Christopher Luxon says he wants nothing to do with the Greens while he's Prime Minister. 

Luxon's confirmed a National-Greens Coalition wasn't off the cards when James Shaw was co-leader of the Green Party. 

But he says the party has changed significantly under new leadership. 

The Prime Minister told Kerre Woodham he had great respect for Shaw and his commitment to the environment, and would have been prepared to work with him. 

But he says the Greens have since moved to what he calls a more "socialist" position. 

Luxon says the Government has not handled changes to Oranga Tamariki contracts well.  

A children's charity is suing the Ministry for allegedly cancelling a $21 million contract which still has two-and-a-half years to run.  

Stand Tū Māia says losing funding will end the service, which has a 100 year history of providing trauma care for children and whanau. 

Luxon told Woodham the organisation has done some great work.  

He says the matter is before the court so he can't comment much, but he has raised the issue with the Children's Minister this week. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Christopher Luxon says he wants nothing to do with the Greens while he's Prime Minister.&nbsp;
Luxon's confirmed a National-Greens Coalition wasn't off the cards when James Shaw was co-leader of the Green Party.&nbsp;
But he says the party has changed significantly under new leadership.&nbsp;
The Prime Minister told Kerre Woodham he had great respect for Shaw and his commitment to the environment, and would have been prepared to work with him.&nbsp;
But he says the Greens have since moved to what he calls a more "socialist" position.&nbsp;

Luxon says the Government has not handled changes to Oranga Tamariki contracts well. &nbsp;
A children's charity is suing the Ministry for allegedly cancelling a $21 million contract which still has two-and-a-half years to run. &nbsp;
Stand Tū Māia says losing funding will end the service, which has a 100 year history of providing trauma care for children and whanau.&nbsp;
Luxon told Woodham the organisation has done some great work. &nbsp;
He says the matter is before the court so he can't comment much, but he has raised the issue with the Children's Minister this week.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Christopher Luxon: Prime Minister talks Oranga Tamariki contracts, Green Party, ferry announcement

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/533c72e9-c399-450c-9cfc-b244016691ab/transcript

If New Zealand was a company staring down the barrel of running at a loss for at least the next five years and finding itself needing to borrow $20 billion more than it thought it did just six months ago, it would be lights out, wouldn’t it?  

And no amount of creative accounting could change that picture.  

Essentially, that’s the state we find ourselves in after yesterday’s fiscal update from the Government. With pretty much the only good news coming out of it being in the housing market, and an expectation that it is going to come back to life the year after next.  

Unfortunately, I think Dunedin can kiss goodbye to winning the fight over cutbacks to the new hospital. I think all the noise about the IT cutbacks at Health NZ will fall on deaf ears in the Beehive too.  

But I also think that the Government is doing the right thing holding its nerve and I think doing a Ruth Richardson and going harder and faster on the spending cuts would be a disaster.  

I was listening to independent tax expert Geoff Nightingale on Newstalk ZB this morning and one of the things he mentioned was how much of a role welfare costs are playing in the Government’s overall financial position.  

Which is why I mention Ruth Richardson. It was 1991 and Ruth Richardson was Minister of Finance and delivered what is forever known as the “Mother of all Budgets”. Because it was brutal - especially for beneficiaries and families.  

Unemployed people had their dole cut by $14 a week. Anyone on the sickness benefit ended up $25 worse off each week - in fact it was nearly halved, going from $52-a-week to $27-a-week.  

Universal payments for family benefits were completely abolished. She also brought-in more user-pays in health and education. Remember that was something Labour’s Roger Douglas stated in the 80s but Ruth Richardson took it further.  

And, 30 years later, Labour’s Grant Robertson delivered a budget that he said was increasing benefit payments to “right the wrongs” of Ruth Richardson’s 1991 budget.    

Nevertheless, the Finance Minister is saying today that, despite the way things are, we’re not going to see the Government going harder and faster on the spending cuts because it has already made spending commitments to the public.  

But she says re-prioritising spending will happen.  

So it seems that Nicola Willis isn’t going to channel her inner Ruth Richardson and deliver the Mother of all Budgets Volume 2. Which I think is wise.  

Not that I’m saying that the Government isn’t to blame for any of the shambles unveiled in yesterday’s update. As you’d expect, it’s pointing the finger at Labour - accusing it of economic vandalism, and how this just shows how much of a fix-it job it has on its hands.  

And don’t get me started on the creative accounting we saw yesterday, which Treasury was against the Government doing in the first place, and which some economists think is a justifiable thing to do but still kind of cheeky.  

I’m not going to get bogged down in numbers, but I can’t resist pointing out that part of the problem is the Government’s revenue from taxation being down.  

Over four years it’s going to earn $13 billion less. The cost of this year’s income tax changes is going to be $14.5 billion over five years. Just saying. But the tax cuts horse has bolted and there’s no going back from there.   

The other reason for the tax take being down is that businesses aren’t earning so much - which, of course, means they’re paying less tax too.  

And that’s going to be a key thing for the Government —and Nicola Willis said so this morning— it needs to do what it can to stimulate economic growth. It will say that that’s what things like the fast track legislation will do, all of that stuff.  

But it can't fix things with legislation alone, the Government needs to keep investing. Which is why it would be a terrible mistake for it to go all knee-jerk on it.  

If New Zealand was a company staring down the barrel of running at a loss for at least the next five years and finding itself needing to borrow $20 billion more than it thought it did just six months ago, it would be lights out, wouldn’t it? &nbsp;
And no amount of creative accounting could change that picture. &nbsp;
Essentially, that’s the state we find ourselves in after yesterday’s fiscal update from the Government. With pretty much the only good news coming out of it being in the housing market, and an expectation that it is going to come back to life the year after next. &nbsp;
Unfortunately, I think Dunedin can kiss goodbye to winning the fight over cutbacks to the new hospital. I think all the noise about the IT cutbacks at Health NZ will fall on deaf ears in the Beehive too. &nbsp;
But I also think that the Government is doing the right thing holding its nerve and I think doing a Ruth Richardson and going harder and faster on the spending cuts would be a disaster. &nbsp;
I was listening to independent tax expert Geoff Nightingale on Newstalk ZB this morning and one of the things he mentioned was how much of a role welfare costs are playing in the Government’s overall financial position. &nbsp;
Which is why I mention Ruth Richardson. It was 1991 and Ruth Richardson was Minister of Finance and delivered what is forever known as the “Mother of all Budgets”. Because it was brutal - especially for beneficiaries and families. &nbsp;
Unemployed people had their dole cut by $14 a week. Anyone on the sickness benefit ended up $25 worse off each week - in fact it was nearly halved, going from $52-a-week to $27-a-week. &nbsp;
Universal payments for family benefits were completely abolished. She also brought-in more user-pays in health and education. Remember that was something Labour’s Roger Douglas stated in the 80s but Ruth Richardson took it further. &nbsp;
And, 30 years later, Labour’s Grant Robertson delivered a budget that he said was increasing benefit payments to “right the wrongs” of Ruth Richardson’s 1991 budget. &nbsp; &nbsp;
Nevertheless, the Finance Minister is saying today that, despite the way things are, we’re not going to see the Government going harder and faster on the spending cuts because it has already made spending commitments to the public. &nbsp;
But she says re-prioritising spending will happen. &nbsp;
So it seems that Nicola Willis isn’t going to channel her inner Ruth Richardson and deliver the Mother of all Budgets Volume 2. Which I think is wise. &nbsp;
Not that I’m saying that the Government isn’t to blame for any of the shambles unveiled in yesterday’s update. As you’d expect, it’s pointing the finger at Labour - accusing it of economic vandalism, and how this just shows how much of a fix-it job it has on its hands. &nbsp;
And don’t get me started on the creative accounting we saw yesterday, which Treasury was against the Government doing in the first place, and which some economists think is a justifiable thing to do but still kind of cheeky. &nbsp;
I’m not going to get bogged down in numbers, but I can’t resist pointing out that part of the problem is the Government’s revenue from taxation being down. &nbsp;
Over four years it’s going to earn $13 billion less. The cost of this year’s income tax changes is going to be $14.5 billion over five years. Just saying. But the tax cuts horse has bolted and there’s no going back from there. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The other reason for the tax take being down is that businesses aren’t earning so much - which, of course, means they’re paying less tax too. &nbsp;
And that’s going to be a key thing for the Government —and Nicola Willis said so this morning— it needs to do what it can to stimulate economic growth. It will say that that’s what things like the fast track legislation will do, all of that stuff. &nbsp;
But it can't fix things with legislation alone, the Government needs to keep investing. Which is why it would be a terrible mistake for it to go all knee-jerk on it. &nbsp;

John MacDonald: Kneejerk reactions won't fix the fiscals

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/fa05c07c-2402-4267-b072-b249018a114b/transcript

The Government thinks it’s getting all tough on it with local councils, but I think Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown are just tinkering around the edges and they need to go harder.  

Instead of just telling the councils what they expect of them, they should be telling councils that, for some of them, their days are numbered.    

But essentially what the Government’s doing is it’s waving the stick on behalf of ratepayers, saying that legislation changes are on the way that will force councils to focus on “the basics” as the Government likes to call them.  

Which, on the face of it, most people who pay rates will love the sound of.  

And I’m no different. I look at the ratepayer money that seems to go out the door from all these councils in all different directions and wonder what happened to all those promises about “zero rates increases if you vote for me”.  

Not that I ever fall for that cheap talk.  

And I think we know what the basics are that the Government wants these councils to focus on. It’s all the non-flashy things like making sure there’s safe water coming out of the taps, fixing the pipes, fixing the roads, building new ones, picking up the rubbish.   

All the stuff that doesn't make council life all that exciting but is essential for every one of us, every day.  

As for the flashy stuff —or the nice-to-haves— that’s what the Government wants councils to put the brakes on. One of the ways it’s going to make that happen is it’s going to make changes to the laws that councils operate under.  

A big change is going to be removing the need for councils to think about these so-called social, economic, environmental and cultural “pillars” – because the Government thinks they’ve got councils involved in all sorts of non-essential stuff.   

So, you know, “drop any big ideas about pouring ratepayer money into a big flash convention centre. Instead, stick in the ground, buy some new water pipes, get stuff done.”  

That’s the message from Wellington.   

Which the 2IC at the outfit that represents most councils in New Zealand —Local Government New Zealand— was sounding pretty diplomatic about it when he spoke to Newstalk ZB this morning.  

Campbell Barry’s his name. It seems to me that any concerns he does have centres around this idea the Government has of bench-marking all the councils - comparing them against each other to see which ones are doing things the way the Government wants them to and which ones aren’t.  

But all this is going to do is it’s going to create a truckload of dashboard reports, more admin and do you really think councils are going to be able to achieve what the Government wants?  

Of course they’re not, because councils being councils, they get pulled in all sorts of directions by people demanding this and demanding that, and all your local councillors care about is not brassing people off so much that they stuff their chances of getting re-elected.  

67 councils in a country the size of New Zealand is sometimes portrayed as a very good thing because it means you have people sitting around the council tables who really know their communities.  

But I don’t see that as a virtue at all. In fact, I see that as an impediment. And the fact we have so many councils is something the Government should be doing something about.  

Forget about your benchmarking and dashboard reports and big sticks - we are overdue in this country for some serious amalgamations of local councils.  

Why do Napier and Hastings need their own councils? Answer: they don’t. Why does Christchurch need three councils? Answer: it doesn’t.  

In Auckland, maybe the super city model hasn’t been everything it was cracked up to be, but it looks a much better option than a truckload of tinpot councils all being corralled by central government and told to get back to basics.  

The Government needs to show some fortitude and it needs to reduce the number of local councils we have in New Zealand, because 67 is way too many.  

The Government thinks it’s getting all tough on it with local councils, but I think Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown are just tinkering around the edges and they need to go harder. &nbsp;
Instead of just telling the councils what they expect of them, they should be telling councils that, for some of them, their days are numbered. &nbsp; &nbsp;
But essentially what the Government’s doing is it’s waving the stick on behalf of ratepayers, saying that legislation changes are on the way that will force councils to focus on “the basics” as the Government likes to call them. &nbsp;
Which, on the face of it, most people who pay rates will love the sound of. &nbsp;
And I’m no different. I look at the ratepayer money that seems to go out the door from all these councils in all different directions and wonder what happened to all those promises about “zero rates increases if you vote for me”. &nbsp;
Not that I ever fall for that cheap talk. &nbsp;
And I think we know what the basics are that the Government wants these councils to focus on. It’s all the non-flashy things like making sure there’s safe water coming out of the taps, fixing the pipes, fixing the roads, building new ones, picking up the rubbish. &nbsp;&nbsp;
All the stuff that doesn't make council life all that exciting but is essential for every one of us, every day. &nbsp;
As for the flashy stuff —or the nice-to-haves— that’s what the Government wants councils to put the brakes on. One of the ways it’s going to make that happen is it’s going to make changes to the laws that councils operate under. &nbsp;
A big change is going to be removing the need for councils to think about these so-called social, economic, environmental and cultural “pillars” – because the Government thinks they’ve got councils involved in all sorts of non-essential stuff. &nbsp;&nbsp;
So, you know, “drop any big ideas about pouring ratepayer money into a big flash convention centre. Instead, stick in the ground, buy some new water pipes, get stuff done.” &nbsp;
That’s the message from Wellington. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Which the 2IC at the outfit that represents most councils in New Zealand —Local Government New Zealand— was sounding pretty diplomatic about it when he spoke to Newstalk ZB this morning. &nbsp;
Campbell Barry’s his name. It seems to me that any concerns he does have centres around this idea the Government has of bench-marking all the councils - comparing them against each other to see which ones are doing things the way the Government wants them to and which ones aren’t. &nbsp;
But all this is going to do is it’s going to create a truckload of dashboard reports, more admin and do you really think councils are going to be able to achieve what the Government wants? &nbsp;
Of course they’re not, because councils being councils, they get pulled in all sorts of directions by people demanding this and demanding that, and all your local councillors care about is not brassing people off so much that they stuff their chances of getting re-elected. &nbsp;
67 councils in a country the size of New Zealand is sometimes portrayed as a very good thing because it means you have people sitting around the council tables who really know their communities. &nbsp;
But I don’t see that as a virtue at all. In fact, I see that as an impediment. And the fact we have so many councils is something the Government should be doing something about. &nbsp;
Forget about your benchmarking and dashboard reports and big sticks - we are overdue in this country for some serious amalgamations of local councils. &nbsp;
Why do Napier and Hastings need their own councils? Answer: they don’t. Why does Christchurch need three councils? Answer: it doesn’t. &nbsp;
In Auckland, maybe the super city model hasn’t been everything it was cracked up to be, but it looks a much better option than a truckload of tinpot councils all being corralled by central government and told to get back to basics. &nbsp;
The Government needs to show some fortitude and it needs to reduce the number of local councils we have in New Zealand, because 67 is way too many. &nbsp;

John MacDonald: It's time we had less local councils

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/2e00bb5d-e2ce-4958-9923-b248018657ea/transcript

The Salvation Army is reiterating pleas for donations for Kiwis in need this Christmas and beyond, saying every cent adds up. 

The charity says its appeal this year —which launched last month— is especially important, with one in five New Zealand children living in households struggling for food. 

But it says they're in a Catch-22 this year – demand is rising, but donations are declining. 

Captain Andrew Wilson, Director of Community Ministries for the Salvation Army, told Kerre Woodham that they’re grateful for every gift, whatever size it is.  

He says that even if it’s just a dollar from every person coming through, that very quickly adds up into something they can very easily put together to support their families. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

The Salvation Army is reiterating pleas for donations for Kiwis in need this Christmas and beyond, saying every cent adds up.&nbsp;
The charity says its appeal this year —which launched last month— is especially important, with one in five New Zealand children living in households struggling for food.&nbsp;
But it says they're in a Catch-22 this year – demand is rising, but donations are declining.&nbsp;
Captain Andrew Wilson, Director of Community Ministries for the Salvation Army, told Kerre Woodham that they’re grateful for every gift, whatever size it is. &nbsp;
He says that even if it’s just a dollar from every person coming through, that very quickly adds up into something they can very easily put together to support their families.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Andrew Wilson: Salvation Army Director of Community Ministries on the charity's need for donations

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4a4a8ab0-73f3-4287-b1d3-b2430185193f/transcript

Christopher Luxon: Prime Minister talks Oranga Tamariki contracts, Green Party, ferry announcement

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips