Taxpayer Talk
We're the voice for Kiwi taxpayers in the corridors of power. With our 200,000 subscribed members and supporters we fight for Lower Taxes, Less Waste, and More Accountability across all levels of government. Join or support the Taxpayers' Union at www.taxpayers.org.nz
Taxpayer Talk
Taxpayer Talk: Paul Henry on ACT, Tax Cuts, and Taking an Axe to Wellington
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams is joined by broadcaster-turned-ACT candidate Paul Henry for a lively, wide-ranging conversation on the campaign, the state of the centre-right, and why he thinks this election is too important to sit out.
From ACT’s push for smaller government and lower taxes to superannuation reform, Treaty politics, immigration, and the future of taxpayer-funded media, Henry makes the case for a sharper, braver government - and explains why he wants to be part of it.
Hello, I'm Peter Williams, and this is Taxpayer Talk. And with me as our guest this time is a man that I used to know really well. In fact, we worked together for gee, the best part of seven, eight years, I can't remember, until he stupidly was dismissed by TVNZ. We went our separate ways, haven't seen too much of each other over the last decade and a half, but now he's back. He is one of the most high-profile candidates for the ACT Party in this year's general election, Paul Henry. So lovely to see you again. You don't look a day over 65. You don't look as if you've changed a bit since I last saw you.
SPEAKER_01Well, you don't realize you're flattering me because I am actually a day over six. I'm 66. No, I think we both look pretty good for our ages, don't we?
SPEAKER_00Well, it's the lifestyles we've led all our life, I guess, Paul isn't. Yes. Anyhow, uh, to the present, um, are you enjoying this lack of being a political candidate again?
SPEAKER_01I'm starting to get used to it. I mean, you because you do forget when you haven't been in the fray, and of course I haven't, I haven't really done this for so very long. Um, you do forget that it can be quite cutting and quite draining. Um, but I think both of us are used to ignoring uh outlandish criticism and ludicrous criticism. We have to be very careful that we don't listen to focus groups of one. And I think we're both quite good at it, but it does take a little while to uh get used to that again. So I'm I'm getting used to that. What I am really enjoying is traveling around the country and uh meeting vast numbers of people who have largely quite different, quite different views. I suppose to be fair, it's marginally skewed towards um uh right-wingers and act supporters, marginally, but there are plenty of people on the fringe of that, which it's really interesting to it's really interesting to talk to people and find out how they take and what concerns them.
SPEAKER_00So you're not an electorate candidate, you are a list-only candidate, therefore you're sort of the candidate at large. And it seems as if David Seymour has put you out into the front line to use that considerable pulling power you've got from your days on television, which some of them are quite recent, in fact, aren't they, with the the Chase series last year and the traitors and the like. Uh are you finding that you're still able to pull them in? Are you are you packing them out? That is the sellout sign going up most places?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I mean, everyone we've done so far has been standing room only. And and I think, but you know what? Um, there are obviously people that come along because I've got name recognition, and a few people come along and they bring uh uh books that I've written to get them signed, but that's a very small number. The advantage is I can get people to turn up, but they still have to be interested in what I've got to say. I still have to front with uh with ideas and be able to articulate uh the direction of the party. Obviously, for me it's still early days. And so I I can I can honestly tell you now, I am not completely up to spec with every subtle nuance of policy. And of course, we haven't released all of our policy this uh this election yet by a long way. But the important thing for me and the reason that I'm representing ACT is because I completely subscribe to the philosophy of the party. And you know, Peter, for me, that is always, as a voter, that has always been the most important thing. Uh so many policies are to one degree or another a sugar hit. The key thing is what are the philosophies of the party I intend to vote for? What is the, particularly with coalition governments, uh, because you have to know that you're not only dealing with your party's policies, but you're dealing with how your party deals with the policies of other parties in the coalition. Uh so for me, the philosophies are absolutely the most important thing, which is what made ACT really for me a no-brainer.
SPEAKER_00So, do you describe yourself as a conviction politician?
SPEAKER_01Absolutely.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. I mean, I would So, what are your convictions then?
SPEAKER_01Uh so fundamentally, my convictions are a right-wing government, because I know it is the only way to manage a country, uh, a country which has as small as possible a bureaucracy. Uh, that there is no point in maintaining a large bureaucracy. In fact, it is almost always, if not always, counterproductive. Uh, and I always, I've and I have always, as you would know, firmly believed that this country is made up of New Zealanders, and under the law, we should all be treated as equal. Those are pretty much my founding philosophies, and they are pretty much act's founding philosophies.
SPEAKER_00Amen to that. So can you believe that the prime minister, only last year, when confronted with the Treaty Principles bill, said, there is nothing about this bill that I like. I mean, I'm sorry, I just was absolutely flabbergasted by a so-called center-right political leader, the prime minister of the country, saying, nothing about this bill that I like, yet it was a bill which had equality for all New Zealanders at the heart of it.
SPEAKER_01That was staggering, wasn't it? It was staggering because how could it even be true? I mean, we know he's an intelligent man. How could what he say be true? Presumably, what he was trying to do is just curry favor with voters that probably will never vote for them anyway. And therein lies the big problem with populist parties. Um, I I say uh when I go and meet people, you know, but with my in my shtick, if you like, um, I say the biggest problem with National is they spend more time looking over their shoulder than they do with their eyes firmly fixed on on the end game, you know, the the goal.
SPEAKER_00Are you still there, Paul? Yes, yes. Oh, sorry, you just looked as if you'd got yourself stuck in a deep freeze there for a minute.
SPEAKER_01Oh no, I got to the end of my sentence and I thought, you know, as a as a strategy, maybe I'll just stop speaking.
SPEAKER_00No, it wasn't just that, but your your breath stopped moving as well. Uh anyway, you were saying about Mr. Luxon. Are you as a potential um colleague of his around the cabinet table in maybe just a few months' time, what do you think of a man? I mean, do you believe you can work alongside him? Do you think you can get a bit of uh steel in that spine of his?
SPEAKER_01And and you know, that last that last phrase of yours completely summed it up. It is a party that needs steel in its spine. Actually, it just needs a spine, let's be honest. Um, to answer your question, I I know him to be a really nice bloke, I know him to be a smart, a smart guy, um, but he hasn't resonated with the public. And of course, that is a very important thing in politics. And do you know, uh, I always remember when Tony Blair was going through problems after arguably a golden run uh of British politics, and he said in an interview, he said, I recognize the moment I lost the benefit of the doubt. Do you know? I don't think Chris Luxon has ever held the benefit of the doubt with the public, and it is very, very hard to galvanize people. It's very, very hard to lead a party, let alone a country, without holding the benefit of the doubt. I think even although he's improving, and I believe he is improving in terms of his public uh appearances, I think it's too late.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, but you still think you'll be the national party leader for the election, don't you? Yeah. So he's gonna make it through.
SPEAKER_01I do because I can't I can't conceive them actually making a decision that quickly.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I know what you mean. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, there is disquiet. But if Jacinda taught us anything, she taught us a great many things, almost all of them negative, but one of the things she taught us is actually it's almost never too late to change a leader if you need to change a leader. Um and for that reason alone, there's perhaps that slight whiff of a new leader in the air with National, but I still think it's it's very unlikely before the election. The big question, I think, Peter, is will he lead National through the next term? And I'm I'm sure there is considerable disquiet in his ranks.
SPEAKER_00Well, it depends, of course, who gets back into Parliament because number two and three on his list are in real under real threat. I would have thought of not being returned to Parliament if uh National win a whole bunch of electorates, which they may well do. It means there's room for nobody on the list, including the current Minister of Finance and the the Minister for Um Resource Management Reform and the Minister of Transport. Anyway, we should start talking about the National Party.
SPEAKER_01No, that's a genuinely interesting point because this is a conundrum that I don't believe they've ever had before. Uh and and you look at it, I think, I think it's maybe not quite as dire as as you've painted. I wouldn't want to be number three list only candidate, though. Um, and I mean, are they going to be looking for a new speaker? I mean, Jerry's down there. Does that does that make Jerry, I think, the fourth effectively list only candidate? I'm I'm including Chris Bishop because, I mean, by his own admission, he's very unlikely to win Hutt South. Um, let's face it, Paul Goldsmith is not going to win Epsom. So if Paul gets in, that's three list positions taken up. Um I've I think looking at some of their some of their possible wins in the electorate vote, yeah, I think you're right. I think this is a conundrum for them.
SPEAKER_00All right, let's stop talking about the National Party for now. What about the Act Party? Where does your list out? I mean, Labour have released theirs. Uh, I don't know whether the Greens have, but certainly the the National Party has just in the last few days. When is the Act list out? And where do you think you might be without having been given the nudge, nudge, wink, wink from David Seymour?
SPEAKER_01Yeah. I um, well, of course, David is is one vote. I mean, I'm sure he's quite influential, but essentially he's one vote in the making of the list. Um to answer the first part of your question, ballpark, the middle of next month. I think ours is is pretty much towards the deadline for for announcing the list.
SPEAKER_00So you're talking mid-September.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. Um, so I want to say, and I I don't know this because I haven't been focusing on this, um, but I want to say around the sort of 12, 13, 14, something like that of September. In terms of my expectations, um, I'm working really hard. Uh I'm sure the party can see that. I'm sure they can see uh the worth in me. Um, God, I would hope so. So I have expectations that I will be high on the list.
SPEAKER_00And if you do get into parliament and you're high on the list and it is a centre-right coalition, again, a national New Zealand First and Act, would you expect to be a cabinet minister as well?
SPEAKER_01I wouldn't necessarily expect to be. I would want to be, but um, I mean, there's a lot of negotiation between now and then. As you said yourself, we have to get in, we have to be in government, um, and then of course the numbers come into play. How many, how many positions are there going to be? Um, how will they be divvied up? So, so I wouldn't expect to be, uh, but I would want to be.
SPEAKER_00How uh how how sturdy are your political ambitions in terms of not being in government? I mean, if if you get in on the Act Party list, but heaven forbid the other side form the government, I've written actually, Paul, that you might lose a bit of interest pretty quickly as a back pinch opposition MP and might not see out the term. Uh I mean, are you committed to uh a life in uh in parliament for at least three years?
SPEAKER_01I think you have to be, and and I absolutely am. Um and and and you know, I get I I get your feeling and the feeling of some others. Um obviously I will be bitterly disappointed if we're in opposition, firstly for the country and then for me, because it it will it will be, you know, it'll be a bit of a a bit of a trudge, but my God, there'll be a job to do in opposition if if if we have a left. I mean, I hate even saying the words because there's that view, isn't there, that if you're talking about it, it'll come true. Um this is, and this is one of the reasons I've stood. All elections are important. But to me, and I don't know if you also get this feeling, this is a vitally important election. We are really sitting on a balance now. Uh that the situation we're in as a country financially is dire, truly dire. And if we don't do the right things next term quickly enough, and you know that's something that that's a mistake that's been made in these last three years, why didn't we start doing things on day one, two, three, four, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty? Why did it take two and a half years to do some of these things? Um, and some still have not been enacted properly. Um, we've got to start doing things quickly. If we're not there, if there's a labor-led coalition, God help us, literally, God help us. So to answer your question, yes, absolutely committed. I wouldn't be doing this to waste my time. And it would be wasting my time if I went in and didn't give it, didn't give it a decent crack and didn't stay around and wasn't completely committed.
SPEAKER_00The polls suggest that the National Party will a not have as many MPs in the House, but uh that of course leads to the fact that they're not having the same number of cabinet ministers either. So they won't be as influential around the cabinet table. Therefore, do you think that ACT can really push some economic policy in particular? And I'm thinking about cutting back on government spending, perhaps the reduction of the corporate tax rate to stimulate New Zealand business, policies which, to be perfectly honest, the National Party have just seemed scared to even uh think about.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, they are. I mean, you almost don't need me here. Um, because you're right. I mean, it is. It's a fear. It comes back to that point I said, they spend more time looking over their shoulder than with their eyes fixed on the price. Um, and also you are the first person um that's interviewed me that's mentioned the corporate tax rate. You know, it is vitally important that we pull our corporate tax rate down. And, you know, we can't afford to lower taxes at the moment, um, although we haven't released our tax policy, and our intention is to massage things which will have that effect. But we can't afford to dramatically lower taxes at the moment, but we need to do it as soon as we can afford to do it. Um, national, they're just not keen on doing it. I mean, look at the tax policy that they announced the other day, you know, promising that they won't introduce what was their line? It was intriguing and also inexplicable.
SPEAKER_00Noble taxes for working people.
SPEAKER_01Working people. Well, here's the thing: what they're saying is, oh, we are going to introduce some new taxes, but not for working people. I think both you and I, Peter, know that if you introduce a new tax, it will not only affect working people, absolutely, but all people working or not. So it's a it was really odd wording. It was the kind of wording you get when when you're a populist party and you and you want to basically you want to basically ice both sides of the cake.
SPEAKER_00So are you keen on a corporate tax uh reduction, a company tax reduction?
SPEAKER_01Absolutely. Absolutely.
SPEAKER_00As quickly as possible. Because I I come back to your interview with Jack Tame uh on Q ⁇ A a few weeks back when for some bizarre reason he was uh on the case with who was it, Facebook or Google or something, and all the revenue they have in this country, uh, and the fact that they shift it all offshore to to Ireland, I think, mostly. Yeah. And they sent it to Ireland because they don't pay any tax on it. And it seemed to me, I mean, to be perfectly honest, it was a question out of left field, and I don't know why he was particularly fixated on on the revenue of these these um multinational companies. But if we did have a corporate tax rate, which max matched that of Ireland, which I think is 15 cents in the in the dollar. Yeah, 15%, yes. Yeah, 15%, then maybe uh the the likes of um you know the big players like Microsoft and Facebook and and and everybody who have their operations here, maybe they would be paying some more tax here.
SPEAKER_01The motivation, the motivation to shift it offshore would be gone. Um we can't afford to do that at the moment, but that should be our goal. That is what I would like to see us do sooner rather than later. Right at the moment, we can't afford to do it. You know, going back to that interview, there were so many things he said, and I thought, you know, do I, because you know, you as an interviewee, you're you're thinking, okay, where do where do I allow this to go? Do I want to get bogged down in the detail? We have looked at the possibility of introducing a separate tax for, say, the likes of Facebook and Google. So why wouldn't we do that? I could have gone into all of this, but it could have really gone down a rabbit hole. You wouldn't do that because of unintended consequences. Now, it was only, what, a week after that that out of the blue, Trump announced another 2.5% tariff on New Zealand. At the same time, out of the blue, 50% tariff on multiple items in Canada. You know, if we had introduced a specific tax for two American companies, it would have given Trump the green light. The unintended consequences would have been diabolical. Uh, but that would have was, like I say, a rabbit hole not to go down. Certainly you're right. If we could get corporate tax down to 15%, the incentive to do what they do now would not exist.
SPEAKER_00So you say we can't afford it. Is it not worth, I guess you'd call it making an investment at this stage? Perhaps we don't do it in one foul swoop from 28% down to 15%.
SPEAKER_01No, you wouldn't be able to do it in one foul swoop.
SPEAKER_00But at least you go from 28%, let's get to 25% to start with, and maybe have a plan to get to 20 within two years or by the end of the next parliamentary term. I mean, surely that is a policy we should be aiming for. And then all of a sudden, you've got companies that say, well, we've got more money in our in our bank account at the end of each week after doing business, we can spend it, we can invest, we can grow our company, we can we can employ more people.
SPEAKER_01Yep, completely. You're right. And I have conversations like this. We haven't released our tax policy yet. What I can tell you is that that is a prize we have our eyes fixed on. Um that is the direction we absolutely have to go. What I can tell you, unlike Nationals tax announcement, and we haven't we haven't announced our tax policy yet, but what I can tell you is under ACT, our policy is absolutely no new taxes. No new taxes at all.
SPEAKER_00That's no levies, no increase in my car registration fees, no increase in my what are the licensee license fees I pay?
SPEAKER_01Well, you what you've done, of course, is you've expanded it out. I said no new taxes, and you said so that's no increases.
SPEAKER_00You you know that a that a car registration is a tax poll.
SPEAKER_01It is a tax, but it's not a new tax. Um but anyway, let's not dance on the head of a paper. You're not going to increase it. Is that what you're saying? No new taxes. The only one, the only one that you could perceive as a tax that we might increase will be the fuel levy. And I'll tell you why we might do that. It's already actually programmed in to be increased. So it won't be a decision to increase it. It's already programmed in to increase it. And that's because that is a straight user pays tax. At the moment, the money we get in fuel levy does not meet the cost of uh repairing and replacing roads. So we are having to top that up um every week. So that is something that may have to increase. That is the only exception.
SPEAKER_00Okay, so the tax policy, government income is on one side of the ledger. On the other side of the ledger is government spending. Now I know David in the last campaign was hot under the collar about the amount of wasted money during this term. Uh he's backed uh reduction in the government sector, the public service for want of a better word. But there are also other huge aspects of government spending which can be brought under control or, frankly, cut completely. So, whereabouts is Act looking to attack matters uh there?
SPEAKER_01Everywhere. I mean, quite literally. I mean, it's such an easy answer to that question. Everywhere. I can promise you that the more influence Act has in the government after the election, the smaller the government will be. There is no good comes out of excessively big government. And it's not just a matter of saving the money. So say we get rid of a couple of departments, say we get rid of a couple of thousand uh public servants. It's not just the immediate saving in electricity and birows and paper and wages and et cetera, et cetera. Getting those people out of the way gets obstacles to success and growth out of the way. Uh, it is hard to estimate just how much. I'll give you an example of, and again, we'll use a roading example. Um, New Zealand's investment in roading infrastructure is in the top 10% of the OECD. Our value for money in roading infrastructure is in the bottom 10% of the OECD. Now, why do you think that is? Why do you think we're spending a lot and we're not getting very much for it? I would venture to suggest it was because of rampant government interference. We need to look at every single nuance of government. Now, there will be whole departments we can close down. I guarantee you now, there are departments we could go into and flip the switch off. No one would notice.
SPEAKER_00Well, David said that last time, didn't he? Women's affairs, Pacific People's, ethnic affairs. I mean, they're dime a dozen. That's uh that that's that's easy, isn't it? But but that costs that costs stuff all though in the overall scheme of things, doesn't it? It's 20 million here, 30 million there. I know eventually you're going to be talking about real money, but we've got to save billions, don't we?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah, we do need to save billions. Um and there are other ways you do it. Obviously, uh so here's what we can't do. We can't borrow to reach prosperity, we can't tax to reach prosperity. Both of those things are absolutely true. So we have to grow the economy, so we have to make more money, and we have to spend less, which is what we're talking about now. Um spending less is that double-edged sword, you know, and there's an the there's an advantage on both sides of that sword. There are whole departments we can close down. There is no country of a like size of ours that has a bureaucracy, a government anywhere near as big as ours. Why do we have 43 ministries, 43 departments? It is it is barking mad. Why do we have 28 stroke, 30 ministers? I mean, it's completely crazy. What is it? MB there, MB is answerable to something like 23, 24 ministers. It's just grown like topsy. I was talking to David about it the other day, and he used the analogy, he's probably used it with you, um, but he said there was probably no time that anyone sat down and said, Oh, I know what, we need to make the government bigger. What happened is people just made it bigger. It's like the hedge that you stopped trimming. It just grows and grows and grows. It is completely out of control. You know, this interview, I don't know, what is it going to be, an hour? Um, that's a million dollars. That's a million dollars we have to borrow as a country during the course of this interview just to pay interest on the money we already owe. It is unsustainable. And, you know, we're at a time now where what we could do is we could be the greens and we could just borrow a huge amount of money and happily squander our way through another term. But this has happened for too many terms in a row. The last Labour government did so much squandering, the rubber's hitting the road now, so we've got to be prepared to take some tough decisions now while we can still embroider them into people's lives. And one of them is superannuation. You know, we can't just keep kicking this down the road, or we're gonna literally get to the point where we have to tell people, you were gonna retire next Wednesday, but we're gonna punch it on for a few years because we can't afford to pay you. Um, so there are some, there are some reasonably bitter pills we're gonna have to swallow, but superannuation is a case in point. Every intelligent person knows that we can't afford to keep the superannuation age at 65. So let's address that, let's rectify it, and there's one thing at least which will head marginally in the right direction.
SPEAKER_00Okay, well, it's uh a Monday night, it's the second Monday, and I think tonight into both of our bank accounts, there'll be the best part of a thousand bucks will drop in there. You I know darn well, Paul Henry, you don't need that thousand dollars. I get nine hundred and eighty or something, and my wife gets notes to solve better when it gets more than me. Yes. Yeah, that's because I'm not working anymore, you see. Um, anyhow.
SPEAKER_01I'm working hard, I'm just not getting paid.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, so I'm getting about a thousand. Between the two of us, my wife and I are getting about 1,700 bucks a week put in our joint bank account, which is kind of nice, but we could get by without it. I'm sure you and and Diane could get by without your just 1,500 or 1,700 bucks a week that goes, or fortnight rather, that goes in there as well. So, I mean politicians are very loath to do means testing. They say the bureaucracy is way too difficult, the surcharge uh memories from 30 years ago are still fresh for a lot of people. But you can increase the age to 68 or whatever. But the problem is you're still paying a whole lot of pretty wealthy people money they don't need. So why don't you address it that way as well?
SPEAKER_01Um, I'm not a I'm not a subscriber to that view. And by the way, I think 67 would would be the age that we would move to. Um I'm not a subscriber to that view because I don't think the pension is welfare. I think it is an entitlement, it's a universal entitlement, and I would like it to stay that way. And here's one of the reasons for it. Um, you're right, I don't I don't need the money. Um but I don't necessarily spend it on me either. You know, I know that I can spend that money better than any government. And it's an entitlement. When I get it, I then have the ability to do with it what I choose, as you do.
SPEAKER_00Yes. So in other words, uh you don't want it stuck in the government's coffers because it's going to be spent maybe on employing another half a civil servant or something to work at the Ministry of Health to lose somebody's x-ray records. Which is part of it. From my experience, far too often. The government is inefficient. The state sector is inefficient.
SPEAKER_01And the more of it you have, the more inefficient it is. This is what people don't seem to be able to get. The more government you have, the more inefficient it is. And you know, when we suggest taking the number, our absolute policy, and this would have, this would have kicked in just after the last election if we'd had more, say, around the cabinet table, our absolute policy to take the public service back to 2017 levels. And let me tell you, I'm pretty sure in 2017 we had too many public servants, too, just far less than we've got now. You know, as soon as we say that, it everyone's up in arms. You know, oh, so what are they going to do? Where are they going to find a job? You know, that that's just another way of saying, you know, well, we should just employ people to do nothing and get in our way because we don't want them on, you know, many of those public servants, probably not all, because most public servants uh adverts for jobs when they went out said no experience necessary. Um many of those public servants so are probably very useful human beings, just not as public servants. If they were out there in the private sector, rather than costing us money and standing in our way, they would be contributing considerably to the wealth of the country and growing the economy. Um, but but here's what I'm just on on um National Super. You know, it's pretty clear that I don't need the money and my wife doesn't need the money. And I'm sure you don't either, because I know you've been pretty studious with your income over the years. Um But where do you draw the line? And to get to your point as well, how much does it cost to draw the line and maintain the line and manage the line? You know, the benefit when you start means testing is nowhere near as great as people think, and in some cases it's actually a loss. But I really worry about where you draw the line. I think we need to say to people the one thing you can be sure on is you will get this and it won't be means tested. And, you know, it is not a welfare payment, it is an entitlement that you've contributed to through a long and hopefully hard-working life.
SPEAKER_00Except that there are many New Zealanders who have returned to this country at the age of 60 so that they could, after living overseas for some time, they come back at 60 so they can be here for five years to qualify for it. Uh, we have a lot of immigrants who have been here 10 years, uh, and that's uh a rationale for them to qualify for super as well. There's an awful lot of people who haven't paid that much tax in New Zealand over the years who are still getting that entitlement. So we've got to be tougher in in that respect as well, too, don't we?
SPEAKER_01I think we do. And and obviously you've mentioned immigration, and that's a that obviously is a different uh a different policy area altogether. It's a policy area that we, I think, have dropped the ball on um over successive governments of of of both shades of blue and red. Um, and it's something that we have quite a it's something that we have quite a firm policy on. Our immigration policy, I think, is uh is second to none. Um to sum it up, we need people we need, not people who need us. We have an excellent refugee policy, and that takes care of the people we need us. We meet our global obligations there, to my satisfaction anyway, and I'm sure to yours. Um our immigration policy should not be even remotely a refugee policy. That is a policy designed to grow our um to grow our economy, and and so like I say, we should only be letting people in that we need.
SPEAKER_00But that Indian free trade agreement, if you listen to Winston, suggests that we're opening the floodgates to a lot of uh Indian immigrants who'll come here not necessarily with a lot of skills, or if they do have the skills, they're not going to be able to be employed and they'll finish up being Uber drivers. And we have enough uh Uber drivers of Indian descent as it is, I would have thought.
SPEAKER_01Well, um yeah, I get what you say, which is why I don't listen to Winston. He's wrong. He's completely wrong.
SPEAKER_00So so the FTA does not open the floodgates to people to come here as students and then they can bring their mother and their father and their grandparents with them as well.
SPEAKER_01No, it absolutely doesn't. There is no opportunity to unify family members or anything like that as part of the FTA agreement. Once people have been here for uh the amount of time that they're permitted to be here for the work visas which are available through the if they're people we need available through the free trade agreement, um, then they can apply through all normal procedures that we have, all existing immigration procedures we have. There's nothing to stop them doing that, but there'd be nothing to stop them doing that from India anyway. Uh no, that that none of those concerns around the India Free Trade Deal are founded. You know, we will look back, Peter, in years to come as we do with the China free trade deal and say, my God, what a shame we couldn't have signed that a few years earlier.
SPEAKER_00And Winston, as we know, uh back in 2008, was uh very much against that uh FTA. And frankly, the country would be in deep stuck without it now. Um, 18 years old.
SPEAKER_01But obviously, we we have to try and negotiate them as as as satisfactorily as possible for us. And that India free trade uh agreement, it's brilliant at the moment, but there is so much more, particularly with dairy. There is a lot further we can go, um, but it's a brilliant agreement.
SPEAKER_00Well, we'll see how it uh it plays out in times to come. I want to raise the issue now of race relations in this country. Famously, ACT last year introduced the Treaty Principles Bill. It got to first reading, then was always going to be voted down. We have a case uh which I've just written about, Paul, uh, which was heard in the High Court in February, March, and April of last year, an eight-week hearing. And we still don't have a decision on that because Nytahu want control over South Island fresh water. They've already taken $100 million from the power company for the use of water on the Waitaki River. We know they've just been given uh preferential rights to be the operators of Molesworth Station. Are you worried that there is uh a movement who would seem in inside parts of the current government to be just a bit too nice and a bit too generous to these very, very wealthy Uber tribes such as uh Nytahu here in the South Island and uh in Tainoe up north?
SPEAKER_01I think it's uh sometimes now with many of these race relations aspects, it's politically expedient to do nothing, to turn a blind eye, to bat it down the road. And we've been batting it down the road for a long time, which is a full, which is exactly which is why you're able to mention the the water situation that we have at the moment in the South Island, and and I mean just so many other examples of that type of thing. Um we have created we have created a crisis and has it gone too far down the track to to turn it around. I mean it might have. I mean i it it's like it's like borrowing more money, you know. The the line of least resistance is borrow more money, the line of least resistance is race relations, is oh well, we'll let them get away with this, but if they want more, we'll stand in their way, you know. And uh we're a long way down that track now, and it's a brave person, it's a brave political party that will stand up and try to do something for it. And what we showed in this last term is that ACT is the only brave political party left.
SPEAKER_00Are you going to have another go?
SPEAKER_01Yes, but obviously not in the same way. You know, history, we're not like that. If you if it didn't work last time, we won't do exactly the same thing again. Um, it was just interesting because we really marked the wood. There was one political party in this country that voted for one rule for everyone under the law, and it was ACT. It was the only party. You know, if we're fortunate enough, God, I hope so, to be in a coalition um after the election, we will be in a coalition with parties that voted against that.
SPEAKER_00Uh so how do you how do you get the issue back on the table again? Because to me, it is just so obvious and and has been, frankly, ever since that that on reflection, dopey phrase that Jeffrey Palmer put in in 1986 about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. God God knows we ever knew that such a thing existed. He put it in.
SPEAKER_01He's a lawyer, of course. He was a lawyer, Peter, and they operate in the grey areas.
SPEAKER_00But but that was put in 40 years ago. 40 years on, uh, we still don't know what the principles are apart from what well, why are we still interpreting the principles of the bloody treaty of Waitangi? Why? I don't know. Why why are we? Why are they still why are they always included in pieces of legislation? I mean, that's one thing you've got to give New Zealand credit a bit of uh New Zealand first a bit of credit for. They're trying to move them out of what, 18 pieces of legislation. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01And to be fair, both of us, both. I mean, there are some areas where where we have worked well with New Zealand First. Um, and I I think we have some agreement there. I mean, all right, let's talk about the Mori seats. Clearly separatist. Clearly, there's no question. Clearly, there is no positive reason to have a separate Mori role right now. So, what are the parties' views on this? All the parties on the left either want to keep them forever or have more of them. Um on the right, what are the views? ACT believes they should have been gone last Wednesday. New Zealand First believes they should go next Wednesday. National believes as long as there is a call from Mori to be on the Mori roll, we should leave it up to them. If if they're on the Mori roll, then ooh, let's leave as a. I mean, I mean, honestly, a Bob each way, that is just that is barking mad, isn't it? It is ludicrous. So all you need is a campaign such as the one that exists at the moment to get people onto the Mori roll, and it will always remain according to national. I mean, and and I think to answer your question, because this is not at the cutting edge of the problem, but it is a way we address it. It is a way we start to send clear messages that this country um will only succeed if we have one people recognized under the law. And an example, I mean, the Mori Health authorities are gone. Um, Three Waters was stopped. You know what three waters was? Three waters was co-governance. Co-governance is separatism.
SPEAKER_00But they didn't specifically prohibit it either. So, you know, inevitably, sod's law, the the local water authorities are full of e wee co-governance uh people. So nothing has been solved really.
SPEAKER_01Well, one thing that we have managed to do is take voting rights away from people that haven't been elected. So on on not on the regional council of Canterbury.
SPEAKER_00Should we even have regional councils? Well, no. And we should you'd like to think that they may be go-to-go, uh, because you know the the the Head Start proposals are all in by now, aren't they? Yeah, absolutely.
SPEAKER_01I I think I think that and this is another can of worms, of course, but I mean that's another example of of too much bureaucracy in the country. Um, I I don't see why we should have regional councils. That is a whole layer of of government that shouldn't exist.
SPEAKER_00But we're gonna replace them with unitary authorities, but the but the water authorities are outside that. And you know, the one in Wellington's a classic case. They don't seem to be able to know whether they're Arthur or Martha with the water bills they're sending out at the moment. Um, but they've also allowed co-governance with with ewe to be right at the heart and soul of that organization.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, it's barking. I know it's barking, just like the bills they're sending out right at the moment, which, as you say, in many cases they don't even add up. Um I mean, what you're identifying is the fact that there are one or two issues that need to be sorted.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, but but but how does a party currently polling, what are you, 8% uh with a good southerly wind, you might get 10, 11 percent on November the 7th. Uh, if national's around, you know, 30 something, you you're going to be in the coalition, you're going to be at the cabinet table, probably with more influence than what you've got now with more ministers. Yeah, can you actually convince those, let's call them for what they are, the wits in the National Party to do something about what I believe is is the a real handbrake on the progress of the country.
SPEAKER_01And I 100% agree it's a handbrake on the progress of the country in so many ways, financially and socially. Um, and the answer is yes, but it comes down to the level of influence you have, because that's the nature of democracy. Um, that's the nature of a numbers game. So it does come down to the influence you have. I mean, not only has ACT had uh quite a lot of influence in this government, and have we've managed to achieve quite a lot, nowhere near as much as we would want to, nowhere near as quickly, but we've managed to achieve quite a lot. One of the things we've done is is stop things, negative things, from happening. Um, there are a number of taxes that do not exist at the moment because ACT was there. At the end of the day, though, this is democracy, and you know, we can do as much as we can do. It comes back to a point I was mentioning before that for me it's the philosophy of a party that that that matters more necessarily than its individual policies, because that is what will drive your influence in a coalition. Um, and ACT has used its political philosophy very well in this term. Um, the more numbers we have, it's all critical critical balance, the more influence we will have.
SPEAKER_00Where I live now, though, uh deep in the South Island, it's a very, let's be let's be honest, it's a very pakiha part of the country. Where you are in Auckland, you'll notice even in the last 10 or 15 years, there are more and more brown faces. It is a far more, I won't say multicultural, but multi-ethnic society in the north. We also have what I believe is an increasing issue with the education of um, particularly young females, coming out with rather skewed views of the world. And I'm beginning to ascertain that this country is beginning to lean left uh more and more. And it it bothers the hell out of me down in this part of the world where we seem to be economically pretty strong and we're not affected by the movements that uh are happening in the North Island? Uh, do you do you understand that the country is swinging more to the left than maybe it has at any stage in recent years?
SPEAKER_01I don't know. I I hate to think that it is. Um, I mean, certainly this is a this is a an election that is literally sitting on a knife's edge. Um is that because it's swinging more to the left, or is it bad governance that has that has uh attracted people back to a party that was diabolical in power only three years ago? Um I I think national has dropped the ball uh for reasons that we've discussed. Uh I think that's made people shop around a little more. Um I mean I mean how can the Greens be attracting younger people by and large.
SPEAKER_00Can the Greens be attracting double figure support?
SPEAKER_01Well, uh younger, younger voters. I mean, they're a hotbed of socialism in the tertiary institutions, isn't it? Um and that's not to say that we don't have uh some heartland support in there, but you've got a mind for it. Um Amongst the socialists. You know, it's interesting for me, again, I mentioned before the traveling around the country and talking to people. You know, in the North Island, people are very reluctant to ask you questions that in any way skew racial. In the South Island, I know for a fact that I'm going to get. And in the South Island, you get a here-hear from the audience, which you would not get in the North Island, no matter how many people agreed with you, because they agree in silence. And that to a degree comes back to your water issue. You know, if you just, oh, it's a bit too tricky, you know, let's close our eyes and it might disappear. Um, we've been doing that for decades now, and it has not disappeared. It's got considerably worse. And, you know, it has to be addressed. We tried to address it this term uh with the Treaty Principles Bill. Uh, it started a very interesting conversation, and there is no question, following it as I did, there is no question that we won the debate. What we did was lose the vote, and you need to win the vote.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, David, of course, comes back to his euthanasia bill um from you know a previous term. He knows that that uh euthanasia movement, for want of a better word, started what, 30 years ago? I think Michael Laws said that he introduced a bill, and then you might remember during our time on breakfast, Marion Hobbes. Uh Marion Hobbes, no. Um was Marion Hobbes, wasn't it? Was it? Uh it was uh certainly one of the ladies of the Labour Party, long forgotten. Uh she introduced a version of it as well. Uh, but it it never it was a movement, you know, whose time eventually came, I suppose. And and maybe David's uh David's attitude and and the act party attitude is a bit the same with the matter of the treaty and race relations.
SPEAKER_01I think people need, you know, they say with um infomercials, you know how you see the same people trying to sell the same fans. Apparently, research shows that if you are ultimately going to buy a fan, or one of these things, you know, a chopping thing, um, you will make the decision somewhere around the ninth time you see the infomercial.
SPEAKER_00Uh that's why Suzanne Paul's still with us, is she?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. I mean, she's made a living out of the ninth time. Um, and I think to a degree that that comes back to what we're talking about. I think people need to, and you'll know yourself, you've done a bit of talk back. You know, if something huge happens in the day, you go into work on talkback and you think, oh, talk about that, that'll fill the boards, and it doesn't. But two days later, it fills the boards because people do need time to percolate on on issues. And I'm hoping that, like the euthanasia reform, I'm hoping that perhaps the the treaty bill and and everything that's happening now, which so many people see as being racially negative, I'm hoping that that might have the same effect. I mean, we I mean, you know uh the philosophies of Act. I mean, things should be supplied by government on need, not race. And I say things, I say things because that is everything, whether it's health, whether it's welfare, whatever it is, it should be based only on need. Whether it's placing a child from a dysfunctional family, they should be placed in the best family for that child. Um, it shouldn't be judged on race. Uh so there again is is a firm philosophy of act.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I've uh been at party uh at lunches with some national party politicians, including some pretty high up in the cabinet. And, you know, we we pay a certain amount of money. I I don't do it anymore, I must say, but I have in the past uh subscribed to some National Party fundraising through these through these lunches with important people in the National Party. And I've put the question to them, what about race relations? What about treaty principles? And and the stock answer is uh we we do research all the time, and it's not an issue with our people, uh not an issue with voters of any sort. So I get the feeling that the attitude of Chris Luxon and Nicola Willis, and even to a certain extent, Chris Bishop, to not address the real issue, this this real cultural issue, this social issue in the country, is because their polls tell them that the cost of living in the economy is far more important. Therefore, they're concentrating their efforts in that respect. But they can't go on like that forever, can they?
SPEAKER_01Well, and of course, but but of course, the racial issues in this country affect the cost of living in the economy. They affect every aspect of enjoyment of this bloody slice of paradise that we live in, and it's getting worse. I think more likely they are using the poles as an excuse for inaction because it is it is a growing issue. There is growing discontent, even although people are reluctant to speak out about it. There is growing discontent. And and there's that even me sometimes when I'm talking about it. I don't know if you ever feel this, but you check yourself and you think, God, am I being racist? You know, and uh and I know I'm not, but you check yourself and think, God, is this racist? What we are actually arguing against is racist. You know, separatism is racist. Um what we want to achieve is exactly the opposite to that. But it is very hard to have this conversation.
SPEAKER_00Do you have any ambitions to be the minister of broadcasting?
SPEAKER_01I'll I'll I'll tell you my answer to that. Is I have an ambition that there is not a minister of broadcasting. That is a minister, the ministry we can well and truly do without.
SPEAKER_00What the whole communications area? We don't need a minister in charge of uh communications uh uh being a very important thing.
SPEAKER_01That can be amalgamated into other ministries. I there's no way we need to have a minister of broadcasting. Um I mean, obviously there are there are things on the communication front that are important from a legislative point of view, uh, but that can be handled with other ministries.
SPEAKER_00Do we need to have Radio New Zealand, owned by the government, funded by the government to 60 million a year?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, it's an interesting question. I mean, it's a drop in the bucket, but as we were saying before, there's a lot of drops in the bucket. The bucket's overflowing with drops.
SPEAKER_00I can't believe that one radio station costs 60 million bucks a year to run.
SPEAKER_01No, neither can I. Let's leave it there. Neither can I. I I, you know, I mean, it we have every right to ask a lot of serious questions about Radio New Zealand. It is fully funded by the taxpayer, and we should know that we're getting value for money. But as with, I mean, Radio New Zealand costing 60 million to run isn't different than saying we have 43 ministers, ministries, um, 43 departments, and we want to uh bring them down to uh 18.
SPEAKER_00The United States has never had a government-owned broadcaster. Um, I I I know it seems many have and they've become increasingly more commercial in many of the countries that have been mainstays for Canada's got one, Australia's got one, and that's a hotbed of radicalism as well, from what I read and what I hear. Oh, God, it's they're just crazy social. And we know about the BBC and their Trump derangement syndrome and their extraordinary um editing of Panorama last year. So uh that that sort of activity, frankly, would probably occur whether or not it was owned by the state or not. But the state doesn't own newspapers, it doesn't own um that's right. The it internet uh radio stations. So why does it need to own uh a network such as Radio New Zealand with very important things? Of course it doesn't need to.
SPEAKER_01It doesn't need to. Um the question the question is, is there any benefit in it? And I think that's something that I think that's something that we could well and truly have a conversation about because I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I can I can see from a philosophical point of view why you might be able to argue there are benefits, but I can also see why you could equally argue that there aren't. Um so it's something I think we should have a conversation about. I think television New Zealand is very different, of course.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, absolutely. But but and talking of Radio New Zealand, though, I I count for the life of me, and I know this is just um you know chump change, but the concert program, the concert program should come out of a blinking computer, shouldn't it?
SPEAKER_01It doesn't need to have why does it even have bloody transmitters? You know, I I've been saying for years and years, we could take the running expenses of the concert program over, well, six months, buy every listener a box set of bloody CDs and tell them to go home.
SPEAKER_00Well, just a Spotify subscription would do, wouldn't it?
SPEAKER_01Wouldn't it? No. Well, now, when I started saying this, there was no such thing. Um, no, you're right. It's it's just ludicrous waste, but what is the point? What is the point?
SPEAKER_00Well, do we need a state-funded symphony orchestra? Do we need a state-funded ballet opera?
SPEAKER_01Well, if you're going to continue like this, this interview will never end. You know what I'd rather? Let me tell you this. This is what I would rather, Peter. Um, I would rather the symphony orchestra be given the funding that the concert program gets and be held to account for taking their music to every nook and cranny of this country, for introducing people to live symphony orchestras, and for having, I would, I would think you could easily spill out a student symphony orchestra with the extra funding, which wouldn't even be, I mean, it doesn't, concert doesn't get that much, I don't think. But that would be a much better spend of that money if you were going to reallocate it.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, there was an interesting piece on the TV1 News the other night about a New Zealander who runs the Royal Scottish Opera. I saw that. Or the Scottish Opera, and and he's doing exactly the same thing. He's taking opera to the people. They go and sing, I don't know, um, Madame Butterfly in uh in a marquee somewhere just to people on holiday. And I think that's that's really cool.
SPEAKER_01Well, how good would it be to say we've closed concert radio down and um the hosts will will uh pay for them to learn how to drive a truck, and they can then drive the symphony orchestra around rural New Zealand, and um that would be a much better spend of the money, much better.
SPEAKER_00Outstanding. Uh we must talk about TVNZ. You've spent time on the board there, which I was intrigued by to see your appointment. Uh you spent just over a year there. Uh what did you achieve and and what future does that company have?
SPEAKER_01I um I mean I'm I I can't talk in much detail about what I achieved because uh because I can't. Um I didn't speak publicly while I was on the board, and I I I'm not prepared to speak about it while I'm off the board in terms of specifics. Um what I do know is they are heading in the right direction.
SPEAKER_00It took them a long time to find that direction, though, didn't it?
SPEAKER_01Well, to be fair, to be fair, she's a tricky business to be in. Uh I know. Um there are a lot that have fallen already. I mean, what what you're doing essentially is you are completely reorganizing your business so it will fit on a different platform.
SPEAKER_00And no more out of the towers, it all comes out of the the the the the satellite now, doesn't it?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. So so what you're saying is we've got to do two things if we're gonna be successful. We've got to move the eyes across to the new platform, and we've got to move the advertisers across to the new platform. That is a really tricky thing to do, and there's no reason to believe and certainly success is by no means guaranteed. Um, but they are doing a brilliant job at trying. Um and the money they're spending on it, of course, is money that they've sold it away themselves. Um and we'll just have to watch this space. In terms of what should happen to it. I, of course, am a fan fan of selling it, um because I don't think the government should should own it, but I also know that now is not the time to sell it. I think there's there are real green shoots there, and there's every reason to believe that actually will be worth decent coin in a few years. So we should do it.
SPEAKER_00Well, you don't sell a loss making operation, do you? That's just stupid. And uh Mr Mr. Barclay, is it the the chair with his experience in banking and mergers and acquisitions and things will no doubt be be well aware of that. I you're right, it's a it's a tough business. What about even a partial investment from somebody else? Take away the full government ownership, go to the the mixed, what do you call it, the mixed ownership model, the mom that we had with the power companies?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and and I and I can see sometimes there's a point in that, but that's not necessary with Television New Zealand. I think we're in a much better position to give them the opportunity to turn the business around, uh, and and then you know, we can go to the world. Um, I don't think we'd have to go to the world. I think I think if it can be turned around successfully, we would find a purchaser for it quite easily. Okay, and just much, but it'll be profitable.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, finally, on on the television matter, what about content? What what content areas should the company be focusing on? I mean, they can't have big, big um budget dramas anymore, can they? Or even big budget current affairs, it would seem either.
SPEAKER_01Well, that's the inter the interesting thing um is that you've got to focus on your point of difference. Now, the point of difference is local. Unfortunately, your point of difference is the most expensive uh broadcasting you can put together, and therein lies the rub. So, what are we really good at, and what do people really want to see, and what can't other people do? Oh, turns out it's the most expensive stuff. Um, so yeah, drama is a problem because it's really expensive. Uh, and of course, the only government money that Television New Zealand gets is the entirely contestable money of New Zealand on air. So everyone has the same right to get that, and it's divvied up not according to who's owned by the government, but according to who puts the best proposition together. Um what should they have? Yes, news, current affairs, yes, local drama, local comedy. Um, but you've got to think, you know, how can we do that in a way that we can afford to do it and do enough of it, which is why you see uh more game shows, because in terms of local content, you can see New Zealand on air, get a greater group of New Zealanders on air in a game show than you ever could in a drama. Um, and that's what they've got to focus on because you're up against the world, and the world is is only a breath away on umpteen different devices. Um, TBNZ Plus is a brilliant platform.
SPEAKER_00It's been I use it a lot, yeah.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, fabulously, but as uh you would know, it's just one of a line of icons on your telegram.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I mean I have to look at that alongside Sky Sport Now and um Apple TV and Neon and the like. Uh actually I'm intrigued to see that TBNZ's got back into sport. I know that um whoever the who was the chief executive before Simon Power, Kevin somebody. Uh Kevin Kendrick, that's right. I remember talking with him when he first arrived about uh putting more sport back on TBNZ, and he said we can't afford it, but now I see it as a major area of of play, and I mean good. I'm pleased that they're in the game and having a bid, even though they're they're losing them, yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01And what TBNZ can do now is truly be in the game because there's pay for view. And pay for view has opened up a whole new stream of income, which is not as dependent at all on advertisers. And that and and that's what they needed, a whole new stream of income, because they've been very good at transferring eyeballs onto uh the internet, uh, transferring the advertisers when you've got platforms for Africa out there is a lot harder.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and I thought the World Cup that I I paid the $45, I thought it was a great investment, and and that's the way to go in the future, obviously. Um and talking of the media, just to wind up here, how's a you know a guy who's been on one side of the microphone, one side of the camera for many, many years, uh, and you've drilled a few of the you know the better politicians this country's produced and and done it exceedingly well. How are you feeling now on the other side and copying it from the likes of Jack Tame and Hosking and um Sean Plunkett and the like?
SPEAKER_01You know, you just have to you just have to be honest and straight. And I I I look back at many of those interviews that I've done where I've sort of caught people out. It's it's almost invariably been when everyone's known they're not being straight. Everyone's known there's something they're trying to hide. You know, I always, um, when I was an interviewer, I always knew that my job wasn't to challenge the answer to a question. My job was to make sure whoever it was answered the question. Yeah, it's the audience's job to challenge the quality of the answer of the question. So as long as they had actually answered the question, and I would get annoyed and insistent with people when they refuse to answer questions, but it's for the audience to determine uh the value of their answer. Um, so I mean, at the end of the day, I know I'm doing this for the right reasons. Um, I don't need to do this, I really do want to make a difference. And whenever I hear myself saying that, I think, oh, I've heard a few people say that. Um, but but I know I I don't need to do it. I really want to make a difference. I'm completely committed to giving giving it absolutely my best shot. And I literally I always say I'm not here to waste my time or yours, you know, because I mean time is so blum. Look at us. We're old men, Peter.
SPEAKER_00We don't we don't have one is older than the other, I have to say. Oh well, I've got a seven in front of my name now, but that's that's by the by. You'll get there eventually. Oh yeah.
SPEAKER_01What's the number after the seven?
SPEAKER_00Well, I I say uh as a golfer, I'm even par. I'm 72.
SPEAKER_01Oh, that's all right. That's all right.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I know.
SPEAKER_01Where do you think now? I mean, I I I'm like I'm 66, and I I always would have been panicked with that a few years ago, but now I don't think I'll panic until I'm I don't know, for some reason 78 sticks in my mind as a panic scenario.
SPEAKER_00No, well, the the thing that bothers me is that I keep on hearing these people in their 60s and early 70s um departing this mortal coil, and I'm thinking, oh my god, I I've got to go for another walk around the block just to keep the water. You know what 72 is?
SPEAKER_0172 is success. That's what 72 is. Yeah, and you want to be careful walking. I didn't get to where I am today by exercising.
SPEAKER_00Yes, I I know that. I presume nothing's changed in that respect. No. No. Red wine and fast cars, eh? Any hope. Anywho. Um, it's been a pleasure talking with you. Uh, good luck for the next uh what three months uh as you go on the stump around the country. I'm sure you'll be pulling in the punters. Uh you're going to be in the South Island at some stage?
SPEAKER_01Yep. Yep. I was in um Blenheim and Nelson last week. Uh, and next week I will head back down to uh Christchurch and several of the other cities around there. And and love getting to the South Island. Um, and and I've really enjoyed this, Peter. Anytime you want to talk, seriously, this is such an important election. We cannot let this slip away from us.
SPEAKER_00I think uh I I know that, and I'm hoping that uh everybody who watches this uh will know that as well, and that they uh they they vote with their head. And they vote about the future of the country. Great talking with you, my friends. Go well, good luck. And we'll see you on the other side after November 7th. We will, if not before, we will see you then.
SPEAKER_01Take care. See you for you.