All Episodes

June 26, 2024 34 mins

Its been a tough week for Kiwirail.

The Aratere ran aground on Friday night, and it was also revealed the same ship lost power last year due to faulty tape that was holding wiring in place.

To top it off, Kiwirail’s chair resigned last week, alongside revelations that the Finance Minister hauled Kiwirail bosses over the coals after discovering exorbitant consultant spending.

Act leader David Seymour and Labour's health and Wellington issues spokesperson Ayesha Verrall joined Adam Cooper to run through the Interislander's troubles, as well as the other political issues of the week.

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 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talk, said B, focusing in on the issues
that matter politics Thursday on Wellington Mornings News Talk said B. Politician,
can you make a right decision for all of us?

Speaker 2 (00:29):
For all of us? Seven past eleven Wellington Mornings on
News Talks B Adam Cooper and for Nick Mills Today.
He will be back with you on Monday morning. After
the long weekends. It feels like a Friday, but it
is a Thursday, so we're sticking to script as we
always do between eleven and twelve on a Thursday. That
is our Politics Thursday Panel. Great to welcome into the

(00:52):
studio for this week's edition. ACT Leader and Regulation Minister
David Symol. Morning, David, good, Adam, how are you. I'm good,
I'm good. Good to see you. Thanks for popping by.

Speaker 3 (01:01):
Yeah, no, it's always nicer to be in studio. And
so you know, the old can't beat Wellington things. We've
got a nice view out over the suburbs up to
the hills.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
Here beautiful, it's beautiful. It looks like a cracker out there.
Hopefully get amongst it after after midday today and Labour's
Health and Wellington Issue spokesperson Aishaviel over the phone morning, Aisha.

Speaker 4 (01:20):
Yeah, gooda Adam, Gooday, David and Sork. I can't join
you in the studio. I'm waiting for my speaking slot
to come up in the House and we're under urgency.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
Okay, we'll forgive you for that. Then we'll forgive you
to that. We miss you, but hey, we'll lightfully see
you again soon. We'll start with you. I sure, I
mean it's been Parliament's been back sitting this week. How
have you have you rated the opposition's performance this week?

Speaker 4 (01:39):
Look, I think one of the things that really came
through from Scrutiny Week the week before is that, you know,
we had a lot of ability to get attention to
a shoes that we were interested in and concerned about,
and so a lot of this week has been following,
following up on those issues in the House. And I
can tell you one of the really interesting things for

(02:01):
me about Scrutiny Week is I think it did elevate
the visibility of the Opposition on some issue. Had numerous
emails from members of the public following up on some
of their concerns about things in the health system and
people coming up to me on the street over the
weekend to talk about things that they had heard in
the press. So overall, I think it was good for
our democracy to have those opportunities and for us to

(02:24):
be able to push on some of the issues that
have since been resolved, like the SARMAC, meds funding a shoe,
but of course the ongoing issue of staffing and our
hospitals have been big areas of concern that the public
had followed up with me about.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
David, did you feel scrutinized during Scrutiny Week and how's
this week gone for you?

Speaker 3 (02:43):
Well, first of all, I think it's really important that
our parliament evolves as a voice of the people, and
scrutiny Week, the idea of putting aside quite substantial time
like having a couple of hours for opposition MPs to
ask minister's questions, is a really good thing. So I
think Ice is right. It raised the profile of the

(03:05):
opposition and I've got to say the current state of
the opposition that the government's not unhappy about that.

Speaker 2 (03:12):
All right, Well, let's get into the topics at hand.
Lots that are talking Well, obviously Inter Island has been
a big issue for over the past week. The Ratari
obviously running aground last Friday nights just north of picked
and it's currently docked with a detention notice near picked In.
It was also revealed this week the Uther Tedy lost
power last year due to faulty tape that was holding
some wiring in place. Kiwi Rails chairs resigned, alongside revelations

(03:36):
at the minister hauled Kiwi Rail bosses over the coals
after discovering some exorbitant consultant spending. David in the backdrop
of the decision to cancel the big Irex project last year,
I mean, what's your take on where everything's at with
the inter Islander and the other of Teddy right now?

Speaker 3 (03:53):
Well, I just make a point about this that I've
sort of become more and more aware of. In government,
a lot of people believe that public ownership is somehow good,
that there's just something warm and fuzzy about it, and
that somehow if the public owns something then the results
are going to be better. And I try and tell

(04:15):
people that you've got to be a bit practical about it.
What it means is that that that the public are
a shareholder and they need a politician to be their representative,
and often you'll find that the people that get elected
to office don't actually have the kind of expertise to
be the sole shareholder. And a large range of commercial

(04:38):
companies that are doing complex things like trying to run
railways and sales ships across cock Strait and so on.
So really, I think what's happened right throughout the saga
is that you've had a group of people, you know,
well meaning god elected, good at politics. They're representing the
public as a shareholder. But have they been asking the

(04:59):
right questions and getting value for money. I would say
in the case of Irex, absolutely not. For example, one
of the things that's come to light is that the
ships that they ordered were much bigger than the current
inter island of Fairies, and the harbor master at Picton said, well,
I actually don't think it's safe for these ships to

(05:19):
fit through the Tory channel. Now you're listening at home,
listening in your shop, or listening in the.

Speaker 5 (05:23):
Car, you can't be that bad.

Speaker 3 (05:26):
But I just make the point that when you talk
about the government owning stuff, you know you are relying
on a politician to make major commercial decisions that they
may not be prepared to do and keep people accountable
as a shareholder, and often they don't have the skills
to do that, and it is just a massive mess.
And the only good news is that no one got hurt.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
Yeah, I s will come to you on this in
a moment of David, I just want to ask, do
you think with what's happened now that Nikola Willis regrets
not announcing an alternative plan when she canceled that project
last year?

Speaker 3 (05:57):
Well, I don't see how because not a huge amount
has changed. First of all, you know, we've got a
contract with Hu and I in Korea to get some
fairies that a aren't fit for purpose and B you know,
would require massive like three billion dollars worth of work
on the ports and the landslide and earthquakes, strengthening of

(06:19):
the wharves and getting the rail sorted out so the
trains can go strom mean all of that. So so
you know, that was a non starter that had to stop.
That also meant that the default is that Keiwi Rail
is stuck there with a contract and a project that
can't keep going because we're just not going to as shareholders,
We're not going to tip more of your money into it.

Speaker 5 (06:39):
It's taxpayers.

Speaker 3 (06:41):
And then the next question is where you've got these
fairies that don't work? So what happens next? You're going
to have to order some more now that there's nothing
Nikola Willis could have done. If she'd kept going, or
if our governments are had kept going with the current plan,
would be in a bigger mess. We stopped that plan.
Now we need to replace it. That's really challenging. But
I just also point out that there's a company called Bluebridge.

(07:03):
It's been running for twenty years. They've bought and sold
eight diferenties. They've never had a problem because their shareholders
are spending their own money and actually good at doing
the job. And that's the difference.

Speaker 4 (07:13):
AI.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
Sure, where do you sit on all this? We're almost
a week on now. Do you feel any progress has
been made, any reassurance has been given from the government
regarding the way forward?

Speaker 4 (07:23):
Well? No, In fact, I feel that those statements from
David are actually quite troubling because in my.

Speaker 3 (07:29):
View, we need that are any of them untrue.

Speaker 4 (07:34):
Stay owned infrastructure to be able to make sure that
we can move goods and peoples between our two main Islands,
and it is I think should be a substantial source
of anxiety to us that this appears to that we
now appear to be last in the queue for new
fairies because of the reckless and hasty decision probably taken

(07:56):
for political reasons to try and cancel the fairy contract.
But in the House yesterday we learned we haven't fully
canceled it and we may be on the hook for
over too hundred million dollars just for the cancelation alone.
So I think there are still substantial issues.

Speaker 5 (08:12):
You would fit through the channel.

Speaker 4 (08:14):
I am returning to your point here. It's not clear
to me that it is in the greater interest of
the country to walk away from this. I'm from your
you know, things like the suitability of the theories to
get through the strait obviously, and Tory channel that's absolutely critical.

(08:34):
But just throwing out facts that come to light without
there being a considered, considered look at this that's transparent,
I think is just a way of undermining what is
really important that air set that we continue to hold
in public in public.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
Hands, I should grub. Robertson on record was seemed to
be pretty concerned about this, as the cost of blearning
as well, though, was there some doubts starting to form
amongst the Labor government about this.

Speaker 4 (09:01):
Though, Whenever you come to a project that hits let's say,
choppy waters, the you know, the responsible government will stay
at the table and try and work those issues through
with people. And that was the point that direction Grant
was taken with us. I don't believe that there's really

(09:24):
an alternative alternative that's credibly developed Otherwise. I think when
we look across all our infrastructure and as pleased that
we had an event in Parliament with the good bipartisan
support there. Minister of Infrastructure christ Bishop attended, as did
many members of the Labor Party to discuss not just
the theories, but our transport, our hospitals, housing as well.

(09:48):
You know, we see that there is a need for
us as a country to be able to form long
term commitments to making sure we have these assets in place,
that we all agree to maintain them over time, and
that we don't, you know, whenever a new government comes
in and things get difficult, sell things off or start
putting tolls up and make our short term decisions because

(10:11):
it's politically convenient.

Speaker 2 (10:12):
David, can there be any benefit to the zel and
by these ferry staying in state ownership.

Speaker 3 (10:17):
Well, it is really interesting what Asher said that there
needs to be state owned infrastructure. But if that's true,
how do you explain the success of a private company
doing exactly the same thing moving goods across the channel
for twenty years.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
Do we know they make a profit?

Speaker 5 (10:32):
Well?

Speaker 3 (10:33):
I understand that they do, But here's the thing. I
don't really care because it's their money. If it's taxpayer money,
then I do care. And the fact is that they
have not taken a cent of taxpayer money. Kiwi Rail,
on the other hand, is a bottomless pit for taxpayer money.
People will go to work today and they will have
a third of their income taken off them by the

(10:55):
ird the end of the day, and we will take
that money and put it into a business that is
losing money doing the same thing as a business that
is actually making money. And you just have to ask yourself,
why are we doing this? It's share ideology, and I think,
you know, I should say, oh, we need, you know,
a careful considered approach. I mean, I totally agree, but

(11:16):
here's the reality. You know, the previous guys signed a
contract for ships that wouldn't fit through the channel that
started out a seven hundred million dollar project. Last we
heard it was going to cost three point two billion
dollars to make them fit at the wharf. And you
just have to ask yourself, like, you know, it is
doubling down always the best strategy because it sounds like,
you know, it's just like the Auckland light rail, it's

(11:37):
just like the bike bridge.

Speaker 5 (11:39):
You know, just about just like key we build.

Speaker 3 (11:41):
I mean, you know, these guys have left us with
one hundred billion dollar debt that we now have to
get back on top of because of this attitude that
when things get tough we double down, throw good money
after bad.

Speaker 5 (11:52):
New Zealand can't afford it.

Speaker 4 (11:54):
The reverse is there's a two hundred million dollar billion
dollar infrastructure deficit because right when governments come in and
they say we're going to have low debt, low taxes,
and we never get the hospitals, the row, the power
and the transport infrastructure that we need. So, you know,
I think there is a scope for a more mature discussion.
We started to have a beginning of that empolierament last night,

(12:16):
and it does every time there's a little problem with
the project which happens all the time when we're in government.
You have to work it through rather than say wow,
that's it, we give up.

Speaker 5 (12:28):
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (12:30):
Let's get a bit of reality here, Transmission Gully, who
who are to walkworth the wayout of expressway? I mean,
this is infrastructure that has been built when the Right's
been in power the last six years you guys had
we had this fantasy of light rail and Auckland and
light rail and Wellington. Nothing got built. Hundreds of millions
were actually wasted naval days and thinking about them.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
All right, well, we're going to give it off topic here,
but I just want to quickly before we take a break,
inter rite it. Are we going to see announcement on
these new ferries in the next the next month? David.

Speaker 3 (12:57):
Look, I think it's fair to say that, you know,
given that we inherited this contract, we need to actually
have the freedom to negotiate and get a good deal
for the taxpayer. And it probably doesn't help for you know,
ministers in Parliament to on the radio to start giving
away our game plan or our timing. But I can
tell you that you know, we've now got some new

(13:19):
management and plan in place. Sorry, who are treating the
taxpayer's dollar with respect? Trying to take us out of
this hole.

Speaker 2 (13:27):
Right been a big week for law and order announcements
by the Coalition governments. New three strikes legislation is coming,
there are new rules about how a young serious offender
is defined, and the latest yesterday from Paul Goldsmith discounts
on sentences being overhauled. I sure, what have you made
of the way some of these announcements have have played
out and what they've meant during the week.

Speaker 4 (13:49):
Oh look, I think the important thing is in the
context of some of the really horrendous crime was seen
reported recently, including in Pappa Toy Toy, I reflect on that,
and I think I would want something done if I
the family member of people who had them victims of
violent crime. In fact, I am related to someone who's

(14:13):
experienced violent crime. However, I worry the proposals won't prevent crime,
and they won't make anyone safer. They won't make there
be fewer victims. These types of proposals have been implemented
in New Zealand in the past, the three strikes proposals,
and also extensively around around the world, and you haven't

(14:34):
seen that. And then another theme that comes through in
the proposals the government have put forward has been the
removal of judges discretion. And while I don't doubt that's
the right of Parliament to do that, I do wonder
if we should be doing that. Judges have you know,
they hear the facts, they hear from the accused or

(14:56):
the person found guilty of the crime. They also hear
about the impacts that the crime has had on victims
and their families, and so I think that we should
be cautious about removing discretion from judges, as many of
these proposals do.

Speaker 2 (15:13):
David three strikess being seen by many as being slightly
tamer than the three strikes as we used to know,
Is that fair and why isn't it? Why has it
been slightly watered down?

Speaker 3 (15:23):
Well, I think you're a bit unfair saying it's been
watered down. Basically three levels here, there's the three strikes
that we had, and I think in some ways that
was actually less effective than what we're proposing now, and
the reason for that is that the judges didn't.

Speaker 5 (15:41):
Properly enforce it. That's the reality.

Speaker 3 (15:44):
Then there's the rule we have right now, labor got
rid of three strikes completely, so right now there is
no three strikes. What we're putting in place now, I
believe will be the most effective version of three strikes
yet because it says, yep, so there's an exemption for
crimes under twenty four months.

Speaker 4 (16:03):
Yep.

Speaker 3 (16:04):
We're not going to restate the pre strike one and
strike two that people may have. That's all true. But
what we are going to do is put in place
a three strikes regime that says, right, you commit a
crime now, if it's a violent sexual offense or sexual
or violent defense, you're on strike one, and then you're

(16:24):
on strike two, and then you're starting to go away
for a long time. So I believe that doing something
that I think the judges are going to uphold rather
than reject like last time, and doing something that increases
the amount of sentencing for serious recidivist violent and sexual
offenses is absolutely the message that New Zealanders wanted sent

(16:47):
after the last six years, because let's be honest, I mean,
the previous government partnered with the Mongrel Mob to stop
people taking drugs, even though the Mongrel Mob was selling
them the drugs. They used to pay for these cultural reports,
which were basically sob stories for criminals after they were convicted,
but before they were sentence, saying oh, it's not my fault,
and that the government actually paid five thousand dollars each

(17:09):
often to actual gangs that were writing them in order
to get softer sentences. And then they said, our goal
is to reduce the prison population. Well, you know what,
we let the criminals out. We aim to be kind
to them, hoping they'd be kind back. They weren't. Victimization
of New Zealanders went up thirty percent in five years,
and we are now dealing with trying to clean that up.

(17:30):
But actually it's not us the government that has the problem.
It's these poor people like Jannak Patel who was murdered
in a Mount Albert dairy. It's the folks at the
Puppa Toy Toy liquor store who are attacked with a hammer.
It's people that are still suffering from the crime wave
that grew up under the previous government, and we are
now putting back the values that people actually need, that

(17:52):
if you're a victim, our sympathy is with you, and
if you're a criminal, we're throwing the book at you.

Speaker 2 (17:56):
David. Some of these announcements, though, have been slightly scaled
back again and judge's discretion is still there as a loophole.
So with you know, judge's discretion still being there, is
the being as hard on these criminals as you campaigned
on and as you talked about leading up to these announcements.

Speaker 3 (18:13):
Well, first of all, look at we got rid of
the cultural sentencing reports. We've introduced new sentencing requirements, including
one you haven't mentioned, which is that we are saying
if you attack someone who's sole charge in their workplace
or a workplace next to a dwelling such as a
dairy or someone driving a bus, then that's an aggravating factor.

(18:33):
If you remember of a gang, that's an aggravating factor.
You can't get the discounts that judges have been giving.
So yep, Ultimately sentencing is up to a judge. But
the question is what messages is the government sending and
all the messages we're sending, the people of New Zealand
elected a government that wants you to be tougher, So
be tougher after having messages that actually be softer for

(18:55):
the last six years. That's a welcome change. Now of
course there'll be people who say, oh, well, you know,
we accept you're telling them to be tougher, but we
think your time will be even tougher. Well yep, okay,
we can have that argument, but you know we're the ultimately.

Speaker 4 (19:06):
To statue with what David's What David said is twice
now he said the purpose of what he's doing is
to send a message. Purpose of what the government's doing
is to send a message. And there's no claim there
that that means that there will be fewer victims or
less crime. I think that's the issue.

Speaker 5 (19:23):
Oh, happy to claim that it does allow.

Speaker 4 (19:25):
A political message to be sent, but there's no evidence
that this is anymore than just sending a message.

Speaker 3 (19:32):
I'm sorry, it prevent I'm sorry, it's it's not a
political message. It is statutory law passed by parliament that
guides how judges sentence people. Now, you can call that
sending a message, but actually that is that.

Speaker 4 (19:48):
Is called it sending message and you never make any
argument that this will be effective.

Speaker 5 (19:53):
Oh okay, well, let's let's get to that.

Speaker 3 (19:54):
Around the world it has so, first of all, it
does send a message, but it sends a message by
passing laws in Parliament that guide how judges sentence people.
And yes, I can tell you it is hard to
commit a crime while you're in jail. It is easy
to commit a crime when the government sets a target
of letting everyone out of jail and watches victimization skyrocket,
as it did for six years under you guys new

(20:16):
management in town, victims are back at the center of crime.
And yes we're going to lock people up, and yes
they will be safer. I should just want to steal
your thoughts on the absolutely the new cost it's going
to be with these sentence reductions. Right they're saying one
hundred and ninety two million dollars a year the cost
to have up to seventeen hundred more prisoners in jails.
Is that a worthwhile spend of money to keep the

(20:39):
streets safe?

Speaker 4 (20:40):
Our Lock Bill English describes prisons as a moral and
fiscal failure. They are criminal factories. If you weren't to,
if you weren't in a gang before you went in,
you will be when you get out. And I think
the terrible value for money in terms of the social outcomes.

Speaker 3 (20:57):
So how is it that gang membership went up while
you guys were putting the prison population.

Speaker 4 (21:01):
Down even worse. Waste of money, and that is the
boot camp. Five million dollars for pilot with ten kids
in it, five hundred grand each. You could buy them
the house. With the amount of money that's being put
into that pilot.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
I was at underwhelming, wasn't it? Trial of ten people
possibly by the end of the year.

Speaker 3 (21:20):
Well, let me put it another way. We could always
do a trial with far more people. But then everything
we learned from this pilot will be applied to them
or won't be applied to them. What we are doing
is putting in place a relatively small pilot to get
it right because as a society we don't have the
answers for what to do with these young serious offenders.

(21:44):
The previous government used to put them in a tama
Chi facilities with no security. They'd climb on the roof,
they'd get bribed down with KFC. I talked to you.
Police officers said, yeah, once they leave the Orangatamerki facility
that is unsecured, they actually have committed an offense. So
we're required to go and find them. So we take
them back and they run out the back door.

Speaker 5 (22:04):
Before it finish.

Speaker 4 (22:06):
My paper of the nine months that's proposed for this pilot.
It sounds like you all, Minister at Estimates, were saying
that the majority of that time they'll spend in the
same program that was proven to be highly effective that
Labor was running, and only a minority of it in
a boot cancer. Once again, it seems like, Laura and
all the policies under this government are about virtue signaling

(22:27):
that you're doing something about but the fundamentals of what
you're doing are either inadequately scaled or ineffective.

Speaker 3 (22:33):
Well, first of all, if you really believe that your
government was effective on youth crime, then I got a
whole lot of retail victims that you should be talking to.
Second of all, you're absolutely right that the way that
we are doing these new programs for youth serious offenses,
and we're starting with a pilot of ten and then
it will be expanded once the law has changed to

(22:55):
make it possible for larger numbers next year and improved
because we're actually you know, we recognize as a problem,
then we learn from it. They will spend three months
in residence intensive getting structured and discipline, and then they
will be rehabilitated and recuperated back into the community, because
that's why the boot camps I don't think were as
effective as they could have been last time. Basically they

(23:17):
actually did get good results while they were in residence.
That part worked and that part we're keeping. But it's
the transition back to the community that's important, and that's
what happens in that final nine months. So I actually
think we are prepared to say we have a problem.
We're not just going to deny we don't know how
to deal with young offenders in our society. They've just
been tag and release and getting worse and worse at
committing more and more crime. We're going to try something new,

(23:40):
We're going to learn from it, and then we're going
to improve again. And that's why I love Karen Sua
so much, because he's actually so honest and real and
drives the left mad.

Speaker 2 (23:49):
I have to say with us as act Leader and
Regulation Mister David Seymour and Labour's Health and Wellington Issues
spokesperson Eisheverral David also Minister responsible for far Mack and
of course the government announced earlier in the week on
Monday it was giving far Maka for the six hundred
million dollars over four years to cover up of fifty
four new medicines. And of course we've seen those thirteen

(24:10):
cancer drugs promised by National in the campaign that it
didn't deliver and the budget confirms what do you reckon?
I should better late than never.

Speaker 4 (24:18):
Yeah, Look, I want to congratulate all of the patient
advocates who held the government's feet to the fire and
meant three weeks after budget they rewrote Budget twenty five
in order to make sure that this policy went through
and the commitment was on it, but they were shamed
into it. I do want to acknowledge the role you played, though, David.

(24:43):
I appreciate your standing up for the value of pharmac
and for the value that it delivers through being able
to strike good deals for New Zealanders and its negotiations
with drug companies. And it's always on politicians to make
sure that FARMAC is funded better. So it's good to
see progress made made there. Understand why Doctor Rescue went

(25:08):
so long with this idea about funding the thirteen particular
drugs that would have really turned upside down the FARMAC
model would have meant a compromised the model so much
we would have struggled to get the same sort of
deals for all medicines in the future, so ultimately good
outcome for patients. So it took some time.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
David, how much did you have to fight for these
round the cabinet table.

Speaker 3 (25:30):
Oh, I'm just a gentle persuader rather than a fighter.
But I see this as a win, win win. It's
a win for the National Party. They campaigned on more
cancer drugs, and more cancer drugs will be delivered. It's
a win for the taxpayer because it's going to be
done with our pharmac model, which, while there are criticisms

(25:51):
of it, no one has ever accused them of not
being very hard knuckle at negotiating a good deal with
the pharmaceutical companies. And we keep the integrity of that model,
the independence of that model intact. So that's a big win.
But the biggest win is for the patients. One hundred
and seventy five thousand people estimated will be and again
you know they are independent, so we can't say exactly

(26:12):
what they'll fund, but we estimate based on their advice,
if we give them another six hundred million dollars over
four years, then they're going to fund about another fifty
four treatments in total, and twenty six of those they
used to make will be for cancer. Now that may
come out a little bit, you know, up or down,
depending on exactly where they get to in their negotiations,

(26:34):
but how it's you know, as the farm ac minister,
I mean, one of my jobs in life is to
can persuade my colleagues to spend more money on medicines
for people. And I have to say I had a
pretty good day on Monday, not only happened to be
my birthday, but far out this is this is real
progress in that area.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
I mean, there was a lot of public backlash since
the budget before this happened. Has it caused any damage
to the government's reputation over this, do you think, David Well?

Speaker 3 (27:02):
I think people ultimately look at the outcome. So yep,
you can go through the politics and the process of it.
On the At budget time, what I was confronted with
was basically one point one billion next year, down from
one point five billion this year. So what I was
saying to my colleagues is look the current budget, so

(27:23):
we inherit these four year budgets from the previous government.
They've got one point five this year one point one,
next year one point one after that, so one point
four billion, four hundred million dollars. However, you like, it's
a huge amount of money. We had to actually find
ways to backfill that deficit. So we got that done

(27:44):
in the budget and I thought, yeah, it's probably a
bit cheeky to say we can't get even more money.
But ultimately the public spoke and we delivered. And actually,
not only did we deliver in full, we've delivered about
twice as much as what was promised.

Speaker 2 (27:59):
I share. Is it risky for parties to campaign on
certain drugs? Is that exposed? Just the risk that is
politically here?

Speaker 4 (28:09):
It was absolutely full. Pardy and Dr Retti and I
went to meetings around the country where our policies were debated,
and you know, we had this out and all of
the problems that David outlined that have come to pass it,
I don't doubt were the subjects of discussions between cabinet
ministers and Treasury and health officials have played out. So

(28:34):
the fact that it would undermine the independence of FARMAC
that would then be in a perpetual bidding war at
every election for who got their medicine. That is exactly
the problem when you get politicians involved in this. We
should not ever do this again. Campaign change farmack more,
but we shouldn't. We shouldn't bargain on We shouldn't campaign
on particular medicines.

Speaker 3 (28:54):
I've always campaigned as the leader of ACT on upholding
the integrity of our farm maate model. A couple of
things that I think need to change. You know, I
asked to be in charge of FARMAC. I think it's
an area that we can do a lot better. And
we can do better at funding medical devices because treatments
and medicines and devices are kind of all merging into

(29:15):
one thing in a lot of cases. I think that
the culture of FARMAC could be a bit more collegial.
And I've said that to them. I mean, they have
a tough job. They have to be tough people. But
we've got to see clinicians and patient groups and pharmaceutical
companies more as I guess, partners in a shared mission.
And I think we've got to get better at showing

(29:37):
when funding a medicine has actually saved the government money elsewhere.
So an example I often really stuck with me. Shortly
after I was elected as the MP for reps. I
made a constituent with MS and she was working, but
she couldn't get any treatment until she deteriorated to the
point where she could no longer work. And I just thought,

(29:59):
this is just nuts. If FARMAC was allowed to take
into account the fact apart from all the benefits to
her healthy, but they can't take into account the benefit
that she's paying tax and she's not on a sickness benefit.
That's a big benefit for everybody. So I think we've
got to get better at counting things like that. We
don't count that now, but altogether, the integrity of the

(30:20):
farming model absolutely critical.

Speaker 2 (30:22):
Now, David, I've just seen ACT to put out a
press release congratulating the Wellington City Council on selling its
shares and Wellington get what had word that hasn't actually
been sold there. So you're jumping the gun a little
bit here? Are you just getting a bit excited?

Speaker 3 (30:33):
Well, you don't lead the ACT party for ten years
without being an enormous optimist. And I'm sure they will
make the right decision, But I just make a point.
I actually caught up this morning with Sir Roger Douglass.
A lot of people know is the finance minister forty
years ago, and I got to say, I love our country,
I love our culture, but sometimes in New Zealand we

(30:55):
get a bit soft on making choices. Roger had to
make a lot of choices and in many ways set
us up for the last thirty years or so. We
have a choice as a council. Is it that we
want to own shares in an airport or free up
capital or pay down debt so we've got room to
fix the pipes. It's the same with the government. Do
we want to own a whole lot of commercial businesses

(31:17):
or do we want to pay down debt or free
up capital so we can fix the roads, that fix
the schools, fix the hospitals. That those are the choices
around capital that I think we've avoided for too long.

Speaker 2 (31:27):
Icha, if it goes through, what is Labor's what's your
take on where things sit now with the airport shares
out of council and public hands.

Speaker 4 (31:36):
Yeah, So Labour's position is that we're opposed to the
sale and I don't agree with the way that David
has framed those choices. There is alternative ways of financing
the water infrastructure, which this government chose not to pursue,
but that we had a plan for. And also many
of the challenges Wellington City for our council faces is
to do with its ownership of earthquake damaged or non

(32:01):
compliant buildings as well, which you know that also has
separate options for that. So I don't agree with the way.

Speaker 3 (32:08):
You are still a finite amount of capital and detos David,
there's still a finite amount to go around and you
have to make good choices.

Speaker 4 (32:16):
Yeah, And as you know, we had a plan to
support councils, including those like Wellington councils, was being able
to get the cost of fixing their pipes off the
balance sheets and that that would have the name.

Speaker 3 (32:28):
But you spent one point two billion on it. Now
in Auckland, we just did a deal for five hundred
thousand dollars of consultancy fees to give Auckland balance sheets
separation five hundred half a million dollars. You guys spent
one point two billion, twelve hundred million dollars and we
can solve the same problem much quicker in the biggest
city straight away. I mean, you know, I except that

(32:49):
there needs to be.

Speaker 4 (32:50):
Always was the easiest issue easiest region to address its
water infrastructure fall because of the different setups that it
had with water care.

Speaker 5 (33:00):
So we did it.

Speaker 3 (33:00):
We did it two four hundred times cheaper. I mean,
I'm sure it was easier, but four hundred times.

Speaker 4 (33:07):
Not a legitimate comment.

Speaker 2 (33:08):
All right, I think we know really on the airport
shares before we go, David, you get the whole weekend off?
Do you get to relax it all three days?

Speaker 1 (33:15):
No?

Speaker 3 (33:15):
Well, look, I've started taking every Saturday off. It's been
a game change. I used to work, you know, forty
days in a row all the time, and I actually
don't know if that was totally productive. So now I
take Saturdays off. I spent all Sunday read and get
well ahead of stuff. Makes for a good week if
you've done that. But of course this week we've got
a long weekend, so I guess I'll get Saturday and Friday.

Speaker 2 (33:38):
How good? I sure? What about you?

Speaker 4 (33:40):
Yeah? I think the first time I've had a weekend
fully in Wellington without a commitment for some sometime. So
looking forward to some time with their family.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
Awesome stuff. Well, David, thanks for popping by. Thank you,
thank you very much for your time. As always, really
appreciate I don't have wonderful weekends both of you. Politics
Thursday for another week, David Seymour and Eisheverel.

Speaker 1 (33:59):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills. Listen live
to news Talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.

The Breakfast Club

The Breakfast Club

The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!

Crime Junkie

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.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.