Sir Roger Douglas is disappointed with the ACT Party's response to this week's bleak Treasury forecasts.
Douglas supported NZ First MP Shane Jones' response to the figures in which he made in an urgent debate in Parliament.
David Seymour has 'annoyed' his party's founder.
ACT Party Founder Sir Roger Douglas discusses this with Ryan Bridge.
The ACT Party founder said Roger Douglas has thrown shade at his own He's disappointed in the ACT Party's response to the Weeek's bleak treasury forecast, saying he does ACT doesn't have the right solutions for New Zealand's fiscal challenges. This is the party that he founded. Instead, He's taken a liking, taking a shining to Shane Jones's speech to Parliament in response to the Hayfu numbers, where he looks to industries which said growth as a solution.
Look no further than the massive group an export income coming from the primary sector announced last week fisheries, AH, horticulture, up, farming up, forestry increasing.
Now we ask David Seymour, the leader of the ACT Party, if he wanted to come on to have a chat with Sir Roger Douglas, but he declined a panel discussion. So I'm joined by the ACT founder, Sir Roger Douglas. He's with me this evening. Good evening, good evening, Thank you for being here. Why are you disappointed with ACT?
Well, look, I formed a thirty years go and let me quote a short extract from our founding document, The question of money is particularly important at the moment. In the immediate future, we are threatened to the largest debt in our history, a debt that hasn't raased the public's consciousness in any serious way. It is a debt that the state owes all of us it's citizens for our retirement pensions and our healthcare in retirement. Essentially, the deal is this, we paying taxes. We pay taxes into the system to fulfill our haalf of the social contract, and between us and them, between us and the government, we pay taxes. And when we are sick, the contract is that the government will see look after it. When we are old, the state will provide We who pay the taxes have kept our part of the bargain. But when we are old, does the state do its part? And they are going about the waiting list and say, when it comes to our retirement we are going to get Are we going to get the care? The support that our parents knew in their post war years? And that basically we said, in other words, back thirty years ago, when this document Common Censury Change was published, we predicted that unless we took action to start individual savings account, if we stayed with the pay as you go we were going to go broke, and anyone who did simple numbers three years, thirty years ago would have come, you know, to the same conclusion. You could have got a smart ten year old and they would But the government didn't want to do that. No government, Well well here I wanted to keep power.
Yeah, But well as every government does, apart from one that Roger Douglas is in. Because you're the only one radical enough to say these things, aren't you? But why pick on act at the moment, you know, why write this about Well, I'm obviously.
Disappointed that the party I founded stopped following those policies.
And David Seymour says it's easier from afar sitting back looking on harder when you're actually in there in government.
Oh well, that's true. But if you think about what we did in nineteen eighty four, we had a cabinet who said we are going to do the right thing by New Zealand, We're going to do the right thing even if we lose the next electure.
And you think that that's what we did, You think that lot doesn't have the bulls, that don't have the bulls to do that.
And that's what I'm saying I don't believe they they have. And when I listened to that debate and listen to the commentary, you know, I was so disappointed.
So how hard would you have to hacken too, spending to you know, to actually make it?
Well. I published the answers to this back there thirty years ago. We published a paper ten years ago with Robert McCulloch. We published a paper, detailed paper with all the numbers you've got. What about answer now?
Well, I mean, how much would you need to cut? Twenty five thirty.
That's what Treasury do, but I don't believe we have to do that. My answer is this, essentially we make the and this is why I get annoyed with that, because David says these ideas are rubbish anyway, but it'll take a lot of time. I would have attacked the first fifty three thousand, five hundred tax free. Of the saving, nine thousand and six thousand would go into SUMER, so that if you're an eighteen year old, you'd retire with at least a million dollars in today's terms about four million dollars in dollars of the day, So.
Basically compulsory, compulsory savings and no and no state super because that was well you take would take that off the books because it's going to customs.
It would it would take it all off and you would save about three hundred billion and forty forty years tied. And it does cost your rye. And let me tell you what sacrifices you and everyone else have to pass to make the key we save a tax break, I get rid of that. That's a thousand people are saving six seven They don't need that. I'd use the two super fund income, which is about five thousand million.
We can't go, Sir Roger. Sir Roger, I I can't go through your whole list. I can't get to your whole list tonight. But even though I know it's a good one, but I just just one final word from you on on David Seymour. You know you've given them a bit of a serve, but at the end of the day, you're still going to vote Act, don't you.
Well, what's my option? They keep my vote because they're better than the the other doesn't make them perfect.
Sir Roger Douglas, thank you very much for your time. For more from hither Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen live to news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio