May 7, 2025 • 9 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Jack Tame from ZB's Saturday Mornings and Q&A and Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers' Union joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
It's day two of the pay equity saga - what do we make of all this? Has the Government mishandled this? Was it a bad call to rush the law through the way it has? Should they admit they're just doing it for the money?
Should we take Donald Trump seriously when he floats ideas like making Canada the 51st state? How much attention should we give statements like these?
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 with us this evening we have Jack
tame Q and a host and host of Saturday Mornings
here on ZB and Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union.
Hi are you too?
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Jack?
Speaker 1 (00:09):
I think that the pay equity thing is going to
cost the government in political capital.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Do you agree?
Speaker 4 (00:15):
Maybe around the margins, But I think you would have
to dispel any degree of cynicism whatsoever not to link
the announcement yesterday and the subsequent actions with the budget
and what a two weeks time fifteen days time? And
I think for although it might cost them some support
for those people who are most likely to be caught
(00:36):
up in these the deals or affected by these deals,
if the government is able to argue successfully throughout the
budget that ultimately this is going to be spending that
is redirected into other areas, then I don't think it
will necessarily interesting.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Okay, so you think so this is not a bad
move politically from the government. If so, why is that?
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Hold on?
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Let me think, I just want to finish this thought.
If so, why is the National Party iffy on it
and scared?
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Well, it's such bad lawmaking. Surely we can all agree
like to come out of to come out of nowhere
without or the usual kind of democratic framework that you
would have for a law change of this substance, like
a select committee process, and without a regulatory impact statement.
And we don't know what this law change is necessarily
going to achieve because we haven't actually had an opportunity
(01:25):
to consider any of that. And I think, you know,
there is a certain irony given you know, some of
the some of the members of the act Party who
have I think quite rightly talked about the importance of
regulatory standards in lawmaking making, to come out with zero
notice whatsoever and drop this as that did yesterday, I
(01:46):
don't think set's a great standard for lawmaking.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Why were you making that funny noise, Jordan, Oh, I
mean it's returning the law to back to what it was.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
We've been having this chat inside the Taxpayers Union that
the Tea you have taken the principal position that we
actually don't you know, we think even a truncated select
committee would have been better than nothing. But we had
a former Minister of Finance joining us today on the
staff call and she was saying, look that this is
(02:17):
something this could have easily been a budget measure what
the change in the law. Yes, it's bad politics. Yes
there's probably a political cost with the NATS terrified about
it was actually inevitable. But the thing is is this
law and it's not about protecting people from nasty employers
that are paying men more than women. It is quite
(02:38):
literally justifying enormous pay increases by the public sector unions.
We are getting nurses compared to engineers or what was that,
nurses compared to lawyers. It's bonkers and we've got no
money here.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
No, I totally agree. Look, I think that this is
the right thing to do, Jordan, but I think that
they're doing the wrong way right. First of all, ACT,
as I said at the very start of the program,
ACT has been criticizing the previous labor government for doing
things under urgency because basically it gets around process. Yet
they're doing exactly the same thing, and then this comes
without any announcement whatsoever. We pretend it's got nothing to
(03:15):
do with the budget. All of that shiftiness and cowardice
and stuff. That's what makes it look bad rather than
just owning the decision.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
No, well that that can all be true. Okay, let
me put my constitutional lawyer hat on because back in
the day that you used to be a lawyer, you're
absolutely right. You know bad process, you know terrible. Let
me put the real politic on, yes, that the government
could go through even a truncated select committee process and
play into the public sector union's hands with a scare
(03:44):
mongering campaign that you know that the government wants to
keep wages low. The reality is this decision was inevitable.
It was classic labor party pass the law. Don't fund
the consequences. It's been used and you can see it
literally in the figures of enormous pay increases in the
public sector with a lot more to come. We are
borrowing forty five million dollars a day. Nikola Willis is
(04:08):
borrowing more than a billion dollars a month. It was
inevitable this happened. The question is what is the best
way to do it. This is at least better than
what I would have expected, which would have been a
budget day or budget night measure. At least they are
getting out ahead and stark in that conversation.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
Can I just add one little caveat I mean, one
of the things that makes the events of the last
thirty six hours or so unique is that this is retrospective,
that this goes back and changes stuff that's already in place,
and so at the very least, I mean it.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Is retrospective, isn't it. I mean we can't.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
I think that there's a more legitimate criticism there, and
that's our ageous change in the banking regulation to protect
the banks.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
From Oh, don't even get me started.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
Yeah, it's it's not named all though, right, it can
be an it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
It does effect, you know that the negotiations that are
midway through, all the claims that are midway through, but
that you know, the unions are licking their lips over
like this is a fiscal decision because, as I say,
it was classic labor. You know, pass the law. Good
intention sounds wonderful, you know, unicorn and fairies, but there's
simply no bit money. Yes, actually think select Yeah that's true.
(05:27):
I totally agree with that and the Select committee process.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Oh, were you going to defend it or was that
with the end of that sentence.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
We lost them.
Speaker 5 (05:39):
Oh, I think you.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Explained to me what just happened. Jeez, he's a bit
he's a bit young to be a boomer, isn't it anyway?
We'll take a break and see if we can get
that boomer back on the front. Write you back to
the huddle, Jack Tame Jordan, Williams Jordan, when you're back
with us?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yeah, public interest journalism fun coming off.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Hey, listen, Jordan, I guess to tell me what do
you make again? I'm going to read your text right here.
The stop down playing Trump's risk. Yes, he's unhinged. He's
already proven that by what you call a joke today,
maybe an executive order tomorrow. This is because I was arguing,
when you stop reporting this stuff like annexing Canada as
if it's serious, because it's not. It's a joke, but
evidently some people find it serious. What do you actually
(06:18):
believe he's going to do it? What do you think?
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (06:21):
But do you think that actually suggesting that your profession
ramp up trump rhetoric to eleven just to get more eyeballs. Oh,
you can't possibly be suggesting that.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Could No, not at all. I do not think that
they report everything as if it's actually a real life
threat just for the clicks.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
The problem is for me, Trump's a third rail because
if I say something supportive of Trump, my email fools
with tax by union supporters saying, you know, the world
is at risk if I say something against them. My
inbox also feels. But to be honest, I've straddled that
fence like there's some that I will admit. I decided
midway through the American election campaign Kamala was so bad
(07:01):
and Trump is such a bufferon that I had to
be rather than sad of either winning. I was going
to be happy whoever won. And there is some stuff
on the policy side, at least first time round that
actually Trump was pretty good. Ad he was a lot
more moderate in terms of moderate Republican than Kamala would
have been in terms of right out there dem The
thing is, though, and then but then you get to
(07:22):
the tariffs and there's more of the unhinged stuff coming out.
It's a real worry. I thought that always the third
term stuff was always just rhetoric. But of course that
plays up if you are purist, of course that's going
to terrify you. It's a real question of is it
all a game for him or does he mean it?
Speaker 1 (07:41):
I mean, it's part okay, So as part of the problem,
Jack that some things are obviously a joke, but some
things maybe a joke, but maybe serious, and we just
can't tell the difference, and so we just decide in
the media that everything has to be treated seriously.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
Yeah, I think it is just I think you pretty
much hit the nail on the head. Beer can just
be hard to distinguish what is a joke and what
isn't a joke. And the truth is that often once
facts are born out, over time the goalposts seem to shift.
So for example, remember like Donald Trump was saying that
he would like sort out peace in Ukraine within one day.
(08:16):
I think he said it would take him twenty four hours.
And now he says that that was a joke. Well,
it's some funny joke.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Do you think he knows what? Do you think he
just flies kite's.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
I think he flies kite's.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
I think that's exactly what he does. I think he
flies kites, throws everything up, and then sees wait comes down.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
You can't be.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Serious about the jack because then what you're suggesting is
he's flying a kite that he that he says, so
he sees this about Canada and the hope that maybe
Canada goes Hey, that's a great idea. Yeah, we'll be
part of the US. No.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
I think I think he's happy to say that it's
a joke now. But I think if the response had
been slightly different in Canada, then he would pursue a
different part.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
That's how I think he.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
I think he was a different path that he annexes Canada.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
No, no, no, that that he encourages some sort of
an enormous constitutional shift. I don't think he thinks that
he's come through. I don't think he's he's not giving
a key for consideration. I mean, the tariffs were a joke.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
One minute.
Speaker 5 (09:08):
He was going to put tariffs on the whole world. Haha,
what a funny idea. Next minute, I just I think
I think a lot of the time he comes out
with stuff, I think often he just thinks of it
in the moment when he's standing in front of cameras,
there's all sorts of outrage around the world, and then
he waits to see, with a little bit of time, how.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
It's actually digested and decides what is a joke and
what isn't a joke.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
And that's why it kind.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Of feels like such a volatile moment. So, but to
answer your question whether or not we should treat it
all seriously. That's that's perhaps a different question. I mean,
I think it seems extremely unlikely Canada's going to become
the fifty first state.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Yeah, but maybe we won't treat it all seriously. Guys.
Thank you very much, Jack, James, Jordan William.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
News Talk said Be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
On the huddle with us this evening we have Jack
tame Q and a host and host of Saturday Mornings
here on ZB and Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union.
Hi are you too?
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Jack?
Speaker 1 (00:09):
I think that the pay equity thing is going to
cost the government in political capital.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Do you agree?
Speaker 4 (00:15):
Maybe around the margins, But I think you would have
to dispel any degree of cynicism whatsoever not to link
the announcement yesterday and the subsequent actions with the budget
and what a two weeks time fifteen days time? And
I think for although it might cost them some support
for those people who are most likely to be caught
(00:36):
up in these the deals or affected by these deals,
if the government is able to argue successfully throughout the
budget that ultimately this is going to be spending that
is redirected into other areas, then I don't think it
will necessarily interesting.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Okay, so you think so this is not a bad
move politically from the government. If so, why is that?
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Hold on?
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Let me think, I just want to finish this thought.
If so, why is the National Party iffy on it
and scared?
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Well, it's such bad lawmaking. Surely we can all agree
like to come out of to come out of nowhere
without or the usual kind of democratic framework that you
would have for a law change of this substance, like
a select committee process, and without a regulatory impact statement.
And we don't know what this law change is necessarily
going to achieve because we haven't actually had an opportunity
(01:25):
to consider any of that. And I think, you know,
there is a certain irony given you know, some of
the some of the members of the act Party who
have I think quite rightly talked about the importance of
regulatory standards in lawmaking making, to come out with zero
notice whatsoever and drop this as that did yesterday, I
(01:46):
don't think set's a great standard for lawmaking.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Why were you making that funny noise, Jordan, Oh, I
mean it's returning the law to back to what it was.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
We've been having this chat inside the Taxpayers Union that
the Tea you have taken the principal position that we
actually don't you know, we think even a truncated select
committee would have been better than nothing. But we had
a former Minister of Finance joining us today on the
staff call and she was saying, look that this is
(02:17):
something this could have easily been a budget measure what
the change in the law. Yes, it's bad politics. Yes
there's probably a political cost with the NATS terrified about
it was actually inevitable. But the thing is is this
law and it's not about protecting people from nasty employers
that are paying men more than women. It is quite
(02:38):
literally justifying enormous pay increases by the public sector unions.
We are getting nurses compared to engineers or what was that,
nurses compared to lawyers. It's bonkers and we've got no
money here.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
No, I totally agree. Look, I think that this is
the right thing to do, Jordan, but I think that
they're doing the wrong way right. First of all, ACT,
as I said at the very start of the program,
ACT has been criticizing the previous labor government for doing
things under urgency because basically it gets around process. Yet
they're doing exactly the same thing, and then this comes
without any announcement whatsoever. We pretend it's got nothing to
(03:15):
do with the budget. All of that shiftiness and cowardice
and stuff. That's what makes it look bad rather than
just owning the decision.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
No, well that that can all be true. Okay, let
me put my constitutional lawyer hat on because back in
the day that you used to be a lawyer, you're
absolutely right. You know bad process, you know terrible. Let
me put the real politic on, yes, that the government
could go through even a truncated select committee process and
play into the public sector union's hands with a scare
(03:44):
mongering campaign that you know that the government wants to
keep wages low. The reality is this decision was inevitable.
It was classic labor party pass the law. Don't fund
the consequences. It's been used and you can see it
literally in the figures of enormous pay increases in the
public sector with a lot more to come. We are
borrowing forty five million dollars a day. Nikola Willis is
(04:08):
borrowing more than a billion dollars a month. It was
inevitable this happened. The question is what is the best
way to do it. This is at least better than
what I would have expected, which would have been a
budget day or budget night measure. At least they are
getting out ahead and stark in that conversation.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
Can I just add one little caveat I mean, one
of the things that makes the events of the last
thirty six hours or so unique is that this is retrospective,
that this goes back and changes stuff that's already in place,
and so at the very least, I mean it.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Is retrospective, isn't it. I mean we can't.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
I think that there's a more legitimate criticism there, and
that's our ageous change in the banking regulation to protect
the banks.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
From Oh, don't even get me started.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
Yeah, it's it's not named all though, right, it can
be an it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
It does effect, you know that the negotiations that are
midway through, all the claims that are midway through, but
that you know, the unions are licking their lips over
like this is a fiscal decision because, as I say,
it was classic labor. You know, pass the law. Good
intention sounds wonderful, you know, unicorn and fairies, but there's
simply no bit money. Yes, actually think select Yeah that's true.
(05:27):
I totally agree with that and the Select committee process.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Oh, were you going to defend it or was that
with the end of that sentence.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
We lost them.
Speaker 5 (05:39):
Oh, I think you.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Explained to me what just happened. Jeez, he's a bit
he's a bit young to be a boomer, isn't it anyway?
We'll take a break and see if we can get
that boomer back on the front. Write you back to
the huddle, Jack Tame Jordan, Williams Jordan, when you're back
with us?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yeah, public interest journalism fun coming off.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Hey, listen, Jordan, I guess to tell me what do
you make again? I'm going to read your text right here.
The stop down playing Trump's risk. Yes, he's unhinged. He's
already proven that by what you call a joke today,
maybe an executive order tomorrow. This is because I was arguing,
when you stop reporting this stuff like annexing Canada as
if it's serious, because it's not. It's a joke, but
evidently some people find it serious. What do you actually
(06:18):
believe he's going to do it? What do you think?
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (06:21):
But do you think that actually suggesting that your profession
ramp up trump rhetoric to eleven just to get more eyeballs. Oh,
you can't possibly be suggesting that.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Could No, not at all. I do not think that
they report everything as if it's actually a real life
threat just for the clicks.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
The problem is for me, Trump's a third rail because
if I say something supportive of Trump, my email fools
with tax by union supporters saying, you know, the world
is at risk if I say something against them. My
inbox also feels. But to be honest, I've straddled that
fence like there's some that I will admit. I decided
midway through the American election campaign Kamala was so bad
(07:01):
and Trump is such a bufferon that I had to
be rather than sad of either winning. I was going
to be happy whoever won. And there is some stuff
on the policy side, at least first time round that
actually Trump was pretty good. Ad he was a lot
more moderate in terms of moderate Republican than Kamala would
have been in terms of right out there dem The
thing is, though, and then but then you get to
(07:22):
the tariffs and there's more of the unhinged stuff coming out.
It's a real worry. I thought that always the third
term stuff was always just rhetoric. But of course that
plays up if you are purist, of course that's going
to terrify you. It's a real question of is it
all a game for him or does he mean it?
Speaker 1 (07:41):
I mean, it's part okay, So as part of the problem,
Jack that some things are obviously a joke, but some
things maybe a joke, but maybe serious, and we just
can't tell the difference, and so we just decide in
the media that everything has to be treated seriously.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
Yeah, I think it is just I think you pretty
much hit the nail on the head. Beer can just
be hard to distinguish what is a joke and what
isn't a joke. And the truth is that often once
facts are born out, over time the goalposts seem to shift.
So for example, remember like Donald Trump was saying that
he would like sort out peace in Ukraine within one day.
(08:16):
I think he said it would take him twenty four hours.
And now he says that that was a joke. Well,
it's some funny joke.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Do you think he knows what? Do you think he
just flies kite's.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
I think he flies kite's.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
I think that's exactly what he does. I think he
flies kites, throws everything up, and then sees wait comes down.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
You can't be.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Serious about the jack because then what you're suggesting is
he's flying a kite that he that he says, so
he sees this about Canada and the hope that maybe
Canada goes Hey, that's a great idea. Yeah, we'll be
part of the US. No.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
I think I think he's happy to say that it's
a joke now. But I think if the response had
been slightly different in Canada, then he would pursue a
different part.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
That's how I think he.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
I think he was a different path that he annexes Canada.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
No, no, no, that that he encourages some sort of
an enormous constitutional shift. I don't think he thinks that
he's come through. I don't think he's he's not giving
a key for consideration. I mean, the tariffs were a joke.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
One minute.
Speaker 5 (09:08):
He was going to put tariffs on the whole world. Haha,
what a funny idea. Next minute, I just I think
I think a lot of the time he comes out
with stuff, I think often he just thinks of it
in the moment when he's standing in front of cameras,
there's all sorts of outrage around the world, and then
he waits to see, with a little bit of time, how.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
It's actually digested and decides what is a joke and
what isn't a joke.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
And that's why it kind.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Of feels like such a volatile moment. So, but to
answer your question whether or not we should treat it
all seriously. That's that's perhaps a different question. I mean,
I think it seems extremely unlikely Canada's going to become
the fifty first state.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Yeah, but maybe we won't treat it all seriously. Guys.
Thank you very much, Jack, James, Jordan William.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
News Talk said Be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.