy course. But it's
just so important what the days have gone of the
nineteen fifties and sixties where you can just leave school,
work hard for ten years and buy the house and
(03:26):
live there for forty years and keep the same job. Today,
if you want to own a house one day, you
need to be saving from when you're at school. Actually,
you need a savings culture early on. So I think
financial literacy as part of that savings culture is a
very good idea. But yeah, yeah, make sure it's not
(03:46):
being taught at the expense of English and mathematics. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Well, I don't think it is, Jack, because it's in
the social studies category right where largely what they do
there is they just color and maps, don't they.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
I think it's no.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
I mean, do you have a better social studies experience,
not just.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Because we were Yeah, I think so, Yeah, I think we.
I think we let a lot of things about the world.
But I think, I mean this is kind of like
a like low level applied maths or applied economics in
a way.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Isn't it.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
And one thing that I reckon, like, I support it,
I don't have a problem with it, And I think,
you know, if we're all slightly more financially literally, there
would be a great thing. But one thing I would
say is that I reckon younger people today are actually
a little more financially literate than maybe the generations before them,
because of lots of online tools and you know, even
the barriers to kind of owning shares and training and
(04:34):
being engaged with public exchanges like you think about shares,
is that that has totally changed the game for.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
A lot of young people.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
And even when people go into their you know, get
into their first jobs and are enrolled in key we
say to them, for example, they're able to see the
impact of compound interest and the impact of you know,
changing you know, share prices and stuff a whole lot
more than they might have been able to in the past.
So I reckon that, Yeah, younger people today are maybe
actually slightly more financially literate than we give them.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Maybe so, Hey, Laura the German has had a look
at it. It is eighteen and it is because you
have to be legally party to a contract.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
For land as well as as well as for like that,
just just to be just a triple check. I would
never go against Laura the German because Laura.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Jack wants you to look at it it's land as well.
Can you please do that for Jack? Yeah, she's she's German.
All right, we'll take a break, come back shortly back
with the huddle. Jack. Laura looked it up and you
can own land at any age, but your age will
be noted on the title.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
There you go.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
You did you already know this? Did you already know this?
And then set this whole thing up so that you
could look like you're really smart on air.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
I think I'm accidentally structured why I thought was a
good argument against young people voting in local body elections,
and then I fact checked my own argument and found
it actually, I'm not entirely correct, and then I fact
checked the fact checking. But look the number of the
number of under eighteen year olds who own land and
thus pay.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Rates on New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
I would have thought it was infinitesimal to at least.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Yeah, totally. Now, David, do you think Nikola has done
a brilliant job curtailing her new spending or should she
have gone further.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Probably done as much as you can, because here's the reality.
When you talk about that operational allowance, most of us
is needed for non discretion you stuff, just that increased
population and aging and health. So when they actually say
we've only got like one point one billion instead of
three billion dollars, effectively everyone else is taking a hair cut.
(06:35):
So yeah, I think it's probably. I mean, don't get
me wrong, there's definitely more you could can't. But then
you're getting into not just efficiency saving, but we're going
to disestablish programs. You might be saying, Okay, we can't
afford fine you or anymore.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
No, no, what about we can't afford the women's ministry
and we cut that load of nonsense.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Music of my years. There are around ten ministries that
could happily be moved.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
We go on, David, name them. Okay, the Women's Ministry
needs to go. What else?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Well, here's the thing. All those demographic ones, woman, Pacific,
MARII affairs, they all get ignored by the government. If
you moved them all together into a high powered ministry
of social equity, they actually would probably be have more
impact with government than all these small micro ministries a.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Lot of them. Okay, that's four, give me another you know,
owe me another six. You said there were ten.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Well, well, if you really want me to get going,
I actually would mooge the entire public service into twelve
mega ministries. You have one in the law and order space,
one in the economic space, one in the health, one
in the education Like we've got four education agencies? Did
qa pec that? And you have one chief exector for
the sector, one minister for the seat. So you reduced
(08:01):
can kind of like what was done with mb Yes,
but more successfully.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Yes. Are you liking the sound of this, Jack, Because
David and I what obviously can see that there is
room for Nicola to go even harder.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Do you know, in principle, I have absolutely no problem
with that, with the concept of breaking up those, you know,
instead of having those kind of disparate demographic ministries, considering
in principle the idea of merging them, I think there
potentially are big efficiencies to be made.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I mean, where the raw not.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Now is the time for that kind of reform of
the public sector might be up for up for debate,
But yeah, I mean I think I think David's core
point is right in.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
That now is now the time, Jack, because we are
in a financial we are running structural deficits that are
so bad apparently we're at the bottom of the oecd
for it. We need to save huge amounts of money.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Yeah, yeah, we do. And and you know, when you
look at that operating allows I feel like we're not
going to have a full kind of measure of Williss's
or the impact of Nicola Willis's actions until we can
see how her kind of redirecting and reprioritization of money
across different ministries and causes, like what the true effect
of that is. Because when we're talking about our operating allowance,
(09:13):
we're efectively talk about new money, right, and we need
to think about not just the new money, but also
the money that's going to be kind of being shifted around.
But yeah, I mean, yeah, yeah, maybe, although whether or
not that would be in the short term interests of growth,
which is of course what this government has kind of
been their political fortunes on for the time being, Whether
or not in the short term that would be in
(09:34):
the interests of growth and massive reforms to the public sector,
you know, potentially thousands of thousands of more public servants
facing redundancy, that kind of thing. It might not be,
but then again, maybe we would look back at it
in ten years time and go, Actually, those were the
reforms that have allowed New Zealand to climb out of
a structural deficit that was, you know, basically not moving
(09:54):
for the time being.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
You know, the path the.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Surface of the time being looks scarcely believable. I think,
you know in anyone's for you regardless.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Of the totally agree. Hey guys, thank you so much,
really appreciate both your time. That David Farrah and Jack Tamer.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.