September 12, 2024 • 34 mins
The Prime Minister says he will bring the Opposition leader on board to hammer out a plan for infrastructure.
The Government is promoting a message of bipartisanship as it sets its sights on designing a 30-year pipeline for delivering major projects.
Christopher Luxon and his Transport, Infrastructure, and Housing Ministers visited New South Wales last month to learn from Australia's productivity.
Newstalk ZB's Kerre Woodham pushed Luxon on why he didn't take Labour leader Chris Hipkins if he's trying to build consensus.
He says they have already reached out to other parties to make it clear the coalition wants to work in a bipartisan way.
When it comes to the coalition itself, Luxon insists he's leading a stable coalition, and works well with both partners.
That's despite the controversial Treaty Principles Bill coming up in this week's Cabinet meeting, and a paper unveiling Act's David Seymour's proposed principles.
Luxon's adamant he won't support the Bill past first reading and has admitted this was the issue that stalled coalition negotiations.
Luxon told Kerre the three parties are very different.
But he says he's very proud of the way he works with both Seymour and Winston Peters.
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 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerry Wood of Mornings podcast from
News Talk sed B, and this.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Is our Christopher Luxeon are the Prime Minister's been around
the world since becoming PM almost ten months ago, twelve countries,
nine trips more to come before the end of the year.
Christopher Luxen is here with us now for our quarterly
catch up, taking your questions on eight hundred eighty ten eighty.
Good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Good to be with you.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
What are you doing tripping around the world when your
rear points up staying in Golden lad nicely.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
I wish it was like twenty five meetings a day,
but when I'm offshore, but it's really busy. But I'm
going out on recess weeks typically to make sure that
we're actually getting the hustle right to get the exports
doubled in value over the next ten years, but also
attract investment into New Zealand and a lot of across
the Indo Pacific region, you know, the Southeast Asian countries,
Northeast Asian countries, that's where all our future sits. Is
(00:57):
massive opportunity for New Zealand and yet we've got some
short term pain to get through and navigate At the moment.
It's pretty tough out there. But the long term things,
we've got to grow the country, and actually growth requires
us to double the value of our exports in ten
years and requires us to get investment into the country.
And a lot of those places I've been visiting, we
haven't had a prime minister there since twenty fifteen, so
you know, Thailand where I was, Malaysia, Korea, you know they're.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
The are they receptive, very receptive, Just.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
That we haven't been share of mind because we haven't
been out and about. So that's why I've said myself,
Winston Peters, Judith Collins, Todd McLay, that's the four of us.
We meet sort of every couple of weeks and we're saying, right,
how do we lift the intensity and the urgency of
these arrangements.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yeah, all very good to get markets for our exports,
but we're not going to have bloody exports, are we
If the price of electricity is going to double in
a week.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
Yeah, well that's been a major challenge just for everyone listening.
It's not actually consumer prices that have been fully affected,
it's what's called the wholesale electricity prices. Yeah, and that's
what you know. If you remember sort of four to
six weeks ago, we had some of the most expensive
prices in the world. We've done some things in the
short term, like we've obviously got the Ty deal settled.
We didn't put any government money and we let that
(02:04):
get sort of commercially for two years. That was a
good arrangement that gave people certainty. We then also have
got Method X releasing gas and making that available to
the system.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
And we've also had they're contracting yep, yep. Sure.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
And but in the interim period, if you look at
wholesale prices the last few weeks, they've really come down
big time. In fact, I've been really reasonable.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
How can you run a business?
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Well, that's I'm saying short term, But what's happened here,
Let's be really clear about it, and I want people
to understand. Sorry I shouldn't say let be clear about it,
because you can kick me under the table again. But
what I what I want people to understand is that
when you go out and say we're going to ban
oil and gas, which sounds like a very lovely idea,
it has second and third order complicate implications that no
one thought about and the upshot is that when we
(02:44):
have a dry year like we're having the driest we've
had since nineteen ninety two, lakes are lows, not enough
sun one's not blowing. Our renewables don't fire as well
as they do, and we need gas, and we're going
to need gas for some time and we need coal. Yep,
well we need gas ideally because actually gas is half
as bad as coal, not as good as renewables. But
what's happening is the perverse thing is you're in the
(03:06):
oil and gas band. Now we've stopped producing domestic gas,
and now we're importing huge quantities of coal. So it's
worse for global greenhouse gas emissions. And that's why it's
easy coal we mine. Well, it's a different type sometimes
and it's actually used in things like solar panels and
from the west coast of the South Island, for example.
It's really good quality coal when it's used for that
sort of purpose.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
So we get more money selling it off shore and
importing lower grade coal.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Well, we shouldn't be importing any coal because this country
has abundant natural resources. But what happened was when you
ban the oil and gas exploration no one's been exploring
for the last few years and as a result, No,
we've got lot, we've got LNG here in New Zealand.
But why would you invest in New Zealand. You've got
one hundred and ninety five countries to invest in. You're
these big companies that come and they explore. They then
(03:51):
get the gas out of the thing, put it into
our pipelines to send it around our country. But why
would you bother They've said they're going to kill oil
and gas. So the reality is, yes, we need to
double the renewables that we've got, and we're going to
do that through fast track provisions. You know, we've got
I think almost twenty eighty percent of the projects that
have come forward are actually people wanted to build solar farms,
wind farms, all that good stuff. We've got to double
(04:11):
that amount of energy. But we're also going to need
gas for some time, and that's why we've got to
look at importing LNG and also getting domestic gas production up,
because when you don't do that, you end up importing
huge amounts of coal. I think Genesis has had two
hundred and eighty percent more coal than it did last
yet well that's not good for emissions of the climate
or anything. So that's why I say, if you're an environmentalist,
get on board, Green Party, Labor Party, actually support the
(04:34):
legislation we're putting through the House on fast tracks and
on any of the oil and gas ban. So we're
going to need gas for a period of time. We
are one of the top five countries in the world
today around renewables, or I think we run about eighty
seven percent renewables. Every other country I go to runs
at about fifteen to twenty percent, so we are well
ahead of everybody else. We need to continue to double
that quantity of renewables, but we also need gas for
(04:56):
some time and ex acknowledge it.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, we do. Seeing as the government as a majority
shareholder and all the gent tailors, what are we doing
to force their and about investing in more renewables or
bringing the price down. Well, here's the deal when I
know we don't like interfering.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
And no no, but what happened was when you had
t y sitting out there, which consumes up to thirteen
percent of our electricity, and that deal wasn't locked up.
It was done on short term deals. Over the last
few years I've talked to t Y and to Rio
Tinto and the owners and we basically said, you guys
have to get to a commercial decision with the electricity
companies for the long term. And they've got a twenty
year deal, so we know that that's now settled, because
(05:35):
when that was up in the ear if you're an
electricity company, why would you invest because you're not quite
sure what you're planning for in terms of demand, and
they're a big part of the demand that's consumed in energy.
The second thing is Omegan Woods had this crazy idea
called lake Onslow. They want to spend I think something
like sixteen billion dollars or probably thirty billion dollars by
the time it finished, and that, as a result, meant
(05:56):
that all the electricity companies sit on the sidelines, not
wanting to invest their own money, and we have to
spend taxpayers money because that was the plan and it
wasn't going to be available to twenty forty or something
ridiculus well beyond. So all of those things are being
sorted We've said killed lake Onslow, We've sorted out t Y,
and as a result, we're saying theatricity companies who theory
when I talk to them when I spend twenty to
(06:17):
twenty five billion dollars of their own money, not taxpayers money,
actually building out renewable energy projects. But it's been ridiculous.
It takes you eight years to get a consent for
a wind farm that actually powers one hundred and thirty
thousand homes and two years to build it. And what
we're saying under fast Track provisions one stop shop stuff
that you can get that done in one year as
a consent and then you go build it and then
(06:37):
we get the benefit of it much quicker.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
So you know, I think somebody sent in a question.
Somebody sent in a question about fast Track, and I
think Helen will find that and I'll ask you that
after the break. That was sometime in the last hour.
But we will go to Glenn, who's one of my
favorite farmers from Otago. Glenn, it's the same Glenn. Good morning, Glenn.
Speaker 5 (06:59):
I thank you very much for your stall. No how
buoy you are and how busy you've been. This is caught,
of course, a specific one national policy statement. Freshwater twenty
twenty is still floating around out there.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Yep.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
You've always have said we are repealing it. The councils
hands are tied. They have to notify by December twenty four,
is my understanding. Can you please change that, just repel
it and go to this twenty seventeen stend which was fine.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
Yep, we're doing a heap of work in that space.
You've probably seen Todd McLay I have.
Speaker 5 (07:34):
Yeah. The thing is that that time bine that David
Parker left in there in December of this year, it's
only two months away, and so they have to know.
All the councils are working flat out to knowify by
then because that's what the laws is they have to do.
So yeah, yeah, no change.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
It, Yeah yeah, yeah, no, no glued.
Speaker 4 (07:52):
I think, as you've probably worked out, there's been twenty
things I think we've done in the first six or
seven months just to free up the red tape that's
been existing in the farming sector. I'm well aware of
freshwater as a major one. Will be very pragmatic and
practical about that. Go back and we'll check. I had
a funny thought that we had actually said to councils,
hang on, there's going to be a change coming. Please
don't force something that isn't.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Let's correct your head. But they are replying and saying, well,
the losses we have to do this by to see
in betwenty four and that's the pot.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
I know a lot of councils have taken our direction
where we've said, hey, listen, change is coming, don't bust
your butt's trying to do something that's just driving chaos
into the system that doesn't Yes, yes, yes, So it
might be a specific council problem that we've got down there,
So let me follow that up and we'll come back
to you. Thank you very much and thank you mate,
(08:42):
appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
We did have a caller who wanted to know about
the esh Briton Bridge. He's dropped off and that's fair enough.
The South Island quite like to know if any money
is going to be spent on infrastructure in their island.
Speaker 6 (08:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Absolutely, Like I mean obviously, you know, in christ Church
we've spent a huge amount of money post earthquake. Tens
of billions of dollars have gone into christ Church and
we've got some very good infrastructure there. We've got some
very good roads north in North Canterbury that we're wanting
to do. Pick is Bypass Ashburton Bridge is definitely on
our list. It's something that I've spoken to me and
Brown about a lot Neil and also know some men's
(09:14):
been down there as well, so mean Brown looking at
all of that. So we're very much on board with
the Ashburton Bridge. I know it well. I used to
drive from chrish Itch to ten Wall to see Amanda
when she was teaching at ten Wall to school, and
I drove through there the other day actually at three
o'clock in the afternoon and it was like literally being
stuck in gridlock traffic here in Auckland. And so we
know that's a critical piece of infrastructure. I think from
(09:34):
memory it's about ninety four million dollars or a Class
one hundred million dollars investment that we've got to make
down there.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
So I just can't.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
I just over the top of my head, there's about
fifty projects roaming through my brain at the moment that
I'm thinking about on around roading projects. But it is
definitely happening.
Speaker 6 (09:48):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
One in ten dollars, one in ten percent of the
infrastructure budget for everything going on the Northland super Highway.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
Yeah, just say look, I mean we've got major problems
in infrastructure, and what we're saying is we're going to
sort out the financial mess that we're in when we've
started that process inflation and trust rates. Yes, we're in recession.
We've got some unemployment challenges for the next few months.
I suspect we'll get that sorted and we'll get the
country moving and growing. But the big opportunity is to
grow the country properly. And one of the five things
(10:16):
we have to do is be modern, reliable infrastructure across
the country. And a big part of that is actually roading.
It's also housing, it's also hospitals, it's schools, a whole
bunch of things. But on the roading side of it,
we're going to we have to. We've got heap some
mean's just anounce we're going to put thirty three billion
dollars I think it is over the next three years
into roading and into the network. But the bigger issue
(10:38):
is we also have to be able to access foreign capital,
domestic capital, and do things in public private partnerships. We
can build roads on the government's balance sheet that might
appear in twenty sixty or twenty seventy, or we can
pull those forward by actually doing partnerships and building those
roads much quicker, much faster. But from Auckland to Fongeray
four lane highway, that has to happen. We've talked about
(10:59):
that for decades. I'm sick of the talk. We have
to get going with it. We've already got the next
phase consented beyond think Welsford to walk with and then
we've got to find a pathway through the Bran Durwins
and then come back from fong Ray down to join that
Brent Durwin's Link Cup. So we are very very focused
on that because that is the single biggest thing that
would actually accelerate growth in Northland. We are one of
(11:19):
our most challenged areas in this country. So you know,
there's lots of things we've got to do, but you've
got to be really clear about boiling it back to
if I could just do one thing, what would I do?
I would do a four lane freeway from Auckland to
fong Erray. So we are looking at that and we.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Might open up the port as well.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
So well, once you've got that flow happening of that
traffic and you've got a consistent you know, if you
think about the poor people of Northland trying to come
down to Auckland through the Bran Durwins. The road's been
in slip, it's been you know, it's closed. It's it's
been really mickey mouse and very very difficult. It's it's
a huge loss of productivity. So the economic benefits of
that road as big as it will be. To get
(11:55):
that investment away, we will look at partners that can
support us with that. You know that might be able
to put be a capital in. Yes, it might have
some tolls, but if that means you get that road
place twenty years sooner than you would if the government
can get around to afford it, and it's cheaper to
do today than it will be in twenty years time,
we may as well face up to these issues now
and make the tough decisions and get these things underway now.
(12:16):
It might mean we have to run things very differently,
because we do. We spend a lot of time on
resource consenting and that process has taken a long time
and it costs huge amounts of money. And then we
might have to use some more centralized powers to actually
power through and get that road approved and happening quicker.
So I'm over the talk. We've talked about it for decades.
It's got to happen. We determine it's going to happen
(12:38):
because it's the single biggest thing. When you get that
road working, that will unlock huge amounts of growth in
Northland and then you'll see people wanting to invest in
ports and tourism and hotels and a whole bunch of
other things that will create opportunity up there.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Will it used to be the commercial hub of New
Zealand in eighteen forte correct, Bes, you've got a question
to run infrastructure, hey bs, I had.
Speaker 7 (13:00):
Good morning Prime Ministeram, and it's fair them ative engineer
for generation immigrants from China is really, is there any
possibility to build a backbone of infrastructure that will transcend
all political differences? What's the political spectrum? We have the
backbone there and I mean at everybody when they're coming
(13:21):
to vour they can grow the limbs, hand their fingers and.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
This is shit. But Enow, that's a good question and
fantastic question. You're really right, Cambridge Pieri has been on off,
on off, just as a road extension under different political
parties and governments. We've got to stop that. So what
we want is a thirty year pipeline of projects, not
just ideas but really hard projects of what we're going
to work through over the next thirty years together as
(13:44):
a country. Other countries do that, we can do that.
We're also going to have ten year city and regional
deals so we're clear about the critical infrastructure for subregions
of New Zealand. And then two weeks ago we created
what's called the National Infrastructure Agency, which is one place
that will actually deal with the funding and financing of
these projects as well using private capital, government money and
overseas capital to get them built. Now, I think as
(14:06):
if you put those things around then through political cycles
of changes of government, we should have infrastructure as an
independent thing that just meant like it is a New
South Wales. If I took Shane Jones and Chris Bishop
and simmyon Brown to New South Wales recently with me,
we spent a whole day just talking about infrastructure and
New South Wales, how they do it. I met with
former premiers, current premiers. I met with Infrastructure New South Wales.
(14:29):
It's an independent body that says these are the priority
projects that we have to invest in and doesn't matter
whether it's a Labour led government or a National led government,
those projects continue.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
It might have been helpful to take Chris Sipkins with
you for your truth.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
Well, no, I mean we will, and we were very
open and we've already reached out to the other parties
across New Zealand to say, look, we want to work
in a bipartisan way on infrastructure. Yeah, but I think
first and foremost we owe it as the government to
actually get that list together through the Infrastructure Commission on
those thirty projects and then come back with the political
parties to say, hey, listen, guys, you know we don't
really want politicians interfering in this stuff. We need an
(15:03):
independent body that we all respect that actually se these
are the critical projects for New Zealand. They have the
most best return on investment, will make the biggest difference
to the country. So that's the way that I think
we've got to go forward with. We need to get
some of that scaffolding in place first, but we've already
said upfront that we would love to work and buy
partisan way with parties. Because I agree with you. I
think it's silly that you know we're in a ridiculous
(15:24):
situation where roads are turned on and off, and road
building is pretty simple when you look at it around
the world. It's a pretty basic thing to do, and
we have politicians interfering and that's stupid.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Thank you very much, News Talk said be Michael. Quick
question from you.
Speaker 8 (15:38):
Yeah, hi, Prime Minister. I'm a National Party member and
attend a lot of your events, et cetera. Behind what
you're doing, but I disagree strongly with the approach that
you're taking with regard to David Seymour and Acts Treaty
Principles Review Bill, And I'm just wondering why are you
(15:59):
taking such a strong position and saying you know you
definitely won't take it past first reading when in fact
you haven't really spoken to the people that voted you
end to see what they think, because there's a huge
support for what Seymour's suggesting.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Huge support, Michael, how would you base that given that
Nash the Act didn't get as many votes as they
thought they were going to get going into the election.
Speaker 8 (16:23):
I'm sorry, what was that question.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
It's hardly huge support for the Treaty Principles Bill. It's
a vocal support, So thank you for the question.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
Yeah, Look, Michael. What I'd say, look is, let's be clear,
the most New Zealanders want us to focus on the
cost of living crisis and rebuilding the economy. They want
us to fix law and order. They want us to
live a better health and education. When you ask them,
what is it they are expecting our government to do,
That's what they want us to be focused on. That's
what I'm focused on. We had a position before the election.
We think that bill was incredibly divisive and it's unhelpful.
(16:54):
That's the National Party position. I'm speaking as the National
party leader right now. See More and Act have a
different view, which they think it's a really you know,
they want to take it to full referendum. We're in
an MMP environment, rightly or wrongly, that's the electoral systems
have selected many many times. We had to come to
a compromise. I didn't get what I wanted, he didn't
get what he wanted, and what we said is we'd
support it to first reading and not beyond that. And
(17:14):
so it'll go to first reading or go through a
select committee process. It'll come back for a second reading
probably in mid May, and as a national party, we
will vote that down. It's not something that we support.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
You made that very clear in the lead up to
the election.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
Now, I was consistent with that before the election. We
were consistent with that when we did the coalition negotiation,
and I'm just being very clear about it as we
go forward from here. But we do honor our coalition
commitments and that's why we will support it to first reading.
There will be an opportunity for a narration to happen
in the public discussion, to happen through the select committee process,
where people from all sides will have their views on it.
(17:47):
But from a National Party position, it's not something we support.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Why do you think it's an experience or a maturity
that's making David seymore such a bourrundy saddle. Well, he
has a constituency to say, which St Peters. I mean,
I would I never thought I'd say this, and I'm
going to say it. He's been amazing as a politician
and as a Deputy Prime minister. David seam was acting
(18:13):
like a brat, like an intelligent kid who hasn't been
given enough to do. But I mean there's a.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Lot to do well, I just I mean I think
he's doing like he's taken over his minister. We've created
something called Minister of Regulation to get rid of the
red tape. That's what his number one job is, to
get rid of the red tape and get rid of
all the education. He's been busy, done a great job
on attendance and education and charter schools and all that
good stuff. Well, look he's not. He genuinely is a party.
(18:38):
They have a constituency of people who think this is
a very big issue. It's their number one issue for them.
The reality is that's not the reality for New Zealanders.
New Zealanders one, we are in an MMP environment right
And I think that's what I need New Zealanders to understand,
which is if you go to Western Europe and you
sit in Netherlands or Germany, you can have three, four, five,
six party coalitions. All those parties have difference views and
(19:01):
slightly different policies and have the things that are important
to them and in a mature em P environment in
New Zealand. I appreciate you know a lot of people
don't like this conversation around the Treaty Principles Bill. It's
not of something I support or the National Party supports,
but we have to be able to find a way
and find a compromised to be able to deal with coalition.
If you had Labor to Party, Mari and the Greens,
there'll be issues in that coalition that those three parties
(19:22):
won't agree on either, that there'll be compromise around.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
But when he becomes Deputy prime Minister, you would want
to see a different David Seymour, wouldn't you.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
Well, I'm sure he'll be, he'll be he I mean,
I think the coalition is actually I think if you're
a member of the public looking at it, you can
see that we are working incredibly hard.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
It's actually very.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
Aligned around the core stuff of the economy, law and.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
Order, public services.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Yes, we have differences of opinion on an issue like this,
but the vast majority of what we're doing is we're
working very coherently, very cohesively.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
This hasn't you know.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
We just have different points of view, and we'd be
very upfront about it to say we've got differences and
this is how we're going too.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
Yeah, i'd say I get it.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
But the point is I just say, you know, each
party will have its own flavor, its own presentation. The
leaders are different, but I I think, you know, the
way I'm working with David Seymour and Winston Peters in
the way that the three party coalitions coming together, I'm
very very proud about. I think we're very stable. I
think people can see we're working hard. We've got the
right people on the right assignments. We're using the talents
of everybody to get on and get it.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
So we have to sit them down and say, mate,
call your jets.
Speaker 5 (20:23):
Well.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
I mean, we have a lot of conversations behind the
scenes with all the parties and within our own party,
and that's.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Exactly how it's supposed to be.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
But we do that, you know, in a very coherent, calm,
sort of rational way. We agree to disagree, you know,
and that's what we've done here.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
If you don't agree with David Seymour Carey, that doesn't
make him a bad politician. I wouldn't say it was
a bad politician. I said, it's not very statesman like
and being a bit sort of bratty. If you're going
to be the deputy prime minister then I think anyway,
as you said, we've covered that one off health insurance.
Would you please ask our Prime Minister whether in the
immediate future head consider introducing some tax relief to those
(21:02):
who have private health insurance. The current public health system
makes it extremely necessary to belong to these private schemes
if people need to be seen in a timely manner.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
Yeah, Look, it's an idea that's come through a few times,
which is there a tax relief or tax credit that
you can get for having private health insurance. It's not
something that we've actually discussed at this point. What I
am very interested in, what Shane Recky and I very
focused on, is actually the private healthcare system has capacity
in it, and particularly when you've got a series of
elective surgeries and we've got a goal to get ninety
(21:32):
five percent of people to get their elective surgery within
four months. You know, if you think about hip replacements,
need replacements, cataract surgeries, the private system should be just
churning those out. And so we can actually send New
Zealanders into the private system and use that system to
be able to get those surgeries done. It means that
the system, the government obviously pays for that to happen
(21:52):
in the private system rather than the public system. But
I think we have to use the private healthcare system
capacity as well as the public capacity, but on things
that are standard, you know, surgeries and a known quantities
that are perfect empowering through and getting through that list
of wait list.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
But isn't that the way the surgeons have structured it themselves.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
No, it's actually that you've got high efficiency in the
private system. It is a it's got capacity, and it's
very good at a know, in set of surgeries that
we know we've got a backlog on or a wait
list on. You know, if we've got people waiting in
the private system to get a knee replacement, which is
a you know, yes, it's a it's a pretty up
(22:33):
and down sort of surgery that as well known, you know,
knee replacement, replacement.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Cataract surgeries.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
Yeah, there's a number of them, right that we should
just be saying, right, let's let's buy those outcomes, and yes,
let's use the private capacity. And you find that they
can deliver it at a lower cost than we can
in the public system, then let's use that for sure.
And that's that's we're interested on the health outcomes. We
want less time wait times for first surgeries, specialist appointments,
(23:00):
eedy waight times.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
So let's use other parts of the healthcare.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
System to get that list down that way time.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Down, and so tax reallyef for not something.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
It's on the agenda at this point, but it's an
idea that has been raised with me several times over
the last couple of years.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
It's been raised over the last sixty years.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
It used to exist when I lived in Australia. I
remember that was a tax credit I had at that
time in Australia when I lived there, with private health
insurance as well, and most Australians actually had private health
insurance at one point, but then the public system got
so good that actually people opted out of it in
the end.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
You think that will ever happen to ours? I mean especially,
and this was a great line from David Seima. I
have to say where you said that there are many
many public servants still working within the public service who
are like Japanese soldiers who don't know the war is over,
who are absolutely sabotaging from within.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
Well, what I'd say on healthcare is it's the most
complex portfolio. We've got got eighty five thousand people in there,
We've got incredible you know, and the challenge we've got
is we've put thirty billion dollars worth of expenditure every
year into healthcare. We just threw in the record amount
of money sixteen point seven billion dollars plus another two
billion for far MAT plus six to eight hundred million
dollars for the cancer drugs, So the money is going in.
(24:08):
Just I want people to understand it's not an underfunding issue.
We've got money going in, but it is actually how
it is spent, and we've got we've got two and
a half thousand extra managers that have been put into
the Health New Zealand system, and that's why we've shut
down the board and I've actually put a commissioner in there,
Lester Levy, to work with three other commissioners for twelve
months to get the Health New Zealand organization working properly
(24:28):
so that when you tip money into it, it actually
doesn't get lost in a bureaucracy of fourteen layers from
cheer to patient, it actually gets out to the frontline
services where it needs to get to. We've got incredible
nurses and credible doctors in the system, but the system
lets them down. So we've got to work on the funding,
which we're doing we've got to work on the workforce.
We've got two nine hundred more nurses that have gone
(24:49):
into the system. We've got twenty nine thousand nurses, the
most we've ever had. Now we've had massive recruitment over
the last nine months in particular, and actually when you
look at the pay rates of nurses that's looking it's
getting into much better shape, good shape, which is fantastic.
But now we've also got to get the operation and
the organization working well so as money goes in, it
actually gets not a third of it lost in the bureaucracy,
(25:09):
but it gets to the frontline services. And that's why
I put the commissioner in there, because that's a pretty
serious move.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
News Talk said, gosh, this goes quickly. Could you please
ask excuse me, Christopher Lux and how to affected people
have input on fast track proposal, which I've had no
disclosure to the public at all. Have mentioned fast trek
a couple of times. There are concerns from people including James,
who say, no, you're railroading. I need to be able
to have.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
My say yep.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
So there's still be an opportunity for that. So what
happened was we have this idea of a one stop
fast track legislation. Because the RIMA has just made things
and resource concent it's doubled in length, it's doubled in cost.
It's one of the reasons people don't build things in
New Zealand or invest in New Zealand, frankly is because
it's just considered to be too slow, to bureaucratic, too long.
So we've had a bill which we took out, I
(25:56):
went to a first reading, has gone out to the
Select Committee. That's when the public have come back and said, hey, listen,
these are things that we think we could make changes,
sensible changes to improve it. That means that we have
agreed rather than having ministers make decisions, we actually have
an expert panel in place to actually weigh up the
economic the environmental benefits. But we are still going to
move that pace through that and that will be the
(26:17):
opportunity from which people will look at the other considerations.
But the idea here is if you want to build
a renewable wind farm, that's not a conversation that needs
to go on for eight years. That is a conversation
that needs to go on for one year and get
built well. The expert panels.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Will reflect those views and they will.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Have conversations with public on certainly issues around the environment
or social benefits and weigh those up against the economic benefits.
But I make no apologies. We are going to get
things built and it is ridiculous that it takes as long,
costs as much to build stuff in New Zealand. Our
house in New Zealand costs fifty percent more to build
than it does in Australia, and a lot of that's
(26:57):
to do with resource consents. And so we can debate, discuss,
we can have conversations all day long, but we now
need to get things built in this country because otherwise
we're just talking about stuff actually getting stuff done. So
we've made some sensible changes based off public feedback to say, look,
we don't like the idea of ministers unilaterally having control
over that. But if you look at the initial set
of projects that Chris Bishop released recently, I think there
(27:18):
was almost four hundred projects. I think almost twenty percent
of them were in renewable energy spaces. There are other
housing projects in there, other good things like that. So
the are the things that will make the difference. That's
what creates once we get those projects away. That's creates
prosperity lists, people's living standards.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
Rowan, good morning to you.
Speaker 6 (27:37):
Hey, Gary, how's it going, Hi, Chris Ron? Yeah, Hey,
I'm a good segue into my question. I mean, I'm
a propertyoner and we're wanted to do some upgrades. And
also I've had a friend who has recently done some
upgrades to his property and around the roma were just
I the resource content process and the building content process
(27:59):
that almost cost as much as correct this property. And
it's just absurd. How are you going to drive councils
to ensure that there are delivering efficiently and cost effectively
two rate players, Because it is a bit of a concern.
You talk to architects, you talk to planners, and they
(28:19):
are all experiencing the same issues, and it just seems
to be going into a brick wall and nothing gets done.
Speaker 5 (28:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Look, I agree with you. The RIMA cost has doubled.
I think it's one point three billion dollars a year.
People now just pay out on resource management resource consenting,
and the time is doubled. So it's just hugely inefficient.
And it's all this local council sort of rules, and
so we are powering through that with the fast track piece,
but also ultimately next year we'll also launch our final
(28:47):
solution for RIMA as well, and that is to get
that balance right. Chris Pink is doing a good job
on building in construction. He's saying councils don't need to
come on site and do inspections. You can do a
lot of it remotely. You can do it through video.
And we're getting rid of some of those things like Yep,
you can put a sixty square meter building on the
back of your property and you don't need a resource
(29:07):
consent for that. That's all granny flats, and that might
be for your teenager or your young person in your life,
or or your parents or whatever. So there's literally lots
of things we've got to do to just unblock the
system that has created, just stopping stuff people from getting
on and doing things on their own property and basic stuff.
So Chris Pink's doing a great job. I think of
just and go look at what he's announced over the
(29:28):
last few months of just the things to unblock these irritants.
But I'm with you. I think one of the things
in Simon Brown and I talked about at the Local
Government conference is I want to benchmark the performance of
our councils across this country, and I want to do
that publicly where they actually put up how long does
it take to approve of resource consent are what are
their actual performance time frames and deliverables and how are
(29:50):
they actually performing on the basics that they're supposed to deliver.
Why do you need three people coming out to inspect
your pool feeds? You know, like it's just some really
you know that we've got to get them focused on
the basics really well. Some councils do it well. Some
councils do it really badly. And that's why I gave
that very strong message to councilors to say, hang on,
don't go do all theo kombaur and mushy stuff that's
(30:13):
all very sexy and interesting above the surface. You've actually
got to do the basics incredibly well, because that's what
people are paying you to do. We have a lot
of councils in this country. We have sixteen hundred elected
counselors up and down. It it's a lot of complexity
and it's slowing things down and families have had to
adjust their belts, businesses have adjusted their belts. Central governments
adjusted its belts, and I expect counselors to focus on
(30:36):
the things that matter most to New Zealanders and their
rate payers, which is do the basics, brilliantly, collect the rubbish.
And so we're going to have a We've seen it
in Australia where you actually put the council performance metrics up.
Simeon Brown will work that up as Local Government Minister
and actually then we can name and shame councils and
their relative performance on responding to their customer, who happens
to be their rate payer.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Right, that'll be interesting reading. Luke, very quick one from
you and a quick answer from your Prime minis Yes, Luke,
good morning, oh.
Speaker 8 (31:04):
Good morning, morning.
Speaker 5 (31:06):
Good I'll ask your question the GCY threshold.
Speaker 6 (31:11):
There's been a sixty thousand for wherever since two thousand
and nine.
Speaker 8 (31:15):
Is that ever going to go up?
Speaker 4 (31:17):
Yeah, we're up for that conversation. I actually think I
don't want to talk off the top of my head,
but I'm trying to think there is a conversation where
we are where we have talked about looking at that.
So I can't give you a straight answer now, to
be honest, mate, but I know that's a topic that
we are open.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
To, and I'll ask you about because this time last
week we had Chris Hipkins talking about borrowing more and
taxing more. I'll ask you about that after the break,
No laughing matter. Chris Hipkins this time last week was
talking about taxing more and borrowing more. And I look,
you know, I said to him, you cannot be serious.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
Well, I just think it's quite outrageous. I mean literally
that that government crashed the car. They put the car
in the ditch. New Zealand's economy, right, they literally put
it in the ditch. And they did that by actually
spending more, borrowing more, taxing more. You know, they increased
spending by eighty four percent, drove up inflation, drove up
interest rates, put the economy into recession for the last
few years, and raises unemployment. No, it wasn't, it wasn't.
(32:13):
It was abysmal economic management. And then you come you
put the car on the ditch. We're trying to get
the car out of the ditch and get into first
and second gear and then ultimately too third and fourth
into top gear. And now he wants the keys back
to go put it back into the ditch again by
doing exactly the same thing.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Morse.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
He said he wants to borrow more, he said, he
wants to tax more. And then I'm telling you this
conversation about a capital gains tax or a wealth tax
or a capital income tax. They've got this tension within
the Labour Party where David Parker is being on about
a capital income tax or wealth tax, Chris Hipkins now
seems to want a capital gains tax, which he just
ruled out less than ten months ago. And you know,
(32:49):
again they're back at the well of where they've been
in twenty eleven and twenty fourteen. We don't need to
tax our way out of a recession. We need to
grow our way out of a recession. And that's why
I keep saying it's about education, infrastructure, technology, red tape,
international connections.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
You can't too much about commodity prices.
Speaker 4 (33:04):
But we can if we if we add value to
our products and services over time. And if you look
at what's happened in dairy, it's not actually the commodity
end that we're actually succeeding in, and while we're growing
that so well, it's actually the high value end of
the functional foods and the supplements and other things that
we're doing in the food service side of things so
we can do that. We're doing a great job on
(33:24):
advanced aviation and space for example, which is coming through
really well. We've got great opportunities in geothermal and renewable
energy where we're world experts at this stuff that we
can export that services to the world as well. So
I just think you, to be honest, we are in
the mess we're in because you know, these guys ran
up from five to one hundred billion dollars worth of debt.
(33:46):
I now have an interest bill of eight billion to
maybe growing to ten or eleven billion dollars on the debt.
That means it's eight to ten billion dollars I can't
spend on hospitals or schools or other infrastructure, and we
have got nothing to show for it. So I know
I'm not meaning to be because I'm trying to fix
the problem and I've got to focus on the future.
But I get very frustrated when these are the clowns, frankly,
(34:06):
over the last six years that were economic vandals that
put the car on the ditch, and now they want
the keys back, and it ain't gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
How are we looking well? I think thirty seconds, how
are we looking?
Speaker 5 (34:15):
Look?
Speaker 4 (34:15):
I think the country's got awesome potential. That's obvious to
me when I get out and about in the world.
We've got huge opportunities. I know we're going through a
very tough time right now, but you've seen us. I
think we've got to the bottom. There's some green shoots
that we're starting to get our way out of it.
Interest rates coming down, economy starts to grow, employment goes
up fantastic. Then we've got to grow and that's exciting.
How do we get the potential of this great country?
(34:36):
And gee, it's a great country.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
It is a great country. This is a great song.
It's your choice, post Maloney.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
Post Malone, He's awesome, if one trillion, If you listen
to one album this weekend, this is it.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Kerry Wood of Mornings podcast from
News Talk sed B, and this.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Is our Christopher Luxeon are the Prime Minister's been around
the world since becoming PM almost ten months ago, twelve countries,
nine trips more to come before the end of the year.
Christopher Luxen is here with us now for our quarterly
catch up, taking your questions on eight hundred eighty ten eighty.
Good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Good to be with you.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
What are you doing tripping around the world when your
rear points up staying in Golden lad nicely.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
I wish it was like twenty five meetings a day,
but when I'm offshore, but it's really busy. But I'm
going out on recess weeks typically to make sure that
we're actually getting the hustle right to get the exports
doubled in value over the next ten years, but also
attract investment into New Zealand and a lot of across
the Indo Pacific region, you know, the Southeast Asian countries,
Northeast Asian countries, that's where all our future sits. Is
(00:57):
massive opportunity for New Zealand and yet we've got some
short term pain to get through and navigate At the moment.
It's pretty tough out there. But the long term things,
we've got to grow the country, and actually growth requires
us to double the value of our exports in ten
years and requires us to get investment into the country.
And a lot of those places I've been visiting, we
haven't had a prime minister there since twenty fifteen, so
you know, Thailand where I was, Malaysia, Korea, you know they're.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
The are they receptive, very receptive, Just.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
That we haven't been share of mind because we haven't
been out and about. So that's why I've said myself,
Winston Peters, Judith Collins, Todd McLay, that's the four of us.
We meet sort of every couple of weeks and we're saying, right,
how do we lift the intensity and the urgency of
these arrangements.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yeah, all very good to get markets for our exports,
but we're not going to have bloody exports, are we
If the price of electricity is going to double in
a week.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
Yeah, well that's been a major challenge just for everyone listening.
It's not actually consumer prices that have been fully affected,
it's what's called the wholesale electricity prices. Yeah, and that's
what you know. If you remember sort of four to
six weeks ago, we had some of the most expensive
prices in the world. We've done some things in the
short term, like we've obviously got the Ty deal settled.
We didn't put any government money and we let that
(02:04):
get sort of commercially for two years. That was a
good arrangement that gave people certainty. We then also have
got Method X releasing gas and making that available to
the system.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
And we've also had they're contracting yep, yep. Sure.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
And but in the interim period, if you look at
wholesale prices the last few weeks, they've really come down
big time. In fact, I've been really reasonable.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
How can you run a business?
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Well, that's I'm saying short term, But what's happened here,
Let's be really clear about it, and I want people
to understand. Sorry I shouldn't say let be clear about it,
because you can kick me under the table again. But
what I what I want people to understand is that
when you go out and say we're going to ban
oil and gas, which sounds like a very lovely idea,
it has second and third order complicate implications that no
one thought about and the upshot is that when we
(02:44):
have a dry year like we're having the driest we've
had since nineteen ninety two, lakes are lows, not enough
sun one's not blowing. Our renewables don't fire as well
as they do, and we need gas, and we're going
to need gas for some time and we need coal. Yep,
well we need gas ideally because actually gas is half
as bad as coal, not as good as renewables. But
what's happening is the perverse thing is you're in the
(03:06):
oil and gas band. Now we've stopped producing domestic gas,
and now we're importing huge quantities of coal. So it's
worse for global greenhouse gas emissions. And that's why it's
easy coal we mine. Well, it's a different type sometimes
and it's actually used in things like solar panels and
from the west coast of the South Island, for example.
It's really good quality coal when it's used for that
sort of purpose.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
So we get more money selling it off shore and
importing lower grade coal.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Well, we shouldn't be importing any coal because this country
has abundant natural resources. But what happened was when you
ban the oil and gas exploration no one's been exploring
for the last few years and as a result, No,
we've got lot, we've got LNG here in New Zealand.
But why would you invest in New Zealand. You've got
one hundred and ninety five countries to invest in. You're
these big companies that come and they explore. They then
(03:51):
get the gas out of the thing, put it into
our pipelines to send it around our country. But why
would you bother They've said they're going to kill oil
and gas. So the reality is, yes, we need to
double the renewables that we've got, and we're going to
do that through fast track provisions. You know, we've got
I think almost twenty eighty percent of the projects that
have come forward are actually people wanted to build solar farms,
wind farms, all that good stuff. We've got to double
(04:11):
that amount of energy. But we're also going to need
gas for some time, and that's why we've got to
look at importing LNG and also getting domestic gas production up,
because when you don't do that, you end up importing
huge amounts of coal. I think Genesis has had two
hundred and eighty percent more coal than it did last
yet well that's not good for emissions of the climate
or anything. So that's why I say, if you're an environmentalist,
get on board, Green Party, Labor Party, actually support the
(04:34):
legislation we're putting through the House on fast tracks and
on any of the oil and gas ban. So we're
going to need gas for a period of time. We
are one of the top five countries in the world
today around renewables, or I think we run about eighty
seven percent renewables. Every other country I go to runs
at about fifteen to twenty percent, so we are well
ahead of everybody else. We need to continue to double
that quantity of renewables, but we also need gas for
(04:56):
some time and ex acknowledge it.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, we do. Seeing as the government as a majority
shareholder and all the gent tailors, what are we doing
to force their and about investing in more renewables or
bringing the price down. Well, here's the deal when I
know we don't like interfering.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
And no no, but what happened was when you had
t y sitting out there, which consumes up to thirteen
percent of our electricity, and that deal wasn't locked up.
It was done on short term deals. Over the last
few years I've talked to t Y and to Rio
Tinto and the owners and we basically said, you guys
have to get to a commercial decision with the electricity
companies for the long term. And they've got a twenty
year deal, so we know that that's now settled, because
(05:35):
when that was up in the ear if you're an
electricity company, why would you invest because you're not quite
sure what you're planning for in terms of demand, and
they're a big part of the demand that's consumed in energy.
The second thing is Omegan Woods had this crazy idea
called lake Onslow. They want to spend I think something
like sixteen billion dollars or probably thirty billion dollars by
the time it finished, and that, as a result, meant
(05:56):
that all the electricity companies sit on the sidelines, not
wanting to invest their own money, and we have to
spend taxpayers money because that was the plan and it
wasn't going to be available to twenty forty or something
ridiculus well beyond. So all of those things are being
sorted We've said killed lake Onslow, We've sorted out t Y,
and as a result, we're saying theatricity companies who theory
when I talk to them when I spend twenty to
(06:17):
twenty five billion dollars of their own money, not taxpayers money,
actually building out renewable energy projects. But it's been ridiculous.
It takes you eight years to get a consent for
a wind farm that actually powers one hundred and thirty
thousand homes and two years to build it. And what
we're saying under fast Track provisions one stop shop stuff
that you can get that done in one year as
a consent and then you go build it and then
(06:37):
we get the benefit of it much quicker.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
So you know, I think somebody sent in a question.
Somebody sent in a question about fast Track, and I
think Helen will find that and I'll ask you that
after the break. That was sometime in the last hour.
But we will go to Glenn, who's one of my
favorite farmers from Otago. Glenn, it's the same Glenn. Good morning, Glenn.
Speaker 5 (06:59):
I thank you very much for your stall. No how
buoy you are and how busy you've been. This is caught,
of course, a specific one national policy statement. Freshwater twenty
twenty is still floating around out there.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Yep.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
You've always have said we are repealing it. The councils
hands are tied. They have to notify by December twenty four,
is my understanding. Can you please change that, just repel
it and go to this twenty seventeen stend which was fine.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
Yep, we're doing a heap of work in that space.
You've probably seen Todd McLay I have.
Speaker 5 (07:34):
Yeah. The thing is that that time bine that David
Parker left in there in December of this year, it's
only two months away, and so they have to know.
All the councils are working flat out to knowify by
then because that's what the laws is they have to do.
So yeah, yeah, no change.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
It, Yeah yeah, yeah, no, no glued.
Speaker 4 (07:52):
I think, as you've probably worked out, there's been twenty
things I think we've done in the first six or
seven months just to free up the red tape that's
been existing in the farming sector. I'm well aware of
freshwater as a major one. Will be very pragmatic and
practical about that. Go back and we'll check. I had
a funny thought that we had actually said to councils,
hang on, there's going to be a change coming. Please
don't force something that isn't.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Let's correct your head. But they are replying and saying, well,
the losses we have to do this by to see
in betwenty four and that's the pot.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
I know a lot of councils have taken our direction
where we've said, hey, listen, change is coming, don't bust
your butt's trying to do something that's just driving chaos
into the system that doesn't Yes, yes, yes, So it
might be a specific council problem that we've got down there,
So let me follow that up and we'll come back
to you. Thank you very much and thank you mate,
(08:42):
appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
We did have a caller who wanted to know about
the esh Briton Bridge. He's dropped off and that's fair enough.
The South Island quite like to know if any money
is going to be spent on infrastructure in their island.
Speaker 6 (08:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Absolutely, Like I mean obviously, you know, in christ Church
we've spent a huge amount of money post earthquake. Tens
of billions of dollars have gone into christ Church and
we've got some very good infrastructure there. We've got some
very good roads north in North Canterbury that we're wanting
to do. Pick is Bypass Ashburton Bridge is definitely on
our list. It's something that I've spoken to me and
Brown about a lot Neil and also know some men's
(09:14):
been down there as well, so mean Brown looking at
all of that. So we're very much on board with
the Ashburton Bridge. I know it well. I used to
drive from chrish Itch to ten Wall to see Amanda
when she was teaching at ten Wall to school, and
I drove through there the other day actually at three
o'clock in the afternoon and it was like literally being
stuck in gridlock traffic here in Auckland. And so we
know that's a critical piece of infrastructure. I think from
(09:34):
memory it's about ninety four million dollars or a Class
one hundred million dollars investment that we've got to make
down there.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
So I just can't.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
I just over the top of my head, there's about
fifty projects roaming through my brain at the moment that
I'm thinking about on around roading projects. But it is
definitely happening.
Speaker 6 (09:48):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
One in ten dollars, one in ten percent of the
infrastructure budget for everything going on the Northland super Highway.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
Yeah, just say look, I mean we've got major problems
in infrastructure, and what we're saying is we're going to
sort out the financial mess that we're in when we've
started that process inflation and trust rates. Yes, we're in recession.
We've got some unemployment challenges for the next few months.
I suspect we'll get that sorted and we'll get the
country moving and growing. But the big opportunity is to
grow the country properly. And one of the five things
(10:16):
we have to do is be modern, reliable infrastructure across
the country. And a big part of that is actually roading.
It's also housing, it's also hospitals, it's schools, a whole
bunch of things. But on the roading side of it,
we're going to we have to. We've got heap some
mean's just anounce we're going to put thirty three billion
dollars I think it is over the next three years
into roading and into the network. But the bigger issue
(10:38):
is we also have to be able to access foreign capital,
domestic capital, and do things in public private partnerships. We
can build roads on the government's balance sheet that might
appear in twenty sixty or twenty seventy, or we can
pull those forward by actually doing partnerships and building those
roads much quicker, much faster. But from Auckland to Fongeray
four lane highway, that has to happen. We've talked about
(10:59):
that for decades. I'm sick of the talk. We have
to get going with it. We've already got the next
phase consented beyond think Welsford to walk with and then
we've got to find a pathway through the Bran Durwins
and then come back from fong Ray down to join that
Brent Durwin's Link Cup. So we are very very focused
on that because that is the single biggest thing that
would actually accelerate growth in Northland. We are one of
(11:19):
our most challenged areas in this country. So you know,
there's lots of things we've got to do, but you've
got to be really clear about boiling it back to
if I could just do one thing, what would I do?
I would do a four lane freeway from Auckland to
fong Erray. So we are looking at that and we.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Might open up the port as well.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
So well, once you've got that flow happening of that
traffic and you've got a consistent you know, if you
think about the poor people of Northland trying to come
down to Auckland through the Bran Durwins. The road's been
in slip, it's been you know, it's closed. It's it's
been really mickey mouse and very very difficult. It's it's
a huge loss of productivity. So the economic benefits of
that road as big as it will be. To get
(11:55):
that investment away, we will look at partners that can
support us with that. You know that might be able
to put be a capital in. Yes, it might have
some tolls, but if that means you get that road
place twenty years sooner than you would if the government
can get around to afford it, and it's cheaper to
do today than it will be in twenty years time,
we may as well face up to these issues now
and make the tough decisions and get these things underway now.
(12:16):
It might mean we have to run things very differently,
because we do. We spend a lot of time on
resource consenting and that process has taken a long time
and it costs huge amounts of money. And then we
might have to use some more centralized powers to actually
power through and get that road approved and happening quicker.
So I'm over the talk. We've talked about it for decades.
It's got to happen. We determine it's going to happen
(12:38):
because it's the single biggest thing. When you get that
road working, that will unlock huge amounts of growth in
Northland and then you'll see people wanting to invest in
ports and tourism and hotels and a whole bunch of
other things that will create opportunity up there.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Will it used to be the commercial hub of New
Zealand in eighteen forte correct, Bes, you've got a question
to run infrastructure, hey bs, I had.
Speaker 7 (13:00):
Good morning Prime Ministeram, and it's fair them ative engineer
for generation immigrants from China is really, is there any
possibility to build a backbone of infrastructure that will transcend
all political differences? What's the political spectrum? We have the
backbone there and I mean at everybody when they're coming
(13:21):
to vour they can grow the limbs, hand their fingers and.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
This is shit. But Enow, that's a good question and
fantastic question. You're really right, Cambridge Pieri has been on off,
on off, just as a road extension under different political
parties and governments. We've got to stop that. So what
we want is a thirty year pipeline of projects, not
just ideas but really hard projects of what we're going
to work through over the next thirty years together as
(13:44):
a country. Other countries do that, we can do that.
We're also going to have ten year city and regional
deals so we're clear about the critical infrastructure for subregions
of New Zealand. And then two weeks ago we created
what's called the National Infrastructure Agency, which is one place
that will actually deal with the funding and financing of
these projects as well using private capital, government money and
overseas capital to get them built. Now, I think as
(14:06):
if you put those things around then through political cycles
of changes of government, we should have infrastructure as an
independent thing that just meant like it is a New
South Wales. If I took Shane Jones and Chris Bishop
and simmyon Brown to New South Wales recently with me,
we spent a whole day just talking about infrastructure and
New South Wales, how they do it. I met with
former premiers, current premiers. I met with Infrastructure New South Wales.
(14:29):
It's an independent body that says these are the priority
projects that we have to invest in and doesn't matter
whether it's a Labour led government or a National led government,
those projects continue.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
It might have been helpful to take Chris Sipkins with
you for your truth.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
Well, no, I mean we will, and we were very
open and we've already reached out to the other parties
across New Zealand to say, look, we want to work
in a bipartisan way on infrastructure. Yeah, but I think
first and foremost we owe it as the government to
actually get that list together through the Infrastructure Commission on
those thirty projects and then come back with the political
parties to say, hey, listen, guys, you know we don't
really want politicians interfering in this stuff. We need an
(15:03):
independent body that we all respect that actually se these
are the critical projects for New Zealand. They have the
most best return on investment, will make the biggest difference
to the country. So that's the way that I think
we've got to go forward with. We need to get
some of that scaffolding in place first, but we've already
said upfront that we would love to work and buy
partisan way with parties. Because I agree with you. I
think it's silly that you know we're in a ridiculous
(15:24):
situation where roads are turned on and off, and road
building is pretty simple when you look at it around
the world. It's a pretty basic thing to do, and
we have politicians interfering and that's stupid.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Thank you very much, News Talk said be Michael. Quick
question from you.
Speaker 8 (15:38):
Yeah, hi, Prime Minister. I'm a National Party member and
attend a lot of your events, et cetera. Behind what
you're doing, but I disagree strongly with the approach that
you're taking with regard to David Seymour and Acts Treaty
Principles Review Bill, And I'm just wondering why are you
(15:59):
taking such a strong position and saying you know you
definitely won't take it past first reading when in fact
you haven't really spoken to the people that voted you
end to see what they think, because there's a huge
support for what Seymour's suggesting.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Huge support, Michael, how would you base that given that
Nash the Act didn't get as many votes as they
thought they were going to get going into the election.
Speaker 8 (16:23):
I'm sorry, what was that question.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
It's hardly huge support for the Treaty Principles Bill. It's
a vocal support, So thank you for the question.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
Yeah, Look, Michael. What I'd say, look is, let's be clear,
the most New Zealanders want us to focus on the
cost of living crisis and rebuilding the economy. They want
us to fix law and order. They want us to
live a better health and education. When you ask them,
what is it they are expecting our government to do,
That's what they want us to be focused on. That's
what I'm focused on. We had a position before the election.
We think that bill was incredibly divisive and it's unhelpful.
(16:54):
That's the National Party position. I'm speaking as the National
party leader right now. See More and Act have a
different view, which they think it's a really you know,
they want to take it to full referendum. We're in
an MMP environment, rightly or wrongly, that's the electoral systems
have selected many many times. We had to come to
a compromise. I didn't get what I wanted, he didn't
get what he wanted, and what we said is we'd
support it to first reading and not beyond that. And
(17:14):
so it'll go to first reading or go through a
select committee process. It'll come back for a second reading
probably in mid May, and as a national party, we
will vote that down. It's not something that we support.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
You made that very clear in the lead up to
the election.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
Now, I was consistent with that before the election. We
were consistent with that when we did the coalition negotiation,
and I'm just being very clear about it as we
go forward from here. But we do honor our coalition
commitments and that's why we will support it to first reading.
There will be an opportunity for a narration to happen
in the public discussion, to happen through the select committee process,
where people from all sides will have their views on it.
(17:47):
But from a National Party position, it's not something we support.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Why do you think it's an experience or a maturity
that's making David seymore such a bourrundy saddle. Well, he
has a constituency to say, which St Peters. I mean,
I would I never thought I'd say this, and I'm
going to say it. He's been amazing as a politician
and as a Deputy Prime minister. David seam was acting
(18:13):
like a brat, like an intelligent kid who hasn't been
given enough to do. But I mean there's a.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Lot to do well, I just I mean I think
he's doing like he's taken over his minister. We've created
something called Minister of Regulation to get rid of the
red tape. That's what his number one job is, to
get rid of the red tape and get rid of
all the education. He's been busy, done a great job
on attendance and education and charter schools and all that
good stuff. Well, look he's not. He genuinely is a party.
(18:38):
They have a constituency of people who think this is
a very big issue. It's their number one issue for them.
The reality is that's not the reality for New Zealanders.
New Zealanders one, we are in an MMP environment right
And I think that's what I need New Zealanders to understand,
which is if you go to Western Europe and you
sit in Netherlands or Germany, you can have three, four, five,
six party coalitions. All those parties have difference views and
(19:01):
slightly different policies and have the things that are important
to them and in a mature em P environment in
New Zealand. I appreciate you know a lot of people
don't like this conversation around the Treaty Principles Bill. It's
not of something I support or the National Party supports,
but we have to be able to find a way
and find a compromised to be able to deal with coalition.
If you had Labor to Party, Mari and the Greens,
there'll be issues in that coalition that those three parties
(19:22):
won't agree on either, that there'll be compromise around.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
But when he becomes Deputy prime Minister, you would want
to see a different David Seymour, wouldn't you.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
Well, I'm sure he'll be, he'll be he I mean,
I think the coalition is actually I think if you're
a member of the public looking at it, you can
see that we are working incredibly hard.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
It's actually very.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
Aligned around the core stuff of the economy, law and.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
Order, public services.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Yes, we have differences of opinion on an issue like this,
but the vast majority of what we're doing is we're
working very coherently, very cohesively.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
This hasn't you know.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
We just have different points of view, and we'd be
very upfront about it to say we've got differences and
this is how we're going too.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
Yeah, i'd say I get it.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
But the point is I just say, you know, each
party will have its own flavor, its own presentation. The
leaders are different, but I I think, you know, the
way I'm working with David Seymour and Winston Peters in
the way that the three party coalitions coming together, I'm
very very proud about. I think we're very stable. I
think people can see we're working hard. We've got the
right people on the right assignments. We're using the talents
of everybody to get on and get it.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
So we have to sit them down and say, mate,
call your jets.
Speaker 5 (20:23):
Well.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
I mean, we have a lot of conversations behind the
scenes with all the parties and within our own party,
and that's.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Exactly how it's supposed to be.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
But we do that, you know, in a very coherent, calm,
sort of rational way. We agree to disagree, you know,
and that's what we've done here.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
If you don't agree with David Seymour Carey, that doesn't
make him a bad politician. I wouldn't say it was
a bad politician. I said, it's not very statesman like
and being a bit sort of bratty. If you're going
to be the deputy prime minister then I think anyway,
as you said, we've covered that one off health insurance.
Would you please ask our Prime Minister whether in the
immediate future head consider introducing some tax relief to those
(21:02):
who have private health insurance. The current public health system
makes it extremely necessary to belong to these private schemes
if people need to be seen in a timely manner.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
Yeah, Look, it's an idea that's come through a few times,
which is there a tax relief or tax credit that
you can get for having private health insurance. It's not
something that we've actually discussed at this point. What I
am very interested in, what Shane Recky and I very
focused on, is actually the private healthcare system has capacity
in it, and particularly when you've got a series of
elective surgeries and we've got a goal to get ninety
(21:32):
five percent of people to get their elective surgery within
four months. You know, if you think about hip replacements,
need replacements, cataract surgeries, the private system should be just
churning those out. And so we can actually send New
Zealanders into the private system and use that system to
be able to get those surgeries done. It means that
the system, the government obviously pays for that to happen
(21:52):
in the private system rather than the public system. But
I think we have to use the private healthcare system
capacity as well as the public capacity, but on things
that are standard, you know, surgeries and a known quantities
that are perfect empowering through and getting through that list
of wait list.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
But isn't that the way the surgeons have structured it themselves.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
No, it's actually that you've got high efficiency in the
private system. It is a it's got capacity, and it's
very good at a know, in set of surgeries that
we know we've got a backlog on or a wait
list on. You know, if we've got people waiting in
the private system to get a knee replacement, which is
a you know, yes, it's a it's a pretty up
(22:33):
and down sort of surgery that as well known, you know,
knee replacement, replacement.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Cataract surgeries.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
Yeah, there's a number of them, right that we should
just be saying, right, let's let's buy those outcomes, and yes,
let's use the private capacity. And you find that they
can deliver it at a lower cost than we can
in the public system, then let's use that for sure.
And that's that's we're interested on the health outcomes. We
want less time wait times for first surgeries, specialist appointments,
(23:00):
eedy waight times.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
So let's use other parts of the healthcare.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
System to get that list down that way time.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Down, and so tax reallyef for not something.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
It's on the agenda at this point, but it's an
idea that has been raised with me several times over
the last couple of years.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
It's been raised over the last sixty years.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
It used to exist when I lived in Australia. I
remember that was a tax credit I had at that
time in Australia when I lived there, with private health
insurance as well, and most Australians actually had private health
insurance at one point, but then the public system got
so good that actually people opted out of it in
the end.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
You think that will ever happen to ours? I mean especially,
and this was a great line from David Seima. I
have to say where you said that there are many
many public servants still working within the public service who
are like Japanese soldiers who don't know the war is over,
who are absolutely sabotaging from within.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
Well, what I'd say on healthcare is it's the most
complex portfolio. We've got got eighty five thousand people in there,
We've got incredible you know, and the challenge we've got
is we've put thirty billion dollars worth of expenditure every
year into healthcare. We just threw in the record amount
of money sixteen point seven billion dollars plus another two
billion for far MAT plus six to eight hundred million
dollars for the cancer drugs, So the money is going in.
(24:08):
Just I want people to understand it's not an underfunding issue.
We've got money going in, but it is actually how
it is spent, and we've got we've got two and
a half thousand extra managers that have been put into
the Health New Zealand system, and that's why we've shut
down the board and I've actually put a commissioner in there,
Lester Levy, to work with three other commissioners for twelve
months to get the Health New Zealand organization working properly
(24:28):
so that when you tip money into it, it actually
doesn't get lost in a bureaucracy of fourteen layers from
cheer to patient, it actually gets out to the frontline
services where it needs to get to. We've got incredible
nurses and credible doctors in the system, but the system
lets them down. So we've got to work on the funding,
which we're doing we've got to work on the workforce.
We've got two nine hundred more nurses that have gone
(24:49):
into the system. We've got twenty nine thousand nurses, the
most we've ever had. Now we've had massive recruitment over
the last nine months in particular, and actually when you
look at the pay rates of nurses that's looking it's
getting into much better shape, good shape, which is fantastic.
But now we've also got to get the operation and
the organization working well so as money goes in, it
actually gets not a third of it lost in the bureaucracy,
(25:09):
but it gets to the frontline services. And that's why
I put the commissioner in there, because that's a pretty
serious move.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
News Talk said, gosh, this goes quickly. Could you please
ask excuse me, Christopher Lux and how to affected people
have input on fast track proposal, which I've had no
disclosure to the public at all. Have mentioned fast trek
a couple of times. There are concerns from people including James,
who say, no, you're railroading. I need to be able
to have.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
My say yep.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
So there's still be an opportunity for that. So what
happened was we have this idea of a one stop
fast track legislation. Because the RIMA has just made things
and resource concent it's doubled in length, it's doubled in cost.
It's one of the reasons people don't build things in
New Zealand or invest in New Zealand, frankly is because
it's just considered to be too slow, to bureaucratic, too long.
So we've had a bill which we took out, I
(25:56):
went to a first reading, has gone out to the
Select Committee. That's when the public have come back and said, hey, listen,
these are things that we think we could make changes,
sensible changes to improve it. That means that we have
agreed rather than having ministers make decisions, we actually have
an expert panel in place to actually weigh up the
economic the environmental benefits. But we are still going to
move that pace through that and that will be the
(26:17):
opportunity from which people will look at the other considerations.
But the idea here is if you want to build
a renewable wind farm, that's not a conversation that needs
to go on for eight years. That is a conversation
that needs to go on for one year and get
built well. The expert panels.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Will reflect those views and they will.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Have conversations with public on certainly issues around the environment
or social benefits and weigh those up against the economic benefits.
But I make no apologies. We are going to get
things built and it is ridiculous that it takes as long,
costs as much to build stuff in New Zealand. Our
house in New Zealand costs fifty percent more to build
than it does in Australia, and a lot of that's
(26:57):
to do with resource consents. And so we can debate, discuss,
we can have conversations all day long, but we now
need to get things built in this country because otherwise
we're just talking about stuff actually getting stuff done. So
we've made some sensible changes based off public feedback to say, look,
we don't like the idea of ministers unilaterally having control
over that. But if you look at the initial set
of projects that Chris Bishop released recently, I think there
(27:18):
was almost four hundred projects. I think almost twenty percent
of them were in renewable energy spaces. There are other
housing projects in there, other good things like that. So
the are the things that will make the difference. That's
what creates once we get those projects away. That's creates
prosperity lists, people's living standards.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
Rowan, good morning to you.
Speaker 6 (27:37):
Hey, Gary, how's it going, Hi, Chris Ron? Yeah, Hey,
I'm a good segue into my question. I mean, I'm
a propertyoner and we're wanted to do some upgrades. And
also I've had a friend who has recently done some
upgrades to his property and around the roma were just
I the resource content process and the building content process
(27:59):
that almost cost as much as correct this property. And
it's just absurd. How are you going to drive councils
to ensure that there are delivering efficiently and cost effectively
two rate players, Because it is a bit of a concern.
You talk to architects, you talk to planners, and they
(28:19):
are all experiencing the same issues, and it just seems
to be going into a brick wall and nothing gets done.
Speaker 5 (28:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Look, I agree with you. The RIMA cost has doubled.
I think it's one point three billion dollars a year.
People now just pay out on resource management resource consenting,
and the time is doubled. So it's just hugely inefficient.
And it's all this local council sort of rules, and
so we are powering through that with the fast track piece,
but also ultimately next year we'll also launch our final
(28:47):
solution for RIMA as well, and that is to get
that balance right. Chris Pink is doing a good job
on building in construction. He's saying councils don't need to
come on site and do inspections. You can do a
lot of it remotely. You can do it through video.
And we're getting rid of some of those things like Yep,
you can put a sixty square meter building on the
back of your property and you don't need a resource
(29:07):
consent for that. That's all granny flats, and that might
be for your teenager or your young person in your life,
or or your parents or whatever. So there's literally lots
of things we've got to do to just unblock the
system that has created, just stopping stuff people from getting
on and doing things on their own property and basic stuff.
So Chris Pink's doing a great job. I think of
just and go look at what he's announced over the
(29:28):
last few months of just the things to unblock these irritants.
But I'm with you. I think one of the things
in Simon Brown and I talked about at the Local
Government conference is I want to benchmark the performance of
our councils across this country, and I want to do
that publicly where they actually put up how long does
it take to approve of resource consent are what are
their actual performance time frames and deliverables and how are
(29:50):
they actually performing on the basics that they're supposed to deliver.
Why do you need three people coming out to inspect
your pool feeds? You know, like it's just some really
you know that we've got to get them focused on
the basics really well. Some councils do it well. Some
councils do it really badly. And that's why I gave
that very strong message to councilors to say, hang on,
don't go do all theo kombaur and mushy stuff that's
(30:13):
all very sexy and interesting above the surface. You've actually
got to do the basics incredibly well, because that's what
people are paying you to do. We have a lot
of councils in this country. We have sixteen hundred elected
counselors up and down. It it's a lot of complexity
and it's slowing things down and families have had to
adjust their belts, businesses have adjusted their belts. Central governments
adjusted its belts, and I expect counselors to focus on
(30:36):
the things that matter most to New Zealanders and their
rate payers, which is do the basics, brilliantly, collect the rubbish.
And so we're going to have a We've seen it
in Australia where you actually put the council performance metrics up.
Simeon Brown will work that up as Local Government Minister
and actually then we can name and shame councils and
their relative performance on responding to their customer, who happens
to be their rate payer.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Right, that'll be interesting reading. Luke, very quick one from
you and a quick answer from your Prime minis Yes, Luke,
good morning, oh.
Speaker 8 (31:04):
Good morning, morning.
Speaker 5 (31:06):
Good I'll ask your question the GCY threshold.
Speaker 6 (31:11):
There's been a sixty thousand for wherever since two thousand
and nine.
Speaker 8 (31:15):
Is that ever going to go up?
Speaker 4 (31:17):
Yeah, we're up for that conversation. I actually think I
don't want to talk off the top of my head,
but I'm trying to think there is a conversation where
we are where we have talked about looking at that.
So I can't give you a straight answer now, to
be honest, mate, but I know that's a topic that
we are open.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
To, and I'll ask you about because this time last
week we had Chris Hipkins talking about borrowing more and
taxing more. I'll ask you about that after the break,
No laughing matter. Chris Hipkins this time last week was
talking about taxing more and borrowing more. And I look,
you know, I said to him, you cannot be serious.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
Well, I just think it's quite outrageous. I mean literally
that that government crashed the car. They put the car
in the ditch. New Zealand's economy, right, they literally put
it in the ditch. And they did that by actually
spending more, borrowing more, taxing more. You know, they increased
spending by eighty four percent, drove up inflation, drove up
interest rates, put the economy into recession for the last
few years, and raises unemployment. No, it wasn't, it wasn't.
(32:13):
It was abysmal economic management. And then you come you
put the car on the ditch. We're trying to get
the car out of the ditch and get into first
and second gear and then ultimately too third and fourth
into top gear. And now he wants the keys back
to go put it back into the ditch again by
doing exactly the same thing.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Morse.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
He said he wants to borrow more, he said, he
wants to tax more. And then I'm telling you this
conversation about a capital gains tax or a wealth tax
or a capital income tax. They've got this tension within
the Labour Party where David Parker is being on about
a capital income tax or wealth tax, Chris Hipkins now
seems to want a capital gains tax, which he just
ruled out less than ten months ago. And you know,
(32:49):
again they're back at the well of where they've been
in twenty eleven and twenty fourteen. We don't need to
tax our way out of a recession. We need to
grow our way out of a recession. And that's why
I keep saying it's about education, infrastructure, technology, red tape,
international connections.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
You can't too much about commodity prices.
Speaker 4 (33:04):
But we can if we if we add value to
our products and services over time. And if you look
at what's happened in dairy, it's not actually the commodity
end that we're actually succeeding in, and while we're growing
that so well, it's actually the high value end of
the functional foods and the supplements and other things that
we're doing in the food service side of things so
we can do that. We're doing a great job on
(33:24):
advanced aviation and space for example, which is coming through
really well. We've got great opportunities in geothermal and renewable
energy where we're world experts at this stuff that we
can export that services to the world as well. So
I just think you, to be honest, we are in
the mess we're in because you know, these guys ran
up from five to one hundred billion dollars worth of debt.
(33:46):
I now have an interest bill of eight billion to
maybe growing to ten or eleven billion dollars on the debt.
That means it's eight to ten billion dollars I can't
spend on hospitals or schools or other infrastructure, and we
have got nothing to show for it. So I know
I'm not meaning to be because I'm trying to fix
the problem and I've got to focus on the future.
But I get very frustrated when these are the clowns, frankly,
(34:06):
over the last six years that were economic vandals that
put the car on the ditch, and now they want
the keys back, and it ain't gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
How are we looking well? I think thirty seconds, how
are we looking?
Speaker 5 (34:15):
Look?
Speaker 4 (34:15):
I think the country's got awesome potential. That's obvious to
me when I get out and about in the world.
We've got huge opportunities. I know we're going through a
very tough time right now, but you've seen us. I
think we've got to the bottom. There's some green shoots
that we're starting to get our way out of it.
Interest rates coming down, economy starts to grow, employment goes
up fantastic. Then we've got to grow and that's exciting.
How do we get the potential of this great country?
(34:36):
And gee, it's a great country.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
It is a great country. This is a great song.
It's your choice, post Maloney.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
Post Malone, He's awesome, if one trillion, If you listen
to one album this weekend, this is it.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.