June 25, 2025 • 10 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Kiwiblog writer and Curia pollster David Farrar and Nick Leggett of Infrastructure NZ joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
There's renewed debate to introduce means-testing for NZ Super. Is this a discussion we need to have?
Donald Trump used the f-bomb when criticising Iran and Israel in front of reporters. How do we feel about the President using profanities?
Can we say that Trump has succeeded by getting NATO countries to commit to increase their defence spending to 5 percent?
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):
And on the huddle of Me this evening we have
David Farreh of KIWI Blog and Nick Legative Infrastructure New Zealand. David,
you're there, Oh, hold on there? Okay, yeah, hi David.
I forgot to pick up the phone. But look, I
mean it's been a long time since we've had landlines,
so you know. Now the trouble we've got, David is
(00:21):
do you know where Nicks?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
I don't know when. Nick is usually in Wellington, so
Nick's time on the joint WhatsApp I don't see Ni.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Yeah, well nobody knows where nickers. Nick is not answering
his phone. So Nick, if you're listening to the radio,
you need to answer your phone for this to work.
And also if your Nick's wife, can you please give
the phone to him. And if you're anybody around Nick,
can you tell Nick that he had an appointment? Because
this is what we all need to just collectively work
together to help the man. Obviously, on this occasion.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
I'll sell phone.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Hey guess what, David, it worked? Hello Nick, welcome.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Hello, I'm so sorry about that.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
What were you doing?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (01:01):
You know, after the infrastructure conference, it's good to talk
to people about what's going on and how we build better?
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Did you drink some booze?
Speaker 2 (01:10):
No, just a water?
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Okay, that's all right. Then I love that you allowed
us to just get into your personal diary there, David. Okay,
now you heard that conversation with Jane Writes and about
super What do you think can we can we continue
to afford it? Do you agree with us?
Speaker 2 (01:26):
No? I don't think we can. I think we should
be a lot. Point of principle, all welfare should be
means tested. We don't have unlimited money, and so welfare
should go towards those whould need it. Now, the only
conter to that is if the cost of administry and
a means test will be almost the same as what
(01:46):
you say from means testing, then you might say, look,
it's just not worth the hassle. But as we saw
in that dark, there's not lots of people on two
hundred thousand dollars a year, and you know, I don't
think they need just teen thousand dollars from the tech power.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
Okay. Jane writes and said Nick that it's choices, right,
you can choose to afford it, you just cut somewhere else.
What do you think, Well.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Of course it's about choices. But I'm with David. I mean,
we shouldn't be dolling out superannuation to people who don't
need it, and I think that's one point, so I
think it we should means test it. There is an
argument that the universality is the best way to administer,
the most sufficient way to administer, and therefore we actually
(02:29):
reduce deprivation among old people, and that's the best policy
prescription for that. But we've also got to project forward
tweeted twenty five years here the people in you're in
my generation, the government or a government should be having
a conversation with us and saying, look, you're not going
to get super at sixty five. We've got to increase
it for people who are currently forty or forty five
(02:51):
to sixty seven or sixty eight, and so there's no surprises.
You know, we actually have to prepare for the waves
of older people that are coming, and we should means
test in the meantime, are those who have got enough money?
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Do you know what I love the most about this conversation, David,
is that you guys will never that this is not
going to happen, and you guys are you are in
the minority.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
I have been advocating that I shouldn't get super aged
sixty five since I was in my twenties or tu.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Look and now you're in your in your seventies and
nothing's changed.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Yep, seven years to go, and yet sadly I get
to get her, even though I please welcome.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
And such it was. This is the way it will stay.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Thanks, of course, not the government offering me twelve thousand
dollars to do nothing. I mean, you take it.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
They hipar crossing.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Nick.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Now, what do you make of Donald Trump? Don't From
what we know, this is the first time a sitting
president has dropped the F bomb at the press Corps
on the South lawn of the White House. What do
you make of it?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Well, I mean, not too much, to be honest. I mean,
we know that all president would talk like this in private.
You know, he's somebody who's under immense pressure at the moment,
and I think that's popped out. I mean, I guess
it's shocking for a lot of Americans, but he's you know,
he's he's in amongster and sometimes this is what happened.
(04:15):
So yeah, yeah, but I'm sorry, I can't be shocked
or or surprised.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
No, not because the thing about it is, David, it's
not befeted, it's not it's not language befitting the office.
But frankly, it's coming out of the mouth of a
man who's not befitting befitting the office, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I think what really shows is how badly he wants
that noble peace drize. He's just called it off. He bombed,
I run, they fired around ten blank missiles and then
there's a peace treaty or a cease fire, and then
he saw, ah, that efforts are going to ruin my
peace prize for me. So I think it was just
(04:51):
the frustration that came out there. He might not give
his noble peace I don't think he'll probably get anyway.
But once you've been president, what do you have left?
You want your noble peace prize? He's been going on
about how we should have once for twelve years.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Yeah, would you give it to him based on if
this ceasefire holds? Nick, would you give it to him?
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Well, it's got a sick I mean, and not just
for a month or six months. Look, we know that
he's asked a constant adulation and part of me just says,
we don't want to feed that, but like, if he
actually gets something over the line, he should be recognized
like everybody else.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Yep, all right, take a break, come back, maybe even
come back to a bit more Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's international realty achieve extraordinary
results with unparallel reach.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Right, you're back of the huddle, Nick Leggan and David Farrett. Nick,
do you think that we can now say that Donald
Trump was right to start hassling the NATO countries to
lift their spending on defense.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
I think Donald Trump is the weather, but the climate
has been moving in this direction for a while, has it. Unquestionably,
he's had an influence. You can feel that, you know,
every nation in the world that's thinking and has the
economic means is now doing this. And I think he
(06:14):
has been an influence in this area. And frankly, I'm
not uncomfortable with it because I think that this is
what responsible NATO countries need to do given the circumstances
of the world's done.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Yep, David, he's been an influence both good and bad. Yes,
he's advocated for it to increase and This is definitely
needed because of what's happening Russia, especially that's the climate,
but also his behavior has made it clear you cannot
rely on the US to come to your aid anymore.
(06:48):
Even if you're a NATO country, it will depend on
what he had for breakfast that morning. So Europe, the
rest of nature is realizing we can't rely on the
US as a security guarantee. So that's a big reason why,
because Trump can't actually be relied to come to your
(07:08):
way up here.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
Yeap.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Not a bad thing though, right, because they've got to
be grown up. David.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Well, yet, Block, Well, you do want a security partner
in the US. I don't think that's good. Certainly you're
being more self deficient is definitely a good thing.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Now, Nick, Okay, did you read all one hundred and
sixty four pages of the report before you started drinking
a glass of water with your.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Free No, of course not. But I've had verbal briefings
on it all day.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
And what's the most exciting bit.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Well, I think that it says we've got to look
after what we've already built better. So if you think about, oh.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
We've got to maintain our infrastructure, right, No, they're not
that sucks. Yep, I'm gonna because I'm going to tell
you something next. So I've been thinking about this order.
I was niggled by this. I thought, why am I
niggled by? And then I was like, I'm niggled because
they've put out a draft report today. It's not even
the final report. It's the draft report. We're paying thirteen
million dollars for this quango that we've set up. They
(08:09):
put out a draft report. They have told us absolutely nothing.
We didn't already know. What's the point.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
That's well, that's true. But what we have to do
is have both major political parties, in fact, all major
all parties come to the party and agree that on
the system that delivers infrastructure. And so you talk about,
you know, looking after what we've got better we have
to do there. You know that five out of eight
major government agencies that own assets have no asset register
(08:38):
and don't have a plan for the assets they own.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
That is appalling.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
So, you know, there are very basic things in this
nation that if we want to continue to grow and
do you have healthy people and communities and kids learning
in decent schools. We've actually got to understand what we
already own, and we've got to invest in renewing and
maintaining it, and heither that hasn't been happening. That's a point.
So but we've now got to have the public pressure
(09:05):
and in the political follow through whoever, whichever party is
in power, Yeah, to change your behavior and put money
aside and make sure that money is invested in our
existence base. And then we've got to do building of
the new stuff better. And that's another but very related
to story.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
David, tell me if I'm wrong here, but if what
we need is public pressure, you know what's not going
to create public pressure is one hundred and sixty four
page report.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
No. And also you have to be slightly simplar. I'm
cynical of five year plans. Let alone do here year plans.
I think back in two thousand would be interesting to
look up that there was a FUS year infrastructure plan
in two thousand, as there was, it probably talked about
how we need to lay copper everywhere, and of course
eight years later fives and new technology. So you have
(09:54):
to be Look, you do want a plan, you do
want parties to agree as much as possible on the
non controversial stuff, but you also have to recognize parties
stand for election on the basis of different priorities national
like roads, labor like bridges to no cycle lanes, etc.
(10:16):
So don't think you're going to get agreement on a
Suhi year plan, but let's focus on where you can
get agreement.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Like hospitals. Yeah fairpoint. All right, thank you guys, appreciate it.
David Fair and mcligan.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks they'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
And on the huddle of Me this evening we have
David Farreh of KIWI Blog and Nick Legative Infrastructure New Zealand. David,
you're there, Oh, hold on there? Okay, yeah, hi David.
I forgot to pick up the phone. But look, I
mean it's been a long time since we've had landlines,
so you know. Now the trouble we've got, David is
(00:21):
do you know where Nicks?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
I don't know when. Nick is usually in Wellington, so
Nick's time on the joint WhatsApp I don't see Ni.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Yeah, well nobody knows where nickers. Nick is not answering
his phone. So Nick, if you're listening to the radio,
you need to answer your phone for this to work.
And also if your Nick's wife, can you please give
the phone to him. And if you're anybody around Nick,
can you tell Nick that he had an appointment? Because
this is what we all need to just collectively work
together to help the man. Obviously, on this occasion.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
I'll sell phone.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Hey guess what, David, it worked? Hello Nick, welcome.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Hello, I'm so sorry about that.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
What were you doing?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (01:01):
You know, after the infrastructure conference, it's good to talk
to people about what's going on and how we build better?
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Did you drink some booze?
Speaker 2 (01:10):
No, just a water?
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Okay, that's all right. Then I love that you allowed
us to just get into your personal diary there, David. Okay,
now you heard that conversation with Jane Writes and about
super What do you think can we can we continue
to afford it? Do you agree with us?
Speaker 2 (01:26):
No? I don't think we can. I think we should
be a lot. Point of principle, all welfare should be
means tested. We don't have unlimited money, and so welfare
should go towards those whould need it. Now, the only
conter to that is if the cost of administry and
a means test will be almost the same as what
(01:46):
you say from means testing, then you might say, look,
it's just not worth the hassle. But as we saw
in that dark, there's not lots of people on two
hundred thousand dollars a year, and you know, I don't
think they need just teen thousand dollars from the tech power.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
Okay. Jane writes and said Nick that it's choices, right,
you can choose to afford it, you just cut somewhere else.
What do you think, Well.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Of course it's about choices. But I'm with David. I mean,
we shouldn't be dolling out superannuation to people who don't
need it, and I think that's one point, so I
think it we should means test it. There is an
argument that the universality is the best way to administer,
the most sufficient way to administer, and therefore we actually
(02:29):
reduce deprivation among old people, and that's the best policy
prescription for that. But we've also got to project forward
tweeted twenty five years here the people in you're in
my generation, the government or a government should be having
a conversation with us and saying, look, you're not going
to get super at sixty five. We've got to increase
it for people who are currently forty or forty five
(02:51):
to sixty seven or sixty eight, and so there's no surprises.
You know, we actually have to prepare for the waves
of older people that are coming, and we should means
test in the meantime, are those who have got enough money?
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Do you know what I love the most about this conversation, David,
is that you guys will never that this is not
going to happen, and you guys are you are in
the minority.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
I have been advocating that I shouldn't get super aged
sixty five since I was in my twenties or tu.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Look and now you're in your in your seventies and
nothing's changed.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Yep, seven years to go, and yet sadly I get
to get her, even though I please welcome.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
And such it was. This is the way it will stay.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Thanks, of course, not the government offering me twelve thousand
dollars to do nothing. I mean, you take it.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
They hipar crossing.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Nick.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Now, what do you make of Donald Trump? Don't From
what we know, this is the first time a sitting
president has dropped the F bomb at the press Corps
on the South lawn of the White House. What do
you make of it?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Well, I mean, not too much, to be honest. I mean,
we know that all president would talk like this in private.
You know, he's somebody who's under immense pressure at the moment,
and I think that's popped out. I mean, I guess
it's shocking for a lot of Americans, but he's you know,
he's he's in amongster and sometimes this is what happened.
(04:15):
So yeah, yeah, but I'm sorry, I can't be shocked
or or surprised.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
No, not because the thing about it is, David, it's
not befeted, it's not it's not language befitting the office.
But frankly, it's coming out of the mouth of a
man who's not befitting befitting the office, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I think what really shows is how badly he wants
that noble peace drize. He's just called it off. He bombed,
I run, they fired around ten blank missiles and then
there's a peace treaty or a cease fire, and then
he saw, ah, that efforts are going to ruin my
peace prize for me. So I think it was just
(04:51):
the frustration that came out there. He might not give
his noble peace I don't think he'll probably get anyway.
But once you've been president, what do you have left?
You want your noble peace prize? He's been going on
about how we should have once for twelve years.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Yeah, would you give it to him based on if
this ceasefire holds? Nick, would you give it to him?
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Well, it's got a sick I mean, and not just
for a month or six months. Look, we know that
he's asked a constant adulation and part of me just says,
we don't want to feed that, but like, if he
actually gets something over the line, he should be recognized
like everybody else.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Yep, all right, take a break, come back, maybe even
come back to a bit more Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's international realty achieve extraordinary
results with unparallel reach.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Right, you're back of the huddle, Nick Leggan and David Farrett. Nick,
do you think that we can now say that Donald
Trump was right to start hassling the NATO countries to
lift their spending on defense.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
I think Donald Trump is the weather, but the climate
has been moving in this direction for a while, has it. Unquestionably,
he's had an influence. You can feel that, you know,
every nation in the world that's thinking and has the
economic means is now doing this. And I think he
(06:14):
has been an influence in this area. And frankly, I'm
not uncomfortable with it because I think that this is
what responsible NATO countries need to do given the circumstances
of the world's done.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Yep, David, he's been an influence both good and bad. Yes,
he's advocated for it to increase and This is definitely
needed because of what's happening Russia, especially that's the climate,
but also his behavior has made it clear you cannot
rely on the US to come to your aid anymore.
(06:48):
Even if you're a NATO country, it will depend on
what he had for breakfast that morning. So Europe, the
rest of nature is realizing we can't rely on the
US as a security guarantee. So that's a big reason why,
because Trump can't actually be relied to come to your
(07:08):
way up here.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
Yeap.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Not a bad thing though, right, because they've got to
be grown up. David.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Well, yet, Block, Well, you do want a security partner
in the US. I don't think that's good. Certainly you're
being more self deficient is definitely a good thing.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Now, Nick, Okay, did you read all one hundred and
sixty four pages of the report before you started drinking
a glass of water with your.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Free No, of course not. But I've had verbal briefings
on it all day.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
And what's the most exciting bit.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Well, I think that it says we've got to look
after what we've already built better. So if you think about, oh.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
We've got to maintain our infrastructure, right, No, they're not
that sucks. Yep, I'm gonna because I'm going to tell
you something next. So I've been thinking about this order.
I was niggled by this. I thought, why am I
niggled by? And then I was like, I'm niggled because
they've put out a draft report today. It's not even
the final report. It's the draft report. We're paying thirteen
million dollars for this quango that we've set up. They
(08:09):
put out a draft report. They have told us absolutely nothing.
We didn't already know. What's the point.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
That's well, that's true. But what we have to do
is have both major political parties, in fact, all major
all parties come to the party and agree that on
the system that delivers infrastructure. And so you talk about,
you know, looking after what we've got better we have
to do there. You know that five out of eight
major government agencies that own assets have no asset register
(08:38):
and don't have a plan for the assets they own.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
That is appalling.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
So, you know, there are very basic things in this
nation that if we want to continue to grow and
do you have healthy people and communities and kids learning
in decent schools. We've actually got to understand what we
already own, and we've got to invest in renewing and
maintaining it, and heither that hasn't been happening. That's a point.
So but we've now got to have the public pressure
(09:05):
and in the political follow through whoever, whichever party is
in power, Yeah, to change your behavior and put money
aside and make sure that money is invested in our
existence base. And then we've got to do building of
the new stuff better. And that's another but very related
to story.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
David, tell me if I'm wrong here, but if what
we need is public pressure, you know what's not going
to create public pressure is one hundred and sixty four
page report.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
No. And also you have to be slightly simplar. I'm
cynical of five year plans. Let alone do here year plans.
I think back in two thousand would be interesting to
look up that there was a FUS year infrastructure plan
in two thousand, as there was, it probably talked about
how we need to lay copper everywhere, and of course
eight years later fives and new technology. So you have
(09:54):
to be Look, you do want a plan, you do
want parties to agree as much as possible on the
non controversial stuff, but you also have to recognize parties
stand for election on the basis of different priorities national
like roads, labor like bridges to no cycle lanes, etc.
(10:16):
So don't think you're going to get agreement on a
Suhi year plan, but let's focus on where you can
get agreement.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Like hospitals. Yeah fairpoint. All right, thank you guys, appreciate it.
David Fair and mcligan.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks they'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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com