November 23, 2025 • 10 mins
Chris Luxon says he is confident that he will lead National in next year's general election.
A hit in the polls raised questions about his leadership last week, and rumours spread that he would be replaced come next election.
The Prime Minister has denied these rumours.
He told Mike Hosking that, 'It's quite hard to take this seriously because I've read all of this before the whole 4 years I've been in politics.'
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):
Monday morning, the Prime Minister is with us. A very
(00:01):
good morning to you. Good morning Mike. A couple of
things off the super plan announced yesterday. Is it a
bottom line for you? Yeah? Yeah, absolutely, I mean so
in a coalition it will be a bottom line. It
will happen.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah, it has to happen because we have to put
the country on a much better pathway on savings and investment.
We've actually already started it, you know, we did it
the budget, moving it from six to eight percent, and
this is a continuation of it.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Okay, where do the coalition partners sit on it as
a broad idea?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well, I think Winston's express in the past I've speak
he sort of said that he wanted to increase contributions
as well. That's a positive thing. The means by which
we may know he wanted to go about it might
be different. But you know, at this point I think
I don't actually know why it is so political. I
think it's actually a common sense. Then if you look
at places like Ireland and Australia that are welfare they
(00:48):
actually have higher retirement saving.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
No, the only reason I'm asking is there's no point
in announcing a policy but it doesn't look like it's
potentially never going to see the light of day. So
you need one.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
As a national party, big party and the government.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
You expected, but you need your coalition partners roughly to
be alongside with the idea.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Sure, and that's the stuff that we go through when
we get on the other side with an election and
get a coalition agreement.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Can you in some way? We had Murray Harris on
from Milford Assett and he said, one of the biggest
problems but he likes the idea, but one of the
biggest problems around super innuation from you guys, you've got
to stop changing the rules.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Yeah, but I think on there's a couple of things
on national superannuation we're saying that stays. That's all fine,
but you're going to need to augment it with bigger
key we save us retirement savings. I think there's been
you know, even you've heard business leaders talk about this.
I think this is quite common sense. I mean, ultimately
it's about building.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Yeah, but it is. But I mean, you know what's
happened since Keep We Serve has been a think governments
going we're going to have a contribution. Whoops, No, we're
not going to have a contribution. Oh we'll make it
one thousand dollars. Oh, whoops, will make it five hundred dollars.
Set it up, leave it alone.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Yeah, well that's I mean, there'll be there'll have to
be some tweaks on the margins from time to time.
But what I'm saying is setting ourselves on a pathway.
This is a long term thing. It gives people time
to adjust. I think it's increment steps. It makes all
good sense. Okay, another cut this week in the interest
rate the cash right last time I spoke about that,
I've got a serious trap.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
What would you hope be Well.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
I've noticed that forecast as are talking about a twenty
five basis point, which would be fantastic because that would
be the ninth cut that we've had under governments, and
that would be a three hundred and twenty five bases
points cut since we came to power. And if that
gets transmitted out to commercial rates, which it will do,
that puts a lot of money in people's back pocket.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Here's the downside of that. Have you seen our dollar?
I asked you about this couple of months ago. You
didn't seem overly worried about it. You should be. I
mean at forty two p eighty seven Australian. Yeah, what's
that say about the New Zealand economy. Well, it says
that we've still got work to do.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
But it's obviously very good for our exports and that's
been a good thing. And you've seen a twelve billion
dollar growth in exports I think in the last two years.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
So yep.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
The dollar is floating dollars, you know, and we've got
to get the fundamentals of this economy right.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
But we look like a poor country that the world
doesn't like the look of. I mean, that's that's what
a dollar is.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Well, that's what I was alluding to yesterday, was saying
in my speech, was that when Australia's twenty five percent
wealthire Ireland's twice as wealthier, Singapore's three times as wealthier
per person, we actually need to have a conversation about what.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
We are doing to build out the future.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
We're fixing a lot of basics the last two years,
as I've said, but we've actually you know, with ideas
like the savings and investment things and other things. We've
got to build out where we want to go and
we've got great potential in the country. Damn, we've got
to go get it.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
And that's what the election year is all about. You
won't read the whole thing, but do you have a
broad understanding of what they did about the COVID inquiry
in Britain?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
No, I mean I saw some headlines.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Of lockdowns necessary. Yeah, lockdowns weren't necessary in Britain because
and we did it exactly the same thing. This wasn't
You weren't here of course at the time. But at
the end of the day, what are we going to
find out in COVID one and two? And if we
find out the same thing, I e. Lockdowns weren't necessary,
what do you do with that?
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Well, it's very helpful for should we have, god forbid,
have another version of a pandemic? Will form the thinking
around all of that. My frustration on it, as you know,
and that's why I wanted the terms broadened out, was
really about the economic damage that was done during that period.
You know, we were the second biggest spending country on earth. Proportionately,
we had the longest COVID hangover which.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
We've dealt with.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
We had sixty six billion dollars go walk about that.
No one knows where the hell it went, and you
didn't have ar Duran Hipkins or Robertson actually front that
commission to actually explain what the hell they were thinking
at that time.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
But imagine the methods on the economy if we would
never lock down.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Yeah, I mean, I mean, honestly, Mike, I spent a
lot of time with tourism and hospitality. Those people are incredible.
You remember the COVID period where they went their businesses
just crashed zero. They came through that, they've come through
now the recession that was caused by that COVID hangover,
and now we're trying to get the show movie again.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Now, is something going wrong with COVID two And as
weeks quit, there's a number of resignations from that inquiry.
Do you know why what's going wrong?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
No, I'm not aware.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
I don't. I'm not close to that. I mean, Brook
is obviously Brook van Valden's in charge of that. But
and she may know better, but I'm sorry, it's not.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
You don't but she doesn't come to you. You don't
get who go Why are these people resigning? I mean,
why would you take on an inquiry and then quip
from it unless something's not right.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
I just don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Should I inquire of other people?
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Should refree?
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You should Brook van Velden and tell what the hell is?
There something dodgy going on? Now? Do you want to
talk about the coup? The what the coup? But the
christ biership coups coming. He's coming for you? I said,
what I'm listening like?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Can I be honest, It's quite hard to take this
seriously because I've read all of this before, the whole four.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Years analytic I'm listening to hither du policic Allen. He's
coming for you.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Look, I don't think that is the case. He is
a great minister, he's a good friend, and he's doing
an awesome job.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
How come where has all this come from? There?
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Look, I don't know. It's hard to take it seriously.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
As I said before, I've been reading this stuff and
hearing this stuff ever since I came here.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
So but I'm very focused on what I.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Got to do.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
You will lead the National Party to the elections in
twenty twenty six, absolutely, no question, no question. The monetary
policy you're following the feed at all? And do we
need in this country the Monetary Policy Committee to be
able to speak openly about how they're feeling about the
the economy at any given stage, because what you've got
at the moment is the FED, and you've got somebody going,
(06:14):
I don't think we need to cut. You've got somebody
else mirror and going, I think we need to go
fifty points. Somebody else in mil goes I think twenty
five is about right. So you get a vibe, you understand,
you know what they're thinking. Why don't we do that here?
Speaker 2 (06:24):
We started to I mean like we have the formal
committee meetings and then as you know, they've actually started
to express what the votes were, saying things like interest
rate cuts. So you might remember there was sex people
on that. I remember, I think it was a four
to two decision once before on not proceeding.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
But you don't know who they are, No.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
You don't.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
But equally, you do kind of want some coherence so
that you get a clear beam from that group as
to what they actually are thinking and one point of
view I think versus multiple voices and just more commentariator
or more that would be my preference.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
I'm just all about it. I'm just about transparency. That's
all the bloke, the bloke you sent to Brazil, was
that a wasteed the affair?
Speaker 2 (07:04):
No, No, it's important we're there. I mean what for well,
I mean it is a global forum. I mean I
think you got asked some questions about cop and actually,
when you look at what has actually achieved the last
week's a few weeks in particular, I don't know whether
this has been its finest moments, and I think there's
some serious questions.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
To ask for the future about that body.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
But look, I mean we put a delegation together, small delegation.
They went over. It's important they participated. They went there
the whole time, and it keeps us informed with what's
going on and where people's heads are on it.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
All because what Simon said, he intervened, did he intervene?
He made a comment about the carbon market, right, and
he was trying to reassure people who would participate in
the carbon market that you guys are serious about climate change.
And it strikes me that you're sort of caught between
a rock and a hard place at the moment because
what you're doing policy wise makes perfect sense, but equally
you're trying to pretend you're all for twenty fifty in
(07:54):
net zero and.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Yeah, well let me talk aout because I mean we
are for zero twenty fifty.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
That's I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
We're all our carbon market, and actually when you look
at our plans, we think we might even get there
a bit early. But we're not going to do dumb
stuff like I mean, honestly, the last lot wanted to
shut down I think twenty five thirty percent of sheep
and beef farmers and send it all off seat overs
farms overseas. We're not sending billions of dollars overseas. We're
not going to send jobs overseas. So we are going
to make our own you know. That's why we've realigned
(08:21):
the ets, for example, to our own domestic That's.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Why Simon was interviewed because as a result of you
doing all of this shuffling and shifting, no one's buying
carbon crews. Each time the carbon market is each time
the auction comes up, no one buys anything. Yeah, they
don't believe a word you say.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Yeah, Well, partly because it was mucked around a hell
of a lot. You were doing the mucking around. We've
kept it pretty stable up until just recently where we've
just moved the aligns targets.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
They haven't they haven't participated for years, they haven't cleared
and not haven't cleaned because both of you, both you
and Labor keep mucking around with it. All I'm saying
is why have an auction for something no one wants?
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Well, I'm trying to make sure that I can control
what we can control, which is our domestic goal and
our domestic targets. That's the priority for me. And making
sure ETS, which was a domestic policy tool before Paris
was even signed up for, actually should be helping and
hooked up to helping us deliver on our net zero
twenty fifty goals. The net zero twenty fifties is very doable,
very possible. And then you've we've gone through and said
(09:18):
simple things like we don't need agriculture pricing. Actually, there's
a heap of technology coming you can increase productivity and
manager missions well, and I genuinely believe all of that.
So we've got we are changing the settings. I make
no apologies about that, but we're doing it to align
to what we can control and what we set up
will give the NDC stuff a good go. And we've
even aligned NDC twenty thirty five back to our domestic
(09:40):
goals because there was a massive disconnect there sitting there.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Next week it's present swap time because it's the final
week of the program.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
So what what day are you officially going on holiday?
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Following the following friday? The following friday.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
I'm so looking, listeners. I mean, this is marvelous, isn't it.
I mean, the man gives me greet for the lack
of time my spend in parliament and my people are
working down there, and and he's buggering off for like
December January. You back by May or.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
When I'm come back early in the year. Have you
you've had one week off this year or thing? Because
that's what it's called.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
It's called working twenty hours a week, Mike, seven days
a week.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
We're going to have a lot of weeks.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Is my show run better than this country's run? This
is listen?
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Is this says Pitch to become the Minister of Broadcasting?
Watch this space exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Anyway, we'll swap prisons next week. Get ready, get you up?
Speaker 2 (10:31):
WHOA Okay, I've been thinking about this for a while,
so you better, you better better stump up, I'll bring it,
don't worry. Good For more from the Mike Asking Breakfast,
listen live to news talks. It'd be from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Monday morning, the Prime Minister is with us. A very
(00:01):
good morning to you. Good morning Mike. A couple of
things off the super plan announced yesterday. Is it a
bottom line for you? Yeah? Yeah, absolutely, I mean so
in a coalition it will be a bottom line. It
will happen.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah, it has to happen because we have to put
the country on a much better pathway on savings and investment.
We've actually already started it, you know, we did it
the budget, moving it from six to eight percent, and
this is a continuation of it.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Okay, where do the coalition partners sit on it as
a broad idea?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well, I think Winston's express in the past I've speak
he sort of said that he wanted to increase contributions
as well. That's a positive thing. The means by which
we may know he wanted to go about it might
be different. But you know, at this point I think
I don't actually know why it is so political. I
think it's actually a common sense. Then if you look
at places like Ireland and Australia that are welfare they
(00:48):
actually have higher retirement saving.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
No, the only reason I'm asking is there's no point
in announcing a policy but it doesn't look like it's
potentially never going to see the light of day. So
you need one.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
As a national party, big party and the government.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
You expected, but you need your coalition partners roughly to
be alongside with the idea.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Sure, and that's the stuff that we go through when
we get on the other side with an election and
get a coalition agreement.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Can you in some way? We had Murray Harris on
from Milford Assett and he said, one of the biggest
problems but he likes the idea, but one of the
biggest problems around super innuation from you guys, you've got
to stop changing the rules.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Yeah, but I think on there's a couple of things
on national superannuation we're saying that stays. That's all fine,
but you're going to need to augment it with bigger
key we save us retirement savings. I think there's been
you know, even you've heard business leaders talk about this.
I think this is quite common sense. I mean, ultimately
it's about building.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Yeah, but it is. But I mean, you know what's
happened since Keep We Serve has been a think governments
going we're going to have a contribution. Whoops, No, we're
not going to have a contribution. Oh we'll make it
one thousand dollars. Oh, whoops, will make it five hundred dollars.
Set it up, leave it alone.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Yeah, well that's I mean, there'll be there'll have to
be some tweaks on the margins from time to time.
But what I'm saying is setting ourselves on a pathway.
This is a long term thing. It gives people time
to adjust. I think it's increment steps. It makes all
good sense. Okay, another cut this week in the interest
rate the cash right last time I spoke about that,
I've got a serious trap.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
What would you hope be Well.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
I've noticed that forecast as are talking about a twenty
five basis point, which would be fantastic because that would
be the ninth cut that we've had under governments, and
that would be a three hundred and twenty five bases
points cut since we came to power. And if that
gets transmitted out to commercial rates, which it will do,
that puts a lot of money in people's back pocket.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Here's the downside of that. Have you seen our dollar?
I asked you about this couple of months ago. You
didn't seem overly worried about it. You should be. I
mean at forty two p eighty seven Australian. Yeah, what's
that say about the New Zealand economy. Well, it says
that we've still got work to do.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
But it's obviously very good for our exports and that's
been a good thing. And you've seen a twelve billion
dollar growth in exports I think in the last two years.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
So yep.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
The dollar is floating dollars, you know, and we've got
to get the fundamentals of this economy right.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
But we look like a poor country that the world
doesn't like the look of. I mean, that's that's what
a dollar is.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Well, that's what I was alluding to yesterday, was saying
in my speech, was that when Australia's twenty five percent
wealthire Ireland's twice as wealthier, Singapore's three times as wealthier
per person, we actually need to have a conversation about what.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
We are doing to build out the future.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
We're fixing a lot of basics the last two years,
as I've said, but we've actually you know, with ideas
like the savings and investment things and other things. We've
got to build out where we want to go and
we've got great potential in the country. Damn, we've got
to go get it.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
And that's what the election year is all about. You
won't read the whole thing, but do you have a
broad understanding of what they did about the COVID inquiry
in Britain?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
No, I mean I saw some headlines.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Of lockdowns necessary. Yeah, lockdowns weren't necessary in Britain because
and we did it exactly the same thing. This wasn't
You weren't here of course at the time. But at
the end of the day, what are we going to
find out in COVID one and two? And if we
find out the same thing, I e. Lockdowns weren't necessary,
what do you do with that?
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Well, it's very helpful for should we have, god forbid,
have another version of a pandemic? Will form the thinking
around all of that. My frustration on it, as you know,
and that's why I wanted the terms broadened out, was
really about the economic damage that was done during that period.
You know, we were the second biggest spending country on earth. Proportionately,
we had the longest COVID hangover which.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
We've dealt with.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
We had sixty six billion dollars go walk about that.
No one knows where the hell it went, and you
didn't have ar Duran Hipkins or Robertson actually front that
commission to actually explain what the hell they were thinking
at that time.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
But imagine the methods on the economy if we would
never lock down.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Yeah, I mean, I mean, honestly, Mike, I spent a
lot of time with tourism and hospitality. Those people are incredible.
You remember the COVID period where they went their businesses
just crashed zero. They came through that, they've come through
now the recession that was caused by that COVID hangover,
and now we're trying to get the show movie again.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Now, is something going wrong with COVID two And as
weeks quit, there's a number of resignations from that inquiry.
Do you know why what's going wrong?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
No, I'm not aware.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
I don't. I'm not close to that. I mean, Brook
is obviously Brook van Valden's in charge of that. But
and she may know better, but I'm sorry, it's not.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
You don't but she doesn't come to you. You don't
get who go Why are these people resigning? I mean,
why would you take on an inquiry and then quip
from it unless something's not right.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
I just don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Should I inquire of other people?
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Should refree?
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You should Brook van Velden and tell what the hell is?
There something dodgy going on? Now? Do you want to
talk about the coup? The what the coup? But the
christ biership coups coming. He's coming for you? I said,
what I'm listening like?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Can I be honest, It's quite hard to take this
seriously because I've read all of this before, the whole four.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Years analytic I'm listening to hither du policic Allen. He's
coming for you.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Look, I don't think that is the case. He is
a great minister, he's a good friend, and he's doing
an awesome job.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
How come where has all this come from? There?
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Look, I don't know. It's hard to take it seriously.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
As I said before, I've been reading this stuff and
hearing this stuff ever since I came here.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
So but I'm very focused on what I.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Got to do.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
You will lead the National Party to the elections in
twenty twenty six, absolutely, no question, no question. The monetary
policy you're following the feed at all? And do we
need in this country the Monetary Policy Committee to be
able to speak openly about how they're feeling about the
the economy at any given stage, because what you've got
at the moment is the FED, and you've got somebody going,
(06:14):
I don't think we need to cut. You've got somebody
else mirror and going, I think we need to go
fifty points. Somebody else in mil goes I think twenty
five is about right. So you get a vibe, you understand,
you know what they're thinking. Why don't we do that here?
Speaker 2 (06:24):
We started to I mean like we have the formal
committee meetings and then as you know, they've actually started
to express what the votes were, saying things like interest
rate cuts. So you might remember there was sex people
on that. I remember, I think it was a four
to two decision once before on not proceeding.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
But you don't know who they are, No.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
You don't.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
But equally, you do kind of want some coherence so
that you get a clear beam from that group as
to what they actually are thinking and one point of
view I think versus multiple voices and just more commentariator
or more that would be my preference.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
I'm just all about it. I'm just about transparency. That's
all the bloke, the bloke you sent to Brazil, was
that a wasteed the affair?
Speaker 2 (07:04):
No, No, it's important we're there. I mean what for well,
I mean it is a global forum. I mean I
think you got asked some questions about cop and actually,
when you look at what has actually achieved the last
week's a few weeks in particular, I don't know whether
this has been its finest moments, and I think there's
some serious questions.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
To ask for the future about that body.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
But look, I mean we put a delegation together, small delegation.
They went over. It's important they participated. They went there
the whole time, and it keeps us informed with what's
going on and where people's heads are on it.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
All because what Simon said, he intervened, did he intervene?
He made a comment about the carbon market, right, and
he was trying to reassure people who would participate in
the carbon market that you guys are serious about climate change.
And it strikes me that you're sort of caught between
a rock and a hard place at the moment because
what you're doing policy wise makes perfect sense, but equally
you're trying to pretend you're all for twenty fifty in
(07:54):
net zero and.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Yeah, well let me talk aout because I mean we
are for zero twenty fifty.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
That's I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
We're all our carbon market, and actually when you look
at our plans, we think we might even get there
a bit early. But we're not going to do dumb
stuff like I mean, honestly, the last lot wanted to
shut down I think twenty five thirty percent of sheep
and beef farmers and send it all off seat overs
farms overseas. We're not sending billions of dollars overseas. We're
not going to send jobs overseas. So we are going
to make our own you know. That's why we've realigned
(08:21):
the ets, for example, to our own domestic That's.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Why Simon was interviewed because as a result of you
doing all of this shuffling and shifting, no one's buying
carbon crews. Each time the carbon market is each time
the auction comes up, no one buys anything. Yeah, they
don't believe a word you say.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Yeah, Well, partly because it was mucked around a hell
of a lot. You were doing the mucking around. We've
kept it pretty stable up until just recently where we've
just moved the aligns targets.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
They haven't they haven't participated for years, they haven't cleared
and not haven't cleaned because both of you, both you
and Labor keep mucking around with it. All I'm saying
is why have an auction for something no one wants?
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Well, I'm trying to make sure that I can control
what we can control, which is our domestic goal and
our domestic targets. That's the priority for me. And making
sure ETS, which was a domestic policy tool before Paris
was even signed up for, actually should be helping and
hooked up to helping us deliver on our net zero
twenty fifty goals. The net zero twenty fifties is very doable,
very possible. And then you've we've gone through and said
(09:18):
simple things like we don't need agriculture pricing. Actually, there's
a heap of technology coming you can increase productivity and
manager missions well, and I genuinely believe all of that.
So we've got we are changing the settings. I make
no apologies about that, but we're doing it to align
to what we can control and what we set up
will give the NDC stuff a good go. And we've
even aligned NDC twenty thirty five back to our domestic
(09:40):
goals because there was a massive disconnect there sitting there.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Next week it's present swap time because it's the final
week of the program.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
So what what day are you officially going on holiday?
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Following the following friday? The following friday.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
I'm so looking, listeners. I mean, this is marvelous, isn't it.
I mean, the man gives me greet for the lack
of time my spend in parliament and my people are
working down there, and and he's buggering off for like
December January. You back by May or.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
When I'm come back early in the year. Have you
you've had one week off this year or thing? Because
that's what it's called.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
It's called working twenty hours a week, Mike, seven days
a week.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
We're going to have a lot of weeks.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Is my show run better than this country's run? This
is listen?
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Is this says Pitch to become the Minister of Broadcasting?
Watch this space exactly.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Anyway, we'll swap prisons next week. Get ready, get you up?
Speaker 2 (10:31):
WHOA Okay, I've been thinking about this for a while,
so you better, you better better stump up, I'll bring it,
don't worry. Good For more from the Mike Asking Breakfast,
listen live to news talks. It'd be from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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.
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.