Taxpayer Talk: Paul Henry on ACT, Tax Cuts, and Taking an Axe to Wellington

In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams is joined by broadcaster-turned-ACT candidate Paul Henry for a lively, wide-ranging conversation on the campaign, the state of the centre-right, and why he thinks this election is too important to sit out.

From ACT’s push for smaller government and lower taxes to superannuation reform, Treaty politics, immigration, and the future of taxpayer-funded media, Henry makes the case for a sharper, braver government - and explains why he wants to be part of it.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_00 (00:08):
Hello, I'm Peter Williams, and this is Taxpayer
Talk.
And with me as our guest thistime is a man that I used to
know really well.
In fact, we worked together forgee, the best part of seven,
eight years, I can't remember,until he stupidly was dismissed
by TVNZ.
We went our separate ways,haven't seen too much of each
other over the last decade and ahalf, but now he's back.

(00:31):
He is one of the mosthigh-profile candidates for the
ACT Party in this year's generalelection, Paul Henry.
So lovely to see you again.
You don't look a day over 65.
You don't look as if you'vechanged a bit since I last saw
you.

SPEAKER_01 (00:43):
Well, you don't realize you're flattering me
because I am actually a day oversix.
I'm 66.
No, I think we both look prettygood for our ages, don't we?

SPEAKER_00 (00:51):
Well, it's the lifestyles we've led all our
life, I guess, Paul isn't.
Yes.
Anyhow, uh, to the present, um,are you enjoying this lack of
being a political candidateagain?

SPEAKER_01 (01:07):
I'm starting to get used to it.
I mean, you because you doforget when you haven't been in
the fray, and of course Ihaven't, I haven't really done
this for so very long.
Um, you do forget that it can bequite cutting and quite
draining.
Um, but I think both of us areused to ignoring uh outlandish
criticism and ludicrouscriticism.

(01:29):
We have to be very careful thatwe don't listen to focus groups
of one.
And I think we're both quitegood at it, but it does take a
little while to uh get used tothat again.
So I'm I'm getting used to that.
What I am really enjoying istraveling around the country and
uh meeting vast numbers ofpeople who have largely quite
different, quite differentviews.

(01:50):
I suppose to be fair, it'smarginally skewed towards um uh
right-wingers and actsupporters, marginally, but
there are plenty of people onthe fringe of that, which it's
really interesting to it'sreally interesting to talk to
people and find out how theytake and what concerns them.

SPEAKER_00 (02:06):
So you're not an electorate candidate, you are a
list-only candidate, thereforeyou're sort of the candidate at
large.
And it seems as if David Seymourhas put you out into the front
line to use that considerablepulling power you've got from
your days on television, whichsome of them are quite recent,
in fact, aren't they, with thethe Chase series last year and

(02:26):
the traitors and the like.
Uh are you finding that you'restill able to pull them in?
Are you are you packing themout?
That is the sellout sign goingup most places?

SPEAKER_01 (02:36):
Yeah, I mean, everyone we've done so far has
been standing room only.
And and I think, but you knowwhat?
Um, there are obviously peoplethat come along because I've got
name recognition, and a fewpeople come along and they bring
uh uh books that I've written toget them signed, but that's a
very small number.
The advantage is I can getpeople to turn up, but they
still have to be interested inwhat I've got to say.

(02:58):
I still have to front with uhwith ideas and be able to
articulate uh the direction ofthe party.
Obviously, for me it's stillearly days.
And so I I can I can honestlytell you now, I am not
completely up to spec with everysubtle nuance of policy.
And of course, we haven'treleased all of our policy this
uh this election yet by a longway.

(03:21):
But the important thing for meand the reason that I'm
representing ACT is because Icompletely subscribe to the
philosophy of the party.
And you know, Peter, for me,that is always, as a voter, that
has always been the mostimportant thing.
Uh so many policies are to onedegree or another a sugar hit.

(03:42):
The key thing is what are thephilosophies of the party I
intend to vote for?
What is the, particularly withcoalition governments, uh,
because you have to know thatyou're not only dealing with
your party's policies, butyou're dealing with how your
party deals with the policies ofother parties in the coalition.
Uh so for me, the philosophiesare absolutely the most

(04:03):
important thing, which is whatmade ACT really for me a
no-brainer.

SPEAKER_00 (04:07):
So, do you describe yourself as a conviction
politician?

SPEAKER_01 (04:13):
Absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 (04:14):
Yeah.
I mean, I would So, what areyour convictions then?

SPEAKER_01 (04:18):
Uh so fundamentally, my convictions are a right-wing
government, because I know it isthe only way to manage a
country, uh, a country which hasas small as possible a
bureaucracy.
Uh, that there is no point inmaintaining a large bureaucracy.
In fact, it is almost always, ifnot always, counterproductive.

(04:39):
Uh, and I always, I've and Ihave always, as you would know,
firmly believed that thiscountry is made up of New
Zealanders, and under the law,we should all be treated as
equal.
Those are pretty much myfounding philosophies, and they
are pretty much act's foundingphilosophies.

SPEAKER_00 (04:57):
Amen to that.
So can you believe that theprime minister, only last year,
when confronted with the TreatyPrinciples bill, said, there is
nothing about this bill that Ilike.
I mean, I'm sorry, I just wasabsolutely flabbergasted by a
so-called center-right politicalleader, the prime minister of
the country, saying, nothingabout this bill that I like, yet

(05:21):
it was a bill which had equalityfor all New Zealanders at the
heart of it.

SPEAKER_01 (05:26):
That was staggering, wasn't it?
It was staggering because howcould it even be true?
I mean, we know he's anintelligent man.
How could what he say be true?
Presumably, what he was tryingto do is just curry favor with
voters that probably will nevervote for them anyway.
And therein lies the big problemwith populist parties.
Um, I I say uh when I go andmeet people, you know, but with

(05:48):
my in my shtick, if you like,um, I say the biggest problem
with National is they spend moretime looking over their shoulder
than they do with their eyesfirmly fixed on on the end game,
you know, the the goal.

SPEAKER_00 (06:03):
Are you still there, Paul?
Yes, yes.
Oh, sorry, you just looked as ifyou'd got yourself stuck in a
deep freeze there for a minute.

SPEAKER_01 (06:10):
Oh no, I got to the end of my sentence and I
thought, you know, as a as astrategy, maybe I'll just stop
speaking.

SPEAKER_00 (06:17):
No, it wasn't just that, but your your breath
stopped moving as well.
Uh anyway, you were saying aboutMr.
Luxon.
Are you as a potential umcolleague of his around the
cabinet table in maybe just afew months' time, what do you
think of a man?
I mean, do you believe you canwork alongside him?

(06:37):
Do you think you can get a bitof uh steel in that spine of
his?

SPEAKER_01 (06:43):
And and you know, that last that last phrase of
yours completely summed it up.
It is a party that needs steelin its spine.
Actually, it just needs a spine,let's be honest.
Um, to answer your question, I Iknow him to be a really nice
bloke, I know him to be a smart,a smart guy, um, but he hasn't

(07:03):
resonated with the public.
And of course, that is a veryimportant thing in politics.
And do you know, uh, I alwaysremember when Tony Blair was
going through problems afterarguably a golden run uh of
British politics, and he said inan interview, he said, I
recognize the moment I lost thebenefit of the doubt.

(07:25):
Do you know?
I don't think Chris Luxon hasever held the benefit of the
doubt with the public, and it isvery, very hard to galvanize
people.
It's very, very hard to lead aparty, let alone a country,
without holding the benefit ofthe doubt.
I think even although he'simproving, and I believe he is
improving in terms of his publicuh appearances, I think it's too

(07:48):
late.

SPEAKER_00 (07:49):
Yeah, but you still think you'll be the national
party leader for the election,don't you?
Yeah.
So he's gonna make it through.

SPEAKER_01 (07:59):
I do because I can't I can't conceive them actually
making a decision that quickly.

SPEAKER_00 (08:06):
Yeah, I know what you mean.
Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (08:07):
Yeah, there is disquiet.
But if Jacinda taught usanything, she taught us a great
many things, almost all of themnegative, but one of the things
she taught us is actually it'salmost never too late to change
a leader if you need to change aleader.
Um and for that reason alone,there's perhaps that slight
whiff of a new leader in the airwith National, but I still think

(08:28):
it's it's very unlikely beforethe election.
The big question, I think,Peter, is will he lead National
through the next term?
And I'm I'm sure there isconsiderable disquiet in his
ranks.

SPEAKER_00 (08:44):
Well, it depends, of course, who gets back into
Parliament because number twoand three on his list are in
real under real threat.
I would have thought of notbeing returned to Parliament if
uh National win a whole bunch ofelectorates, which they may well
do.
It means there's room for nobodyon the list, including the
current Minister of Finance andthe the Minister for Um Resource
Management Reform and theMinister of Transport.

(09:06):
Anyway, we should start talkingabout the National Party.

SPEAKER_01 (09:09):
No, that's a genuinely interesting point
because this is a conundrum thatI don't believe they've ever had
before.
Uh and and you look at it, Ithink, I think it's maybe not
quite as dire as as you'vepainted.
I wouldn't want to be numberthree list only candidate,
though.
Um, and I mean, are they goingto be looking for a new speaker?
I mean, Jerry's down there.

(09:29):
Does that does that make Jerry,I think, the fourth effectively
list only candidate?
I'm I'm including Chris Bishopbecause, I mean, by his own
admission, he's very unlikely towin Hutt South.
Um, let's face it, PaulGoldsmith is not going to win
Epsom.
So if Paul gets in, that's threelist positions taken up.
Um I've I think looking at someof their some of their possible

(09:52):
wins in the electorate vote,yeah, I think you're right.
I think this is a conundrum forthem.

SPEAKER_00 (09:56):
All right, let's stop talking about the National
Party for now.
What about the Act Party?
Where does your list out?
I mean, Labour have releasedtheirs.
Uh, I don't know whether theGreens have, but certainly the
the National Party has just inthe last few days.
When is the Act list out?
And where do you think you mightbe without having been given the
nudge, nudge, wink, wink fromDavid Seymour?

SPEAKER_01 (10:18):
Yeah.
I um, well, of course, David isis one vote.
I mean, I'm sure he's quiteinfluential, but essentially
he's one vote in the making ofthe list.
Um to answer the first part ofyour question, ballpark, the
middle of next month.
I think ours is is pretty muchtowards the deadline for for
announcing the list.

SPEAKER_00 (10:38):
So you're talking mid-September.

SPEAKER_01 (10:40):
Yeah, yeah.
Um, so I want to say, and I Idon't know this because I
haven't been focusing on this,um, but I want to say around the
sort of 12, 13, 14, somethinglike that of September.
In terms of my expectations, um,I'm working really hard.
Uh I'm sure the party can seethat.
I'm sure they can see uh theworth in me.

(11:03):
Um, God, I would hope so.
So I have expectations that Iwill be high on the list.

SPEAKER_00 (11:08):
And if you do get into parliament and you're high
on the list and it is acentre-right coalition, again, a
national New Zealand First andAct, would you expect to be a
cabinet minister as well?

SPEAKER_01 (11:22):
I wouldn't necessarily expect to be.
I would want to be, but um, Imean, there's a lot of
negotiation between now andthen.
As you said yourself, we have toget in, we have to be in
government, um, and then ofcourse the numbers come into
play.
How many, how many positions arethere going to be?
Um, how will they be divvied up?
So, so I wouldn't expect to be,uh, but I would want to be.

SPEAKER_00 (11:46):
How uh how how sturdy are your political
ambitions in terms of not beingin government?
I mean, if if you get in on theAct Party list, but heaven
forbid the other side form thegovernment, I've written
actually, Paul, that you mightlose a bit of interest pretty
quickly as a back pinchopposition MP and might not see

(12:06):
out the term.
Uh I mean, are you committed touh a life in uh in parliament
for at least three years?

SPEAKER_01 (12:14):
I think you have to be, and and I absolutely am.
Um and and and you know, I get II get your feeling and the
feeling of some others.
Um obviously I will be bitterlydisappointed if we're in
opposition, firstly for thecountry and then for me, because
it it will it will be, you know,it'll be a bit of a a bit of a

(12:37):
trudge, but my God, there'll bea job to do in opposition if if
if we have a left.
I mean, I hate even saying thewords because there's that view,
isn't there, that if you'retalking about it, it'll come
true.
Um this is, and this is one ofthe reasons I've stood.
All elections are important.
But to me, and I don't know ifyou also get this feeling, this

(13:00):
is a vitally important election.
We are really sitting on abalance now.
Uh that the situation we're inas a country financially is
dire, truly dire.
And if we don't do the rightthings next term quickly enough,
and you know that's somethingthat that's a mistake that's
been made in these last threeyears, why didn't we start doing

(13:22):
things on day one, two, three,four, twenty, thirty, forty,
fifty?
Why did it take two and a halfyears to do some of these
things?
Um, and some still have not beenenacted properly.
Um, we've got to start doingthings quickly.
If we're not there, if there's alabor-led coalition, God help
us, literally, God help us.
So to answer your question, yes,absolutely committed.

(13:44):
I wouldn't be doing this towaste my time.
And it would be wasting my timeif I went in and didn't give it,
didn't give it a decent crackand didn't stay around and
wasn't completely committed.

SPEAKER_00 (13:55):
The polls suggest that the National Party will a
not have as many MPs in theHouse, but uh that of course
leads to the fact that they'renot having the same number of
cabinet ministers either.
So they won't be as influentialaround the cabinet table.
Therefore, do you think that ACTcan really push some economic
policy in particular?
And I'm thinking about cuttingback on government spending,

(14:16):
perhaps the reduction of thecorporate tax rate to stimulate
New Zealand business, policieswhich, to be perfectly honest,
the National Party have justseemed scared to even uh think
about.

SPEAKER_01 (14:28):
Yeah, they are.
I mean, you almost don't need mehere.
Um, because you're right.
I mean, it is.
It's a fear.
It comes back to that point Isaid, they spend more time
looking over their shoulder thanwith their eyes fixed on the
price.
Um, and also you are the firstperson um that's interviewed me
that's mentioned the corporatetax rate.
You know, it is vitallyimportant that we pull our

(14:49):
corporate tax rate down.
And, you know, we can't affordto lower taxes at the moment,
um, although we haven't releasedour tax policy, and our
intention is to massage thingswhich will have that effect.
But we can't afford todramatically lower taxes at the
moment, but we need to do it assoon as we can afford to do it.
Um, national, they're just notkeen on doing it.

(15:11):
I mean, look at the tax policythat they announced the other
day, you know, promising thatthey won't introduce what was
their line?
It was intriguing and alsoinexplicable.

SPEAKER_00 (15:19):
Noble taxes for working people.

SPEAKER_01 (15:22):
Working people.

Well, here's the thing (15:23):
what they're saying is, oh, we are
going to introduce some newtaxes, but not for working
people.
I think both you and I, Peter,know that if you introduce a new
tax, it will not only affectworking people, absolutely, but
all people working or not.
So it's a it was really oddwording.

(15:43):
It was the kind of wording youget when when you're a populist
party and you and you want tobasically you want to basically
ice both sides of the cake.

SPEAKER_00 (15:52):
So are you keen on a corporate tax uh reduction, a
company tax reduction?

SPEAKER_01 (15:57):
Absolutely.
Absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 (15:59):
As quickly as possible.
Because I I come back to yourinterview with Jack Tame uh on Q
⁇ A a few weeks back when forsome bizarre reason he was uh on
the case with who was it,Facebook or Google or something,
and all the revenue they have inthis country, uh, and the fact
that they shift it all offshoreto to Ireland, I think, mostly.
Yeah.
And they sent it to Irelandbecause they don't pay any tax

(16:21):
on it.
And it seemed to me, I mean, tobe perfectly honest, it was a
question out of left field, andI don't know why he was
particularly fixated on on therevenue of these these um
multinational companies.
But if we did have a corporatetax rate, which max matched that
of Ireland, which I think is 15cents in the in the dollar.
Yeah, 15%, yes.

(16:42):
Yeah, 15%, then maybe uh the thelikes of um you know the big
players like Microsoft andFacebook and and and everybody
who have their operations here,maybe they would be paying some
more tax here.

SPEAKER_01 (16:55):
The motivation, the motivation to shift it offshore
would be gone.
Um we can't afford to do that atthe moment, but that should be
our goal.
That is what I would like to seeus do sooner rather than later.
Right at the moment, we can'tafford to do it.
You know, going back to thatinterview, there were so many
things he said, and I thought,you know, do I, because you
know, you as an interviewee,you're you're thinking, okay,
where do where do I allow thisto go?

(17:17):
Do I want to get bogged down inthe detail?
We have looked at thepossibility of introducing a
separate tax for, say, the likesof Facebook and Google.
So why wouldn't we do that?
I could have gone into all ofthis, but it could have really
gone down a rabbit hole.
You wouldn't do that because ofunintended consequences.
Now, it was only, what, a weekafter that that out of the blue,

(17:38):
Trump announced another 2.5%tariff on New Zealand.
At the same time, out of theblue, 50% tariff on multiple
items in Canada.
You know, if we had introduced aspecific tax for two American
companies, it would have givenTrump the green light.
The unintended consequenceswould have been diabolical.
Uh, but that would have was,like I say, a rabbit hole not to

(18:00):
go down.
Certainly you're right.
If we could get corporate taxdown to 15%, the incentive to do
what they do now would notexist.

SPEAKER_00 (18:08):
So you say we can't afford it.
Is it not worth, I guess you'dcall it making an investment at
this stage?
Perhaps we don't do it in onefoul swoop from 28% down to 15%.

SPEAKER_01 (18:19):
No, you wouldn't be able to do it in one foul swoop.

SPEAKER_00 (18:21):
But at least you go from 28%, let's get to 25% to
start with, and maybe have aplan to get to 20 within two
years or by the end of the nextparliamentary term.
I mean, surely that is a policywe should be aiming for.
And then all of a sudden, you'vegot companies that say, well,
we've got more money in our inour bank account at the end of
each week after doing business,we can spend it, we can invest,

(18:41):
we can grow our company, we canwe can employ more people.

SPEAKER_01 (18:45):
Yep, completely.
You're right.
And I have conversations likethis.
We haven't released our taxpolicy yet.
What I can tell you is that thatis a prize we have our eyes
fixed on.
Um that is the direction weabsolutely have to go.
What I can tell you, unlikeNationals tax announcement, and
we haven't we haven't announcedour tax policy yet, but what I

(19:05):
can tell you is under ACT, ourpolicy is absolutely no new
taxes.
No new taxes at all.

SPEAKER_00 (19:14):
That's no levies, no increase in my car registration
fees, no increase in my what arethe licensee license fees I pay?

SPEAKER_01 (19:25):
Well, you what you've done, of course, is
you've expanded it out.
I said no new taxes, and yousaid so that's no increases.

SPEAKER_00 (19:31):
You you know that a that a car registration is a tax
poll.

SPEAKER_01 (19:35):
It is a tax, but it's not a new tax.
Um but anyway, let's not danceon the head of a paper.
You're not going to increase it.
Is that what you're saying?
No new taxes.
The only one, the only one thatyou could perceive as a tax that
we might increase will be thefuel levy.
And I'll tell you why we mightdo that.
It's already actually programmedin to be increased.

(19:56):
So it won't be a decision toincrease it.
It's already programmed in toincrease it.
And that's because that is astraight user pays tax.
At the moment, the money we getin fuel levy does not meet the
cost of uh repairing andreplacing roads.
So we are having to top that upum every week.

(20:17):
So that is something that mayhave to increase.
That is the only exception.

SPEAKER_00 (20:22):
Okay, so the tax policy, government income is on
one side of the ledger.
On the other side of the ledgeris government spending.
Now I know David in the lastcampaign was hot under the
collar about the amount ofwasted money during this term.
Uh he's backed uh reduction inthe government sector, the
public service for want of abetter word.
But there are also other hugeaspects of government spending

(20:46):
which can be brought undercontrol or, frankly, cut
completely.
So, whereabouts is Act lookingto attack matters uh there?

SPEAKER_01 (20:55):
Everywhere.
I mean, quite literally.
I mean, it's such an easy answerto that question.
Everywhere.
I can promise you that the moreinfluence Act has in the
government after the election,the smaller the government will
be.
There is no good comes out ofexcessively big government.
And it's not just a matter ofsaving the money.

(21:17):
So say we get rid of a couple ofdepartments, say we get rid of a
couple of thousand uh publicservants.
It's not just the immediatesaving in electricity and birows
and paper and wages and etcetera, et cetera.
Getting those people out of theway gets obstacles to success
and growth out of the way.

(21:38):
Uh, it is hard to estimate justhow much.
I'll give you an example of, andagain, we'll use a roading
example.
Um, New Zealand's investment inroading infrastructure is in the
top 10% of the OECD.
Our value for money in roadinginfrastructure is in the bottom
10% of the OECD.

(21:58):
Now, why do you think that is?
Why do you think we're spendinga lot and we're not getting very
much for it?
I would venture to suggest itwas because of rampant
government interference.
We need to look at every singlenuance of government.
Now, there will be wholedepartments we can close down.
I guarantee you now, there aredepartments we could go into and

(22:19):
flip the switch off.
No one would notice.

SPEAKER_00 (22:23):
Well, David said that last time, didn't he?
Women's affairs, PacificPeople's, ethnic affairs.
I mean, they're dime a dozen.
That's uh that that's that'seasy, isn't it?
But but that costs that costsstuff all though in the overall
scheme of things, doesn't it?
It's 20 million here, 30 millionthere.
I know eventually you're goingto be talking about real money,

(22:43):
but we've got to save billions,don't we?

SPEAKER_01 (22:46):
Yeah, yeah, we do need to save billions.
Um and there are other ways youdo it.
Obviously, uh so here's what wecan't do.
We can't borrow to reachprosperity, we can't tax to
reach prosperity.
Both of those things areabsolutely true.
So we have to grow the economy,so we have to make more money,
and we have to spend less, whichis what we're talking about now.

(23:06):
Um spending less is thatdouble-edged sword, you know,
and there's an the there's anadvantage on both sides of that
sword.
There are whole departments wecan close down.
There is no country of a likesize of ours that has a
bureaucracy, a governmentanywhere near as big as ours.
Why do we have 43 ministries, 43departments?

(23:29):
It is it is barking mad.
Why do we have 28 stroke, 30ministers?
I mean, it's completely crazy.
What is it?
MB there, MB is answerable tosomething like 23, 24 ministers.
It's just grown like topsy.
I was talking to David about itthe other day, and he used the
analogy, he's probably used itwith you, um, but he said there

(23:52):
was probably no time that anyonesat down and said, Oh, I know
what, we need to make thegovernment bigger.
What happened is people justmade it bigger.
It's like the hedge that youstopped trimming.
It just grows and grows andgrows.
It is completely out of control.
You know, this interview, Idon't know, what is it going to
be, an hour?

(24:13):
Um, that's a million dollars.
That's a million dollars we haveto borrow as a country during
the course of this interviewjust to pay interest on the
money we already owe.
It is unsustainable.
And, you know, we're at a timenow where what we could do is we
could be the greens and we couldjust borrow a huge amount of

(24:37):
money and happily squander ourway through another term.
But this has happened for toomany terms in a row.
The last Labour government didso much squandering, the
rubber's hitting the road now,so we've got to be prepared to
take some tough decisions nowwhile we can still embroider
them into people's lives.
And one of them issuperannuation.

(24:58):
You know, we can't just keepkicking this down the road, or
we're gonna literally get to thepoint where we have to tell
people, you were gonna retirenext Wednesday, but we're gonna
punch it on for a few yearsbecause we can't afford to pay
you.
Um, so there are some, there aresome reasonably bitter pills
we're gonna have to swallow, butsuperannuation is a case in
point.
Every intelligent person knowsthat we can't afford to keep the

(25:22):
superannuation age at 65.
So let's address that, let'srectify it, and there's one
thing at least which will headmarginally in the right
direction.

SPEAKER_00 (25:33):
Okay, well, it's uh a Monday night, it's the second
Monday, and I think tonight intoboth of our bank accounts,
there'll be the best part of athousand bucks will drop in
there.
You I know darn well, PaulHenry, you don't need that
thousand dollars.
I get nine hundred and eighty orsomething, and my wife gets
notes to solve better when itgets more than me.

(25:53):
Yes.
Yeah, that's because I'm notworking anymore, you see.
Um, anyhow.

SPEAKER_01 (25:59):
I'm working hard, I'm just not getting paid.

SPEAKER_00 (26:01):
Yeah, so I'm getting about a thousand.
Between the two of us, my wifeand I are getting about 1,700
bucks a week put in our jointbank account, which is kind of
nice, but we could get bywithout it.
I'm sure you and and Diane couldget by without your just 1,500
or 1,700 bucks a week that goes,or fortnight rather, that goes
in there as well.
So, I mean politicians are veryloath to do means testing.

(26:25):
They say the bureaucracy is waytoo difficult, the surcharge uh
memories from 30 years ago arestill fresh for a lot of people.
But you can increase the age to68 or whatever.
But the problem is you're stillpaying a whole lot of pretty
wealthy people money they don'tneed.
So why don't you address it thatway as well?

SPEAKER_01 (26:46):
Um, I'm not a I'm not a subscriber to that view.
And by the way, I think 67 wouldwould be the age that we would
move to.
Um I'm not a subscriber to thatview because I don't think the
pension is welfare.
I think it is an entitlement,it's a universal entitlement,
and I would like it to stay thatway.
And here's one of the reasonsfor it.

(27:07):
Um, you're right, I don't Idon't need the money.
Um but I don't necessarily spendit on me either.
You know, I know that I canspend that money better than any
government.
And it's an entitlement.
When I get it, I then have theability to do with it what I
choose, as you do.

SPEAKER_00 (27:26):
Yes.
So in other words, uh you don'twant it stuck in the
government's coffers becauseit's going to be spent maybe on
employing another half a civilservant or something to work at
the Ministry of Health to losesomebody's x-ray records.
Which is part of it.
From my experience, far toooften.
The government is inefficient.
The state sector is inefficient.

SPEAKER_01 (27:48):
And the more of it you have, the more inefficient
it is.
This is what people don't seemto be able to get.
The more government you have,the more inefficient it is.
And you know, when we suggesttaking the number, our absolute
policy, and this would have,this would have kicked in just
after the last election if we'dhad more, say, around the
cabinet table, our absolutepolicy to take the public
service back to 2017 levels.

(28:09):
And let me tell you, I'm prettysure in 2017 we had too many
public servants, too, just farless than we've got now.
You know, as soon as we saythat, it everyone's up in arms.
You know, oh, so what are theygoing to do?
Where are they going to find ajob?
You know, that that's justanother way of saying, you know,
well, we should just employpeople to do nothing and get in
our way because we don't wantthem on, you know, many of those

(28:31):
public servants, probably notall, because most public
servants uh adverts for jobswhen they went out said no
experience necessary.
Um many of those public servantsso are probably very useful
human beings, just not as publicservants.
If they were out there in theprivate sector, rather than
costing us money and standing inour way, they would be
contributing considerably to thewealth of the country and

(28:53):
growing the economy.
Um, but but here's what I'm juston on um National Super.
You know, it's pretty clear thatI don't need the money and my
wife doesn't need the money.
And I'm sure you don't either,because I know you've been
pretty studious with your incomeover the years.
Um But where do you draw theline?
And to get to your point aswell, how much does it cost to

(29:16):
draw the line and maintain theline and manage the line?
You know, the benefit when youstart means testing is nowhere
near as great as people think,and in some cases it's actually
a loss.
But I really worry about whereyou draw the line.
I think we need to say to peoplethe one thing you can be sure on
is you will get this and itwon't be means tested.

(29:36):
And, you know, it is not awelfare payment, it is an
entitlement that you'vecontributed to through a long
and hopefully hard-working life.

SPEAKER_00 (29:45):
Except that there are many New Zealanders who have
returned to this country at theage of 60 so that they could,
after living overseas for sometime, they come back at 60 so
they can be here for five yearsto qualify for it.
Uh, we have a lot of immigrantswho have been here 10 years, uh,
and that's uh a rationale forthem to qualify for super as

(30:08):
well.
There's an awful lot of peoplewho haven't paid that much tax
in New Zealand over the yearswho are still getting that
entitlement.
So we've got to be tougher in inthat respect as well, too, don't
we?

SPEAKER_01 (30:18):
I think we do.
And and obviously you'vementioned immigration, and
that's a that obviously is adifferent uh a different policy
area altogether.
It's a policy area that we, Ithink, have dropped the ball on
um over successive governmentsof of of both shades of blue and
red.
Um, and it's something that wehave quite a it's something that

(30:40):
we have quite a firm policy on.
Our immigration policy, I think,is uh is second to none.
Um to sum it up, we need peoplewe need, not people who need us.
We have an excellent refugeepolicy, and that takes care of
the people we need us.
We meet our global obligationsthere, to my satisfaction
anyway, and I'm sure to yours.

(31:02):
Um our immigration policy shouldnot be even remotely a refugee
policy.
That is a policy designed togrow our um to grow our economy,
and and so like I say, we shouldonly be letting people in that
we need.

SPEAKER_00 (31:16):
But that Indian free trade agreement, if you listen
to Winston, suggests that we'reopening the floodgates to a lot
of uh Indian immigrants who'llcome here not necessarily with a
lot of skills, or if they dohave the skills, they're not
going to be able to be employedand they'll finish up being Uber
drivers.
And we have enough uh Uberdrivers of Indian descent as it

(31:38):
is, I would have thought.

SPEAKER_01 (31:39):
Well, um yeah, I get what you say, which is why I
don't listen to Winston.
He's wrong.
He's completely wrong.

SPEAKER_00 (31:48):
So so the FTA does not open the floodgates to
people to come here as studentsand then they can bring their
mother and their father andtheir grandparents with them as
well.

SPEAKER_01 (31:58):
No, it absolutely doesn't.
There is no opportunity to unifyfamily members or anything like
that as part of the FTAagreement.
Once people have been here foruh the amount of time that
they're permitted to be here forthe work visas which are
available through the if they'repeople we need available through
the free trade agreement, um,then they can apply through all

(32:19):
normal procedures that we have,all existing immigration
procedures we have.
There's nothing to stop themdoing that, but there'd be
nothing to stop them doing thatfrom India anyway.
Uh no, that that none of thoseconcerns around the India Free
Trade Deal are founded.
You know, we will look back,Peter, in years to come as we do
with the China free trade dealand say, my God, what a shame we

(32:39):
couldn't have signed that a fewyears earlier.

SPEAKER_00 (32:42):
And Winston, as we know, uh back in 2008, was uh
very much against that uh FTA.
And frankly, the country wouldbe in deep stuck without it now.
Um, 18 years old.

SPEAKER_01 (32:56):
But obviously, we we have to try and negotiate them
as as as satisfactorily aspossible for us.
And that India free trade uhagreement, it's brilliant at the
moment, but there is so muchmore, particularly with dairy.
There is a lot further we cango, um, but it's a brilliant
agreement.

SPEAKER_00 (33:15):
Well, we'll see how it uh it plays out in times to
come.
I want to raise the issue now ofrace relations in this country.
Famously, ACT last yearintroduced the Treaty Principles
Bill.
It got to first reading, thenwas always going to be voted
down.
We have a case uh which I'vejust written about, Paul, uh,
which was heard in the HighCourt in February, March, and

(33:40):
April of last year, aneight-week hearing.
And we still don't have adecision on that because Nytahu
want control over South Islandfresh water.
They've already taken$100million from the power company
for the use of water on theWaitaki River.
We know they've just been givenuh preferential rights to be the
operators of Molesworth Station.

(34:00):
Are you worried that there is uha movement who would seem in
inside parts of the currentgovernment to be just a bit too
nice and a bit too generous tothese very, very wealthy Uber
tribes such as uh Nytahu here inthe South Island and uh in
Tainoe up north?

SPEAKER_01 (34:20):
I think it's uh sometimes now with many of these
race relations aspects, it'spolitically expedient to do
nothing, to turn a blind eye, tobat it down the road.
And we've been batting it downthe road for a long time, which
is a full, which is exactlywhich is why you're able to
mention the the water situationthat we have at the moment in

(34:42):
the South Island, and and I meanjust so many other examples of
that type of thing.
Um we have created we havecreated a crisis and has it gone
too far down the track to toturn it around.
I mean it might have.

(35:02):
I mean i it it's like it's likeborrowing more money, you know.
The the line of least resistanceis borrow more money, the line
of least resistance is racerelations, is oh well, we'll let
them get away with this, but ifthey want more, we'll stand in
their way, you know.
And uh we're a long way downthat track now, and it's a brave
person, it's a brave politicalparty that will stand up and try

(35:23):
to do something for it.
And what we showed in this lastterm is that ACT is the only
brave political party left.

SPEAKER_00 (35:32):
Are you going to have another go?

SPEAKER_01 (35:35):
Yes, but obviously not in the same way.
You know, history, we're notlike that.
If you if it didn't work lasttime, we won't do exactly the
same thing again.
Um, it was just interestingbecause we really marked the
wood.
There was one political party inthis country that voted for one
rule for everyone under the law,and it was ACT.

(35:56):
It was the only party.
You know, if we're fortunateenough, God, I hope so, to be in
a coalition um after theelection, we will be in a
coalition with parties thatvoted against that.

SPEAKER_00 (36:09):
Uh so how do you how do you get the issue back on the
table again?
Because to me, it is just soobvious and and has been,
frankly, ever since that that onreflection, dopey phrase that
Jeffrey Palmer put in in 1986about the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi.
God God knows we ever knew thatsuch a thing existed.

(36:31):
He put it in.

SPEAKER_01 (36:32):
He's a lawyer, of course.
He was a lawyer, Peter, and theyoperate in the grey areas.

SPEAKER_00 (36:37):
But but that was put in 40 years ago.
40 years on, uh, we still don'tknow what the principles are
apart from what well, why are westill interpreting the
principles of the bloody treatyof Waitangi?
Why?
I don't know.
Why why are we?
Why are they still why are theyalways included in pieces of
legislation?
I mean, that's one thing you'vegot to give New Zealand credit a

(36:57):
bit of uh New Zealand first abit of credit for.
They're trying to move them outof what, 18 pieces of
legislation.
Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (37:04):
And to be fair, both of us, both.
I mean, there are some areaswhere where we have worked well
with New Zealand First.
Um, and I I think we have someagreement there.
I mean, all right, let's talkabout the Mori seats.
Clearly separatist.
Clearly, there's no question.
Clearly, there is no positivereason to have a separate Mori
role right now.

(37:25):
So, what are the parties' viewson this?
All the parties on the lefteither want to keep them forever
or have more of them.
Um on the right, what are theviews?
ACT believes they should havebeen gone last Wednesday.
New Zealand First believes theyshould go next Wednesday.
National believes as long asthere is a call from Mori to be

(37:47):
on the Mori roll, we shouldleave it up to them.
If if they're on the Mori roll,then ooh, let's leave as a.
I mean, I mean, honestly, a Bobeach way, that is just that is
barking mad, isn't it?
It is ludicrous.
So all you need is a campaignsuch as the one that exists at
the moment to get people ontothe Mori roll, and it will

(38:08):
always remain according tonational.
I mean, and and I think toanswer your question, because
this is not at the cutting edgeof the problem, but it is a way
we address it.
It is a way we start to sendclear messages that this country
um will only succeed if we haveone people recognized under the

(38:28):
law.
And an example, I mean, the MoriHealth authorities are gone.
Um, Three Waters was stopped.
You know what three waters was?
Three waters was co-governance.
Co-governance is separatism.

SPEAKER_00 (38:41):
But they didn't specifically prohibit it either.
So, you know, inevitably, sod'slaw, the the local water
authorities are full of e weeco-governance uh people.
So nothing has been solvedreally.

SPEAKER_01 (38:54):
Well, one thing that we have managed to do is take
voting rights away from peoplethat haven't been elected.
So on on not on the regionalcouncil of Canterbury.

SPEAKER_00 (39:04):
Should we even have regional councils?
Well, no.
And we should you'd like tothink that they may be go-to-go,
uh, because you know the the theHead Start proposals are all in
by now, aren't they?
Yeah, absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 (39:19):
I I think I think that and this is another can of
worms, of course, but I meanthat's another example of of too
much bureaucracy in the country.
Um, I I don't see why we shouldhave regional councils.
That is a whole layer of ofgovernment that shouldn't exist.

SPEAKER_00 (39:37):
But we're gonna replace them with unitary
authorities, but the but thewater authorities are outside
that.
And you know, the one inWellington's a classic case.
They don't seem to be able toknow whether they're Arthur or
Martha with the water billsthey're sending out at the
moment.
Um, but they've also allowedco-governance with with ewe to
be right at the heart and soulof that organization.

SPEAKER_01 (39:58):
Yeah, it's barking.
I know it's barking, just likethe bills they're sending out
right at the moment, which, asyou say, in many cases they
don't even add up.
Um I mean, what you'reidentifying is the fact that
there are one or two issues thatneed to be sorted.

SPEAKER_00 (40:12):
Yeah, but but but how does a party currently
polling, what are you, 8% uhwith a good southerly wind, you
might get 10, 11 percent onNovember the 7th.
Uh, if national's around, youknow, 30 something, you you're
going to be in the coalition,you're going to be at the
cabinet table, probably withmore influence than what you've
got now with more ministers.

(40:33):
Yeah, can you actually convincethose, let's call them for what
they are, the wits in theNational Party to do something
about what I believe is is the areal handbrake on the progress
of the country.

SPEAKER_01 (40:45):
And I 100% agree it's a handbrake on the progress
of the country in so many ways,financially and socially.
Um, and the answer is yes, butit comes down to the level of
influence you have, becausethat's the nature of democracy.
Um, that's the nature of anumbers game.
So it does come down to theinfluence you have.
I mean, not only has ACT had uhquite a lot of influence in this

(41:09):
government, and have we'vemanaged to achieve quite a lot,
nowhere near as much as we wouldwant to, nowhere near as
quickly, but we've managed toachieve quite a lot.
One of the things we've done isis stop things, negative things,
from happening.
Um, there are a number of taxesthat do not exist at the moment
because ACT was there.

(41:31):
At the end of the day, though,this is democracy, and you know,
we can do as much as we can do.
It comes back to a point I wasmentioning before that for me
it's the philosophy of a partythat that that matters more
necessarily than its individualpolicies, because that is what
will drive your influence in acoalition.
Um, and ACT has used itspolitical philosophy very well

(41:53):
in this term.
Um, the more numbers we have,it's all critical critical
balance, the more influence wewill have.

SPEAKER_00 (42:01):
Where I live now, though, uh deep in the South
Island, it's a very, let's belet's be honest, it's a very
pakiha part of the country.
Where you are in Auckland,you'll notice even in the last
10 or 15 years, there are moreand more brown faces.
It is a far more, I won't saymulticultural, but multi-ethnic

(42:23):
society in the north.
We also have what I believe isan increasing issue with the
education of um, particularlyyoung females, coming out with
rather skewed views of theworld.
And I'm beginning to ascertainthat this country is beginning
to lean left uh more and more.

(42:44):
And it it bothers the hell outof me down in this part of the
world where we seem to beeconomically pretty strong and
we're not affected by themovements that uh are happening
in the North Island?
Uh, do you do you understandthat the country is swinging
more to the left than maybe ithas at any stage in recent
years?

SPEAKER_01 (43:05):
I don't know.
I I hate to think that it is.
Um, I mean, certainly this is athis is a an election that is
literally sitting on a knife'sedge.
Um is that because it's swingingmore to the left, or is it bad
governance that has that has uhattracted people back to a party
that was diabolical in poweronly three years ago?

(43:28):
Um I I think national hasdropped the ball uh for reasons
that we've discussed.
Uh I think that's made peopleshop around a little more.
Um I mean I mean how can theGreens be attracting younger
people by and large.

SPEAKER_00 (43:42):
Can the Greens be attracting double figure
support?

SPEAKER_01 (43:47):
Well, uh younger, younger voters.
I mean, they're a hotbed ofsocialism in the tertiary
institutions, isn't it?
Um and that's not to say that wedon't have uh some heartland
support in there, but you've gota mind for it.
Um Amongst the socialists.
You know, it's interesting forme, again, I mentioned before
the traveling around the countryand talking to people.

(44:08):
You know, in the North Island,people are very reluctant to ask
you questions that in any wayskew racial.
In the South Island, I know fora fact that I'm going to get.
And in the South Island, you geta here-hear from the audience,
which you would not get in theNorth Island, no matter how many
people agreed with you, becausethey agree in silence.

(44:31):
And that to a degree comes backto your water issue.
You know, if you just, oh, it'sa bit too tricky, you know,
let's close our eyes and itmight disappear.
Um, we've been doing that fordecades now, and it has not
disappeared.
It's got considerably worse.
And, you know, it has to beaddressed.
We tried to address it this termuh with the Treaty Principles

(44:53):
Bill.
Uh, it started a veryinteresting conversation, and
there is no question, followingit as I did, there is no
question that we won the debate.
What we did was lose the vote,and you need to win the vote.

SPEAKER_00 (45:07):
Yeah, David, of course, comes back to his
euthanasia bill um from you knowa previous term.
He knows that that uh euthanasiamovement, for want of a better
word, started what, 30 yearsago?
I think Michael Laws said thathe introduced a bill, and then
you might remember during ourtime on breakfast, Marion
Hobbes.
Uh Marion Hobbes, no.

(45:27):
Um was Marion Hobbes, wasn't it?
Was it?
Uh it was uh certainly one ofthe ladies of the Labour Party,
long forgotten.
Uh she introduced a version ofit as well.
Uh, but it it never it was amovement, you know, whose time
eventually came, I suppose.
And and maybe David's uh David'sattitude and and the act party

(45:49):
attitude is a bit the same withthe matter of the treaty and
race relations.

SPEAKER_01 (45:53):
I think people need, you know, they say with um
infomercials, you know how yousee the same people trying to
sell the same fans.
Apparently, research shows thatif you are ultimately going to
buy a fan, or one of thesethings, you know, a chopping
thing, um, you will make thedecision somewhere around the

(46:14):
ninth time you see theinfomercial.

SPEAKER_00 (46:17):
Uh that's why Suzanne Paul's still with us, is
she?

SPEAKER_01 (46:20):
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, she's made a living outof the ninth time.
Um, and I think to a degree thatthat comes back to what we're
talking about.
I think people need to, andyou'll know yourself, you've
done a bit of talk back.
You know, if something hugehappens in the day, you go into
work on talkback and you think,oh, talk about that, that'll
fill the boards, and it doesn't.

(46:41):
But two days later, it fills theboards because people do need
time to percolate on on issues.
And I'm hoping that, like theeuthanasia reform, I'm hoping
that perhaps the the treaty billand and everything that's
happening now, which so manypeople see as being racially

(47:02):
negative, I'm hoping that thatmight have the same effect.
I mean, we I mean, you know uhthe philosophies of Act.
I mean, things should besupplied by government on need,
not race.
And I say things, I say thingsbecause that is everything,
whether it's health, whetherit's welfare, whatever it is, it
should be based only on need.

(47:22):
Whether it's placing a childfrom a dysfunctional family,
they should be placed in thebest family for that child.
Um, it shouldn't be judged onrace.
Uh so there again is is a firmphilosophy of act.

SPEAKER_00 (47:40):
Yeah, I've uh been at party uh at lunches with some
national party politicians,including some pretty high up in
the cabinet.
And, you know, we we pay acertain amount of money.
I I don't do it anymore, I mustsay, but I have in the past uh
subscribed to some NationalParty fundraising through these

(48:00):
through these lunches withimportant people in the National
Party.
And I've put the question tothem, what about race relations?
What about treaty principles?
And and the stock answer is uhwe we do research all the time,
and it's not an issue with ourpeople, uh not an issue with
voters of any sort.
So I get the feeling that theattitude of Chris Luxon and

(48:21):
Nicola Willis, and even to acertain extent, Chris Bishop, to
not address the real issue, thisthis real cultural issue, this
social issue in the country, isbecause their polls tell them
that the cost of living in theeconomy is far more important.
Therefore, they're concentratingtheir efforts in that respect.
But they can't go on like thatforever, can they?

SPEAKER_01 (48:41):
Well, and of course, but but of course, the racial
issues in this country affectthe cost of living in the
economy.
They affect every aspect ofenjoyment of this bloody slice
of paradise that we live in, andit's getting worse.
I think more likely they areusing the poles as an excuse for
inaction because it is it is agrowing issue.
There is growing discontent,even although people are

(49:05):
reluctant to speak out about it.
There is growing discontent.
And and there's that even mesometimes when I'm talking about
it.
I don't know if you ever feelthis, but you check yourself and
you think, God, am I beingracist?
You know, and uh and I know I'mnot, but you check yourself and
think, God, is this racist?

(49:25):
What we are actually arguingagainst is racist.
You know, separatism is racist.
Um what we want to achieve isexactly the opposite to that.
But it is very hard to have thisconversation.

SPEAKER_00 (49:42):
Do you have any ambitions to be the minister of
broadcasting?

SPEAKER_01 (49:46):
I'll I'll I'll tell you my answer to that.
Is I have an ambition that thereis not a minister of
broadcasting.
That is a minister, the ministrywe can well and truly do
without.

SPEAKER_00 (49:56):
What the whole communications area?
We don't need a minister incharge of uh communications uh
uh being a very important thing.

SPEAKER_01 (50:01):
That can be amalgamated into other
ministries.
I there's no way we need to havea minister of broadcasting.
Um I mean, obviously there arethere are things on the
communication front that areimportant from a legislative
point of view, uh, but that canbe handled with other
ministries.

SPEAKER_00 (50:16):
Do we need to have Radio New Zealand, owned by the
government, funded by thegovernment to 60 million a year?

SPEAKER_01 (50:21):
Yeah, it's an interesting question.
I mean, it's a drop in thebucket, but as we were saying
before, there's a lot of dropsin the bucket.
The bucket's overflowing withdrops.

SPEAKER_00 (50:29):
I can't believe that one radio station costs 60
million bucks a year to run.

SPEAKER_01 (50:33):
No, neither can I.
Let's leave it there.
Neither can I.
I I, you know, I mean, it wehave every right to ask a lot of
serious questions about RadioNew Zealand.
It is fully funded by thetaxpayer, and we should know
that we're getting value formoney.
But as with, I mean, Radio NewZealand costing 60 million to
run isn't different than sayingwe have 43 ministers,

(50:55):
ministries, um, 43 departments,and we want to uh bring them
down to uh 18.

SPEAKER_00 (51:01):
The United States has never had a government-owned
broadcaster.
Um, I I I know it seems manyhave and they've become
increasingly more commercial inmany of the countries that have
been mainstays for Canada's gotone, Australia's got one, and
that's a hotbed of radicalism aswell, from what I read and what
I hear.
Oh, God, it's they're just crazysocial.

(51:21):
And we know about the BBC andtheir Trump derangement syndrome
and their extraordinary umediting of Panorama last year.
So uh that that sort ofactivity, frankly, would
probably occur whether or not itwas owned by the state or not.
But the state doesn't ownnewspapers, it doesn't own um
that's right.
The it internet uh radiostations.

(51:43):
So why does it need to own uh anetwork such as Radio New
Zealand with very importantthings?
Of course it doesn't need to.

SPEAKER_01 (51:49):
It doesn't need to.
Um the question the question is,is there any benefit in it?
And I think that's somethingthat I think that's something
that we could well and trulyhave a conversation about
because I'm not sure.
I'm not sure.
I can I can see from aphilosophical point of view why
you might be able to argue thereare benefits, but I can also see
why you could equally argue thatthere aren't.
Um so it's something I think weshould have a conversation

(52:10):
about.
I think television New Zealandis very different, of course.

SPEAKER_00 (52:12):
Yeah, absolutely.
But but and talking of Radio NewZealand, though, I I count for
the life of me, and I know thisis just um you know chump
change, but the concert program,the concert program should come
out of a blinking computer,shouldn't it?

SPEAKER_01 (52:23):
It doesn't need to have why does it even have
bloody transmitters?
You know, I I've been saying foryears and years, we could take
the running expenses of theconcert program over, well, six
months, buy every listener a boxset of bloody CDs and tell them
to go home.

SPEAKER_00 (52:41):
Well, just a Spotify subscription would do, wouldn't
it?

SPEAKER_01 (52:44):
Wouldn't it?
No.
Well, now, when I started sayingthis, there was no such thing.
Um, no, you're right.
It's it's just ludicrous waste,but what is the point?
What is the point?

SPEAKER_00 (52:54):
Well, do we need a state-funded symphony orchestra?
Do we need a state-funded balletopera?

SPEAKER_01 (53:00):
Well, if you're going to continue like this,
this interview will never end.
You know what I'd rather?
Let me tell you this.
This is what I would rather,Peter.
Um, I would rather the symphonyorchestra be given the funding
that the concert program getsand be held to account for
taking their music to every nookand cranny of this country, for

(53:22):
introducing people to livesymphony orchestras, and for
having, I would, I would thinkyou could easily spill out a
student symphony orchestra withthe extra funding, which
wouldn't even be, I mean, itdoesn't, concert doesn't get
that much, I don't think.
But that would be a much betterspend of that money if you were
going to reallocate it.

SPEAKER_00 (53:41):
Yeah, there was an interesting piece on the TV1
News the other night about a NewZealander who runs the Royal
Scottish Opera.
I saw that.
Or the Scottish Opera, and andhe's doing exactly the same
thing.
He's taking opera to the people.
They go and sing, I don't know,um, Madame Butterfly in uh in a
marquee somewhere just to peopleon holiday.
And I think that's that's reallycool.

SPEAKER_01 (54:03):
Well, how good would it be to say we've closed
concert radio down and um thehosts will will uh pay for them
to learn how to drive a truck,and they can then drive the
symphony orchestra around ruralNew Zealand, and um that would
be a much better spend of themoney, much better.

SPEAKER_00 (54:21):
Outstanding.
Uh we must talk about TVNZ.
You've spent time on the boardthere, which I was intrigued by
to see your appointment.
Uh you spent just over a yearthere.
Uh what did you achieve and andwhat future does that company
have?

SPEAKER_01 (54:37):
I um I mean I'm I I can't talk in much detail about
what I achieved because uhbecause I can't.
Um I didn't speak publicly whileI was on the board, and I I I'm
not prepared to speak about itwhile I'm off the board in terms
of specifics.
Um what I do know is they areheading in the right direction.

SPEAKER_00 (54:56):
It took them a long time to find that direction,
though, didn't it?

SPEAKER_01 (54:59):
Well, to be fair, to be fair, she's a tricky business
to be in.
Uh I know.
Um there are a lot that havefallen already.
I mean, what what you're doingessentially is you are
completely reorganizing yourbusiness so it will fit on a
different platform.

SPEAKER_00 (55:16):
And no more out of the towers, it all comes out of
the the the the the satellitenow, doesn't it?

SPEAKER_01 (55:22):
Yeah, yeah.
So so what you're saying iswe've got to do two things if
we're gonna be successful.
We've got to move the eyesacross to the new platform, and
we've got to move theadvertisers across to the new
platform.
That is a really tricky thing todo, and there's no reason to
believe and certainly success isby no means guaranteed.

(55:43):
Um, but they are doing abrilliant job at trying.
Um and the money they'respending on it, of course, is
money that they've sold it awaythemselves.
Um and we'll just have to watchthis space.
In terms of what should happento it.
I, of course, am a fan fan ofselling it, um because I don't

(56:04):
think the government shouldshould own it, but I also know
that now is not the time to sellit.
I think there's there are realgreen shoots there, and there's
every reason to believe thatactually will be worth decent
coin in a few years.
So we should do it.

SPEAKER_00 (56:18):
Well, you don't sell a loss making operation, do you?
That's just stupid.
And uh Mr Mr.
Barclay, is it the the chairwith his experience in banking
and mergers and acquisitions andthings will no doubt be be well
aware of that.
I you're right, it's a it's atough business.
What about even a partialinvestment from somebody else?
Take away the full governmentownership, go to the the mixed,

(56:41):
what do you call it, the mixedownership model, the mom that we
had with the power companies?

SPEAKER_01 (56:45):
Yeah, and and I and I can see sometimes there's a
point in that, but that's notnecessary with Television New
Zealand.
I think we're in a much betterposition to give them the
opportunity to turn the businessaround, uh, and and then you
know, we can go to the world.
Um, I don't think we'd have togo to the world.
I think I think if it can beturned around successfully, we
would find a purchaser for itquite easily.

(57:07):
Okay, and just much, but it'llbe profitable.

SPEAKER_00 (57:11):
Yeah, finally, on on the television matter, what
about content?
What what content areas shouldthe company be focusing on?
I mean, they can't have big, bigum budget dramas anymore, can
they?
Or even big budget currentaffairs, it would seem either.

SPEAKER_01 (57:25):
Well, that's the inter the interesting thing um
is that you've got to focus onyour point of difference.
Now, the point of difference islocal.
Unfortunately, your point ofdifference is the most expensive
uh broadcasting you can puttogether, and therein lies the
rub.
So, what are we really good at,and what do people really want
to see, and what can't otherpeople do?
Oh, turns out it's the mostexpensive stuff.

(57:46):
Um, so yeah, drama is a problembecause it's really expensive.
Uh, and of course, the onlygovernment money that Television
New Zealand gets is the entirelycontestable money of New Zealand
on air.
So everyone has the same rightto get that, and it's divvied up
not according to who's owned bythe government, but according to
who puts the best propositiontogether.
Um what should they have?

(58:09):
Yes, news, current affairs, yes,local drama, local comedy.
Um, but you've got to think, youknow, how can we do that in a
way that we can afford to do itand do enough of it, which is
why you see uh more game shows,because in terms of local
content, you can see New Zealandon air, get a greater group of
New Zealanders on air in a gameshow than you ever could in a
drama.

(58:29):
Um, and that's what they've gotto focus on because you're up
against the world, and the worldis is only a breath away on
umpteen different devices.
Um, TBNZ Plus is a brilliantplatform.

SPEAKER_00 (58:43):
It's been I use it a lot, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (58:46):
Yeah, fabulously, but as uh you would know, it's
just one of a line of icons onyour telegram.

SPEAKER_00 (58:53):
Yeah, I mean I have to look at that alongside Sky
Sport Now and um Apple TV andNeon and the like.
Uh actually I'm intrigued to seethat TBNZ's got back into sport.
I know that um whoever the whowas the chief executive before
Simon Power, Kevin somebody.
Uh Kevin Kendrick, that's right.
I remember talking with him whenhe first arrived about uh
putting more sport back on TBNZ,and he said we can't afford it,

(59:16):
but now I see it as a major areaof of play, and I mean good.
I'm pleased that they're in thegame and having a bid, even
though they're they're losingthem, yeah.
Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (59:25):
And what TBNZ can do now is truly be in the game
because there's pay for view.
And pay for view has opened up awhole new stream of income,
which is not as dependent at allon advertisers.
And that and and that's whatthey needed, a whole new stream
of income, because they've beenvery good at transferring

(59:46):
eyeballs onto uh the internet,uh, transferring the advertisers
when you've got platforms forAfrica out there is a lot
harder.

SPEAKER_00 (59:55):
Yeah, and I thought the World Cup that I I paid the
$45, I thought it was a greatinvestment, and and that's the
way to go in the future,obviously.
Um and talking of the media,just to wind up here, how's a
you know a guy who's been on oneside of the microphone, one side
of the camera for many, manyyears, uh, and you've drilled a

(01:00:16):
few of the you know the betterpoliticians this country's
produced and and done itexceedingly well.
How are you feeling now on theother side and copying it from
the likes of Jack Tame andHosking and um Sean Plunkett and
the like?

SPEAKER_01 (01:00:31):
You know, you just have to you just have to be
honest and straight.
And I I I look back at many ofthose interviews that I've done
where I've sort of caught peopleout.
It's it's almost invariably beenwhen everyone's known they're
not being straight.
Everyone's known there'ssomething they're trying to
hide.
You know, I always, um, when Iwas an interviewer, I always

(01:00:53):
knew that my job wasn't tochallenge the answer to a
question.
My job was to make sure whoeverit was answered the question.
Yeah, it's the audience's job tochallenge the quality of the
answer of the question.
So as long as they had actuallyanswered the question, and I

(01:01:13):
would get annoyed and insistentwith people when they refuse to
answer questions, but it's forthe audience to determine uh the
value of their answer.
Um, so I mean, at the end of theday, I know I'm doing this for
the right reasons.
Um, I don't need to do this, Ireally do want to make a
difference.
And whenever I hear myselfsaying that, I think, oh, I've
heard a few people say that.

(01:01:34):
Um, but but I know I I don'tneed to do it.
I really want to make adifference.
I'm completely committed togiving giving it absolutely my
best shot.
And I literally I always say I'mnot here to waste my time or
yours, you know, because I meantime is so blum.
Look at us.
We're old men, Peter.

SPEAKER_00 (01:01:52):
We don't we don't have one is older than the
other, I have to say.
Oh well, I've got a seven infront of my name now, but that's
that's by the by.
You'll get there eventually.
Oh yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (01:02:04):
What's the number after the seven?

SPEAKER_00 (01:02:06):
Well, I I say uh as a golfer, I'm even par.
I'm 72.

SPEAKER_01 (01:02:11):
Oh, that's all right.
That's all right.

SPEAKER_00 (01:02:13):
Yeah, I know.

SPEAKER_01 (01:02:14):
Where do you think now?
I mean, I I I'm like I'm 66, andI I always would have been
panicked with that a few yearsago, but now I don't think I'll
panic until I'm I don't know,for some reason 78 sticks in my
mind as a panic scenario.

SPEAKER_00 (01:02:27):
No, well, the the thing that bothers me is that I
keep on hearing these people intheir 60s and early 70s um
departing this mortal coil, andI'm thinking, oh my god, I I've
got to go for another walkaround the block just to keep
the water.
You know what 72 is?

SPEAKER_01 (01:02:40):
72 is success.
That's what 72 is.
Yeah, and you want to be carefulwalking.
I didn't get to where I am todayby exercising.

SPEAKER_00 (01:02:48):
Yes, I I know that.
I presume nothing's changed inthat respect.
No.
No.
Red wine and fast cars, eh?
Any hope.
Anywho.
Um, it's been a pleasure talkingwith you.
Uh, good luck for the next uhwhat three months uh as you go
on the stump around the country.
I'm sure you'll be pulling inthe punters.
Uh you're going to be in theSouth Island at some stage?

SPEAKER_01 (01:03:10):
Yep.
Yep.
I was in um Blenheim and Nelsonlast week.
Uh, and next week I will headback down to uh Christchurch and
several of the other citiesaround there.
And and love getting to theSouth Island.
Um, and and I've really enjoyedthis, Peter.
Anytime you want to talk,seriously, this is such an

(01:03:30):
important election.
We cannot let this slip awayfrom us.

SPEAKER_00 (01:03:34):
I think uh I I know that, and I'm hoping that uh
everybody who watches this uhwill know that as well, and that
they uh they they vote withtheir head.
And they vote about the futureof the country.
Great talking with you, myfriends.
Go well, good luck.
And we'll see you on the otherside after November 7th.

(01:03:54):
We will, if not before, we willsee you then.

SPEAKER_01 (01:03:56):
Take care.
See you for you.