November 24, 2025 • 33 mins
Chris Hipkins says coalitions require a balance of compromise and standing by values.
The Labour leader says New Zealanders understand the nuances of MMP and the reality that parties can't get everything they want.
He says that means parties often can't accomplish as much as they hoped.
But Hipkins told Kerre Woodham some things will be bottom lines.
Hipkins says an example of that is his commitment not to have a wealth tax, which he intends to hold to.
Hipkins isn't laying out his plan for interest deductibility but says he hears landlords' argument for it.
National brought back the scheme after Labour removed it in 2021, but its fate is still unclear if Labour makes a comeback in 2026.
Hipkins told Woodham the decision will come out next year in Labour's alternative budget.
He says he's heard from landlords who couldn't continue renting out properties after Labour's change in 2021.
WATCH 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 carry Wood and Morning's podcast from
news Talk, said B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
News Talk said B. Indeed, seven minutes past ten oh
eight hundred eighty ten eighty is the number to call
to put your question to the leader of the opposition
who's starting to come up with policy.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Go you.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I didn't think I was going to see you because
I said, until we have policy, we can't chat.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
Because now we've got plenty to chat about.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
They had and look at you coming up with Although
I have to say your strategy of just sitting back
and waiting for people to get irritated with the coalition
government was working quite well.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
Well and it still is working quite well. But you know,
I've heard the message from people. They want to know
what we would do differently, and we are starting to
set out more of that now.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yeah, it's interesting though. I was looking back at some
of the clips from when you were Prime Minister in
twenty three and the postcard you sent from abroad. There
will be no capital gains tax and any government I
run end of story.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Well we've added a word there. You said any government.
I said, if we'd lead the government after the next election,
there'll be no capital gains tax, and of course we lost,
and I think when you lose you do have to
go back to the drawing board and say, okay, well
you didn't vote for what we were offering last time,
so we're going to have to offer something different next time.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
So that makes it not a fib Then.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
No, absolutely, if we had won the election, there would
have been no capital gains tax. But I've always said
on issues like tax, you should make your policy term
by term, and any change to it you should have
a mandate for. So I think the key thing here
is that people should know what they're voting for, and
if you're going to rule something out, then you have
to honor that. If you're going to rule something in,
then you should honor that. But you shouldn't change your
(01:46):
mind halfway through a parliamentary term and vote for something
that you said you weren't going to vote for.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
No, not during a parliamentary term. But what happens when
you have to form a coalition, which you know you
had the glorious mandate that I think those days are
far behind any political party you're going to have to
form a coalition government rules you know, absolutes don't exist
in a coalition.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
I think people expect under mp there will be a
degree of compromise. There will have to be some trade offs.
I'd say a couple of things to that. One is,
the stronger, the bigger party, the less you have to
compromise and trade off. But the second is that you
shouldn't do things that you've said you're not going to
do as part of that kind of compromise trade off.
So if you say, for example, as I have said,
we won't implement a wealth tax after the election, you
(02:32):
shouldn't enter around and say, oh, well they made us
do it. If you've said you're not going to do it,
then you shouldn't do it. So in other words, it
shouldn't or won't won't I won't So you know, I
think that's really important. People shouldn't know what they're voting for.
And ultimately what that means under MMP is if you
can't get a majority of parties who have said they'll
support something, then it doesn't happen. And you know, under
(02:54):
MMP you're sure you have to have compromise, you might
have to say, look, those parties weren't willing to go
as far as we were willing to go, so we
had to compromise or they wanted to go further, but
we committed to supporting what we'd said we were going
to support before the election. I think New Zealanders understand
the nuance of MMP. What I think they get frustrated
by is where you end up signing up for things
(03:15):
that you said you weren't going to support.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Well, I think that's what a lot of people were
brassed off with Labor with last time, was that they
found themselves being presented with policies that they didn't know
you were going to introduce. Have you learned your lesson
from that?
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Absolutely, I've heard that criticism. So if you think about
things like water reform, for example, that was hugely controversial
and we hadn't campaigned on that. Now, I think that
the structural reform we were talking about was still a
much more efficient way of delivering water, but we hadn't
talked about things like co governance and that became such
a big debate and we didn't have a public mandate
for what we were trying to do there. I don't
(03:53):
want to repeat that, so I've been really clear. I'll
be campaigning clearly on the changes that we want to
make and the things that we're taking off the table,
and I want to honor that.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
After the election, hys Wawbrick and the Greens, you will
need them to be a government. She wants to be
Finance Minister, and they will argue that we have to
have major reform of our taxation system and the way
wealth is distributed in this country.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
I've said that we should introduce a simple, targeted capital
gains tax and that's as far as Labor is willing
to go.
Speaker 5 (04:27):
Now.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
The Greens can campaign on whatever they like, and I
respect that they're a different political party, but they can't
make another party support something that they have said that
they won't support. So when I say we won't support
a broader capital gains tax and we won't support a
wealth tax, that's a bottom line. We simply won't support
something that we've said before the election we won't support.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Well, how will you govern?
Speaker 4 (04:50):
Where are the Greens going to go? Ultimately? Are they
going to go and form a government with national who
want to do even less than Labor does?
Speaker 2 (04:55):
They might do confidence and supply. Who would have ever
have seen you know Tapati Maori in its previous iteration
before it imploded supporting National, and yet they did.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
I think we have to be a bit more mature
about our MMP environment and we have to say, look,
the minority governments are possible where you know, smaller parties
give them, give the bigger party or whoever's leading the
government of confidence and supply without the intricate agreements that
we've seen in the past. I think we've got to
keep all of those options on the table.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
All Right, we'll go to our callers because we have Andy,
who'd like to put a question to you. Good morning, Andy,
good morning, good morning.
Speaker 6 (05:30):
Question. I asked the same of the PM the other day,
actually on the same channel. Well, you will National and
Labor hopefully agree to some things that you do that
are non negotiable, as in, you know, like transport or
how for education. Stuff you don't stuff around with all
the time. I find that with the Labor Party, anything
(05:53):
you guys say, or sorry, anything the National say, you're
just going to go opposite no matter what it is.
At some point you two have to agree that the
bestment of New Zealand that some things are not to
be touched. And that's my question.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Yeah, and statement too. I think we're all a bit
fed up with that.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
I totally agree with the sentiment there. I think that
there's been We're too small a country to have the
degree of flip flopping that we have had, and particularly
on some of those big issues like infrastructure, where we're
talking about billions of dollars worth of capital spending that
takes often a decade or more. So, you know those
big roads for example, you're talking ten years and the planning, design,
the build. You know, it's ten years between WAE to
(06:34):
go for those at a minimum in some cases, and
we've chopped and changed far too much. So are we
willing to talk to them about that and kind of
try and achieve a degree more of more stability there. Yes, absolutely,
I'm a bit worried that they've committed to too many
roads that they don't know how they're going to pay
for yet fifty five billion dollars worth of roads and
they haven't And even Chris Bishop has said in the
(06:54):
last few weeks, Look, it's going to be a long
time before we build all of these roads. But we
need to keep things pointing in the right direction and
keep the momentum going there. So yes, on that. On
resource management acts, again, I think there's been way too
much flip flopping there. So I've said to Chris Bishop,
I've talked about it with him just this week. I said, look,
let's see if we can find you know, some common ground.
(07:17):
I reckon we're about eighty percent of the way there.
If they're willing to split the difference, you know, they'll
get ten percent of what they want. You know, of
that last twenty percent, they get ten percent, we get
ten percent. Then, Actually, I think people would prefer that
they get some certainty there. So I've totally absolutely left
the door open to working with them on that and
even things like KEII Saver. They made an announcement over
the weekend. I'm broadly supportive of increasing key WE Saver
(07:39):
contributions over time, and I think that the timetable they've
set out is not on an unreasonable one. But what
they haven't done is set out more detail around how
you support low income workers, people who aren't in the workforce,
and so on. So all of those things, I think
there's room for more labor and national working together to
achieve some kind of agreement and a bit more stability.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
And no barrel politics. But why don't we just have
an Infrastructure Commission. In any education commission of best practice,
not public service bureaucrats, but best practice practitioners who have
real world experience, who can present to the government of
the day it's firm recommendations and remove the politics from
(08:20):
it full stop. It's quite frankly, I don't trust either
of you guys to leave politics out of it.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Two of those examples, so infrastructure and education. On infrastructure,
I agree with you. We set up the Infrastructure Commission,
the current government have continued it. I think that's a
much better way of planning long term infrastructure. It does
take some of the politics out of it. If we
stick to what they're recommending and we have a credible
plan for how to pavor what they're recommending, I think
that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
So in the little valve where you can let off
your political steam and have your bike trails or your
whatever is on this side.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
That's right. There can be a bit of the margins,
but actually on the big projects, thet's just get on
with it. On education, I agree with the sentiment. What's
happening at the moment with the curriculum ry right, for example,
is that they're not involving the experts. It's actually being
very politically driven, and I think their school career shouldn't
be dictated by politicians and it shouldn't change when the
government changes. I think it's kids education is too important
(09:12):
for that.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
It's been failing for years.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Yeah, but one of the challenges there is, you know,
Erica Stanford posted something on Facebook this morning that somebody
sent me of something at an extract from the maths
curriculum that clearly was written by someone at the Ministry
of Education that was largely unintelligible to the general public.
So there's a risk of saying, let's just leave it
to the experts. You still do need to.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Say I said, no, bureaucrats, not the Ministry of Education.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
Well at Coractice. In the case of education, you know,
there are passionate people there who know a lot about it,
but you.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Still need to make sure they are ideology still going.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
To make sure it's understandable to the general public.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
So you would dabble with what the changes that have
been made.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
I'm worried that it's becoming far too political. I'd like
to take the politics out of the school curriculum. This
is the debate we're having around the curriculum now is
more political than in any of the time that I
have been involved in education, and I do worry that
it's become too political.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
News talk said be Leader of the opposition, Chris Hipkins
is in st for the next forty minutes, taking your questions.
I had a text yesterday saying, why do you refer
to him as the leader of the opposition. There are
other opposition parties, so politics one oh one, the leader
of the biggest party in opposition becomes de facto leader
(10:22):
of the opposition.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
So that's quite right. That's right.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
There we go. Every day's a learning opportunity. Hello, Matt. First, Matt,
we've got two mats in a row. You're the first one.
Speaker 7 (10:33):
Yeah, gooda. I've already I rang up last time when
you were going to tip hear about capital gains tax.
And now you've bought in this capital gains tax. But
what are you doing about the tax deductibility on rentals. Well,
here's a scenario. I've got a house that I live
in and I've bought a rental that I'm one hundred
percent lending on under your government, and also get in
I'd have to sell that because I can't afford to
(10:55):
pay the tax on it, and I've bought that as
a retirement, so we do have kids at home, I
can downtown, and you basically just stuck my dream. So
what are you going to do about that?
Speaker 4 (11:05):
Yeah, we haven't made the final decision on interest deductibility yet,
but I have heard the feedback from landlords that one
hundred percent removal of interest deductibility did actually make continuing
to be a landlord impossible for some of the people
who were in the market landlords. So we've heard that.
We'll set that out when we set out our alternative budget,
(11:27):
our attornative fiscal plan next year. But I've heard the feedback,
so you know, watch the space.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Because when it was first announced that deductibility was being
removed and I had callers saying, we're just going to
sell our properties, I thought, you're not going to sell
your properties. They sold their properties and it became really
difficult to house people.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
Yeah, I think, Look, we've heard the feedback from people.
We're working through the detail of what our policy in
that area will be at the next election, and it
will be different from the one we had last time.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Second, Matt, good morning too. From the New Zealand Property
Investors Association, Good morning.
Speaker 8 (12:03):
Good morning, Kerry, Good morning Chris. Sorry that half on
property investments so much, But yes, that last caller does
have a point, and I would say, Chris, even if
you bring it down it's say a fifty percent losses
and just aductibility, it's still going to cripple a lot
of property investors, particularly the ones with big mortgages. But anyway,
I just wanted to talk on something else, capital gains
tax that you brought in. You'd be interested to know that.
(12:25):
Actually there's quite a few of our members support a
comprehensive capital gains tax, but they're not thrilled about being
targeted by a capital gains tax. And the question I've
got for you is, when you reach your policy document,
investors are described in a way as being unproductive speculators.
There's a lot of that language in the policy document,
and our members of people who buy houses do them up.
(12:47):
They're more likely to be seen and sort of paint
spattered overalls working on their properties. They're not the sort
of speculator, the unproductive person. They put a lot of
effort into it. Why does labor see property investors landlords
like that?
Speaker 4 (13:03):
So we don't see all property and as the same,
you know, so you'll get a spectrum there from people
who buy houses, don't do anything to them, extract the rents,
bank the capital gains, and don't improve their properties. But
then you will get other people like the ones that
you've just talked about, the people who really work hard
to provide a good standard of rental accommodation. You know,
(13:24):
they go and do the maintenance themselves. They're very quick
to respond when tenants raise issues and so on, and
so you've got the full spectrum there, and I totally
understand that. But property investment by definition, is a less
productive investment than investing in a business that employs people.
And so what we do want to see more of
in New Zealander is investment in businesses, investments in the
(13:47):
parts of our economy that are going to grow more
jobs and more opportunity for New Zealanders.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
But we've also had people who have said that at
the moment they've got young kids, they're working well, you know,
their business is going great. They could be doing more,
like they could be more productive, but they're nervous of
labor getting back in because they don't want to take
on the risk of growing their business and buying, investing
(14:12):
in more capital, taking on more staff and the inherent
issues with that, at the risk of having it taxed heavily.
They're just bubbling along just nicely. They'll keep it at that,
thank you very much. They're just not willing to take
that risk when they won't be rewarded for that risk.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
Well, one of the reasons we've said that businesses Kiwi
saver farms should not be covered by capital gains tax
is we do want people investing more in productive businesses
and we don't want to send any kind of message
that we would discourage that. So you know, the National
Party's doing a lot of scare mongering about it at
the moment. But businesses, Kiwi, saver farms, the family home,
(14:47):
none of these things would be covered by capital gains tax.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
But I don't think it's necessary. I think the Greens
are doing more scare mongering than National And again you
are going to have to need them unless something miraculous
takes place between now and next October, you will need
the Greens and they will have their own set up
ideas and but they will tax businesses.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
That may be very very clear of Labour's capital gains tax.
A targeted simple capital gains tax is our bottom line here.
We will not support something that we have told the
public of New Zealand before the election that we will
not support.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
You might have to go into coalition with National Just
a text to here. I'm a teacher. What Chris said
about politics and education is absolute rubbish. The last Labor
government pushed so much into schools and completely changed the
way we educate our children. John, good morning to you. Hello, John, good.
Speaker 9 (15:40):
Morning, Good morning, Verry, good morning, Chris, good morning. My
question is I'm an ex labor supporter. Same, I didn't
vote in a loud solution.
Speaker 10 (15:52):
Same.
Speaker 9 (15:53):
My thing is, how are you going to convince us
to go back to you at to labor? What you
are you going to to do to convince a lot
of labor people that.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
Jumped Yeah, thanks very much. Maybe can I ask you
a question? I know this by turning talk back on
its head. Why didn't you vote for us last time?
Speaker 9 (16:22):
I think it ended up being tails to me, Labor
sort of was jumping at everything to try and get
to convince people to move.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Yeah. I think that's a fair criticism. You know, we
were trying to do too much, and I think that
is a key lesson. One of the things that I
was really clear about after the election is we can't
pretend that you know that the voters were wrong. They
didn't You know a lot of people like you who
voted for us previously didn't vote for us. And if
we didn't hear the message that you sent us and
that then we clearly we're going to be in the
(16:53):
wrong and we're going to continue to lose. So our
next government will be much more focused on the core
priorities that I've set out. Jobs, health, homes, cost of living.
Those are the things I know New Zealanders want to
see us focused on. So we'll be focus on fewer
things and doing fewer things well rather than trying to
do everything will be predictable, So I don't want us
doing a whole lot of things after the election that
(17:15):
we hadn't told people about before the election, and we
will be focused on the things that actually help working
people to get ahead, so that you know, if you
get ahead through your own hard work, you should have
a government that's backing that.
Speaker 9 (17:30):
That's exactly right, because a lot of these people were
people there for a single income family and they were struggling,
you know, and they just weren't seeing the light.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Yeah, and post COVID, we saw that big spike in
inflation and it wasn't just in New Zealand, but it
was around the world. But I know how much families
really suffered from that and still are. You know, the
cost of living is still going up. And that's why
I've put the cost of living in the top four
issues that we're focused on, because you know, people are
working hard. You know, we've got some of the hardest
(18:03):
working people in the world. If you look at the
number of our that our New Zealanders are working, and
they're just feeling like they're going backwards. And that shouldn't
be the case. It should be that if you're working
really hard, that you should actually feel like you're making progress.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Thank you, John Newstalalk said a textas says a given
labor have said they'll put the oil exploration bands back
in place, and the last government made it onerous for
our agricultural sector to operate. How's it going to get
the growth and investment this country so desperately needs. And Jeff,
you have a power question too.
Speaker 5 (18:33):
Good morning, Kerry and Chris, my power question is that
back in the nineties, National sold off forty nine percent
of the power as it is with contact with all
the others now. Back then we were told that they
would be in control of the power and that it
will end up being cheaper for New Zealand. However, look
(18:54):
at none of the governments have ever intervened, and that's
been the reason that we've had a number of businesses
closed where wholesale rates went from one hundred and sixty
dollars to over eight hundred dollars, and yet now still
talk further fixed price increases. What do you say to that, Chris,
are you willing to look at changing by actually controlling
(19:17):
this going forward?
Speaker 4 (19:19):
Yeah, Energy is a huge issue for New Zealand, and
even businesses now are saying that the market's failing and
that we're paying too high a price for electricity. They
are big gen tailor companies, the companies that both generate
and retail electricity have focused on extracting dividends out of
the country rather than investing in new generation. Renewable electricity
is a lot cheaper than fossil feels like oil, gas
(19:42):
and coal, and so that's why we've said, we want
to see more renewable generation in New Zealand to bring
down power prices.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Renewables aren't coming fast enough to fill the market, which
is driving up the cost of electricity. And that the
gas and the fact that there isn't as much gas
as you thought there might be has left some industry
as completely moribund. They've had to shut the doors.
Speaker 4 (20:03):
That's one of the reasons we've got to accelerate renewable
in Renewable energy actually is quicker to build than fossil fuels.
So even if the government drill new holes and find
new gas now, it's going to be years before that
ever makes it into the gas pipeline. And so. On
the other hand, things like solar, wind and geothermal geo
(20:25):
thermals also has quite long lead times as well. But
geo thermal is a far better option for New Zealand
than gas because it has the same kind of properties
in terms of what it does for the market. You know,
it's a constant source of supply. It works when the
wind's not blowing and when the sun's not shining and
in the middle of the night, and so geothermal could
be huge for New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
But could be, could be, might be. You know that
great big thing that was set up in New Plymouth
is some kind of alternative to gas. What's it done?
Speaker 5 (20:52):
Well?
Speaker 4 (20:52):
We have seen an uptake in solar wind and other
forms of electricity.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
It's not powering the industries that are closing their doors.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
They're stuffed well. And actually they were going to be
facing this problem regardless because there.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Is less gas, but they would have more time, and
they would have more time for these renewables to come
online and be more reliable.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
Even if five years ago the government had miraculously found
more guess, bearing in mind, we spent ten years looking
for guess and didn't find any. Even if more had
been found five years ago, it still probably wouldn't be
solving the problem that we've got now. It takes a
long time to bring more guess into the market that
we do have to have a conversation about what we
do without remaining guess supplies. There is still guess there.
(21:33):
We've got much, and we've got conversations about how we
use that.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Do you know I'm so sick of conversations. I just
want to be able to turn a switch on and
have my machine power up, so that my one hundred
men and women can make the stuff that sells overseas
and makes us money.
Speaker 4 (21:49):
Well, there are choices. Methodix exports a lot of the
guests that we produce at the moment. They basically process
it and export it. And you know, yes, there are
a couple of hundred jobs there, which are good, valuable jobs.
But the cost of them doing that forcing up the
cost of guests for everybody else is costing hundreds of
jobs else were around the country. So there are choices
that governments need to make about what happens with our
(22:10):
remaining natural guess supplies. The other option for us is
cause is biogas. So we're currently producing only about one
percent of our guests for bioguess, but we could be
producing forty fifty percent of our guests through well.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
So that's pie in the sky and can't come quickly enough.
What are you going to do for somebody who's facing
a rising power bill to keep the business going well
and not have a conversation?
Speaker 4 (22:32):
There are options around biogas. So we produce one percent
now by processing about one hundred thousand tons of food
waste into biogas every year. We send four million tons
of food waste into landfill every year. You convert that
to biogas, and there's forty percent of the country's guest
supply taking care of through biogas quickly, and it can
happen reasonably quickly quickly, well within years, as opposed to decades.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Well, see that's not enough for businesses. This is a
small country, you know, when you look at places like
Oakuni that have seen basically the area is gone, you're dead.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
But this is the challenge that we have. You could
spend the next decade drilling for more gas not find any,
and we're still going to be in this problem. There
are options that we can come on stream much faster
than that.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Just talking to you reminds me why I didn't vote
for label last time. It's just the conversations.
Speaker 5 (23:20):
Bruce, good morning, Yes, good morning.
Speaker 10 (23:23):
Hi Chris, how are you?
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (23:25):
Good?
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Thank you?
Speaker 10 (23:26):
How are you hi? Good? Thank you? Look, just cut
the things. First thing. You keep saying that you know,
the cost of living is a bad thing in his illness.
It really is, But I haven't heard you come up
with many suggestions as to how you intend to actually
(23:47):
bring down the cost of living.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
So a lot that's out of your hands too, and
any government's hands. So how will you do that?
Speaker 4 (23:54):
Good point, Bruce, Yeah, thanks Bruce. Good point. And to
be to close off that conversation, Kerry, we will have
a different energy policy before the next election. It won't
just be about conversations, but it will be about making
sure we do something about power prices tomorrow, so wait
and see. But early next year we'll set out our
energy policy and it will be different. The other area
around cost of living, take health care. Going to the
(24:15):
doctor is getting far too expensive for people, so we've
said that we will make three free doctor's visits available
to every New Zealander.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
It's done.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
I'd rather people went to the doctor before they got
sick than showed up in a hospital emergency department after
they've already gotten sick.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Why not six visits for those families that need it
rather than three for everyone many who don't need it.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
Because if people show up in an emergency department because
they haven't gone to the doctor in the first place,
we all end up paying for that. So we hospital care,
but we don't pay for preventative health care, which is
actually a better investment.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Why not instead of saying you can afford to take
the kids to the doctor. I can afford to take
the kids to the doctor. Why not give families who
might need to take five or six visits to the doctor.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
And s alry free for us to take our kids
to the doctor. And that's a good thing, and it
means parents are more likely to take their kids to
the doctor. Parents themselves, on the other hand, are more
likely just wait, okay, condition gets worse before I go
to the doctor. And we're saying we'd rather that you
went to the doctors.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Ry, not five or six to those who need it
rather than those who don't.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
The majority of people will get free healthcare. The vast
majority of people will get free healthcare with three free
doctors visits a year.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
I didn't want to glare gimlet eyed at you, but
I just did. Gosh, Kerrie, shut up. Kerry Woodham as
a host is so one eyed and unintelligent, clearly learned
her knowledge from a blue wet weatbox box.
Speaker 4 (25:40):
We were just talking about how people were being a
bit nicer to the media these days, that that message
doesn't seem to exemplify that.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Linds is polite. Could you please stop being so rude?
And let the listeners speak rather than you. Okay, all right, Glenn,
over to you. I'll shut up from here on in.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Good morning, Good morning, Chris, Thank you's dgging my call.
I'm a farmer. I just want to congratulate you on
your red beans initial if you're doing with cutter out
of farmers, really good to get back in the paddock.
You guys flip the South Island in twenty one and
then you burned all that political capital with David Parker.
He's gone, thank goodness, and got Joe Lutson. She's gone
(26:18):
around saying that it's going to be pollute the payers
as far as water is concerned. Is that going to
be a fetch based or does the Labor Party still
believe that all farmers are able to destroy New Zeald.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
I've spent a lot of time visiting farms. Thanks very
much for the question and the acknowledgement of the work
we've been doing. We're not allowed to call it red bends.
I think we're breaching some some various trademarks and stuff
like that. But Labor has been engaging with farmers around
the country a lot over the last year, and I've
really enjoyed that I've visited quite a few farms. It's
changed my mind about farming. I'll be upfront about that.
(26:50):
You know, I think farmers are doing way more than
we give them credit for in terms of environmental protection.
And I've seen that upfront firsthand. Hadn't seen that until
the last couple of years, and I think we should
give farmers more credit for that. So we'll have different
we'll have quite a different approach in that it's this
area because of the conversations we've been having from farmers
and that includes water. We haven't locked that down yet.
(27:10):
We're in the conversations about it, but the feedback from
farmers has been really positive around us just getting on
the ground and seeing what you're doing, you know, the
fencing of waterways, the practical constraints around water, I think
is something that we've really taken that feedback on board.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
Yeah, and that thank you for that. So that's great.
So just to remember we're not all dead, right, and
we do bring in billions and billions and billions of
dollars for you to try around and feel good about.
So just remember we're not all like David Parker thinks
we are. Okay, he's gone thank god. So you just
John has move the doll on what farmers are doing,
what we bring to the contrary and the thik that
(27:49):
we're having on the country. So thank you, thank you,
good on you.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
And look, you know, to be fair, I've seen some
amazing farming practice in New Zealand, some of the best
environmental protection you could possibly imagine, and we should give
the farmers credit for that.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
We were you weren't. Honestly I had to sit there
and put my fist in my mouth not to chime
in with when you're going on about oh, yes, I've
seen this and that, Yes, amazing what happens when you
get out of Wellington and see what's going on. Honestly,
the young farmers too, who are telling their moms and
dads how to run things, you know, because they know
how to, they've got their amazing and the science and
(28:23):
the technology that's around farming now is incredible and actually
they understand.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
Greda where is Kerry. We actually invested quite a lot
on things like pest eradication, wilding pines, some of the
R and D around sustainable farming. We put millions of
dollars into supporting farmers with that so yes, we did
do that. I don't think we gave farmers the public
acknowledgment that they deserved and so you know I'm making
up for that now.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Hopefully very informative show one of your best may shape
further choices for me. Thank you for the opposite views. Also,
it is true balance there we go. See everyone's a
critic positive and negative news talk said, b We're almost there.
We've got five minutes to go, so just fire off
some quick for you. Your future fund. Aren't you worried
that's going to go tits up like the DFC if
(29:10):
we're speculating in businesses.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Absolutely not, because like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, those
decisions will be made by you know, independent experts. We
already have some funding now through the I think it's
Accelerate Fund, So there is already president for government to
be doing this. We want to do it at a
larger scale, but very it's certainly not replicating the DFC.
(29:33):
I think lots of lessons to be learned from that.
That will happen when I was still a child.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Same but I love history and we learn from history.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Okay, what have you learned? What lessons have you learned
the biggest lessons from your time in government? We learn
more from our mistakes.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
Yeah, not to do too much. Actually, focus on being
very clear on what your goals are, very clear on
what your targets are, and trying to do a smaller
number of things and do them well.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
How will you know if they're well? How much does
ideology have a part in setting policy?
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Fundamentally, I'm a prag So you look at the outcomes
that we're achieving. Now you look at the improvement that
you want to get. One of the things I want
to take healthcare. I want fewer people showing up in
hospital with avoidable illness. Measure against that.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Progress that comes from wealth, the wealth of time and
being able to afford decent food.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
And going to the doctor when you need it, and.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Not sending rich people there. The worried, well, that would
be good law and order. Your police commissioner turned out
to be a bit of a disappointment.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
I was hugely disappointed and Andrew Costa, you know, I
had thought that, you know, I'm still struggling to comprehend
how he knew that information about jeven McK skimming and
did not share it.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
It's disappointing. Would you take it a firmer line on
law and order than you did when you're in government
last time? Seems to be working.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
Yeah. I think there are parts of what the current
government are doing where we wouldn't see any change. No
change to the gang pitch ban policy, areas like youth crime.
Less focus on the boot camps, more focus on the
bit that is working.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
And I think they picked up on what you were doing, which.
Speaker 4 (31:07):
Is that intensive support around the families to stop those
kids re offending. So definitely more in that space.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Would you keep the Social Investment Agency? Yes, yep.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
And actually, you know it's a bit of a grab
bag of what they announced yesterday, bearing in mind they've
cut a lot of the funding for the programs they're
now giving funding back to. But yes, that approach of saying,
let's look carefully at what programs are delivering and which
programs aren't I don't agree with they were doing.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
I think they weren't just handing out money holders bowlers.
They wanted to see what worked. And you know that
would be a good lesson to take on board too.
From last time there was a lot of money going
out without clear measurable outcomes.
Speaker 4 (31:44):
I think again, Kerry, the transition is important here, so
cutting funding for a program, leaving a big hole and
then coming back and saying, oh, actually we decided that
you were doing a good job. After all, You've got
to avoid doing that, but saying to programs that aren't delivering, actually,
we're going to invest that money in programs that are
delivering better outcomes. I'm on board with that.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Do you have the team to lead the country, because
in twenty three you had five ministers go it's a
tough environment. It's really tough.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
It is a tough environment. But I set very high
standards for ministers, and when they didn't meet them, they
went And I think I will do the same again
next time. I think Kristoph Luxan hasn't set high enough
standards for ministers, and I want to set on well.
I think if you look at some of the behavior
that he's allowing, you know, well, giving fast track to
your political donors should be a big, big no no.
(32:35):
Allowing ministers to criticize judicial decisions should be a big
no no.
Speaker 5 (32:40):
You know.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
Enforcing standards of ministerial conduct is something that the Prime
Minister should do a lot more of you're going to.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Take the moral high ground on ministerial standards.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
Yep. When Stuart Nash criticized the Commissioner of Police, he
was no longer a minister.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
There was plenty more there where that came from. It
wasn't a first offense.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
No, it wasn't. But you know, we went through a
process there. But I set high standards and I will
do so again.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Okay, Hey, happy happy engagement too.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
Oh, thank you, it's been it's been lovely. Actually, it
has been very nice to get some positive feedback from
around the country. Yeah, yeah, you know, we'll have.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
To ask all the questions we asked of Jacinda at
the time other media did, like what will you be wearing?
Any babies planned?
Speaker 4 (33:24):
We haven't got a date or a venue or you know,
an invitation list even yet, so a bit of work
to sort through there.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Oh that's nice. I mean, a bit of good news
is always lovely. And you've chosen Golden Horse. Maybe tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
Yeah, it's a maybe nice nice message. Maybe tomorrow, you know,
maybe tomorrow, maybe twenty six.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Lovely to have you and have a great Christmas.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
Cheers For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to
news talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the carry Wood and Morning's podcast from
news Talk, said B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
News Talk said B. Indeed, seven minutes past ten oh
eight hundred eighty ten eighty is the number to call
to put your question to the leader of the opposition
who's starting to come up with policy.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Go you.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I didn't think I was going to see you because
I said, until we have policy, we can't chat.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
Because now we've got plenty to chat about.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
They had and look at you coming up with Although
I have to say your strategy of just sitting back
and waiting for people to get irritated with the coalition
government was working quite well.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
Well and it still is working quite well. But you know,
I've heard the message from people. They want to know
what we would do differently, and we are starting to
set out more of that now.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yeah, it's interesting though. I was looking back at some
of the clips from when you were Prime Minister in
twenty three and the postcard you sent from abroad. There
will be no capital gains tax and any government I
run end of story.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Well we've added a word there. You said any government.
I said, if we'd lead the government after the next election,
there'll be no capital gains tax, and of course we lost,
and I think when you lose you do have to
go back to the drawing board and say, okay, well
you didn't vote for what we were offering last time,
so we're going to have to offer something different next time.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
So that makes it not a fib Then.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
No, absolutely, if we had won the election, there would
have been no capital gains tax. But I've always said
on issues like tax, you should make your policy term
by term, and any change to it you should have
a mandate for. So I think the key thing here
is that people should know what they're voting for, and
if you're going to rule something out, then you have
to honor that. If you're going to rule something in,
then you should honor that. But you shouldn't change your
(01:46):
mind halfway through a parliamentary term and vote for something
that you said you weren't going to vote for.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
No, not during a parliamentary term. But what happens when
you have to form a coalition, which you know you
had the glorious mandate that I think those days are
far behind any political party you're going to have to
form a coalition government rules you know, absolutes don't exist
in a coalition.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
I think people expect under mp there will be a
degree of compromise. There will have to be some trade offs.
I'd say a couple of things to that. One is,
the stronger, the bigger party, the less you have to
compromise and trade off. But the second is that you
shouldn't do things that you've said you're not going to
do as part of that kind of compromise trade off.
So if you say, for example, as I have said,
we won't implement a wealth tax after the election, you
(02:32):
shouldn't enter around and say, oh, well they made us
do it. If you've said you're not going to do it,
then you shouldn't do it. So in other words, it
shouldn't or won't won't I won't So you know, I
think that's really important. People shouldn't know what they're voting for.
And ultimately what that means under MMP is if you
can't get a majority of parties who have said they'll
support something, then it doesn't happen. And you know, under
(02:54):
MMP you're sure you have to have compromise, you might
have to say, look, those parties weren't willing to go
as far as we were willing to go, so we
had to compromise or they wanted to go further, but
we committed to supporting what we'd said we were going
to support before the election. I think New Zealanders understand
the nuance of MMP. What I think they get frustrated
by is where you end up signing up for things
(03:15):
that you said you weren't going to support.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Well, I think that's what a lot of people were
brassed off with Labor with last time, was that they
found themselves being presented with policies that they didn't know
you were going to introduce. Have you learned your lesson
from that?
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Absolutely, I've heard that criticism. So if you think about
things like water reform, for example, that was hugely controversial
and we hadn't campaigned on that. Now, I think that
the structural reform we were talking about was still a
much more efficient way of delivering water, but we hadn't
talked about things like co governance and that became such
a big debate and we didn't have a public mandate
for what we were trying to do there. I don't
(03:53):
want to repeat that, so I've been really clear. I'll
be campaigning clearly on the changes that we want to
make and the things that we're taking off the table,
and I want to honor that.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
After the election, hys Wawbrick and the Greens, you will
need them to be a government. She wants to be
Finance Minister, and they will argue that we have to
have major reform of our taxation system and the way
wealth is distributed in this country.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
I've said that we should introduce a simple, targeted capital
gains tax and that's as far as Labor is willing
to go.
Speaker 5 (04:27):
Now.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
The Greens can campaign on whatever they like, and I
respect that they're a different political party, but they can't
make another party support something that they have said that
they won't support. So when I say we won't support
a broader capital gains tax and we won't support a
wealth tax, that's a bottom line. We simply won't support
something that we've said before the election we won't support.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Well, how will you govern?
Speaker 4 (04:50):
Where are the Greens going to go? Ultimately? Are they
going to go and form a government with national who
want to do even less than Labor does?
Speaker 2 (04:55):
They might do confidence and supply. Who would have ever
have seen you know Tapati Maori in its previous iteration
before it imploded supporting National, and yet they did.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
I think we have to be a bit more mature
about our MMP environment and we have to say, look,
the minority governments are possible where you know, smaller parties
give them, give the bigger party or whoever's leading the
government of confidence and supply without the intricate agreements that
we've seen in the past. I think we've got to
keep all of those options on the table.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
All Right, we'll go to our callers because we have Andy,
who'd like to put a question to you. Good morning, Andy,
good morning, good morning.
Speaker 6 (05:30):
Question. I asked the same of the PM the other day,
actually on the same channel. Well, you will National and
Labor hopefully agree to some things that you do that
are non negotiable, as in, you know, like transport or
how for education. Stuff you don't stuff around with all
the time. I find that with the Labor Party, anything
(05:53):
you guys say, or sorry, anything the National say, you're
just going to go opposite no matter what it is.
At some point you two have to agree that the
bestment of New Zealand that some things are not to
be touched. And that's my question.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Yeah, and statement too. I think we're all a bit
fed up with that.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
I totally agree with the sentiment there. I think that
there's been We're too small a country to have the
degree of flip flopping that we have had, and particularly
on some of those big issues like infrastructure, where we're
talking about billions of dollars worth of capital spending that
takes often a decade or more. So, you know those
big roads for example, you're talking ten years and the planning, design,
the build. You know, it's ten years between WAE to
(06:34):
go for those at a minimum in some cases, and
we've chopped and changed far too much. So are we
willing to talk to them about that and kind of
try and achieve a degree more of more stability there. Yes, absolutely,
I'm a bit worried that they've committed to too many
roads that they don't know how they're going to pay
for yet fifty five billion dollars worth of roads and
they haven't And even Chris Bishop has said in the
(06:54):
last few weeks, Look, it's going to be a long
time before we build all of these roads. But we
need to keep things pointing in the right direction and
keep the momentum going there. So yes, on that. On
resource management acts, again, I think there's been way too
much flip flopping there. So I've said to Chris Bishop,
I've talked about it with him just this week. I said, look,
let's see if we can find you know, some common ground.
(07:17):
I reckon we're about eighty percent of the way there.
If they're willing to split the difference, you know, they'll
get ten percent of what they want. You know, of
that last twenty percent, they get ten percent, we get
ten percent. Then, Actually, I think people would prefer that
they get some certainty there. So I've totally absolutely left
the door open to working with them on that and
even things like KEII Saver. They made an announcement over
the weekend. I'm broadly supportive of increasing key WE Saver
(07:39):
contributions over time, and I think that the timetable they've
set out is not on an unreasonable one. But what
they haven't done is set out more detail around how
you support low income workers, people who aren't in the workforce,
and so on. So all of those things, I think
there's room for more labor and national working together to
achieve some kind of agreement and a bit more stability.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
And no barrel politics. But why don't we just have
an Infrastructure Commission. In any education commission of best practice,
not public service bureaucrats, but best practice practitioners who have
real world experience, who can present to the government of
the day it's firm recommendations and remove the politics from
(08:20):
it full stop. It's quite frankly, I don't trust either
of you guys to leave politics out of it.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
Two of those examples, so infrastructure and education. On infrastructure,
I agree with you. We set up the Infrastructure Commission,
the current government have continued it. I think that's a
much better way of planning long term infrastructure. It does
take some of the politics out of it. If we
stick to what they're recommending and we have a credible
plan for how to pavor what they're recommending, I think
that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
So in the little valve where you can let off
your political steam and have your bike trails or your
whatever is on this side.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
That's right. There can be a bit of the margins,
but actually on the big projects, thet's just get on
with it. On education, I agree with the sentiment. What's
happening at the moment with the curriculum ry right, for example,
is that they're not involving the experts. It's actually being
very politically driven, and I think their school career shouldn't
be dictated by politicians and it shouldn't change when the
government changes. I think it's kids education is too important
(09:12):
for that.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
It's been failing for years.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Yeah, but one of the challenges there is, you know,
Erica Stanford posted something on Facebook this morning that somebody
sent me of something at an extract from the maths
curriculum that clearly was written by someone at the Ministry
of Education that was largely unintelligible to the general public.
So there's a risk of saying, let's just leave it
to the experts. You still do need to.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Say I said, no, bureaucrats, not the Ministry of Education.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
Well at Coractice. In the case of education, you know,
there are passionate people there who know a lot about it,
but you.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Still need to make sure they are ideology still going.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
To make sure it's understandable to the general public.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
So you would dabble with what the changes that have
been made.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
I'm worried that it's becoming far too political. I'd like
to take the politics out of the school curriculum. This
is the debate we're having around the curriculum now is
more political than in any of the time that I
have been involved in education, and I do worry that
it's become too political.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
News talk said be Leader of the opposition, Chris Hipkins
is in st for the next forty minutes, taking your questions.
I had a text yesterday saying, why do you refer
to him as the leader of the opposition. There are
other opposition parties, so politics one oh one, the leader
of the biggest party in opposition becomes de facto leader
(10:22):
of the opposition.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
So that's quite right. That's right.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
There we go. Every day's a learning opportunity. Hello, Matt. First, Matt,
we've got two mats in a row. You're the first one.
Speaker 7 (10:33):
Yeah, gooda. I've already I rang up last time when
you were going to tip hear about capital gains tax.
And now you've bought in this capital gains tax. But
what are you doing about the tax deductibility on rentals. Well,
here's a scenario. I've got a house that I live
in and I've bought a rental that I'm one hundred
percent lending on under your government, and also get in
I'd have to sell that because I can't afford to
(10:55):
pay the tax on it, and I've bought that as
a retirement, so we do have kids at home, I
can downtown, and you basically just stuck my dream. So
what are you going to do about that?
Speaker 4 (11:05):
Yeah, we haven't made the final decision on interest deductibility yet,
but I have heard the feedback from landlords that one
hundred percent removal of interest deductibility did actually make continuing
to be a landlord impossible for some of the people
who were in the market landlords. So we've heard that.
We'll set that out when we set out our alternative budget,
(11:27):
our attornative fiscal plan next year. But I've heard the feedback,
so you know, watch the space.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Because when it was first announced that deductibility was being
removed and I had callers saying, we're just going to
sell our properties, I thought, you're not going to sell
your properties. They sold their properties and it became really
difficult to house people.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
Yeah, I think, Look, we've heard the feedback from people.
We're working through the detail of what our policy in
that area will be at the next election, and it
will be different from the one we had last time.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Second, Matt, good morning too. From the New Zealand Property
Investors Association, Good morning.
Speaker 8 (12:03):
Good morning, Kerry, Good morning Chris. Sorry that half on
property investments so much, But yes, that last caller does
have a point, and I would say, Chris, even if
you bring it down it's say a fifty percent losses
and just aductibility, it's still going to cripple a lot
of property investors, particularly the ones with big mortgages. But anyway,
I just wanted to talk on something else, capital gains
tax that you brought in. You'd be interested to know that.
(12:25):
Actually there's quite a few of our members support a
comprehensive capital gains tax, but they're not thrilled about being
targeted by a capital gains tax. And the question I've
got for you is, when you reach your policy document,
investors are described in a way as being unproductive speculators.
There's a lot of that language in the policy document,
and our members of people who buy houses do them up.
(12:47):
They're more likely to be seen and sort of paint
spattered overalls working on their properties. They're not the sort
of speculator, the unproductive person. They put a lot of
effort into it. Why does labor see property investors landlords
like that?
Speaker 4 (13:03):
So we don't see all property and as the same,
you know, so you'll get a spectrum there from people
who buy houses, don't do anything to them, extract the rents,
bank the capital gains, and don't improve their properties. But
then you will get other people like the ones that
you've just talked about, the people who really work hard
to provide a good standard of rental accommodation. You know,
(13:24):
they go and do the maintenance themselves. They're very quick
to respond when tenants raise issues and so on, and
so you've got the full spectrum there, and I totally
understand that. But property investment by definition, is a less
productive investment than investing in a business that employs people.
And so what we do want to see more of
in New Zealander is investment in businesses, investments in the
(13:47):
parts of our economy that are going to grow more
jobs and more opportunity for New Zealanders.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
But we've also had people who have said that at
the moment they've got young kids, they're working well, you know,
their business is going great. They could be doing more,
like they could be more productive, but they're nervous of
labor getting back in because they don't want to take
on the risk of growing their business and buying, investing
(14:12):
in more capital, taking on more staff and the inherent
issues with that, at the risk of having it taxed heavily.
They're just bubbling along just nicely. They'll keep it at that,
thank you very much. They're just not willing to take
that risk when they won't be rewarded for that risk.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
Well, one of the reasons we've said that businesses Kiwi
saver farms should not be covered by capital gains tax
is we do want people investing more in productive businesses
and we don't want to send any kind of message
that we would discourage that. So you know, the National
Party's doing a lot of scare mongering about it at
the moment. But businesses, Kiwi, saver farms, the family home,
(14:47):
none of these things would be covered by capital gains tax.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
But I don't think it's necessary. I think the Greens
are doing more scare mongering than National And again you
are going to have to need them unless something miraculous
takes place between now and next October, you will need
the Greens and they will have their own set up
ideas and but they will tax businesses.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
That may be very very clear of Labour's capital gains tax.
A targeted simple capital gains tax is our bottom line here.
We will not support something that we have told the
public of New Zealand before the election that we will
not support.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
You might have to go into coalition with National Just
a text to here. I'm a teacher. What Chris said
about politics and education is absolute rubbish. The last Labor
government pushed so much into schools and completely changed the
way we educate our children. John, good morning to you. Hello, John, good.
Speaker 9 (15:40):
Morning, Good morning, Verry, good morning, Chris, good morning. My
question is I'm an ex labor supporter. Same, I didn't
vote in a loud solution.
Speaker 10 (15:52):
Same.
Speaker 9 (15:53):
My thing is, how are you going to convince us
to go back to you at to labor? What you
are you going to to do to convince a lot
of labor people that.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
Jumped Yeah, thanks very much. Maybe can I ask you
a question? I know this by turning talk back on
its head. Why didn't you vote for us last time?
Speaker 9 (16:22):
I think it ended up being tails to me, Labor
sort of was jumping at everything to try and get
to convince people to move.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
Yeah. I think that's a fair criticism. You know, we
were trying to do too much, and I think that
is a key lesson. One of the things that I
was really clear about after the election is we can't
pretend that you know that the voters were wrong. They
didn't You know a lot of people like you who
voted for us previously didn't vote for us. And if
we didn't hear the message that you sent us and
that then we clearly we're going to be in the
(16:53):
wrong and we're going to continue to lose. So our
next government will be much more focused on the core
priorities that I've set out. Jobs, health, homes, cost of living.
Those are the things I know New Zealanders want to
see us focused on. So we'll be focus on fewer
things and doing fewer things well rather than trying to
do everything will be predictable, So I don't want us
doing a whole lot of things after the election that
(17:15):
we hadn't told people about before the election, and we
will be focused on the things that actually help working
people to get ahead, so that you know, if you
get ahead through your own hard work, you should have
a government that's backing that.
Speaker 9 (17:30):
That's exactly right, because a lot of these people were
people there for a single income family and they were struggling,
you know, and they just weren't seeing the light.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Yeah, and post COVID, we saw that big spike in
inflation and it wasn't just in New Zealand, but it
was around the world. But I know how much families
really suffered from that and still are. You know, the
cost of living is still going up. And that's why
I've put the cost of living in the top four
issues that we're focused on, because you know, people are
working hard. You know, we've got some of the hardest
(18:03):
working people in the world. If you look at the
number of our that our New Zealanders are working, and
they're just feeling like they're going backwards. And that shouldn't
be the case. It should be that if you're working
really hard, that you should actually feel like you're making progress.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Thank you, John Newstalalk said a textas says a given
labor have said they'll put the oil exploration bands back
in place, and the last government made it onerous for
our agricultural sector to operate. How's it going to get
the growth and investment this country so desperately needs. And Jeff,
you have a power question too.
Speaker 5 (18:33):
Good morning, Kerry and Chris, my power question is that
back in the nineties, National sold off forty nine percent
of the power as it is with contact with all
the others now. Back then we were told that they
would be in control of the power and that it
will end up being cheaper for New Zealand. However, look
(18:54):
at none of the governments have ever intervened, and that's
been the reason that we've had a number of businesses
closed where wholesale rates went from one hundred and sixty
dollars to over eight hundred dollars, and yet now still
talk further fixed price increases. What do you say to that, Chris,
are you willing to look at changing by actually controlling
(19:17):
this going forward?
Speaker 4 (19:19):
Yeah, Energy is a huge issue for New Zealand, and
even businesses now are saying that the market's failing and
that we're paying too high a price for electricity. They
are big gen tailor companies, the companies that both generate
and retail electricity have focused on extracting dividends out of
the country rather than investing in new generation. Renewable electricity
is a lot cheaper than fossil feels like oil, gas
(19:42):
and coal, and so that's why we've said, we want
to see more renewable generation in New Zealand to bring
down power prices.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Renewables aren't coming fast enough to fill the market, which
is driving up the cost of electricity. And that the
gas and the fact that there isn't as much gas
as you thought there might be has left some industry
as completely moribund. They've had to shut the doors.
Speaker 4 (20:03):
That's one of the reasons we've got to accelerate renewable
in Renewable energy actually is quicker to build than fossil fuels.
So even if the government drill new holes and find
new gas now, it's going to be years before that
ever makes it into the gas pipeline. And so. On
the other hand, things like solar, wind and geothermal geo
(20:25):
thermals also has quite long lead times as well. But
geo thermal is a far better option for New Zealand
than gas because it has the same kind of properties
in terms of what it does for the market. You know,
it's a constant source of supply. It works when the
wind's not blowing and when the sun's not shining and
in the middle of the night, and so geothermal could
be huge for New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
But could be, could be, might be. You know that
great big thing that was set up in New Plymouth
is some kind of alternative to gas. What's it done?
Speaker 5 (20:52):
Well?
Speaker 4 (20:52):
We have seen an uptake in solar wind and other
forms of electricity.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
It's not powering the industries that are closing their doors.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
They're stuffed well. And actually they were going to be
facing this problem regardless because there.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Is less gas, but they would have more time, and
they would have more time for these renewables to come
online and be more reliable.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
Even if five years ago the government had miraculously found
more guess, bearing in mind, we spent ten years looking
for guess and didn't find any. Even if more had
been found five years ago, it still probably wouldn't be
solving the problem that we've got now. It takes a
long time to bring more guess into the market that
we do have to have a conversation about what we
do without remaining guess supplies. There is still guess there.
(21:33):
We've got much, and we've got conversations about how we
use that.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Do you know I'm so sick of conversations. I just
want to be able to turn a switch on and
have my machine power up, so that my one hundred
men and women can make the stuff that sells overseas
and makes us money.
Speaker 4 (21:49):
Well, there are choices. Methodix exports a lot of the
guests that we produce at the moment. They basically process
it and export it. And you know, yes, there are
a couple of hundred jobs there, which are good, valuable jobs.
But the cost of them doing that forcing up the
cost of guests for everybody else is costing hundreds of
jobs else were around the country. So there are choices
that governments need to make about what happens with our
(22:10):
remaining natural guess supplies. The other option for us is
cause is biogas. So we're currently producing only about one
percent of our guests for bioguess, but we could be
producing forty fifty percent of our guests through well.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
So that's pie in the sky and can't come quickly enough.
What are you going to do for somebody who's facing
a rising power bill to keep the business going well
and not have a conversation?
Speaker 4 (22:32):
There are options around biogas. So we produce one percent
now by processing about one hundred thousand tons of food
waste into biogas every year. We send four million tons
of food waste into landfill every year. You convert that
to biogas, and there's forty percent of the country's guest
supply taking care of through biogas quickly, and it can
happen reasonably quickly quickly, well within years, as opposed to decades.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Well, see that's not enough for businesses. This is a
small country, you know, when you look at places like
Oakuni that have seen basically the area is gone, you're dead.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
But this is the challenge that we have. You could
spend the next decade drilling for more gas not find any,
and we're still going to be in this problem. There
are options that we can come on stream much faster
than that.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Just talking to you reminds me why I didn't vote
for label last time. It's just the conversations.
Speaker 5 (23:20):
Bruce, good morning, Yes, good morning.
Speaker 10 (23:23):
Hi Chris, how are you?
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (23:25):
Good?
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Thank you?
Speaker 10 (23:26):
How are you hi? Good? Thank you? Look, just cut
the things. First thing. You keep saying that you know,
the cost of living is a bad thing in his illness.
It really is, But I haven't heard you come up
with many suggestions as to how you intend to actually
(23:47):
bring down the cost of living.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
So a lot that's out of your hands too, and
any government's hands. So how will you do that?
Speaker 4 (23:54):
Good point, Bruce, Yeah, thanks Bruce. Good point. And to
be to close off that conversation, Kerry, we will have
a different energy policy before the next election. It won't
just be about conversations, but it will be about making
sure we do something about power prices tomorrow, so wait
and see. But early next year we'll set out our
energy policy and it will be different. The other area
around cost of living, take health care. Going to the
(24:15):
doctor is getting far too expensive for people, so we've
said that we will make three free doctor's visits available
to every New Zealander.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
It's done.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
I'd rather people went to the doctor before they got
sick than showed up in a hospital emergency department after
they've already gotten sick.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Why not six visits for those families that need it
rather than three for everyone many who don't need it.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
Because if people show up in an emergency department because
they haven't gone to the doctor in the first place,
we all end up paying for that. So we hospital care,
but we don't pay for preventative health care, which is
actually a better investment.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Why not instead of saying you can afford to take
the kids to the doctor. I can afford to take
the kids to the doctor. Why not give families who
might need to take five or six visits to the doctor.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
And s alry free for us to take our kids
to the doctor. And that's a good thing, and it
means parents are more likely to take their kids to
the doctor. Parents themselves, on the other hand, are more
likely just wait, okay, condition gets worse before I go
to the doctor. And we're saying we'd rather that you
went to the doctors.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Ry, not five or six to those who need it
rather than those who don't.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
The majority of people will get free healthcare. The vast
majority of people will get free healthcare with three free
doctors visits a year.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
I didn't want to glare gimlet eyed at you, but
I just did. Gosh, Kerrie, shut up. Kerry Woodham as
a host is so one eyed and unintelligent, clearly learned
her knowledge from a blue wet weatbox box.
Speaker 4 (25:40):
We were just talking about how people were being a
bit nicer to the media these days, that that message
doesn't seem to exemplify that.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Linds is polite. Could you please stop being so rude?
And let the listeners speak rather than you. Okay, all right, Glenn,
over to you. I'll shut up from here on in.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Good morning, Good morning, Chris, Thank you's dgging my call.
I'm a farmer. I just want to congratulate you on
your red beans initial if you're doing with cutter out
of farmers, really good to get back in the paddock.
You guys flip the South Island in twenty one and
then you burned all that political capital with David Parker.
He's gone, thank goodness, and got Joe Lutson. She's gone
(26:18):
around saying that it's going to be pollute the payers
as far as water is concerned. Is that going to
be a fetch based or does the Labor Party still
believe that all farmers are able to destroy New Zeald.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
I've spent a lot of time visiting farms. Thanks very
much for the question and the acknowledgement of the work
we've been doing. We're not allowed to call it red bends.
I think we're breaching some some various trademarks and stuff
like that. But Labor has been engaging with farmers around
the country a lot over the last year, and I've
really enjoyed that I've visited quite a few farms. It's
changed my mind about farming. I'll be upfront about that.
(26:50):
You know, I think farmers are doing way more than
we give them credit for in terms of environmental protection.
And I've seen that upfront firsthand. Hadn't seen that until
the last couple of years, and I think we should
give farmers more credit for that. So we'll have different
we'll have quite a different approach in that it's this
area because of the conversations we've been having from farmers
and that includes water. We haven't locked that down yet.
(27:10):
We're in the conversations about it, but the feedback from
farmers has been really positive around us just getting on
the ground and seeing what you're doing, you know, the
fencing of waterways, the practical constraints around water, I think
is something that we've really taken that feedback on board.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
Yeah, and that thank you for that. So that's great.
So just to remember we're not all dead, right, and
we do bring in billions and billions and billions of
dollars for you to try around and feel good about.
So just remember we're not all like David Parker thinks
we are. Okay, he's gone thank god. So you just
John has move the doll on what farmers are doing,
what we bring to the contrary and the thik that
(27:49):
we're having on the country. So thank you, thank you,
good on you.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
And look, you know, to be fair, I've seen some
amazing farming practice in New Zealand, some of the best
environmental protection you could possibly imagine, and we should give
the farmers credit for that.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
We were you weren't. Honestly I had to sit there
and put my fist in my mouth not to chime
in with when you're going on about oh, yes, I've
seen this and that, Yes, amazing what happens when you
get out of Wellington and see what's going on. Honestly,
the young farmers too, who are telling their moms and
dads how to run things, you know, because they know
how to, they've got their amazing and the science and
(28:23):
the technology that's around farming now is incredible and actually
they understand.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
Greda where is Kerry. We actually invested quite a lot
on things like pest eradication, wilding pines, some of the
R and D around sustainable farming. We put millions of
dollars into supporting farmers with that so yes, we did
do that. I don't think we gave farmers the public
acknowledgment that they deserved and so you know I'm making
up for that now.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Hopefully very informative show one of your best may shape
further choices for me. Thank you for the opposite views. Also,
it is true balance there we go. See everyone's a
critic positive and negative news talk said, b We're almost there.
We've got five minutes to go, so just fire off
some quick for you. Your future fund. Aren't you worried
that's going to go tits up like the DFC if
(29:10):
we're speculating in businesses.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Absolutely not, because like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, those
decisions will be made by you know, independent experts. We
already have some funding now through the I think it's
Accelerate Fund, So there is already president for government to
be doing this. We want to do it at a
larger scale, but very it's certainly not replicating the DFC.
(29:33):
I think lots of lessons to be learned from that.
That will happen when I was still a child.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Same but I love history and we learn from history.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Okay, what have you learned? What lessons have you learned
the biggest lessons from your time in government? We learn
more from our mistakes.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
Yeah, not to do too much. Actually, focus on being
very clear on what your goals are, very clear on
what your targets are, and trying to do a smaller
number of things and do them well.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
How will you know if they're well? How much does
ideology have a part in setting policy?
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Fundamentally, I'm a prag So you look at the outcomes
that we're achieving. Now you look at the improvement that
you want to get. One of the things I want
to take healthcare. I want fewer people showing up in
hospital with avoidable illness. Measure against that.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Progress that comes from wealth, the wealth of time and
being able to afford decent food.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
And going to the doctor when you need it, and.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Not sending rich people there. The worried, well, that would
be good law and order. Your police commissioner turned out
to be a bit of a disappointment.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
I was hugely disappointed and Andrew Costa, you know, I
had thought that, you know, I'm still struggling to comprehend
how he knew that information about jeven McK skimming and
did not share it.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
It's disappointing. Would you take it a firmer line on
law and order than you did when you're in government
last time? Seems to be working.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
Yeah. I think there are parts of what the current
government are doing where we wouldn't see any change. No
change to the gang pitch ban policy, areas like youth crime.
Less focus on the boot camps, more focus on the
bit that is working.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
And I think they picked up on what you were doing, which.
Speaker 4 (31:07):
Is that intensive support around the families to stop those
kids re offending. So definitely more in that space.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Would you keep the Social Investment Agency? Yes, yep.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
And actually, you know it's a bit of a grab
bag of what they announced yesterday, bearing in mind they've
cut a lot of the funding for the programs they're
now giving funding back to. But yes, that approach of saying,
let's look carefully at what programs are delivering and which
programs aren't I don't agree with they were doing.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
I think they weren't just handing out money holders bowlers.
They wanted to see what worked. And you know that
would be a good lesson to take on board too.
From last time there was a lot of money going
out without clear measurable outcomes.
Speaker 4 (31:44):
I think again, Kerry, the transition is important here, so
cutting funding for a program, leaving a big hole and
then coming back and saying, oh, actually we decided that
you were doing a good job. After all, You've got
to avoid doing that, but saying to programs that aren't delivering, actually,
we're going to invest that money in programs that are
delivering better outcomes. I'm on board with that.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Do you have the team to lead the country, because
in twenty three you had five ministers go it's a
tough environment. It's really tough.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
It is a tough environment. But I set very high
standards for ministers, and when they didn't meet them, they
went And I think I will do the same again
next time. I think Kristoph Luxan hasn't set high enough
standards for ministers, and I want to set on well.
I think if you look at some of the behavior
that he's allowing, you know, well, giving fast track to
your political donors should be a big, big no no.
(32:35):
Allowing ministers to criticize judicial decisions should be a big
no no.
Speaker 5 (32:40):
You know.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
Enforcing standards of ministerial conduct is something that the Prime
Minister should do a lot more of you're going to.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Take the moral high ground on ministerial standards.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
Yep. When Stuart Nash criticized the Commissioner of Police, he
was no longer a minister.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
There was plenty more there where that came from. It
wasn't a first offense.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
No, it wasn't. But you know, we went through a
process there. But I set high standards and I will
do so again.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Okay, Hey, happy happy engagement too.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
Oh, thank you, it's been it's been lovely. Actually, it
has been very nice to get some positive feedback from
around the country. Yeah, yeah, you know, we'll have.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
To ask all the questions we asked of Jacinda at
the time other media did, like what will you be wearing?
Any babies planned?
Speaker 4 (33:24):
We haven't got a date or a venue or you know,
an invitation list even yet, so a bit of work
to sort through there.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Oh that's nice. I mean, a bit of good news
is always lovely. And you've chosen Golden Horse. Maybe tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
Yeah, it's a maybe nice nice message. Maybe tomorrow, you know,
maybe tomorrow, maybe twenty six.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Lovely to have you and have a great Christmas.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
Cheers For more from Kerry Wooden 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.
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.
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.