Chris Hipkins: Labour Leader talks capital gains tax, NCEA curriculum, gang patch ban live in studio
November 25, 2024 • 34 mins
The Labour leader says New Zealand needs an honest conversation about paying for its future.
Our newsroom understands party delegates will vote on whether to support a capital gains or wealth tax at its annual conference this weekend.
Chris Hipkins says about 70% of government tax revenue comes from personal income taxes - while the OECD average is half as much.
He told Kerre Woodham that's because New Zealand doesn't have other forms of tax like capital gains, which is very common elsewhere.
Hipkins says it's treated as if it's a big radical idea, but we are one of the only countries in the world without some form of taxation in that area.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has reflected on his ‘frenemy’ relationship with Nikki Kaye.
Reacting to news of her death while speaking to Kerre Woodham, Hipkins said the pair both had a passion for education and tended to agree more than they disagreed.
He said he hadn’t been in touch with her for a number of years and said her death was “a bit of a shock”.
“Really sad news. I just heard about Nikki Kaye as I was coming into the studio this morning. Nikki and I arrived at Parliament at the same time. We had a lot of common interests. I think you could say we were ‘frenemies’ for the time we were in Parliament. Opponents, but we actually got on well together.”
Kaye was Minister of Education in 2017 under Sir Bill English. Hipkins would succeed her as the minister when Labour took power after the 2017 election.
“I thought Nikki was a really passionate member of Parliament, very diligent, did her research, liked to know what she was talking about, didn’t rush to decisions until she had actually done the analysis of understanding the situation,” Hipkins said.
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 morning's podcast from
news Talk said.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
B news Talk said be eleven past ten. Leader of
the Opposition Chris Hopkins joins me for our last catch
up for the year and sad news to start.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Really sad news.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
Actually, I just heard about Nicki kay as I was
coming into the studio this morning, and Nicki and I
both arrived at Parliament at the same time. We had
a lot of common interests, so I think you could
probably say we were frenemies for the time that we
were in parliament, you know, opponents, but we actually got
on well together and we both had a passion for
education and probably agreed on education more than we disagreed. Actually,
(00:41):
I thought Nicki was a really passionate member of Parliament,
very diligent, did her research, you know, liked to know
what she was talking about, didn't rush to decisions until
she had actually done the analysis of understanding the situation.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
So I was very sad.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
I hadn't I haven't been in touch with her for
a few years, and I hadn't realized that her cancer
was back. So yeah, a bit of a shock this morning.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yeah, it was. I really enjoy were too whenever I
caught up with her, she was jolly hard working and
as you say, completely passionate about education.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
So yeah, absolutely, and you know, I think you've got
to hand it to her. She took the Auckland central
seat off Labor and held it through quite a range
of different electoral cycles. And she did that through sheer
hard work.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, it was, wasn't it.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
You know, You've really got to acknowledge somebody who just
puts their heart and soul into that. And even when
the tide went out for National she held onto a
seat And I think that is because she worked so
damn hard.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yeah, she was a jolly good electric MB and a
very good minister. Right CGT. It's just not going to
go away.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
I think we do need to have this honest conversation
as a country about saying we can't.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
You know, we're going to have to.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Government's going to have to pay for everything somehow, whether
it's more roads you want to build, whether it's the
health system, whether it's the education system. Government has to
get money from somewhere. And if you compare New Zealand
to other countries around the world, we get a much
greater share as a government of our money from personal
income tax compared to other countries, So about seventy percent
of government tax revenue comes from personal income taxes. The
(02:12):
OECD average is a lot lot lower than that, it's
probably half of that, and that's because we don't have
other forms of tax like capital gains which is very common.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
You know.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
I think you see that is it's fascinating debate about
capital gains tax in New Zealand. We've been talking about
it the whole time I've been a parliamentarian and it's
almost like this big radical idea. Actually, we're one of
the few countries in the world that doesn't have some
form of taxation in that area.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
And yet you could have introduced to capital gains tax.
You had senior ministers who'd worked very hard on a
capital gains tax proposal, but you didn't accept that what.
Speaker 4 (02:46):
We had said, Jasinder had said in twenty twenty that
we wouldn't introduce.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
His capital gas She's so hard ass on that because
I know Winston Peter's stuck as orin, but she didn't
have to be quite so vehement.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Yeah, and look, I mean plenty of internal debate about Jasinder. Yeah, Well,
I do think that when you take over from someone midterm,
you can't just change the commitments that you can pain on. Ultimately,
we were elected on that commitment in twenty twenty and
I don't think I had a mandate to change that.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
And the proposal to another area.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
The proposal, well, like if anything, I was dialing back
some of the things that we hadn't campaigned on. But
you know, the proposal that was developed in the run
up to the twenty three election was not a capital
gains tax or was a wealth tax, and that's a
more complicated area acidence.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
And you know, capital.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Gains tax is an area where we are an international outlawer,
and not having one a wealth tax would we would
be one of the only countries in the world to
have one. So I think those are different things.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Okay, Tony are very good morning to you.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
Yes, good morning, Cirie, Good morning miss Just a quick question,
if you were a return to government, would you keep
the gang patch van and if not, why not?
Speaker 2 (03:52):
That's interesting. I had a text from Christopher who was
asking much the same thing.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
Well, the Prime Minister could just asked me across the house.
But look, it's not something that we would change, you know,
more than have been a priority for me, but it's
not something we're going to go back on ultimately. Once
it's done, it's done as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
There you go pretty strong answer there. A lot of
people have said that find to take tax, but there
has to be in a cord between the government and
the tax payers. There has to be a trust that
you're going to spend it wisely. And I think with
a lot of the big spending projects that amounted too little,
labour's lost a bit of that trust.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
With the electroc I think that's.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
A fair point, and I think that one of the
things that's one of the reasons you can't talk about
tax and isolation. You know, whenever you talk about text,
you've got to talk about what you want to do
with it. You've also got to talk about how you
grow the economy so that you can ultimately, you know,
so that it doesn't become such a heavy burden for people.
And all of those things are interrelated. So at the moment,
our tax system, if you like, disincentivizedes hard work, but
(04:50):
you know, people going out and early salary and wages,
and incentivizes speculative investment. And I think we need to
tilt that we need to actually say, rather than a
speculative investment, let's invest in the productive part of the economy.
What are the things that are encouraging And I understand this.
I know plenty of people who have born rental houses
because actually all the incentives are is a good way
of saving money. It's a good way of putting funds
(05:12):
aside for your retirement is to buy a rental house.
But that's not going to make us richer as a country,
whereas building businesses that create good, well paying jobs, that's
the sort of stuff we actually need to see more of.
So how do we just tilt the investment playing field
so that people feel like they want to put more money,
more of their hard earned savings into things that are
actually going to generate better jobs. And so, you know,
(05:32):
all of these things that are interrelated. You can't just
say we want to tax this and spend it on that.
It's more complicated than that.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
A lot of people have also asked how you would
grow the economy labors, you know, and that's the old
trope that labor's good at spending money, national is good at,
you know, being sensible husbands of other people's money. So
how would you grow the economy because a lot of
small business operators said that they were really strangled by
red tape, by the extra holidays, by and I get
(06:02):
that you have to look after workers, but when you're
talking about growing the economy, how do you do that
without strangling it?
Speaker 4 (06:08):
Yeah, I mean I get that. I understand the public perception.
But actually, if you look at the numbers over the
last twenty five years or so, the economy is actually
growing slightly marginally faster under labor governments than under national government.
So that doesn't actually stack up in terms of the
real world. But I get that that's the perception. The perception,
I think is national business people, therefore they must understand
the economy better. Actually, the numbers, the evidence, the track
(06:31):
record does not bear that out.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Is that taking into account global financial crises, earthquakes, pandemics
and the like, is that.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
Like for like, Well, yes, because I mean if the
national party had the global financial crisis, we had the
global pandemic. You know, there are economic shocks any government's
going to experience. But I think, how do we grow
the economy. We have to diversify the economy. That is
one of the key ways we're going to grow the economy.
There's only so many cows we can put on our paddocks,
There's only so many trees we can plant. If we
(06:58):
want to be richer, we're going to have to do
different things. We're going to have to grow our creative sector.
You know, Paul Callahan all those years ago wrote that
book From War to Wetter. We're still having that debate now.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
You know.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
It's about and which is a great example. Zero is
a great example Ian Taylor's Animation Research Limited. These are
kind of areas where we've used something different that we've
offered some innovations, some ingenuity. The question is how do
we get fifty of those companies rather than the half
dozen that we might rattle off.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Now, well, when I look at I went to a
dinner for the Center for Brain Research, and that is
a center of excellence globally. You know, that's not just
very good for New Zealand, but.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
There's amazing innovations. A couple of weeks ago here in Auckland,
I went and visited a company called kar Technologies. They
have developed the world's first AI sign language dictionary. So basically,
now if you're they can do text sorry's voice to
text to sign all done digitally, and that's amazing technology
(07:54):
and one of the first places in the world to
do it.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Isn't that awesome?
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Like those are the sorts of businesses we should say, hey,
let's take this to the world. What do we need
to do to back those businesses to really grow?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, what happens is generally a lot of these very
clever people and entrepreneurs get grants, then they get to
a certain size, and then they sell. They have to
sell to grow, But we don't see there's a taxpayer.
We don't see a return on investment in either the
money that was given or jobs or ongoing opportunity.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
I've been speaking to a lot of these businesses and
they talk about what's called the value of death. So basically,
between you know, getting an idea that's going to grow
a business, that's going to create a business, whether it's
a new product, you want to launch, a new service
or whatever, through to getting that to the point where
you can attract equity to people to invest in it,
there is this thing called the value of death. So
it's basically, how do you get to the point where
(08:46):
investors are going to say that's a business that's going somewhere,
I want to be part of that. There's a valley
that we have to be able to bridge for those businesses,
and I think government can play a role here, of course,
but it's not just about government putting money, and it's
about government making sure that the investment approach for the
country is right so that those investors. And think about
the billions of dollars that we've got in Kiwi Saver,
(09:08):
for example, most of it is invested offshore. Let's get
some more of that invested in Kiwi businesses. That's where
government can play a role in making sure that all
of those sorts of things can happen by directing, not
certainly not by directing, but by making sure that there
are opportunities for those companies to invest in those businesses.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Tax again, Neville, good morning to you, Good morning, Thank you,
Good morning, Chris.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
I just wonder whether or not the I don't mind
paying a fair tax, and I don't I think most
Kiwis are in the same BoatUS myself. But would Labor
if they got back and the power consider raising the
tax rate for Ewei mary identities and businesses because are
only paying seventeen point five percent, where the roost of
(09:58):
us are paying upwards of thirty to thirty nine percent.
Business is paying thirty percent thirty nine percent, And these
EWI and organizations own farms, fisheries, forestry and tourists, are
attractions and operations, and the rest of us are supporting them.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
So do you also mean you'd include charitable organizations as well,
level like sanitarium.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
Well, I think that sort of comes into it too.
That look, I think we all need to have a
look at a fair tax system. But when some parts
of the community are only paying seventeen point five percent
and the rest of us are paying huge amounts of tax,
surely and both parties have dropped the ball on this.
(10:43):
And good good on the Marry identities for organizing this
with their their land settlements, But come on, we've got
to it's got to be fair for all of us.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
I think the tax system does need to be fair,
and I do think there are anomalies in the tax
system now when it comes to charities that are doing
commercial business.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
You know, Sanitarium is an example of.
Speaker 4 (11:05):
That, where you know you've got a they say they're
a charity, but actually they're running one of the biggest
and most popular brands, you know, commercial brands in New Zealand,
and we do need to look again at that. In
terms of EWE, I think that we do need to
distinguish between those that are purely business entities. Many of
those we do now have you business entities that are
trading commercially.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Very successful and charitable.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
And charitable entity.
Speaker 4 (11:28):
So I think that I think it is the same debate,
and we do need to make sure we're being fair
and we're being equal in the way we treat those entities.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
And so would you change a tax the tax system
to show that.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
I think we've got to look at that. We've got
to look at a clearer definition of what's a charitable
purpose and that would apply to an EWE business as
much as to a business like sanitarium.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Good luck if you're in coalition with Tapatu Maari getting
that one passed. If you would like to put your
question to Chris Hipkins, the leader of the opposition, now
is your time to do so. Eight hundred and eighty
ten eighty question for as surely a wealth tax and
potentially a capital gains tax would be charged back to
tenants as a landlord seek to maintain post tax returns.
(12:12):
Rents would go up again under labor What would you
do to offset the higher rent? Isn't that something that
Australia is looking at too. The Greens there is saying, look,
the capital gains tax is hitting renters.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Well, anything that you do around tax you've got to
look at when it's charged. So a capital gains tax,
typically you would only charge that on the realization of
the capital gain. And that is one of the problems
with a wealth tax is if you charge somebody a
wealth tax based on the book value of something, that
money still has to come from somewhere and if they
haven't realized any income from it at that point, then
(12:45):
that cost ultimately is likely to be transferred on. So
if you're a farmer, for example, when you owned a
farm that was above the wealth tax value, that doesn't
necessarily mean you're flush with cash. So you know, you
might be when you sell it, but you're not when
you're farming it. And so that is one of the
I think challenges in the wealth tax area, and it
is one of but also I mean, I think if
(13:06):
anything in the wealth tax space, you have to look
at what's happening around the world there you can't in
New Zealand. I think would be very bold to do
something completely in isolation from the rest of the world, because,
as we know, wealth is very mobile and it will
likely move to the places where it won't pay that.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
It's interesting though, too, when you talk about farmers, and
when you talk about small and medium business owners, of
which this country has many. I caught up with an
old schoolmate and they have been working now on the
stud farm for about god must be thirty years. In
the last three years they've had disposable income. Everything has
gone back into the business or the and this is
(13:41):
the story of so many business owners when they realize
their wealth. Quite often they're taking wages and earnings that
they have deferred until they sell.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
And that's right, and the tax system needs to consider
that true and also think about something like farms. You know,
we've got a real challenge in New Zealand around farms.
I've been talking to the farmers quite a lot lately,
as you might have heard.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
How's the reception.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
It's been really good.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
But some challenges with farmers, like, for example, those who
are in farming now and have been for forty odd years,
have made a certain capital gain on their farms. The
next generation of farmers are unlikely to make that same
level of capital gain, and so that changes the economic
dynamics for the next generation of farmers who are looking
at taking over farms now. And I don't think that's
something we've really grappled with as a country. And those
(14:27):
farmers who are nearing retirement are wanting to bank their
capital gains, but the next generation of farmers are saying, well,
I can't. If we can't count on a similar level
of capital gain in the future, then actually it's going
to be really hard for us to buy the farms.
So I think these are things that you know, I
know the farming community is talking a lot about those
sorts of things.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
At the moment, Kevin, relevant question for you to Chris Hipkins.
Speaker 7 (14:49):
Then, on that note, Yes, good morning, mister Hipkins. Thanks
for taking my question. Look, I've been previously a strong
labor supporter, and six years ago when you came in
or bet after two or three changes at the top
and are you went PM, then you'd had a period
in opposition benches. And yet when you were successful, it
(15:12):
appears as if you'd done no homework or anything in
terms of policy and the like. You've since said quite
recently that you'll look at things like taxing of charities
and this and that. What does look at them mean?
Is there work going on today so that in two
years time when you get to Parliament again, all things
been done. Or will we need to spend billions on
(15:34):
consultants again?
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Oh, that's good, Kevin. You asked that better than I could.
And I think that's a really fair question.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
I think it's a really good question, Kevin, and a
really fair one. I think in some areas we were
well prepared, and in some areas we were not well prepared,
and I think that's a fair criticism. And then, of
course COVID nineteen disrupted some of the preparation that we
had done in some areas. Some of the promises we
made I think hadn't been properly researched and thought through.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
So key we.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
Builders, perhaps the most iconic example, get surrounded us all
the time promising to build one hundred thousand houses, not
having a credible plan for how to actually do that.
I think was a major failing of us in opposition
last time. So I mean looking to the future, I think,
which is I think as we your question was going,
I've said that next election, when we make a promise,
(16:20):
I want to us to have done the research, the
work behind it. I want us to know how much
it's going to cost, how we're going to deliver it,
what the milestones and delivery are going to be, so
that we're not making promises that we can't fulfill, when
we're not creating expectations that we can't meet. I do think,
you know, I think some of it was overstated, but
I think that it's not an unfair criticism.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
So I guess Keven saying when can we see hard
policy and costings?
Speaker 4 (16:44):
Well, of course those things take time, and they take
longer in opposition because you don't have the same level
of resource that you have when you're in government.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
But you've just had it.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
But well you've just had yeah, six years of it.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
The world changes regularly. But we are going to you know,
we'll start rolling out new policy next year.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
If you're going to mention COVID, I'm going to mention
last administration. Seriously. I mean, when you say we need
a capital gains tax, I'm like, you were there, Yeah, God.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
I done it, yea, And we said we weren't.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
I also believe that you have to keep faith with
the promises that you make with the electorate, and we
said that we weren't going to implement to capital gains tacks.
So I don't think you can do things that you know.
And that was also criticism of us that in some areas.
It's not that we said we wouldn't do them, it's
that we didn't tell people we were going to do them.
And I think that there was criticism of us in
that area, and some of that was also for you.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
I think Barbara Edmonds should always talk about text from
hence just a little bit of communications advice there for you.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Barbara's doing a fantastic.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Is doing a fantastic job. Wow, how catty you sound.
I think that's for me. Oh it's not goodness, could
be either.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
One of ours.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
No, it's probably me. Scott A very good morning to you.
Speaker 8 (17:55):
Good morning, Carrie, thanks for taking my call today. Good
morning to you Chris as well. I just wanted to
ask Chris how you feel about the spatunality doing the
hacker in Parliament during the Hakoi. Surely you must feel
the same about as naturally does on the rules of Parliament.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
I think, you know the rules that we have to
be consistent in the application of the rules of Parliament.
And the issue here with the hacker is we I
think we do need to figure out as a parliament
when the hucker is allowable and when it's not, Because
we do allow for the hacker regularly in parliament, so
it's it's regularly done at the end of people's speeches,
it's regularly done at the opening of Parliament and so on.
(18:37):
So yeah, I think it's time for us probably to
have a conversation about when it should and shouldn't be allowed.
We need to involve Mardy in that conversation.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
I think they'd like to be included.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
I think they would like to be included.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
But because I mean, ultimately, I don't think you can
appropriate someone's culture and then say, oh, but we only
want it when it's convenient to us. So I think
we should be upfront about that.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Mary, as a coalition partner, you know you're going to
need them and the Greens, how do you feel about that?
Speaker 4 (19:03):
Well, it's early days yet, Carrie. I think let's see
how things shape up closer to the election in terms
of what the party's campaign on and what their positions
on issues are on I mean, I remember the Mardi
Party took some pretty radical positions between two thousand and
five and two thousand and eight and then spent nine
years supporting John Key and Bill English in government. And
(19:23):
we're very pragmatic and sort of quite middle of the road.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Insensible during that time.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
So I've said, you know, in the run up to
an election, we'd be clear about who we can and
can't work with, and we'll do the same thing we
did last election. We'll make sure everybody knows that before
the election. But I think it's too soon to make
those calls yet already.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Andrew, good morning to you.
Speaker 9 (19:45):
Good morning, Chris. I'd like to talk about accountability in
the public service, and the two examples that I'll lean
on are the need in hospital. So we have a
cost blowout of you know, of going from three hundred
million to going to four one hundred million, and then
(20:08):
and then it's being stated I and that number will double,
you know, in the public service people people would be
prosecuted for those sorts of blowouts. And now also I'd
like to talk about one point two billion dollars spent
on mental health in your term and no tangible outcome.
(20:31):
Where is the accountability of that? Surely somebody with that,
without wanting to paint too broad a brush, should be
going to jail. All that money, my money, and your
money and everybody else's money that that we're talking to
has has been squandered. So what's your view on that
and what do you propose to do about it?
Speaker 4 (20:53):
So if you take something like the building and the
need in hospital, you know, a lot of building and
construction projects have seen huge cost escalation, not just in
the public sector, but in the private sector too. I mean,
just just around the corner from here, look at the
cost of the convention center. It ended up being way
way higher than.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
What they started out with.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
It had a fire, but the cost had already blown
out even before the fire, you know. And I mean
maybe that's not a good example because of the effect
of the fire, but you'll find that in building a
construction everywhere, and that's not unique to the public sector.
On the issues of mental health, you know, some of
the things, some of the investments you make in mental
health you don't see an immediate return on.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
So over a million.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Counseling sessions have been delivered through that funding. You know,
you don't immediately see a benefit from that. Training more
mental health professionals, which is where a lot of that
money ended up being invested. That gets you the workforce
that you need to improve mental health outcomes in the
longer term. Putting money into more money into schools to
support you know, counseling and mental health support for kids,
(21:51):
you don't always see that, you know, a return on
that straight away. I think that's one of the challenges
with mental health. It's one of the most complex areas
of government policy to try and get better outcomes for
key with There's so much in there that can have
an impact on people mental health.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
And yet under the Clerk government, families patients in the
community were promised that when institutions were disestablished, there would
be that support in the community, and we simply haven't
seen that.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
I don't I think, I think it's too simplistic to
say it's just that. I mean, I think there are
there well.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
There's addiction issues as well. There are people but expect
to get out with addictions.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
The people who were at institutionalized that would be at
the extreme end of mental health distress. What we're seeing
a lot a lot more of now is stuff that
wouldn't have traditionally was a lot of institution.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Closed them a lot of it too. I mean, know
they were expensive, but also because they shouldn't have been there,
that they could have been in the community with the
appropriate health.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
Absolutely, but a lot of the mental health crisis that
we're facing at the moment is amongst young people, and
it is just the world has changed so much. You know,
the stresses, the strains that they deal with, the online
you know, the online bullying, it's real. It's very real.
Young people's expectations of themselves also, I mean, let's just
all take a step back here and say, let's give
(23:03):
these kids a break and do school prize givings. And
you know, it's not uncommon to speak to kids who
have won all these awards and done all these amazing
things and the captain of this and there or whatever,
and you talk to them and they're like, oh, I
don't think I'm doing enough. They're like, far out, give
yourself a break, you know. And that's the pressure that.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
You have to look to.
Speaker 5 (23:22):
It.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
The effect that the school's been closed for two years,
and not all over the country, but in many parts
of the country. I know you said, you know, at
one point as Ministry of Education, getting the schools open
was a priority for you, Yet for a lot of
the time they weren't. The damage that's been done to
those kids where is only going to be realized over
(23:43):
the next few years.
Speaker 4 (23:44):
We had some of the lowest levels of school closures
as a result from COVID nineteen anywhere in the world.
So this is a this is a phenomenon that.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
It doesn't matter. We're starting to see. I'm talking about
New Zealand and trying to get an educated workforce and
a healthy workforce and a workforce that can participate in
talk to other people from across generations. You know, the
damage that has been done.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
I mean, I don't think you can seat all that
back to COVID, though I do think COVID had an impact.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
I'm shooting at home by school closures.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
And I wouldn't seat at home or to school closures either.
I think technologies had an impact. I think that the
way we live.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
National introduced to ban on phones at school. That seems
to have worked. Even principles who were against say it's
a good.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Idea, and I'm fine with it. You know, you'll keep that.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Yeah, well, I mean at the senior secondary end, we
might give the schools a bit more flexibility to make
choices about when they allowed for digital devices. But certainly
primary schools. I don't think we should have those losses
in primary schools.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Well, no, and and.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
Intermediately junior secondary. I think it's just once you get
to things like exam and exams and all that, you've
got to make some calls about when when phones should
shouldn't be allowed.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
I think the kids coming up, like the five six
seven year olds are going to be okay because those
poor kids that came before them, you know, societies experimented
on them and knows what doesn't work.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
A lot of primary schools already had the cell phone
bands in one place. My kids schools always had a
digital devices.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
But I mean parents know not to give them until
at least they're seventeen eighteen now and there'll be a
collective agreement amongst the parents. Now.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
I mean, it's one of those things though, you're always
going to be rushing to keep up because actually the
latest guidance home from my kids school is watches, you know,
no digital smart watches, because more kids were showing out
to those and I'm kind of like, oh, really, you know,
I wouldn't give my kids one of.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Those at that age.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
You know, I think we've just got a We're going
to have to keep working to keep up with it.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
But there's also other issues, you know.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
I'm watching closely what's happening in Australia with the social
media band for the under sixteen. Lots of bumps in
the road there. It's kind of good that the Aussies
are doing it because we can learn from what they're doing.
But I do think we've got to look at this
space because it's about educational achievements, also about mental health.
There's so many things that connect here just.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Very quickly, and I know my producers are screaming for
a break. But when it comes to bullying as leader
of the Opposition, as the senior you know, could you
call off the dogs on Karen Chaw's bullying. I find
that one of the most upset things I've seen in
Parliament is that she is specifically targeted because she's female
(26:11):
and because she's Mary, but not Mary enough for some
people in Parliament. She is trying to do a really
good job, coming from a background that is unique among parliamentarians.
It would be great to see a sign of leadership
where you just got no, I think he'll attacks are
en that.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
I think we have to draw a clear line between
accountability and personal attacks. And absolutely we're our MPs of
overstep that line. Calvin Davis did that, you know, several
years ago, and I called that out and I say, no,
that's not okay, and he needed to go and apologize
and he did because I think ministers it's ongoing, but
ministers should be held accountable. But I think there needs
to be a very clear line, and I think that
personal attacks and personal denigration should should not happen.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Yeah, and that's across the board. But it just seems
she in particular, because it's such a highly charged portfolio,
it will never be right whoever's in charge of it.
But it's just she's not Mary enough. She's not female enough,
She's not.
Speaker 4 (27:04):
I think the children's portfolio is really tough one. And
actually if you look at when Tracy Martin had it,
when Calvin Davis had it, they were also subject to
some pretty intense scrutiny because of well, no, I don't
think that's true. Actually, I think, okay, when it comes
to kids, it does get pretty pretty personal.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
News talk, said b Britt's last question from you.
Speaker 10 (27:25):
Yeah, hi Kerry, hi Christ and coming up coming up
about the defense policy in Labour's defense policy and given
the will we live in now with two land wars
going on and potentially a third not too far away,
at the standard of the New dal defense force, while
we've got some good cats, we've got large amounts of it,
and we have we got large amounts of person power.
(27:49):
You know, what's why can't we have a given it
so serious, that such a serious topical, why can't we
have a bypass and approach to defense so this big
capable spins can can occure over a long time and
we can build up a defense force that would make sense.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
What is it? Because whenever there is a war, it
is a bipartisan approach, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
The challenges that approach in New Zealand towards defense for
the last thirty or forty years has been to sort
of just pretend that we can continue to sweep the
old assets that we've got and not invest in them.
And a lot of that has just reached the point
where you just can't anymore. So in government. You know,
over the last six years, we replaced the Orions, we
replace the Hercules because they literally had just run out
alife the money we knew. He was one of the
(28:29):
ships that we purchased during that time, sadly now at
the bottom of the ocean. But I do think, you know,
there is a case for capital investment in our defense force.
Judith Collins, I actually spoke to about this last night
at the dinner that we were at last night, and
I said, look, whatever you do with your Defense Force
capability review, make sure you come and talk to us
about that, because you know, these are assets that have
(28:49):
in many cases a thirty year life. They're going to
cost a lot of money. So let's actually be constructive
about doing that. But can I also just make one
other point, which is not just about the assets. I
think your question was touching on this. You've got to
have the crew for those assets as well. We've actually
got a number of naval ships tied up at the
moment because we have the ships, but we just don't
have the crew, so they're not getting out there.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
I think there's real issues with their pay and with housing.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
And there's accommodation pay. Housing also you know, we've just
been through a very low unemployment labor market boom where people,
particularly the tradees who work in the defense force, could
get really good money by leaving the defense force and
going into the private sector. With the economy turning down
unemployment going up, it'll be interesting to see whether that changes.
But I do think there's a case for us putting
more money into the pay of our defense people. And
(29:35):
also just a final point promise is defense isn't just
about defense either. When we look at what we ask
our defense force to do, there's an awful lot of
natural disaster recovery, there's an awful lot of international aid
those sorts of things, and we need to make sure
that we're recognizing that.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
Interest tax deductibility. Jamie, you have a question for Chris.
Speaker 11 (29:59):
You're just quickly a couple of questions morning, both of you.
The regressive text put in face with basically no notice
speck and twin one for the Marampa Lands, what was
the thinking with regard to their given eighty percent of
the rentals are provided by the private sector and has
always been the case. And secondly, wouldn't the state one
people less dependent on state and retirement therefore, having one
or two investment properties for retirement, which eighty percent of
(30:21):
the landlords have in this country, wouldn't that be a
good thing? And then you could look at means testing
the retirement pension based on asset base that the family holds.
It would make no sense for someone like Graham Hart
to get a five hundred dollars pension a week.
Speaker 4 (30:34):
Your thoughts, Yeah, I mean there's quite a lot of question,
thank you, But just working backwards through them, I think
one of the challenges was saying that, you know, retirement
rental property should be at the default retirement savings is
that's okay if you've got equity and you can afford
to have several houses. If you can't even afford to
buy one house, then actually, when you get to retirement,
you're going to be in a really disadvantaged position compared
(30:55):
to everybody else. So I do think that we shouldn't
give up on the dream of home ownership for as
many New Zealanders as possible. So we've got to make
sure that we've got a policy around rental domestic property
that's still prioritizing first home buyers so that people can
get their foot on the property ladder because it's actually
a pretty important part of our retirement savings owning your
(31:15):
own home. I think looking at things like key we
savor and making sure that actually you can get a
good return out of having your money in other forms
of retirement savings, then rental properties is important. On the
issues of interest deductibility, that is all tied up with
the overall approach to tax including because if you are
going to have a capital gains tax or some other
form of tax in that area, then whatever you do
(31:36):
with interest deductibility has to be compatible with that. So
haven't made any decisions on what if our future policy
in that area might be.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Means testing for super.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
The problem with means testing for super if you look
at it, you've got one of the highest rates of
over sixty five.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Just a moment, because otherwise I think they're going to
cut me off. Well, I'm going to get a telling
off when I come off here, So I'm just going
to hand the two minutes over to you that we have.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Well, I mean, just I'll answer that last question on
retirement whether we should means test the retirement age, and
there is we've got one of the highest rates of
over sixty five's in work in the OECD, and one
of the reasons for that is if you don't own
your own home, it's how you mess and retirement savings.
You basically start claiming superannuation at sixty five, you save
that while you're continuing to work, and then that's what
(32:22):
gives you your nest egg to retire on. So if
you start a to means test it, you're potentially actually
cutting out or you know, or even raise the age
or whatever. You're actually potentially making the problem worse for
some of those people who don't own their own home.
So anyway, I guess it's the end of the year,
So Kerry, Merry Christmas, and can you say Mary Christmas?
It's it's still November, though I know, it just doesn't
(32:42):
feel right.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
In four weeks it'll be Boxing Day.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
I know.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
Oh that's that's a soberingful.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
It's gracious, But how's the year in opposition being?
Speaker 3 (32:51):
It's been not too bad. Look, it's been good.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
We've gotten out and about around the country and had
a chance to listen to people. When you lose an election,
I said right at the beginning, you've actually got to
take a breath you've got to you know, you got
to listen the voters, and a democracy, voters are never wrong,
and so you've got to get out there and listen
to people. So, but I hope everybody has a great summer.
I hope we get some good, nice, warm weather. I
think the country deserves that. I think we're all just
(33:13):
hanging out for a decent, decent chance to you know,
kind of light at the beach and spend some time
with kids and eat far too much food, and you know,
and just really have a good break.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
Yeah, and do all the things that matter. You'll be
getting a good break.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
Yeah, I'm going to take a couple of weeks.
Speaker 4 (33:26):
I've spent some time with the kids, bit of barbecuing
down at the beach, you know, just generally relaxing.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Good and we'll look forward to seeing you next year.
It's kind of your song choice. You were led to
this song.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
Was led to the song because apparently somebody overheard me
singing to it the other day. I mean good and
is gracious that that's trauma. They're going to be counseling
for that.
Speaker 10 (33:45):
Well.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
I got publicly castigated by the boss for daring to
warble along to a crowded outs Dune. The other day,
somewhere in the same boat, We'll go out with smash
Proof featuring jin Wigmore. The song is Brother. Thank you
for your time this year, and thank you for your
courtesy and for always being available to answer questions.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
Thanks Carry, Good Fun and.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
News talk EDB It's seven to eleven.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
For more from Carry Wooden Mornings, listen live to News
Talks at B from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Kerry Wood of morning's podcast from
news Talk said.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
B news Talk said be eleven past ten. Leader of
the Opposition Chris Hopkins joins me for our last catch
up for the year and sad news to start.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Really sad news.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
Actually, I just heard about Nicki kay as I was
coming into the studio this morning, and Nicki and I
both arrived at Parliament at the same time. We had
a lot of common interests, so I think you could
probably say we were frenemies for the time that we
were in parliament, you know, opponents, but we actually got
on well together and we both had a passion for
education and probably agreed on education more than we disagreed. Actually,
(00:41):
I thought Nicki was a really passionate member of Parliament,
very diligent, did her research, you know, liked to know
what she was talking about, didn't rush to decisions until
she had actually done the analysis of understanding the situation.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
So I was very sad.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
I hadn't I haven't been in touch with her for
a few years, and I hadn't realized that her cancer
was back. So yeah, a bit of a shock this morning.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yeah, it was. I really enjoy were too whenever I
caught up with her, she was jolly hard working and
as you say, completely passionate about education.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
So yeah, absolutely, and you know, I think you've got
to hand it to her. She took the Auckland central
seat off Labor and held it through quite a range
of different electoral cycles. And she did that through sheer
hard work.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, it was, wasn't it.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
You know, You've really got to acknowledge somebody who just
puts their heart and soul into that. And even when
the tide went out for National she held onto a
seat And I think that is because she worked so
damn hard.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yeah, she was a jolly good electric MB and a
very good minister. Right CGT. It's just not going to
go away.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
I think we do need to have this honest conversation
as a country about saying we can't.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
You know, we're going to have to.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Government's going to have to pay for everything somehow, whether
it's more roads you want to build, whether it's the
health system, whether it's the education system. Government has to
get money from somewhere. And if you compare New Zealand
to other countries around the world, we get a much
greater share as a government of our money from personal
income tax compared to other countries, So about seventy percent
of government tax revenue comes from personal income taxes. The
(02:12):
OECD average is a lot lot lower than that, it's
probably half of that, and that's because we don't have
other forms of tax like capital gains which is very common.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
You know.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
I think you see that is it's fascinating debate about
capital gains tax in New Zealand. We've been talking about
it the whole time I've been a parliamentarian and it's
almost like this big radical idea. Actually, we're one of
the few countries in the world that doesn't have some
form of taxation in that area.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
And yet you could have introduced to capital gains tax.
You had senior ministers who'd worked very hard on a
capital gains tax proposal, but you didn't accept that what.
Speaker 4 (02:46):
We had said, Jasinder had said in twenty twenty that
we wouldn't introduce.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
His capital gas She's so hard ass on that because
I know Winston Peter's stuck as orin, but she didn't
have to be quite so vehement.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Yeah, and look, I mean plenty of internal debate about Jasinder. Yeah, Well,
I do think that when you take over from someone midterm,
you can't just change the commitments that you can pain on. Ultimately,
we were elected on that commitment in twenty twenty and
I don't think I had a mandate to change that.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
And the proposal to another area.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
The proposal, well, like if anything, I was dialing back
some of the things that we hadn't campaigned on. But
you know, the proposal that was developed in the run
up to the twenty three election was not a capital
gains tax or was a wealth tax, and that's a
more complicated area acidence.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
And you know, capital.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Gains tax is an area where we are an international outlawer,
and not having one a wealth tax would we would
be one of the only countries in the world to
have one. So I think those are different things.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Okay, Tony are very good morning to you.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
Yes, good morning, Cirie, Good morning miss Just a quick question,
if you were a return to government, would you keep
the gang patch van and if not, why not?
Speaker 2 (03:52):
That's interesting. I had a text from Christopher who was
asking much the same thing.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
Well, the Prime Minister could just asked me across the house.
But look, it's not something that we would change, you know,
more than have been a priority for me, but it's
not something we're going to go back on ultimately. Once
it's done, it's done as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
There you go pretty strong answer there. A lot of
people have said that find to take tax, but there
has to be in a cord between the government and
the tax payers. There has to be a trust that
you're going to spend it wisely. And I think with
a lot of the big spending projects that amounted too little,
labour's lost a bit of that trust.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
With the electroc I think that's.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
A fair point, and I think that one of the
things that's one of the reasons you can't talk about
tax and isolation. You know, whenever you talk about text,
you've got to talk about what you want to do
with it. You've also got to talk about how you
grow the economy so that you can ultimately, you know,
so that it doesn't become such a heavy burden for people.
And all of those things are interrelated. So at the moment,
our tax system, if you like, disincentivizedes hard work, but
(04:50):
you know, people going out and early salary and wages,
and incentivizes speculative investment. And I think we need to
tilt that we need to actually say, rather than a
speculative investment, let's invest in the productive part of the economy.
What are the things that are encouraging And I understand this.
I know plenty of people who have born rental houses
because actually all the incentives are is a good way
of saving money. It's a good way of putting funds
(05:12):
aside for your retirement is to buy a rental house.
But that's not going to make us richer as a country,
whereas building businesses that create good, well paying jobs, that's
the sort of stuff we actually need to see more of.
So how do we just tilt the investment playing field
so that people feel like they want to put more money,
more of their hard earned savings into things that are
actually going to generate better jobs. And so, you know,
(05:32):
all of these things that are interrelated. You can't just
say we want to tax this and spend it on that.
It's more complicated than that.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
A lot of people have also asked how you would
grow the economy labors, you know, and that's the old
trope that labor's good at spending money, national is good at,
you know, being sensible husbands of other people's money. So
how would you grow the economy because a lot of
small business operators said that they were really strangled by
red tape, by the extra holidays, by and I get
(06:02):
that you have to look after workers, but when you're
talking about growing the economy, how do you do that
without strangling it?
Speaker 4 (06:08):
Yeah, I mean I get that. I understand the public perception.
But actually, if you look at the numbers over the
last twenty five years or so, the economy is actually
growing slightly marginally faster under labor governments than under national government.
So that doesn't actually stack up in terms of the
real world. But I get that that's the perception. The perception,
I think is national business people, therefore they must understand
the economy better. Actually, the numbers, the evidence, the track
(06:31):
record does not bear that out.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Is that taking into account global financial crises, earthquakes, pandemics
and the like, is that.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
Like for like, Well, yes, because I mean if the
national party had the global financial crisis, we had the
global pandemic. You know, there are economic shocks any government's
going to experience. But I think, how do we grow
the economy. We have to diversify the economy. That is
one of the key ways we're going to grow the economy.
There's only so many cows we can put on our paddocks,
There's only so many trees we can plant. If we
(06:58):
want to be richer, we're going to have to do
different things. We're going to have to grow our creative sector.
You know, Paul Callahan all those years ago wrote that
book From War to Wetter. We're still having that debate now.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
You know.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
It's about and which is a great example. Zero is
a great example Ian Taylor's Animation Research Limited. These are
kind of areas where we've used something different that we've
offered some innovations, some ingenuity. The question is how do
we get fifty of those companies rather than the half
dozen that we might rattle off.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Now, well, when I look at I went to a
dinner for the Center for Brain Research, and that is
a center of excellence globally. You know, that's not just
very good for New Zealand, but.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
There's amazing innovations. A couple of weeks ago here in Auckland,
I went and visited a company called kar Technologies. They
have developed the world's first AI sign language dictionary. So basically,
now if you're they can do text sorry's voice to
text to sign all done digitally, and that's amazing technology
(07:54):
and one of the first places in the world to
do it.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Isn't that awesome?
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Like those are the sorts of businesses we should say, hey,
let's take this to the world. What do we need
to do to back those businesses to really grow?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, what happens is generally a lot of these very
clever people and entrepreneurs get grants, then they get to
a certain size, and then they sell. They have to
sell to grow, But we don't see there's a taxpayer.
We don't see a return on investment in either the
money that was given or jobs or ongoing opportunity.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
I've been speaking to a lot of these businesses and
they talk about what's called the value of death. So basically,
between you know, getting an idea that's going to grow
a business, that's going to create a business, whether it's
a new product, you want to launch, a new service
or whatever, through to getting that to the point where
you can attract equity to people to invest in it,
there is this thing called the value of death. So
it's basically, how do you get to the point where
(08:46):
investors are going to say that's a business that's going somewhere,
I want to be part of that. There's a valley
that we have to be able to bridge for those businesses,
and I think government can play a role here, of course,
but it's not just about government putting money, and it's
about government making sure that the investment approach for the
country is right so that those investors. And think about
the billions of dollars that we've got in Kiwi Saver,
(09:08):
for example, most of it is invested offshore. Let's get
some more of that invested in Kiwi businesses. That's where
government can play a role in making sure that all
of those sorts of things can happen by directing, not
certainly not by directing, but by making sure that there
are opportunities for those companies to invest in those businesses.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Tax again, Neville, good morning to you, Good morning, Thank you,
Good morning, Chris.
Speaker 6 (09:36):
I just wonder whether or not the I don't mind
paying a fair tax, and I don't I think most
Kiwis are in the same BoatUS myself. But would Labor
if they got back and the power consider raising the
tax rate for Ewei mary identities and businesses because are
only paying seventeen point five percent, where the roost of
(09:58):
us are paying upwards of thirty to thirty nine percent.
Business is paying thirty percent thirty nine percent, And these
EWI and organizations own farms, fisheries, forestry and tourists, are
attractions and operations, and the rest of us are supporting them.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
So do you also mean you'd include charitable organizations as well,
level like sanitarium.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
Well, I think that sort of comes into it too.
That look, I think we all need to have a
look at a fair tax system. But when some parts
of the community are only paying seventeen point five percent
and the rest of us are paying huge amounts of tax,
surely and both parties have dropped the ball on this.
(10:43):
And good good on the Marry identities for organizing this
with their their land settlements, But come on, we've got
to it's got to be fair for all of us.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
I think the tax system does need to be fair,
and I do think there are anomalies in the tax
system now when it comes to charities that are doing
commercial business.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
You know, Sanitarium is an example of.
Speaker 4 (11:05):
That, where you know you've got a they say they're
a charity, but actually they're running one of the biggest
and most popular brands, you know, commercial brands in New Zealand,
and we do need to look again at that. In
terms of EWE, I think that we do need to
distinguish between those that are purely business entities. Many of
those we do now have you business entities that are
trading commercially.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Very successful and charitable.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
And charitable entity.
Speaker 4 (11:28):
So I think that I think it is the same debate,
and we do need to make sure we're being fair
and we're being equal in the way we treat those entities.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
And so would you change a tax the tax system
to show that.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
I think we've got to look at that. We've got
to look at a clearer definition of what's a charitable
purpose and that would apply to an EWE business as
much as to a business like sanitarium.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Good luck if you're in coalition with Tapatu Maari getting
that one passed. If you would like to put your
question to Chris Hipkins, the leader of the opposition, now
is your time to do so. Eight hundred and eighty
ten eighty question for as surely a wealth tax and
potentially a capital gains tax would be charged back to
tenants as a landlord seek to maintain post tax returns.
(12:12):
Rents would go up again under labor What would you
do to offset the higher rent? Isn't that something that
Australia is looking at too. The Greens there is saying, look,
the capital gains tax is hitting renters.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Well, anything that you do around tax you've got to
look at when it's charged. So a capital gains tax,
typically you would only charge that on the realization of
the capital gain. And that is one of the problems
with a wealth tax is if you charge somebody a
wealth tax based on the book value of something, that
money still has to come from somewhere and if they
haven't realized any income from it at that point, then
(12:45):
that cost ultimately is likely to be transferred on. So
if you're a farmer, for example, when you owned a
farm that was above the wealth tax value, that doesn't
necessarily mean you're flush with cash. So you know, you
might be when you sell it, but you're not when
you're farming it. And so that is one of the
I think challenges in the wealth tax area, and it
is one of but also I mean, I think if
(13:06):
anything in the wealth tax space, you have to look
at what's happening around the world there you can't in
New Zealand. I think would be very bold to do
something completely in isolation from the rest of the world, because,
as we know, wealth is very mobile and it will
likely move to the places where it won't pay that.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
It's interesting though, too, when you talk about farmers, and
when you talk about small and medium business owners, of
which this country has many. I caught up with an
old schoolmate and they have been working now on the
stud farm for about god must be thirty years. In
the last three years they've had disposable income. Everything has
gone back into the business or the and this is
(13:41):
the story of so many business owners when they realize
their wealth. Quite often they're taking wages and earnings that
they have deferred until they sell.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
And that's right, and the tax system needs to consider
that true and also think about something like farms. You know,
we've got a real challenge in New Zealand around farms.
I've been talking to the farmers quite a lot lately,
as you might have heard.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
How's the reception.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
It's been really good.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
But some challenges with farmers, like, for example, those who
are in farming now and have been for forty odd years,
have made a certain capital gain on their farms. The
next generation of farmers are unlikely to make that same
level of capital gain, and so that changes the economic
dynamics for the next generation of farmers who are looking
at taking over farms now. And I don't think that's
something we've really grappled with as a country. And those
(14:27):
farmers who are nearing retirement are wanting to bank their
capital gains, but the next generation of farmers are saying, well,
I can't. If we can't count on a similar level
of capital gain in the future, then actually it's going
to be really hard for us to buy the farms.
So I think these are things that you know, I
know the farming community is talking a lot about those
sorts of things.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
At the moment, Kevin, relevant question for you to Chris Hipkins.
Speaker 7 (14:49):
Then, on that note, Yes, good morning, mister Hipkins. Thanks
for taking my question. Look, I've been previously a strong
labor supporter, and six years ago when you came in
or bet after two or three changes at the top
and are you went PM, then you'd had a period
in opposition benches. And yet when you were successful, it
(15:12):
appears as if you'd done no homework or anything in
terms of policy and the like. You've since said quite
recently that you'll look at things like taxing of charities
and this and that. What does look at them mean?
Is there work going on today so that in two
years time when you get to Parliament again, all things
been done. Or will we need to spend billions on
(15:34):
consultants again?
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Oh, that's good, Kevin. You asked that better than I could.
And I think that's a really fair question.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
I think it's a really good question, Kevin, and a
really fair one. I think in some areas we were
well prepared, and in some areas we were not well prepared,
and I think that's a fair criticism. And then, of
course COVID nineteen disrupted some of the preparation that we
had done in some areas. Some of the promises we
made I think hadn't been properly researched and thought through.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
So key we.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
Builders, perhaps the most iconic example, get surrounded us all
the time promising to build one hundred thousand houses, not
having a credible plan for how to actually do that.
I think was a major failing of us in opposition
last time. So I mean looking to the future, I think,
which is I think as we your question was going,
I've said that next election, when we make a promise,
(16:20):
I want to us to have done the research, the
work behind it. I want us to know how much
it's going to cost, how we're going to deliver it,
what the milestones and delivery are going to be, so
that we're not making promises that we can't fulfill, when
we're not creating expectations that we can't meet. I do think,
you know, I think some of it was overstated, but
I think that it's not an unfair criticism.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
So I guess Keven saying when can we see hard
policy and costings?
Speaker 4 (16:44):
Well, of course those things take time, and they take
longer in opposition because you don't have the same level
of resource that you have when you're in government.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
But you've just had it.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
But well you've just had yeah, six years of it.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
The world changes regularly. But we are going to you know,
we'll start rolling out new policy next year.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
If you're going to mention COVID, I'm going to mention
last administration. Seriously. I mean, when you say we need
a capital gains tax, I'm like, you were there, Yeah, God.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
I done it, yea, And we said we weren't.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
I also believe that you have to keep faith with
the promises that you make with the electorate, and we
said that we weren't going to implement to capital gains tacks.
So I don't think you can do things that you know.
And that was also criticism of us that in some areas.
It's not that we said we wouldn't do them, it's
that we didn't tell people we were going to do them.
And I think that there was criticism of us in
that area, and some of that was also for you.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
I think Barbara Edmonds should always talk about text from
hence just a little bit of communications advice there for you.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Barbara's doing a fantastic.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Is doing a fantastic job. Wow, how catty you sound.
I think that's for me. Oh it's not goodness, could
be either.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
One of ours.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
No, it's probably me. Scott A very good morning to you.
Speaker 8 (17:55):
Good morning, Carrie, thanks for taking my call today. Good
morning to you Chris as well. I just wanted to
ask Chris how you feel about the spatunality doing the
hacker in Parliament during the Hakoi. Surely you must feel
the same about as naturally does on the rules of Parliament.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
I think, you know the rules that we have to
be consistent in the application of the rules of Parliament.
And the issue here with the hacker is we I
think we do need to figure out as a parliament
when the hucker is allowable and when it's not, Because
we do allow for the hacker regularly in parliament, so
it's it's regularly done at the end of people's speeches,
it's regularly done at the opening of Parliament and so on.
(18:37):
So yeah, I think it's time for us probably to
have a conversation about when it should and shouldn't be allowed.
We need to involve Mardy in that conversation.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
I think they'd like to be included.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
I think they would like to be included.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
But because I mean, ultimately, I don't think you can
appropriate someone's culture and then say, oh, but we only
want it when it's convenient to us. So I think
we should be upfront about that.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
Mary, as a coalition partner, you know you're going to
need them and the Greens, how do you feel about that?
Speaker 4 (19:03):
Well, it's early days yet, Carrie. I think let's see
how things shape up closer to the election in terms
of what the party's campaign on and what their positions
on issues are on I mean, I remember the Mardi
Party took some pretty radical positions between two thousand and
five and two thousand and eight and then spent nine
years supporting John Key and Bill English in government. And
(19:23):
we're very pragmatic and sort of quite middle of the road.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Insensible during that time.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
So I've said, you know, in the run up to
an election, we'd be clear about who we can and
can't work with, and we'll do the same thing we
did last election. We'll make sure everybody knows that before
the election. But I think it's too soon to make
those calls yet already.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Andrew, good morning to you.
Speaker 9 (19:45):
Good morning, Chris. I'd like to talk about accountability in
the public service, and the two examples that I'll lean
on are the need in hospital. So we have a
cost blowout of you know, of going from three hundred
million to going to four one hundred million, and then
(20:08):
and then it's being stated I and that number will double,
you know, in the public service people people would be
prosecuted for those sorts of blowouts. And now also I'd
like to talk about one point two billion dollars spent
on mental health in your term and no tangible outcome.
(20:31):
Where is the accountability of that? Surely somebody with that,
without wanting to paint too broad a brush, should be
going to jail. All that money, my money, and your
money and everybody else's money that that we're talking to
has has been squandered. So what's your view on that
and what do you propose to do about it?
Speaker 4 (20:53):
So if you take something like the building and the
need in hospital, you know, a lot of building and
construction projects have seen huge cost escalation, not just in
the public sector, but in the private sector too. I mean,
just just around the corner from here, look at the
cost of the convention center. It ended up being way
way higher than.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
What they started out with.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
It had a fire, but the cost had already blown
out even before the fire, you know. And I mean
maybe that's not a good example because of the effect
of the fire, but you'll find that in building a
construction everywhere, and that's not unique to the public sector.
On the issues of mental health, you know, some of
the things, some of the investments you make in mental
health you don't see an immediate return on.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
So over a million.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Counseling sessions have been delivered through that funding. You know,
you don't immediately see a benefit from that. Training more
mental health professionals, which is where a lot of that
money ended up being invested. That gets you the workforce
that you need to improve mental health outcomes in the
longer term. Putting money into more money into schools to
support you know, counseling and mental health support for kids,
(21:51):
you don't always see that, you know, a return on
that straight away. I think that's one of the challenges
with mental health. It's one of the most complex areas
of government policy to try and get better outcomes for
key with There's so much in there that can have
an impact on people mental health.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
And yet under the Clerk government, families patients in the
community were promised that when institutions were disestablished, there would
be that support in the community, and we simply haven't
seen that.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
I don't I think, I think it's too simplistic to
say it's just that. I mean, I think there are
there well.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
There's addiction issues as well. There are people but expect
to get out with addictions.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
The people who were at institutionalized that would be at
the extreme end of mental health distress. What we're seeing
a lot a lot more of now is stuff that
wouldn't have traditionally was a lot of institution.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Closed them a lot of it too. I mean, know
they were expensive, but also because they shouldn't have been there,
that they could have been in the community with the
appropriate health.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
Absolutely, but a lot of the mental health crisis that
we're facing at the moment is amongst young people, and
it is just the world has changed so much. You know,
the stresses, the strains that they deal with, the online
you know, the online bullying, it's real. It's very real.
Young people's expectations of themselves also, I mean, let's just
all take a step back here and say, let's give
(23:03):
these kids a break and do school prize givings. And
you know, it's not uncommon to speak to kids who
have won all these awards and done all these amazing
things and the captain of this and there or whatever,
and you talk to them and they're like, oh, I
don't think I'm doing enough. They're like, far out, give
yourself a break, you know. And that's the pressure that.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
You have to look to.
Speaker 5 (23:22):
It.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
The effect that the school's been closed for two years,
and not all over the country, but in many parts
of the country. I know you said, you know, at
one point as Ministry of Education, getting the schools open
was a priority for you, Yet for a lot of
the time they weren't. The damage that's been done to
those kids where is only going to be realized over
(23:43):
the next few years.
Speaker 4 (23:44):
We had some of the lowest levels of school closures
as a result from COVID nineteen anywhere in the world.
So this is a this is a phenomenon that.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
It doesn't matter. We're starting to see. I'm talking about
New Zealand and trying to get an educated workforce and
a healthy workforce and a workforce that can participate in
talk to other people from across generations. You know, the
damage that has been done.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
I mean, I don't think you can seat all that
back to COVID, though I do think COVID had an impact.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
I'm shooting at home by school closures.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
And I wouldn't seat at home or to school closures either.
I think technologies had an impact. I think that the
way we live.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
National introduced to ban on phones at school. That seems
to have worked. Even principles who were against say it's
a good.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Idea, and I'm fine with it. You know, you'll keep that.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Yeah, well, I mean at the senior secondary end, we
might give the schools a bit more flexibility to make
choices about when they allowed for digital devices. But certainly
primary schools. I don't think we should have those losses
in primary schools.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Well, no, and and.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
Intermediately junior secondary. I think it's just once you get
to things like exam and exams and all that, you've
got to make some calls about when when phones should
shouldn't be allowed.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
I think the kids coming up, like the five six
seven year olds are going to be okay because those
poor kids that came before them, you know, societies experimented
on them and knows what doesn't work.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
A lot of primary schools already had the cell phone
bands in one place. My kids schools always had a
digital devices.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
But I mean parents know not to give them until
at least they're seventeen eighteen now and there'll be a
collective agreement amongst the parents. Now.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
I mean, it's one of those things though, you're always
going to be rushing to keep up because actually the
latest guidance home from my kids school is watches, you know,
no digital smart watches, because more kids were showing out
to those and I'm kind of like, oh, really, you know,
I wouldn't give my kids one of.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Those at that age.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
You know, I think we've just got a We're going
to have to keep working to keep up with it.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
But there's also other issues, you know.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
I'm watching closely what's happening in Australia with the social
media band for the under sixteen. Lots of bumps in
the road there. It's kind of good that the Aussies
are doing it because we can learn from what they're doing.
But I do think we've got to look at this
space because it's about educational achievements, also about mental health.
There's so many things that connect here just.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Very quickly, and I know my producers are screaming for
a break. But when it comes to bullying as leader
of the Opposition, as the senior you know, could you
call off the dogs on Karen Chaw's bullying. I find
that one of the most upset things I've seen in
Parliament is that she is specifically targeted because she's female
(26:11):
and because she's Mary, but not Mary enough for some
people in Parliament. She is trying to do a really
good job, coming from a background that is unique among parliamentarians.
It would be great to see a sign of leadership
where you just got no, I think he'll attacks are
en that.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
I think we have to draw a clear line between
accountability and personal attacks. And absolutely we're our MPs of
overstep that line. Calvin Davis did that, you know, several
years ago, and I called that out and I say, no,
that's not okay, and he needed to go and apologize
and he did because I think ministers it's ongoing, but
ministers should be held accountable. But I think there needs
to be a very clear line, and I think that
personal attacks and personal denigration should should not happen.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Yeah, and that's across the board. But it just seems
she in particular, because it's such a highly charged portfolio,
it will never be right whoever's in charge of it.
But it's just she's not Mary enough. She's not female enough,
She's not.
Speaker 4 (27:04):
I think the children's portfolio is really tough one. And
actually if you look at when Tracy Martin had it,
when Calvin Davis had it, they were also subject to
some pretty intense scrutiny because of well, no, I don't
think that's true. Actually, I think, okay, when it comes
to kids, it does get pretty pretty personal.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
News talk, said b Britt's last question from you.
Speaker 10 (27:25):
Yeah, hi Kerry, hi Christ and coming up coming up
about the defense policy in Labour's defense policy and given
the will we live in now with two land wars
going on and potentially a third not too far away,
at the standard of the New dal defense force, while
we've got some good cats, we've got large amounts of it,
and we have we got large amounts of person power.
(27:49):
You know, what's why can't we have a given it
so serious, that such a serious topical, why can't we
have a bypass and approach to defense so this big
capable spins can can occure over a long time and
we can build up a defense force that would make sense.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
What is it? Because whenever there is a war, it
is a bipartisan approach, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
The challenges that approach in New Zealand towards defense for
the last thirty or forty years has been to sort
of just pretend that we can continue to sweep the
old assets that we've got and not invest in them.
And a lot of that has just reached the point
where you just can't anymore. So in government. You know,
over the last six years, we replaced the Orions, we
replace the Hercules because they literally had just run out
alife the money we knew. He was one of the
(28:29):
ships that we purchased during that time, sadly now at
the bottom of the ocean. But I do think, you know,
there is a case for capital investment in our defense force.
Judith Collins, I actually spoke to about this last night
at the dinner that we were at last night, and
I said, look, whatever you do with your Defense Force
capability review, make sure you come and talk to us
about that, because you know, these are assets that have
(28:49):
in many cases a thirty year life. They're going to
cost a lot of money. So let's actually be constructive
about doing that. But can I also just make one
other point, which is not just about the assets. I
think your question was touching on this. You've got to
have the crew for those assets as well. We've actually
got a number of naval ships tied up at the
moment because we have the ships, but we just don't
have the crew, so they're not getting out there.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
I think there's real issues with their pay and with housing.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
And there's accommodation pay. Housing also you know, we've just
been through a very low unemployment labor market boom where people,
particularly the tradees who work in the defense force, could
get really good money by leaving the defense force and
going into the private sector. With the economy turning down
unemployment going up, it'll be interesting to see whether that changes.
But I do think there's a case for us putting
more money into the pay of our defense people. And
(29:35):
also just a final point promise is defense isn't just
about defense either. When we look at what we ask
our defense force to do, there's an awful lot of
natural disaster recovery, there's an awful lot of international aid
those sorts of things, and we need to make sure
that we're recognizing that.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
Interest tax deductibility. Jamie, you have a question for Chris.
Speaker 11 (29:59):
You're just quickly a couple of questions morning, both of you.
The regressive text put in face with basically no notice
speck and twin one for the Marampa Lands, what was
the thinking with regard to their given eighty percent of
the rentals are provided by the private sector and has
always been the case. And secondly, wouldn't the state one
people less dependent on state and retirement therefore, having one
or two investment properties for retirement, which eighty percent of
(30:21):
the landlords have in this country, wouldn't that be a
good thing? And then you could look at means testing
the retirement pension based on asset base that the family holds.
It would make no sense for someone like Graham Hart
to get a five hundred dollars pension a week.
Speaker 4 (30:34):
Your thoughts, Yeah, I mean there's quite a lot of question,
thank you, But just working backwards through them, I think
one of the challenges was saying that, you know, retirement
rental property should be at the default retirement savings is
that's okay if you've got equity and you can afford
to have several houses. If you can't even afford to
buy one house, then actually, when you get to retirement,
you're going to be in a really disadvantaged position compared
(30:55):
to everybody else. So I do think that we shouldn't
give up on the dream of home ownership for as
many New Zealanders as possible. So we've got to make
sure that we've got a policy around rental domestic property
that's still prioritizing first home buyers so that people can
get their foot on the property ladder because it's actually
a pretty important part of our retirement savings owning your
(31:15):
own home. I think looking at things like key we
savor and making sure that actually you can get a
good return out of having your money in other forms
of retirement savings, then rental properties is important. On the
issues of interest deductibility, that is all tied up with
the overall approach to tax including because if you are
going to have a capital gains tax or some other
form of tax in that area, then whatever you do
(31:36):
with interest deductibility has to be compatible with that. So
haven't made any decisions on what if our future policy
in that area might be.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Means testing for super.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
The problem with means testing for super if you look
at it, you've got one of the highest rates of
over sixty five.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Just a moment, because otherwise I think they're going to
cut me off. Well, I'm going to get a telling
off when I come off here, So I'm just going
to hand the two minutes over to you that we have.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Well, I mean, just I'll answer that last question on
retirement whether we should means test the retirement age, and
there is we've got one of the highest rates of
over sixty five's in work in the OECD, and one
of the reasons for that is if you don't own
your own home, it's how you mess and retirement savings.
You basically start claiming superannuation at sixty five, you save
that while you're continuing to work, and then that's what
(32:22):
gives you your nest egg to retire on. So if
you start a to means test it, you're potentially actually
cutting out or you know, or even raise the age
or whatever. You're actually potentially making the problem worse for
some of those people who don't own their own home.
So anyway, I guess it's the end of the year,
So Kerry, Merry Christmas, and can you say Mary Christmas?
It's it's still November, though I know, it just doesn't
(32:42):
feel right.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
In four weeks it'll be Boxing Day.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
I know.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
Oh that's that's a soberingful.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
It's gracious, But how's the year in opposition being?
Speaker 3 (32:51):
It's been not too bad. Look, it's been good.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
We've gotten out and about around the country and had
a chance to listen to people. When you lose an election,
I said right at the beginning, you've actually got to
take a breath you've got to you know, you got
to listen the voters, and a democracy, voters are never wrong,
and so you've got to get out there and listen
to people. So, but I hope everybody has a great summer.
I hope we get some good, nice, warm weather. I
think the country deserves that. I think we're all just
(33:13):
hanging out for a decent, decent chance to you know,
kind of light at the beach and spend some time
with kids and eat far too much food, and you know,
and just really have a good break.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
Yeah, and do all the things that matter. You'll be
getting a good break.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
Yeah, I'm going to take a couple of weeks.
Speaker 4 (33:26):
I've spent some time with the kids, bit of barbecuing
down at the beach, you know, just generally relaxing.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Good and we'll look forward to seeing you next year.
It's kind of your song choice. You were led to
this song.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
Was led to the song because apparently somebody overheard me
singing to it the other day. I mean good and
is gracious that that's trauma. They're going to be counseling
for that.
Speaker 10 (33:45):
Well.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
I got publicly castigated by the boss for daring to
warble along to a crowded outs Dune. The other day,
somewhere in the same boat, We'll go out with smash
Proof featuring jin Wigmore. The song is Brother. Thank you
for your time this year, and thank you for your
courtesy and for always being available to answer questions.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
Thanks Carry, Good Fun and.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
News talk EDB It's seven to eleven.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
For more from Carry Wooden Mornings, listen live to News
Talks at B from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.