January 25, 2025 • 19 mins
ACT Party leader David Seymour gave his State of the Nation speech this week, hot on the heels of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's.
He covered everything from tax cuts to the End of Life Choice Act - but a key point stuck out to many of those listening...
If the soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister is hardly on the same page as the rest of the coalition, how can we trust that they are operating efficiently?
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 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be ACT Party leader David Seymour gave a State
of the Nation's speech this week. You may have heard
it hot on the heels of the Prime Minister Christopher Luxeon.
In his State of the Nation speech, he covered everything
from tax cuts to the end of life Choice Act,
but a key point that stuck out for many of
us listening would be the fact that, you know, why
do they both have to have a say which one
(00:30):
is more important? Can you trust that they are operating efficiently?
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Well?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
David seymore he's a busy man, but he joins us now,
good a.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
David, good a.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Nice to have you along. Thank you so. Listening to
yours and Christopher Lucchen's speeches was like watching an episode
kind of if you know what I mean, A bit
like Kath and Kim. Do you feel the need to
comment on everything that the Prime Minister says?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Well, I'm the leader of a political party and I
represent people who gave their party votes to ACT. I
have a duty to them to express the party's positions.
I listened to your commentary and your leading I feel
like perhaps I'm being interviewed by someone from about nineteen
seventy two who believe that there's only one party in
(01:14):
any government. I got to tell you, we've just had
the calendar flip over to twenty twenty five, and it's
now normal to have coalitions where we're not in a
group think we're in a coalition government and different parties
bring different things to the table. And I actually hear
a lot of people who say that they really appreciate that.
(01:35):
If you look around the world, with the exception of
a few countries the United States being one where they
have two parties, most of Europe, for example, it's quite
normal to have two or three parties in a government.
It's quite normal to have a range of views, and
I should think of anything New Zealand needs more debate
(01:55):
rather than less.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Look at point taken, but do you think there are
good synergies between you and the National Party?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well, I think that's clear because we have a government
that has acted very coherently, despite the wishes and hopes
of our political opponents, has actually got on famously and
got through a huge amount of work changing policies for
the better of New Zealand. But each party's brought something
to the table, and from Acts foint of view, I'd
(02:25):
just say that I don't think there's been an incoming
national government that has actually gone through with so much
change of labor policies. In the past, there's been a
lot more continuity between labor and national The first time
that Act, we really have got stuck in and reversed
(02:46):
a lot of what labor had previously done. And we've
put issues on the table, as Act always has, whether
it's ethan Asia or fear firearm laws or responding to COVID.
But we've put issues on the table, such as the
Treaty Principles Bill that wouldn't otherwise be there. So look,
all together, I think we have an evolved political system.
(03:06):
People have the greater choice of parties, and yet we're
able to have different views without it being a nineteen
seventy two type problem.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Well, speaking of going back in time to the nineteen seventies,
or maybe not quite that far, you have mentioned the
Resource Management Act and the changes to enable property owners
to unlock their property's potential and to realize the nation's
latent wealth. So beyond what local body councils have already
done or the MDRS passed into legislation a couple of
years ago. What is it that you're talking about. What
(03:34):
are you now pushing for?
Speaker 3 (03:37):
If you look at the way that resource management in
New Zealand works, you basically have to get permission to
use your own property and the council will tell you
if that works with their plan. Now, over the last
it's only nineteen ninety one that we got the IRMA,
but over the thirty four years since, resourcing and consenting
(03:58):
has evolved into a one point three billion dollar industry
that doesn't actually produce much. We don't have better environmental
outcomes than we did in nineteen ninety one, but what
we do have is a lot more costs, and a
lot more bureaucracy, and a whole generation who are sitting
there saying this country doesn't have a house for me,
(04:19):
Maybe they don't want me. Maybe I should go overseas,
or maybe I should vote for someone who's going to
attack someone who does have a house, because if I
can't get my own, I might as well get either.
That way, it's been hugely destructive. So what we're proposing
is that the Resource Management Act should instead be founded
on a basis of upholding property rights as its main goal,
(04:40):
and the implication of that is too one. If you
want to develop your property, and presumption is you have
the right to do it. The second thing is if
you want to stop someone then the grounds for stopping
someone else using their property is to be able to
demonstrate that it will affect your enjoyment of private property.
(05:02):
And if you do it that way, the number of
people who are there and able to say no is
far fewer because it's only people whose property is affected
by your use of yours. And the number of grounds
they can say no on is also fewer because I've
got to demonstrate an impact. Now, if you do it
that way, people who are concerned about the impact on
(05:23):
their property still have a say. But you don't get
these situations where builders will tell you it takes longer
to get the resource consent than actually build the thing.
And if we do that, I think we can get
so much more out of the land that we have
and a lot more hope for the next generation.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
At the same time, another big hot potato you mentioned
in your speech during the week was amendments to the
End of Life Choice Act, saying that limitations were set
too high for those with diseases like dementia. This is
this is what I'm thinking, diseases like dementia or MS
with long slow you know, the end of the tunnel
takes a long time to get to. But we were assured,
weren't we that the Youth and Aged legislation wouldn't be
(06:03):
tinkered with? So should those who pose the act originally
be concerned?
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Again? No, and I don't know where you got the
reassurance from. I always said that restricting the end of
Life Choice Act to people with a six month prognosis
was wrong. I had to make that compromise in order
to get the Green Party over the line. But I
(06:30):
knew that it would mean that people who were perfectly
mentally capable of making the decision, people with motor neuron disease,
people with MS, people with neurodegenerative diseases would suffer for
a long time. Huntington's is another example. People in those
situations would actually be excluded because they weren't going to
(06:52):
die in six months. In fact, that was their problem,
was long term suffering that they would face. And so
Todd Stevenson an actmt's picked up the bat in these
god A bill drafted, and you know he's going to
put that in the ballot and have it tested. Because
I've always said people should have the choice. It's not
(07:14):
any kind of change from previous positions, and it is
the compassionate thing to.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Do given the opposition to euthanasia. And look, it splits people,
doesn't it. Look I'm totally in favor of what you've done.
I think it's very cruel for anyone else to have
an opinion about how you should want to go if
you've got one of those diseases. But how much further
will this go? What sort of legislation are we talking
about in the future that people should be concerned about.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Well, I mean, first of all, we just say opposition.
I mean it passed by two to one, and that
was in an environment when there was all sorts of
fear mngering, which you know, the people that were saying
how bad it would be back in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty,
you can't find them today. They've all disappeared because the
things they were saying haven't come true. That the law
(08:01):
has worked very well. But to answer your question about
what should people fear, I think that there is a
useful debate to be had about whether you should be
able to access assisted dying after your own mental confidence
has declined and you can no longer make decisions for yourself. Now,
(08:22):
I've always said it's about personal choice. I'm not sure
that I would support what's called advanced directives, But I
hear a lot of people whose greatest fear is losing
their mind through dementia or alzeiblers, no longer being able
to make their decisions, and can ender in that situation
for a decade. They would like to be able to
(08:43):
sign an advanced directive which allows some other person to say, right,
you know, I knew this person, their wishes were clear,
they've signed this. If they're diagnosis Scott to a certain stage,
they'd like an assisted death. I understand people who ask
for that. I also just think there is a moral
rubicon to cross, if you like, when you start saying
(09:06):
that somebody else can make the final decision for you.
So look, that for me is about where the frontier
of debates. But in terms of people, it's your body,
it's your life. You're mentally capable. You can make the
decision right now that should apply whether you've got a
six month prognosis or longer.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
A lot of the objection to the bill initially was
from the medical fraternity. So do you think they've come
on board more so now?
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Well, like any group of people, there'll be a range
of views. But what we do know is that there's
never been a shortage of doctors and nurses who are
willing to act and assist people under the end of
five choice acts. So that turned out that's one of
the things that people said would happen that turned out
not to be true. I certainly think that a lot
(09:55):
of people in medical profession were afraid to voice support
when it was illegal because they were scared that people
would question whether they had been involved in illicitly ending
people's lives. Has always been that accusation against doctors, and
if they said I'm a supporter, they thought they might
come under pressure to do it. Some doctors told me,
(10:17):
once it's legal, there will be far more doctors prepared
to say they're in favor. I haven't tested that or
done a survey or anything, but I certainly haven't seen
the level of opposition from the medical profession that again
we were told all doctors were against it. In reality,
that was never true. Now you don't hear a lot
of opposition from doctors at all.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
I think we're making progress. Then look, I commend you
for the work you've done and continue to do. In
that regard. Throughout your State of the Nation's speech, you
mention the two tribes of New Zealand a few times
with the attitude to COVID nineteen, their drive, their determination,
their work ethic. How deliberate was your choice of the
word tribe.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
I don't know how deliberate. Every word is deliberate in
a sense. But I believe that there are, and I said,
you know, invisible tribes within New Zealand defined by their
attitudes and values. On the one hand, there are change makers,
people who make sacrifices, do their homework, get their grades,
work hard, save and best carefully, buy another house rented
(11:21):
out for someone else to live and start a business,
farm the land to feed the world, And perhaps most importantly,
people who treat other people as they find them, not
based on their identity. They just treat people well based
on their humanity and how they act towards each other,
rather than any stereotypes. So that's the group of people
that I like to affiliate too. I think those are
(11:43):
the group of people that can make New Zealand a
prosperous and successful country. But there seem to be people
who are obsessed with identity, always blaming others, believe it's
impossible to make a difference in their own lives. More taxes,
more rules, more regulations. And one of the times when
it became really clear is when we had polling on
should there be another lockdown? Forty eight percent of people
(12:07):
said yes, they wanted to go home, worry about the
money we're borrowing and the kids' education and migrants who
are missing their families. Some other time, and then there
was forty six percent slightly less, they said no, we're
going to get open. We've got to get back to business.
That to me really showed how finely balanced the division
(12:28):
between let's go ahead and let's lock down in various
ways is in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Who ran that poll, David, that was.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
A three news poll or a new subpole probably would
have been read research back at the start of twenty
twenty two. Okay, so I.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Heard the word tribe a few times and I thought
you were having a bit of a rattle, a bit
of a tin rattle. At the Treaty Principal's Bill, the
work you put into that does that What are you
thinking now? How do you feel the nation sits? You
didn't mention it in your speech, did you?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
No?
Speaker 3 (12:59):
I certainly did. And I pointed out one thing about
the Pretty Principles Bill, and I think I've said it
aready in this interviews. That shows that the act Party
is prepared to raise difficult topics in a constructive and
respectful way, because in order to make progress we need
to have discussion in this in this country. I don't
think there's nearly enough. And the same as raising issues
(13:20):
around health and the number of businesses government owns, and
you know, there's a lot of things we don't talk about.
If we're going to maintain first of all status, we've
got to talk more about it. But you know, another
thing is it's interesting you somehow connect tribe with the
Treaty Principles Bill. You know, tribes are groups of people
that have just in many cultures all over the world,
(13:44):
from ancient Greeks, people in Africa, people what is now Germany.
There's been many, many tribal affiliations North America, South America,
you name it. Just about ever in the world has
had tribes at some point, And part of the problem
I have with the level of thinking in New Zealand
(14:04):
is that we're assume everything must be an allusion to
our own history or some art history. Well, actually, we've
got to start thinking about a bigger, wider world out there.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Well then you shouldn't have used the word tribe. You
could have used sector of society, group cohort.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Well no, My point is that tribe is a legitimate
word to you international come on and no, no, no, no,
no no, I'm not going to let you get away
with us. You are trying to you are creating a
self fulfilling prophecy. That is a small minded that's true.
That's what a lot a lot of my speech was about.
We've got to move beyond that kind of thinking. I
(14:40):
know that's not your thinking. You're just playing people's advocate.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
So you did touch on the number of young Kiwi's
leaving for Australia also in your State of the Nation speech.
It seems to be climbing. Those numbers are quite frightening.
How do you propose we fix that?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Well, I talk a lot about housing. I mean, you
look at the basic numbers for someone. They're talking about
a kid who's really done everything right. They went to
school every day, they listened to teacher, they did their homework,
they got the grades, they went off to UNI like
everyone said they should. They graduate. Average student loan with
a bachelor's degrees thirty four grand. Average starting salary fifty
(15:16):
five to sixty Average house New Zealand, not in Auckland
and New Zealand nine hundred grand. So you're sitting there saying,
I've got a student loan that's almost a whole year's
after TechEd income. Anything that looks like a house that
my parents had, there's more than fifteen times my income.
(15:38):
And if I even just want to get a deposit together,
twenty percent of that, I've got to save three years income.
People just sit there and say, hang on a minute,
this is not a country that particularly wants me, so
we've got to make it easiest to build times. It's
partly that at ARIMA funding, but it's also about funding
the pipes in the pumping stations. Because you look right now,
(16:00):
water Care is saying we're red zoning whole areas in
Auckland because we can't afford the pope it's in the
pumping stations. And then I say to people, Okay, you
want to you want the government to own twenty soees
or do you think we need to invest in some
core infrastructure, which, by the way, is leaking surge into
the sea. So these are the current discussions. The main
portant speech is got to start having these debates. And
(16:21):
then you come to the economy. The amount of red
paith and regulation. You know, it's slowly deadening our culture.
And that's why I'm proud to be a Minister of Regulation.
We're going to pass a regulatory Standards Bill this year
that actually puts some discipline on the bureaucracy because, as
someone put it to me recently, you know, I'm applying
for a consent, I'm required to trust everything that the
(16:41):
Council seas and does, but they don't trust anything I
say and do. So we've got to rebalance the relationship
between the regulator and the regulated.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Makes sense, But you just just said investing more in infrastructure.
But I've also heard you say New Zealand for sale,
so everything you know the government shouldn't be owning anything.
So what you know, which where do you stand?
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Well, there's different types of infrastructure. Right, So there are
some things that the government absolutely has to own, but
it's about how you manage your balance sheets. So if
you look at the Treasuries documents at budget time, they'll
tell you that the New Zealand government has about five
hundred and seventy billion dollars or part for trillion dollars
(17:24):
worth of assets. There are people who will tell you
absolutely essential that we own, for example Quotable Value, which
is a property evaluation website that does contracting for the
New South Wales government value and properties over there too.
But I would just make the point that core infrastructure,
getting the pipes and the pumping stations, a new subdivision
(17:47):
so the next family can build their future, start a
family and so on, that might be more important than
owning a property company. And these are the choices we face.
If we want to have a navy that can get
out there and play ball with the Australians as part
of an antect defense course, we're going to have to
make decisions about should we have more navy boats on
(18:09):
that Dollan Street, notwithstanding the one we've lost recently, or
should we continue to invest in commercial enterprises such as
who is it called Palmer or the farming company two
billion dollar asset value last year at lost twenty six million.
Now you know there's not many people who can invest
two billion bucks and make a loss, but we managed to.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Now, David Seymour, leader of that party, just finally and
thank you so much for all of your time. You're
just months away from becoming the deputy prime Minister. What
will that change for you? And what's first on your
two to do list?
Speaker 3 (18:44):
By and large, my responsibilities stayed the same. I've got
to be the best Minister of Regulation I can be,
as well as Associate Education and Health, especially Associate Finance.
So I've got my work cut out for there. But
it will mean standing in for Chris more often, and
it will mean that for a whole lot of people
who got beaten down for various reasons. A lot of
(19:06):
those change makers I mentioned really pilloried and vilified through
the Durn years. To say, actually the guy you voted
for can become the Deputy trave min Australia. I think
that's quite important. I'm certainly humbled to represent a group
of people who support acts and to be in that
position on their behalf.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Yeah, good on your David, and keep up the good work.
Thank you so much. And I don't mind that you
call me. Oh, I'm actually from the nineteen sixties. Would
you believe that?
Speaker 3 (19:34):
No way, You must have the best moisturizing.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Yes, and a lot of botox. Good on your David.
David Seymour, the leader of the ACT parties.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk zed B weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be ACT Party leader David Seymour gave a State
of the Nation's speech this week. You may have heard
it hot on the heels of the Prime Minister Christopher Luxeon.
In his State of the Nation speech, he covered everything
from tax cuts to the end of life Choice Act,
but a key point that stuck out for many of
us listening would be the fact that, you know, why
do they both have to have a say which one
(00:30):
is more important? Can you trust that they are operating efficiently?
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Well?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
David seymore he's a busy man, but he joins us now,
good a.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
David, good a.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Nice to have you along. Thank you so. Listening to
yours and Christopher Lucchen's speeches was like watching an episode
kind of if you know what I mean, A bit
like Kath and Kim. Do you feel the need to
comment on everything that the Prime Minister says?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Well, I'm the leader of a political party and I
represent people who gave their party votes to ACT. I
have a duty to them to express the party's positions.
I listened to your commentary and your leading I feel
like perhaps I'm being interviewed by someone from about nineteen
seventy two who believe that there's only one party in
(01:14):
any government. I got to tell you, we've just had
the calendar flip over to twenty twenty five, and it's
now normal to have coalitions where we're not in a
group think we're in a coalition government and different parties
bring different things to the table. And I actually hear
a lot of people who say that they really appreciate that.
(01:35):
If you look around the world, with the exception of
a few countries the United States being one where they
have two parties, most of Europe, for example, it's quite
normal to have two or three parties in a government.
It's quite normal to have a range of views, and
I should think of anything New Zealand needs more debate
(01:55):
rather than less.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Look at point taken, but do you think there are
good synergies between you and the National Party?
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well, I think that's clear because we have a government
that has acted very coherently, despite the wishes and hopes
of our political opponents, has actually got on famously and
got through a huge amount of work changing policies for
the better of New Zealand. But each party's brought something
to the table, and from Acts foint of view, I'd
(02:25):
just say that I don't think there's been an incoming
national government that has actually gone through with so much
change of labor policies. In the past, there's been a
lot more continuity between labor and national The first time
that Act, we really have got stuck in and reversed
(02:46):
a lot of what labor had previously done. And we've
put issues on the table, as Act always has, whether
it's ethan Asia or fear firearm laws or responding to COVID.
But we've put issues on the table, such as the
Treaty Principles Bill that wouldn't otherwise be there. So look,
all together, I think we have an evolved political system.
(03:06):
People have the greater choice of parties, and yet we're
able to have different views without it being a nineteen
seventy two type problem.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Well, speaking of going back in time to the nineteen seventies,
or maybe not quite that far, you have mentioned the
Resource Management Act and the changes to enable property owners
to unlock their property's potential and to realize the nation's
latent wealth. So beyond what local body councils have already
done or the MDRS passed into legislation a couple of
years ago. What is it that you're talking about. What
(03:34):
are you now pushing for?
Speaker 3 (03:37):
If you look at the way that resource management in
New Zealand works, you basically have to get permission to
use your own property and the council will tell you
if that works with their plan. Now, over the last
it's only nineteen ninety one that we got the IRMA,
but over the thirty four years since, resourcing and consenting
(03:58):
has evolved into a one point three billion dollar industry
that doesn't actually produce much. We don't have better environmental
outcomes than we did in nineteen ninety one, but what
we do have is a lot more costs, and a
lot more bureaucracy, and a whole generation who are sitting
there saying this country doesn't have a house for me,
(04:19):
Maybe they don't want me. Maybe I should go overseas,
or maybe I should vote for someone who's going to
attack someone who does have a house, because if I
can't get my own, I might as well get either.
That way, it's been hugely destructive. So what we're proposing
is that the Resource Management Act should instead be founded
on a basis of upholding property rights as its main goal,
(04:40):
and the implication of that is too one. If you
want to develop your property, and presumption is you have
the right to do it. The second thing is if
you want to stop someone then the grounds for stopping
someone else using their property is to be able to
demonstrate that it will affect your enjoyment of private property.
(05:02):
And if you do it that way, the number of
people who are there and able to say no is
far fewer because it's only people whose property is affected
by your use of yours. And the number of grounds
they can say no on is also fewer because I've
got to demonstrate an impact. Now, if you do it
that way, people who are concerned about the impact on
(05:23):
their property still have a say. But you don't get
these situations where builders will tell you it takes longer
to get the resource consent than actually build the thing.
And if we do that, I think we can get
so much more out of the land that we have
and a lot more hope for the next generation.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
At the same time, another big hot potato you mentioned
in your speech during the week was amendments to the
End of Life Choice Act, saying that limitations were set
too high for those with diseases like dementia. This is
this is what I'm thinking, diseases like dementia or MS
with long slow you know, the end of the tunnel
takes a long time to get to. But we were assured,
weren't we that the Youth and Aged legislation wouldn't be
(06:03):
tinkered with? So should those who pose the act originally
be concerned?
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Again? No, and I don't know where you got the
reassurance from. I always said that restricting the end of
Life Choice Act to people with a six month prognosis
was wrong. I had to make that compromise in order
to get the Green Party over the line. But I
(06:30):
knew that it would mean that people who were perfectly
mentally capable of making the decision, people with motor neuron disease,
people with MS, people with neurodegenerative diseases would suffer for
a long time. Huntington's is another example. People in those
situations would actually be excluded because they weren't going to
(06:52):
die in six months. In fact, that was their problem,
was long term suffering that they would face. And so
Todd Stevenson an actmt's picked up the bat in these
god A bill drafted, and you know he's going to
put that in the ballot and have it tested. Because
I've always said people should have the choice. It's not
(07:14):
any kind of change from previous positions, and it is
the compassionate thing to.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Do given the opposition to euthanasia. And look, it splits people,
doesn't it. Look I'm totally in favor of what you've done.
I think it's very cruel for anyone else to have
an opinion about how you should want to go if
you've got one of those diseases. But how much further
will this go? What sort of legislation are we talking
about in the future that people should be concerned about.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Well, I mean, first of all, we just say opposition.
I mean it passed by two to one, and that
was in an environment when there was all sorts of
fear mngering, which you know, the people that were saying
how bad it would be back in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty,
you can't find them today. They've all disappeared because the
things they were saying haven't come true. That the law
(08:01):
has worked very well. But to answer your question about
what should people fear, I think that there is a
useful debate to be had about whether you should be
able to access assisted dying after your own mental confidence
has declined and you can no longer make decisions for yourself. Now,
(08:22):
I've always said it's about personal choice. I'm not sure
that I would support what's called advanced directives, But I
hear a lot of people whose greatest fear is losing
their mind through dementia or alzeiblers, no longer being able
to make their decisions, and can ender in that situation
for a decade. They would like to be able to
(08:43):
sign an advanced directive which allows some other person to say, right,
you know, I knew this person, their wishes were clear,
they've signed this. If they're diagnosis Scott to a certain stage,
they'd like an assisted death. I understand people who ask
for that. I also just think there is a moral
rubicon to cross, if you like, when you start saying
(09:06):
that somebody else can make the final decision for you.
So look, that for me is about where the frontier
of debates. But in terms of people, it's your body,
it's your life. You're mentally capable. You can make the
decision right now that should apply whether you've got a
six month prognosis or longer.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
A lot of the objection to the bill initially was
from the medical fraternity. So do you think they've come
on board more so now?
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Well, like any group of people, there'll be a range
of views. But what we do know is that there's
never been a shortage of doctors and nurses who are
willing to act and assist people under the end of
five choice acts. So that turned out that's one of
the things that people said would happen that turned out
not to be true. I certainly think that a lot
(09:55):
of people in medical profession were afraid to voice support
when it was illegal because they were scared that people
would question whether they had been involved in illicitly ending
people's lives. Has always been that accusation against doctors, and
if they said I'm a supporter, they thought they might
come under pressure to do it. Some doctors told me,
(10:17):
once it's legal, there will be far more doctors prepared
to say they're in favor. I haven't tested that or
done a survey or anything, but I certainly haven't seen
the level of opposition from the medical profession that again
we were told all doctors were against it. In reality,
that was never true. Now you don't hear a lot
of opposition from doctors at all.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
I think we're making progress. Then look, I commend you
for the work you've done and continue to do. In
that regard. Throughout your State of the Nation's speech, you
mention the two tribes of New Zealand a few times
with the attitude to COVID nineteen, their drive, their determination,
their work ethic. How deliberate was your choice of the
word tribe.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
I don't know how deliberate. Every word is deliberate in
a sense. But I believe that there are, and I said,
you know, invisible tribes within New Zealand defined by their
attitudes and values. On the one hand, there are change makers,
people who make sacrifices, do their homework, get their grades,
work hard, save and best carefully, buy another house rented
(11:21):
out for someone else to live and start a business,
farm the land to feed the world, And perhaps most importantly,
people who treat other people as they find them, not
based on their identity. They just treat people well based
on their humanity and how they act towards each other,
rather than any stereotypes. So that's the group of people
that I like to affiliate too. I think those are
(11:43):
the group of people that can make New Zealand a
prosperous and successful country. But there seem to be people
who are obsessed with identity, always blaming others, believe it's
impossible to make a difference in their own lives. More taxes,
more rules, more regulations. And one of the times when
it became really clear is when we had polling on
should there be another lockdown? Forty eight percent of people
(12:07):
said yes, they wanted to go home, worry about the
money we're borrowing and the kids' education and migrants who
are missing their families. Some other time, and then there
was forty six percent slightly less, they said no, we're
going to get open. We've got to get back to business.
That to me really showed how finely balanced the division
(12:28):
between let's go ahead and let's lock down in various
ways is in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Who ran that poll, David, that was.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
A three news poll or a new subpole probably would
have been read research back at the start of twenty
twenty two. Okay, so I.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
Heard the word tribe a few times and I thought
you were having a bit of a rattle, a bit
of a tin rattle. At the Treaty Principal's Bill, the
work you put into that does that What are you
thinking now? How do you feel the nation sits? You
didn't mention it in your speech, did you?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
No?
Speaker 3 (12:59):
I certainly did. And I pointed out one thing about
the Pretty Principles Bill, and I think I've said it
aready in this interviews. That shows that the act Party
is prepared to raise difficult topics in a constructive and
respectful way, because in order to make progress we need
to have discussion in this in this country. I don't
think there's nearly enough. And the same as raising issues
(13:20):
around health and the number of businesses government owns, and
you know, there's a lot of things we don't talk about.
If we're going to maintain first of all status, we've
got to talk more about it. But you know, another
thing is it's interesting you somehow connect tribe with the
Treaty Principles Bill. You know, tribes are groups of people
that have just in many cultures all over the world,
(13:44):
from ancient Greeks, people in Africa, people what is now Germany.
There's been many, many tribal affiliations North America, South America,
you name it. Just about ever in the world has
had tribes at some point, And part of the problem
I have with the level of thinking in New Zealand
(14:04):
is that we're assume everything must be an allusion to
our own history or some art history. Well, actually, we've
got to start thinking about a bigger, wider world out there.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Well then you shouldn't have used the word tribe. You
could have used sector of society, group cohort.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Well no, My point is that tribe is a legitimate
word to you international come on and no, no, no, no,
no no, I'm not going to let you get away
with us. You are trying to you are creating a
self fulfilling prophecy. That is a small minded that's true.
That's what a lot a lot of my speech was about.
We've got to move beyond that kind of thinking. I
(14:40):
know that's not your thinking. You're just playing people's advocate.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
So you did touch on the number of young Kiwi's
leaving for Australia also in your State of the Nation speech.
It seems to be climbing. Those numbers are quite frightening.
How do you propose we fix that?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Well, I talk a lot about housing. I mean, you
look at the basic numbers for someone. They're talking about
a kid who's really done everything right. They went to
school every day, they listened to teacher, they did their homework,
they got the grades, they went off to UNI like
everyone said they should. They graduate. Average student loan with
a bachelor's degrees thirty four grand. Average starting salary fifty
(15:16):
five to sixty Average house New Zealand, not in Auckland
and New Zealand nine hundred grand. So you're sitting there saying,
I've got a student loan that's almost a whole year's
after TechEd income. Anything that looks like a house that
my parents had, there's more than fifteen times my income.
(15:38):
And if I even just want to get a deposit together,
twenty percent of that, I've got to save three years income.
People just sit there and say, hang on a minute,
this is not a country that particularly wants me, so
we've got to make it easiest to build times. It's
partly that at ARIMA funding, but it's also about funding
the pipes in the pumping stations. Because you look right now,
(16:00):
water Care is saying we're red zoning whole areas in
Auckland because we can't afford the pope it's in the
pumping stations. And then I say to people, Okay, you
want to you want the government to own twenty soees
or do you think we need to invest in some
core infrastructure, which, by the way, is leaking surge into
the sea. So these are the current discussions. The main
portant speech is got to start having these debates. And
(16:21):
then you come to the economy. The amount of red
paith and regulation. You know, it's slowly deadening our culture.
And that's why I'm proud to be a Minister of Regulation.
We're going to pass a regulatory Standards Bill this year
that actually puts some discipline on the bureaucracy because, as
someone put it to me recently, you know, I'm applying
for a consent, I'm required to trust everything that the
(16:41):
Council seas and does, but they don't trust anything I
say and do. So we've got to rebalance the relationship
between the regulator and the regulated.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Makes sense, But you just just said investing more in infrastructure.
But I've also heard you say New Zealand for sale,
so everything you know the government shouldn't be owning anything.
So what you know, which where do you stand?
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Well, there's different types of infrastructure. Right, So there are
some things that the government absolutely has to own, but
it's about how you manage your balance sheets. So if
you look at the Treasuries documents at budget time, they'll
tell you that the New Zealand government has about five
hundred and seventy billion dollars or part for trillion dollars
(17:24):
worth of assets. There are people who will tell you
absolutely essential that we own, for example Quotable Value, which
is a property evaluation website that does contracting for the
New South Wales government value and properties over there too.
But I would just make the point that core infrastructure,
getting the pipes and the pumping stations, a new subdivision
(17:47):
so the next family can build their future, start a
family and so on, that might be more important than
owning a property company. And these are the choices we face.
If we want to have a navy that can get
out there and play ball with the Australians as part
of an antect defense course, we're going to have to
make decisions about should we have more navy boats on
(18:09):
that Dollan Street, notwithstanding the one we've lost recently, or
should we continue to invest in commercial enterprises such as
who is it called Palmer or the farming company two
billion dollar asset value last year at lost twenty six million.
Now you know there's not many people who can invest
two billion bucks and make a loss, but we managed to.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Now, David Seymour, leader of that party, just finally and
thank you so much for all of your time. You're
just months away from becoming the deputy prime Minister. What
will that change for you? And what's first on your
two to do list?
Speaker 3 (18:44):
By and large, my responsibilities stayed the same. I've got
to be the best Minister of Regulation I can be,
as well as Associate Education and Health, especially Associate Finance.
So I've got my work cut out for there. But
it will mean standing in for Chris more often, and
it will mean that for a whole lot of people
who got beaten down for various reasons. A lot of
(19:06):
those change makers I mentioned really pilloried and vilified through
the Durn years. To say, actually the guy you voted
for can become the Deputy trave min Australia. I think
that's quite important. I'm certainly humbled to represent a group
of people who support acts and to be in that
position on their behalf.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Yeah, good on your David, and keep up the good work.
Thank you so much. And I don't mind that you
call me. Oh, I'm actually from the nineteen sixties. Would
you believe that?
Speaker 3 (19:34):
No way, You must have the best moisturizing.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Yes, and a lot of botox. Good on your David.
David Seymour, the leader of the ACT parties.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk zed B weekends from three pm, 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.
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!