February 24, 2025 • 11 mins
The Prime Minister says Andrew Bayly's good work can't compensate for bad behaviour.
The Port Waikato MP has resigned from cabinet after touching a staffer's arm during a lively conversation.
It follows an earlier incident in which he called a winery worker a loser.
Christopher Luxon told Mike Hosking the good work that Bayly was doing doesn't excuse it.
He says it's important to have standards and Bayly has realised he didn't meet his own expectations.
Luxon would not be drawn on whether he would have sacked Bayly had he not resigned. He repeatedly said Bayly had not met his expectations.
“The standards are really clear of my ministers. In this case, I laid down, after the last [loser] case, crystal-clear expectations."
Pushed on whether his answers were indecisive, Luxon said he was decisive.
He then said he would have demoted Bayly and taken his ministry away from him had Bayly not resigned.
On the Chinese navy, Luxon said it has got “much more benign, much more competitive in the Pacific”.
He said it was normal for airlines to divert flights. “We’re relaxed with what’s happening in the sense of it’s legal, but we want to make sure we get a bit more advanced notice.”
On the Cook Islands, Luxon said he was incredibly frustrated with Prime Minister Mark Brown and the government.
WATCH 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):
This Tuesday morning, the Prime Minister Crystopher Luxmbury, good morning
to you with you several things to cover off. One.
I watched your press conference yesterday with Chambers. He seems
effusive these days in what he and he said so
in what he's allowed to do, what he's achieving, and
he seemed to indicate at the end of his brief
comments yesterday that he's seemingly looking to you for more
(00:22):
law to do more. Is that the impression I got
or not? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well, yeah, I mean, look at me first and foremost.
I think he's a great arm he's doing a great
job as Police Commissioner. He's really loved by the frontline staff.
I think you've got good alignment between the Prime Minister,
Minister Mitchell, and obviously the Police Commissioner. What we're wanting
to do is they feel backed up, you know, And
for the first time, what we were talking about yesterday
was that gang patch laws that we passed back in
October that gives a lot of permission to go after
(00:49):
the illegal guns and the drugs.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
You know.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
As a result, there's more that we want to do,
frankly in the firearm prohibition orders and illegal guns and
give them a few more powers there and that will
come in due course. But you know, the trek is
that you want the police backed by a government and
actually empowered to go after and disrupt gangs, which is
what's been happening. And yeah, I thought it was interesting
over summer, very few stories that we'd normally get about gangs.
(01:12):
I went down to the to the to christ Church
where they'd gone and smashed up the common cero so beautifully.
And we want to keep keep encouraging that.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Okay, Andrew Bailey, has he got form?
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Well?
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Has he done this before?
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Well, we had the incident at the end of last
year which we spoke very a that outside.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Is there something wrong with him?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
No? No, I think he got this wrong. As he said,
he went through it, he looked at his interaction, didn't
feel it met a standards and the expectations that we
had set before and what he sets for himself more importantly,
and got on to me, you know, proactively came forward
and resigned to me very late on Friday.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Somebody texted me earlier this morning. I think it's a
fair point, and that is that he's got a life
outside of politics. As indeed, you did what sort of
I mean, if that's the sort of crap you got
to put up with, I know what he did as
aunt acceptable again, but if that's the sort of crap
you got to put up with, why bother?
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Yeah, But I think you know, he's someone who feels
very strongly about parliamentary process. He likes making good law.
He actually he is very energized around the tasks around
you know, complicated legislation. He's actually, you know, gets gets
and that's what turns him on. So I think that's
a really good thing. That's why he's still got a
good contribution to make, you know, as a local MP,
but also in parliament through the select committee processes, all
(02:20):
of that stuff.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Am I just too woke? Not? No, No, I am not.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
I wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
I don't understand. I don't understand what the problem is he.
I mean, what he did wasn't right. I get that,
But but we've lost a person who presumably you at
one point thought was good enough to get cabinet.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Look, honestly, he was doing a very good job, making
good contributions and two very technical portfolios. I'm sure it's
got some will carry that on, but look, the reality
is you've got to have some standards, Mike, And you
know I watched the last lot go through a series
of ministers and it wasn't even clear. It was clear
in this case. And importantly, he recognized that he hadn't
met his own standards and that's his decision. So I
(02:59):
respect that.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Would you, because you've got yourself in the usual trouble
with you being too nice? Would you have sacked him
if he hadn't offered to resign?
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Well, hypothetical he did resign.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
No, I know that, But just answer the question, well,
would you have said.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Well, he didn't meet the expectations of a minister, so.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Was it a seckable offense? Well?
Speaker 2 (03:15):
I think give him. How clear we've been on the
first instance about why?
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Just answered the question, Well, this is why you get
yourself reputationally in so much trouble. Would you have sacked him?
Speaker 2 (03:25):
You saw, No, I could say, yeah, he didn't meet
the expectations I have ministers, so you would have secked him.
I didn't need to because he resigned.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
I see what you're doing here. I don't.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Well, no, but you're talking about a specific case, right.
Would you have said, have I done a good job,
laying down expectations of my minister's ye.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
But the next step is really simple. If he hadn't,
I'm glad he offered to resign, because I'll tell you what,
if he didn't, I would have sacked him.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
He wouldn't have met my expectations as a minister.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
But why are you saying it that way? I don't understand.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Well, that's what I mean. If if he hadn't resigned,
I would have I would have would have made an intervinch.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
I would have Actually, yeah, I would have sacked him.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
But there's an issue here, which is what is it?
The issue is that most importantly, the Sadars are really
clear of my ministers. They know the senates I operate within.
Whenever we have any personnel issues. I think we've acted
incredibly decisively. But what I'd say in this case is
I laid down, after the last instance, crystal clear expectations.
He reassured me there wouldn't be another incident. He knew
there was an incident. He then made that decision himself.
(04:25):
It didn't mean my expectations that didn't meet us.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
How many words you're using to explain this, this is
this is why you're in trouble in the polls, people
want something decisive and so look if you wouldn't have
sacked him, so so either way, I don't care. But
all people want from you, the Prime Minister, to go.
This is my expectation. I'm glad he resigned because if
you didn't, I would have sacked him.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well that's exactly what has happened here, though, isn't it.
I mean like he has resigned and I've said to
him he hasn't met his own expectations, which is important, right.
I want the I want ministers to understand I saw example,
he can't do his own conclusion.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Fantastic good or for doing that, But are you the
sort of per that would have sacked him? I think
he has seen him to that conclusion.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
I think you've seen me act very decisively on personel
issues and something I've done all my life. You know
it's credible.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
I know that still doesn't answer that. I don't want
to get bogged down on this. Why can't you be
decisive enough to simply say I would have sacked.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
In this case or not. In this case he resigned
and if they hadn't happened, I would have then been
involved with that and would have made a decision to
say they didn't meet myke expectations, and that would which
would have led to what it would have led to
him losing the role.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Anyway, So he would have been he would have been,
he would have been devoted and demoted, He would have
the ministry would have been taken away right sacked. Yeah, well,
but yeah, you you've made a complete meal of this,
the cooks deal in China. First of all, China, have
we found out specifically what they were doing here and
why no, we haven't been informed by them. What they're
(05:50):
doing here is doing exercises. They have a destroyer, they
have a frigate, and they also have a refueler with them.
That is different from what we've seen before. We've seen
research vessels do silar sort of navigations. It is completely
legal with an international law. It is completely within the
un conventional.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Law of the sea. But our problem in frustration has
been that we would like a bit more advanced Notice.
Normally you get twenty four to forty eight hours. Notice
it's a very busy set of airway, as you well know,
but we've had you know, that's the reality of it
is that they are completely entitled. We use the same
laws when we move our assets around the shold as well.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Is their behavior acceptable?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
What's clear is that it's got much more benign, much
more competitive within the Pacific Ocean. You've seen that with
the COX, You've seen that with this increase and change
around much heavier military and more powerful vessels coming through.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
But it is their behavior acceptable?
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Well, they're entitled to that. You know. What you're saying
is just more competition.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
They didn't break them.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
It is not a benign raises.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
The main reason I ask is that we're dibooting flights.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
We are, and that's quite normal around the world. If
militaries will send radio signals up to airlines, into the
aviation system and into the maritime system to say they
are doing exercises. What we're saying is, look, we're relaxed
with what's happening when the sense of it's legal, but
we want to make sure we've got a bit more
advanced notice.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Okay, the cooks deal itself. From what you know and
what we've been told so far, are you bothered by it?
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yeah, and clearly frustrated by it, because at the end
of the day, areas she's not with the Cook Islands people.
They made great contribution to New Zealand. But it is
with Prime Minister Brown and the government they weren't transparent
or consultant before they SCIENTI.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
To a side the deal itself. Mining the sea bed
by the Chinese. Does that bother you?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, there's quite a few things that we want to
digest in those documents. And in fairness, what's happening is
again we still don't have transparency because we get at
the same time you get it, and the same time
the Cook Islands people are seeing the COMPERENCEUS tragic partnership
and the Three MOUs and so what we've got to
do is go through clause by clause and really understand
the risk and the implications of that around defense and
security in particular, and then we need to have a
(07:48):
reset around to what are going to be the parameters
of our constitutional arrangements and have those discussions with the
Cook Islands.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Which brings us then to defense. Will we see this
long away to defense review made public before the budget?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah? It juju to come out very shortly on a
matter of weeks.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Yep, Okay, so we'll know what we're looking at. Then
in the budget we had due to Colinto on yesterday.
She seemed to infer more neumental amounts of money we're
going to get to spend. Is she correct?
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Yes, there'll be a very significant uplift and defense spending.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
In the budget.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Yes, over a long period of time, in a year
and over a period of time. I mean, what's happened here, Mike,
is that historically our defense and just you know, SECT
has gone off and bought bits of ships and boats
and planes and stuff. What I've asked for new leadership
is a proper strategy for the next fifteen years of
where do we want to build capability in the defense
forces and therefore make sure that as we tip money
(08:35):
into it, that is actually good money going into a
good strategy. A lot of what we've got to do
is make things much more interoperable with Australia. As you've
seen even over the course of this week, we have pights.
They have pights. That helps us when we're doing things
like the China. Does this blow the budget though, No, No,
we have no money. No, we think we can manage
this and so we've got a budget frame around it
which we feel very comfortable.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Money comes from where well, the.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Money comes from us continuing to grow the economy but
also actually making it. We're not growing the economy, no,
but the continue to greet savings out of what we've
talked about.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Right, So there are savings and debt.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Yes, there's savings, is what we're doing.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
More debt. We'll talk about the budget and we get there.
You've just given it away. So we're going to go
even more debt to pay for this. I'm not arguing
it's not a good idea. I'm just saying there is
more debt being loaded up against us.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Well, what we're doing is a couple of things. One,
as we are going to continue the behavior of savings.
We've got a big savings drive and program that we
have to get out of the public service, and we'll
continue to do that every single day. As you saw
at the last budget, I think we generated something like
twenty three billion dollars worth of savings that funded a
lot of our investment in other areas. And that's the
mentality that we have of thinking of sweating the money
that we actually have and making sure it's deployed in
(09:40):
the right way. So that's the work that the budget
ministers are working through right now. I was with them
last week. We've got a lot more to do there.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Just real quick. I heard you talk to Kerry last week.
Is Marsden reel or was that a thought bubble? Marsden's
binary is real?
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Well, Marsden and looking at Marsden was a commitment we
made in the coalition agreement with.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
You were looking and doing a two different things.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah, but I'll let Shane Jones come back that because
it is actually part of a broader piece of work
around fuel security.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
It all makes sense.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
But is it real Well, he'll talk to that shortly.
But what I'd say is the fuel strategy is another piece.
Like you know, if we're going to import and fuel,
you need to have a number of days cover so
that if you got disrupted in a supply chain from Singapore,
actually we'll have we got enough cover here on the ground.
There's a whole bunch of things. That's one part of it.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Just real quick and almost out of time. Is anything
tangible come out of Vietnam?
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Yes, just just much deeper trade relationship. I mean that's
an exciting place. I mean one hundred million people, thirty
years age, fastest growing economy for twenty five years, going
to average seven percent growth in the next five to
ten years. And massive opportunity for food, beverage, the traditional sectors,
tourism and also education. Education is massive and Vietnam for
New Zealand a lot more to do there. So all
(10:49):
about trade there? Really all right?
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Go well, see you next week. We will see you
next week.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Or not, I'm not sure. Were Num back in Parliament
expects that we will be doing.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
For Parliament's open next week. Come on, you keep giving
me grief on this. How long was your summer holiday?
Was a long summer holiday? For more from the Mic
Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks it'd be from
six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
This Tuesday morning, the Prime Minister Crystopher Luxmbury, good morning
to you with you several things to cover off. One.
I watched your press conference yesterday with Chambers. He seems
effusive these days in what he and he said so
in what he's allowed to do, what he's achieving, and
he seemed to indicate at the end of his brief
comments yesterday that he's seemingly looking to you for more
(00:22):
law to do more. Is that the impression I got
or not? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well, yeah, I mean, look at me first and foremost.
I think he's a great arm he's doing a great
job as Police Commissioner. He's really loved by the frontline staff.
I think you've got good alignment between the Prime Minister,
Minister Mitchell, and obviously the Police Commissioner. What we're wanting
to do is they feel backed up, you know, And
for the first time, what we were talking about yesterday
was that gang patch laws that we passed back in
October that gives a lot of permission to go after
(00:49):
the illegal guns and the drugs.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
You know.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
As a result, there's more that we want to do,
frankly in the firearm prohibition orders and illegal guns and
give them a few more powers there and that will
come in due course. But you know, the trek is
that you want the police backed by a government and
actually empowered to go after and disrupt gangs, which is
what's been happening. And yeah, I thought it was interesting
over summer, very few stories that we'd normally get about gangs.
(01:12):
I went down to the to the to christ Church
where they'd gone and smashed up the common cero so beautifully.
And we want to keep keep encouraging that.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Okay, Andrew Bailey, has he got form?
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Well?
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Has he done this before?
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Well, we had the incident at the end of last
year which we spoke very a that outside.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Is there something wrong with him?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
No? No, I think he got this wrong. As he said,
he went through it, he looked at his interaction, didn't
feel it met a standards and the expectations that we
had set before and what he sets for himself more importantly,
and got on to me, you know, proactively came forward
and resigned to me very late on Friday.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Somebody texted me earlier this morning. I think it's a
fair point, and that is that he's got a life
outside of politics. As indeed, you did what sort of
I mean, if that's the sort of crap you got
to put up with, I know what he did as
aunt acceptable again, but if that's the sort of crap
you got to put up with, why bother?
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Yeah, But I think you know, he's someone who feels
very strongly about parliamentary process. He likes making good law.
He actually he is very energized around the tasks around
you know, complicated legislation. He's actually, you know, gets gets
and that's what turns him on. So I think that's
a really good thing. That's why he's still got a
good contribution to make, you know, as a local MP,
but also in parliament through the select committee processes, all
(02:20):
of that stuff.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Am I just too woke? Not? No, No, I am not.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
I wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
I don't understand. I don't understand what the problem is he.
I mean, what he did wasn't right. I get that,
But but we've lost a person who presumably you at
one point thought was good enough to get cabinet.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Look, honestly, he was doing a very good job, making
good contributions and two very technical portfolios. I'm sure it's
got some will carry that on, but look, the reality
is you've got to have some standards, Mike, And you
know I watched the last lot go through a series
of ministers and it wasn't even clear. It was clear
in this case. And importantly, he recognized that he hadn't
met his own standards and that's his decision. So I
(02:59):
respect that.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Would you, because you've got yourself in the usual trouble
with you being too nice? Would you have sacked him
if he hadn't offered to resign?
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Well, hypothetical he did resign.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
No, I know that, But just answer the question, well,
would you have said.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Well, he didn't meet the expectations of a minister, so.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Was it a seckable offense? Well?
Speaker 2 (03:15):
I think give him. How clear we've been on the
first instance about why?
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Just answered the question, Well, this is why you get
yourself reputationally in so much trouble. Would you have sacked him?
Speaker 2 (03:25):
You saw, No, I could say, yeah, he didn't meet
the expectations I have ministers, so you would have secked him.
I didn't need to because he resigned.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
I see what you're doing here. I don't.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Well, no, but you're talking about a specific case, right.
Would you have said, have I done a good job,
laying down expectations of my minister's ye.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
But the next step is really simple. If he hadn't,
I'm glad he offered to resign, because I'll tell you what,
if he didn't, I would have sacked him.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
He wouldn't have met my expectations as a minister.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
But why are you saying it that way? I don't understand.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Well, that's what I mean. If if he hadn't resigned,
I would have I would have would have made an intervinch.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
I would have Actually, yeah, I would have sacked him.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
But there's an issue here, which is what is it?
The issue is that most importantly, the Sadars are really
clear of my ministers. They know the senates I operate within.
Whenever we have any personnel issues. I think we've acted
incredibly decisively. But what I'd say in this case is
I laid down, after the last instance, crystal clear expectations.
He reassured me there wouldn't be another incident. He knew
there was an incident. He then made that decision himself.
(04:25):
It didn't mean my expectations that didn't meet us.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
How many words you're using to explain this, this is
this is why you're in trouble in the polls, people
want something decisive and so look if you wouldn't have
sacked him, so so either way, I don't care. But
all people want from you, the Prime Minister, to go.
This is my expectation. I'm glad he resigned because if
you didn't, I would have sacked him.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well that's exactly what has happened here, though, isn't it.
I mean like he has resigned and I've said to
him he hasn't met his own expectations, which is important, right.
I want the I want ministers to understand I saw example,
he can't do his own conclusion.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Fantastic good or for doing that, But are you the
sort of per that would have sacked him? I think
he has seen him to that conclusion.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
I think you've seen me act very decisively on personel
issues and something I've done all my life. You know
it's credible.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
I know that still doesn't answer that. I don't want
to get bogged down on this. Why can't you be
decisive enough to simply say I would have sacked.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
In this case or not. In this case he resigned
and if they hadn't happened, I would have then been
involved with that and would have made a decision to
say they didn't meet myke expectations, and that would which
would have led to what it would have led to
him losing the role.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Anyway, So he would have been he would have been,
he would have been devoted and demoted, He would have
the ministry would have been taken away right sacked. Yeah, well,
but yeah, you you've made a complete meal of this,
the cooks deal in China. First of all, China, have
we found out specifically what they were doing here and
why no, we haven't been informed by them. What they're
(05:50):
doing here is doing exercises. They have a destroyer, they
have a frigate, and they also have a refueler with them.
That is different from what we've seen before. We've seen
research vessels do silar sort of navigations. It is completely
legal with an international law. It is completely within the
un conventional.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Law of the sea. But our problem in frustration has
been that we would like a bit more advanced Notice.
Normally you get twenty four to forty eight hours. Notice
it's a very busy set of airway, as you well know,
but we've had you know, that's the reality of it
is that they are completely entitled. We use the same
laws when we move our assets around the shold as well.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Is their behavior acceptable?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
What's clear is that it's got much more benign, much
more competitive within the Pacific Ocean. You've seen that with
the COX, You've seen that with this increase and change
around much heavier military and more powerful vessels coming through.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
But it is their behavior acceptable?
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Well, they're entitled to that. You know. What you're saying
is just more competition.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
They didn't break them.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
It is not a benign raises.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
The main reason I ask is that we're dibooting flights.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
We are, and that's quite normal around the world. If
militaries will send radio signals up to airlines, into the
aviation system and into the maritime system to say they
are doing exercises. What we're saying is, look, we're relaxed
with what's happening when the sense of it's legal, but
we want to make sure we've got a bit more
advanced notice.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Okay, the cooks deal itself. From what you know and
what we've been told so far, are you bothered by it?
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yeah, and clearly frustrated by it, because at the end
of the day, areas she's not with the Cook Islands people.
They made great contribution to New Zealand. But it is
with Prime Minister Brown and the government they weren't transparent
or consultant before they SCIENTI.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
To a side the deal itself. Mining the sea bed
by the Chinese. Does that bother you?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, there's quite a few things that we want to
digest in those documents. And in fairness, what's happening is
again we still don't have transparency because we get at
the same time you get it, and the same time
the Cook Islands people are seeing the COMPERENCEUS tragic partnership
and the Three MOUs and so what we've got to
do is go through clause by clause and really understand
the risk and the implications of that around defense and
security in particular, and then we need to have a
(07:48):
reset around to what are going to be the parameters
of our constitutional arrangements and have those discussions with the
Cook Islands.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Which brings us then to defense. Will we see this
long away to defense review made public before the budget?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah? It juju to come out very shortly on a
matter of weeks.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Yep, Okay, so we'll know what we're looking at. Then
in the budget we had due to Colinto on yesterday.
She seemed to infer more neumental amounts of money we're
going to get to spend. Is she correct?
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Yes, there'll be a very significant uplift and defense spending.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
In the budget.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Yes, over a long period of time, in a year
and over a period of time. I mean, what's happened here, Mike,
is that historically our defense and just you know, SECT
has gone off and bought bits of ships and boats
and planes and stuff. What I've asked for new leadership
is a proper strategy for the next fifteen years of
where do we want to build capability in the defense
forces and therefore make sure that as we tip money
(08:35):
into it, that is actually good money going into a
good strategy. A lot of what we've got to do
is make things much more interoperable with Australia. As you've
seen even over the course of this week, we have pights.
They have pights. That helps us when we're doing things
like the China. Does this blow the budget though, No, No,
we have no money. No, we think we can manage
this and so we've got a budget frame around it
which we feel very comfortable.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Money comes from where well, the.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Money comes from us continuing to grow the economy but
also actually making it. We're not growing the economy, no,
but the continue to greet savings out of what we've
talked about.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Right, So there are savings and debt.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Yes, there's savings, is what we're doing.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
More debt. We'll talk about the budget and we get there.
You've just given it away. So we're going to go
even more debt to pay for this. I'm not arguing
it's not a good idea. I'm just saying there is
more debt being loaded up against us.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Well, what we're doing is a couple of things. One,
as we are going to continue the behavior of savings.
We've got a big savings drive and program that we
have to get out of the public service, and we'll
continue to do that every single day. As you saw
at the last budget, I think we generated something like
twenty three billion dollars worth of savings that funded a
lot of our investment in other areas. And that's the
mentality that we have of thinking of sweating the money
that we actually have and making sure it's deployed in
(09:40):
the right way. So that's the work that the budget
ministers are working through right now. I was with them
last week. We've got a lot more to do there.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Just real quick. I heard you talk to Kerry last week.
Is Marsden reel or was that a thought bubble? Marsden's
binary is real?
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Well, Marsden and looking at Marsden was a commitment we
made in the coalition agreement with.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
You were looking and doing a two different things.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah, but I'll let Shane Jones come back that because
it is actually part of a broader piece of work
around fuel security.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
It all makes sense.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
But is it real Well, he'll talk to that shortly.
But what I'd say is the fuel strategy is another piece.
Like you know, if we're going to import and fuel,
you need to have a number of days cover so
that if you got disrupted in a supply chain from Singapore,
actually we'll have we got enough cover here on the ground.
There's a whole bunch of things. That's one part of it.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Just real quick and almost out of time. Is anything
tangible come out of Vietnam?
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Yes, just just much deeper trade relationship. I mean that's
an exciting place. I mean one hundred million people, thirty
years age, fastest growing economy for twenty five years, going
to average seven percent growth in the next five to
ten years. And massive opportunity for food, beverage, the traditional sectors,
tourism and also education. Education is massive and Vietnam for
New Zealand a lot more to do there. So all
(10:49):
about trade there? Really all right?
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Go well, see you next week. We will see you
next week.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Or not, I'm not sure. Were Num back in Parliament
expects that we will be doing.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
For Parliament's open next week. Come on, you keep giving
me grief on this. How long was your summer holiday?
Was a long summer holiday? For more from the Mic
Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks it'd be from
six am 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.