The National Party has ruled out coming to any arrangement with Te Pāti Māori in forming a National-led government after the 2023 election.

The only party that National will be able to work with is Act.

Act are they're strong ideologically, so questions have been asked as to how easy they would be to work with in a coalition.

Act Party Leader David Seymour told Kerre Woodham a vote for Act over National is a vote for a stronger brew on the right.

"Make sure that we don't get another government where National campaigns from the right and governs from the left, they've done that five times in our history."

LISTEN ABOVE

The National Party has ruled out coming to any arrangement with Te Pāti Māori in forming a National-led government after the 2023 election.
The only party that National will be able to work with is Act.
Act are they're strong ideologically, so questions have been asked as to how easy they would be to work with in a coalition.
Act Party Leader David Seymour told Kerre Woodham a vote for Act over National is a vote for a stronger brew on the right.
"Make sure that we don't get another government where National campaigns from the right and governs from the left, they've done that five times in our history."
LISTEN ABOVE

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

David Seymour: Act leader says a vote for Act prevents a National govt that campaigns from the right and governs from the left

Yep, it was all about taxes over the weekend. Labour pinned its colours to the mast over the weekend and wants to tax more to spend more. Taxman from the Beatles was written by George Harrison in 1966 when Harold Wilson came to power in Britain.

He imposed a super tax of 95% on the extremely wealthy, of which the Beatles were on paper, but their accountants warned them they were about to become bankrupt. 95% tax. Labour does not want that in 2026 in New Zealand, but they do want to tax more to spend more.

As Henry Cooke wrote in the Post, Labour is a social democratic party. It wants the state to be a large part of the economy and it wants the state to worry more about employment. They are comfortable with core crown spending and revenue aligning at about 33% of the economy. National wants 30% And you might think, oh, 30 33 what's the diff? Well, the difference between these two targets is not there or thereabouts when you consider every 1% of GDP is worth around $4.35 billion.

So it'll mean two very different ways of managing the country and running the economy depending on who's in charge. Barbara Edmonds over the weekend and Chris Hipkins were speaking to their tax policy and it's good to finally see it because people now know they have a clear choice. We also heard on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning the Labour leader outlining exactly how the CGT will work to fund the many promises Labour has made.

Once the capital gains tax is fully implemented, we're expecting government spending as a percentage of GDP to settle at around 33% of GDP. So that is it is higher than what the National Party are estimating. We're not putting a particular we're not setting a deadline for it or anything, but it is a it is an indication that we don't expect to go higher than that.

The 1.35 billion on the CGT based on what? This is still the Treasury 4% number?

No, it's based on a 3% when we when we set out the CGT we set it out at 3% so we were deliberately conservative on that. And it's 3% over time, so obviously with the capital gains tax the revenue in the early years is lower than the revenue you get as the longer the capital gains tax is in place.

That was Chris Hipkins talking the CGT on the Mike Hosking Breakfast. Labour's also promising a return to surplus in the 29 30 financial year while pledging to restore the Reserve Bank's dual mandate so employment levels are considered in monetary policy decisions, which is all very well and good, but didn't help us back when they did have the dual mandate, did it?

Over the weekend National too made their party's position very clear: no new taxes. So no bed tax, which we were discussing last week to help fund regional tourism. No bank tax, despite Nicola Willis announcing a levy on banks in Budget 26 which she said would gather about 200 million over the few years. Over the weekend she said she was concerned and the reason she'd pulled back from announcing that levy tax that any new taxes would simply be passed on to Kiwis. If she taxed the banks they'd pass it on to consumers and she didn't want that.

It's becoming a clearer and clearer choice. Labour wants to tax more to spend more. You have to tax more. Where else are you going to get the money from? And if you tax more you have to hope that they will deliver more because it's all very well and good taking the money, but then it has to be spent wisely and judiciously. National says we can't afford to do much. If we wanted to do more we'd have to tax you more and we don't want to do that. So it means that some of the nice to haves won't be funded.

So do you go with more tax, more spending on the part of the government so they will do the spending for you? Do you want less tax and less money for the nice to haves? Or a pox on both their houses as we've seen in a number of political polls and a vote for the Opportunity Party? Because that's an option too.

LISTEN ABOVE

Yep, it was all about taxes over the weekend. Labour pinned its colours to the mast over the weekend and wants to tax more to spend more. Taxman from the Beatles was written by George Harrison in 1966 when Harold Wilson came to power in Britain.
He imposed a super tax of 95% on the extremely wealthy, of which the Beatles were on paper, but their accountants warned them they were about to become bankrupt. 95% tax. Labour does not want that in 2026 in New Zealand, but they do want to tax more to spend more.
As Henry Cooke wrote in the Post, Labour is a social democratic party. It wants the state to be a large part of the economy and it wants the state to worry more about employment. They are comfortable with core crown spending and revenue aligning at about 33% of the economy. National wants 30% And you might think, oh, 30 33 what's the diff? Well, the difference between these two targets is not there or thereabouts when you consider every 1% of GDP is worth around $4.35 billion.
So it'll mean two very different ways of managing the country and running the economy depending on who's in charge. Barbara Edmonds over the weekend and Chris Hipkins were speaking to their tax policy and it's good to finally see it because people now know they have a clear choice. We also heard on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning the Labour leader outlining exactly how the CGT will work to fund the many promises Labour has made.
Once the capital gains tax is fully implemented, we're expecting government spending as a percentage of GDP to settle at around 33% of GDP. So that is it is higher than what the National Party are estimating. We're not putting a particular we're not setting a deadline for it or anything, but it is a it is an indication that we don't expect to go higher than that.
The 1.35 billion on the CGT based on what? This is still the Treasury 4% number?
No, it's based on a 3% when we when we set out the CGT we set it out at 3% so we were deliberately conservative on that. And it's 3% over time, so obviously with the capital gains tax the revenue in the early years is lower than the revenue you get as the longer the capital gains tax is in place.
That was Chris Hipkins talking the CGT on the Mike Hosking Breakfast. Labour's also promising a return to surplus in the 29 30 financial year while pledging to restore the Reserve Bank's dual mandate so employment levels are considered in monetary policy decisions, which is all very well and good, but didn't help us back when they did have the dual mandate, did it?
Over the weekend National too made their party's position very clear: no new taxes. So no bed tax, which we were discussing last week to help fund regional tourism. No bank tax, despite Nicola Willis announcing a levy on banks in Budget 26 which she said would gather about 200 million over the few years. Over the weekend she said she was concerned and the reason she'd pulled back from announcing that levy tax that any new taxes would simply be passed on to Kiwis. If she taxed the banks they'd pass it on to consumers and she didn't want that.
It's becoming a clearer and clearer choice. Labour wants to tax more to spend more. You have to tax more. Where else are you going to get the money from? And if you tax more you have to hope that they will deliver more because it's all very well and good taking the money, but then it has to be spent wisely and judiciously. National says we can't afford to do much. If we wanted to do more we'd have to tax you more and we don't want to do that. So it means that some of the nice to haves won't be funded.
So do you go with more tax, more spending on the part of the government so they will do the spending for you? Do you want less tax and less money for the nice to haves? Or a pox on both their houses as we've seen in a number of political polls and a vote for the Opportunity Party? Because that's an option too.
LISTEN ABOVE

Kerre Woodham: We finally have tax promises from both major parties

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/ec9d6958-c64f-46a4-b4f4-b4af0175d2e2/transcript

Privacy issues are still points of contention as Police take the next step towards putting body cameras on officers.  

Police have begun researching potential cameras but are yet to secure funding or Cabinet approval.  

The Privacy Commissioner says it could have a chilling effect on people's civil rights, but they could still be safely implemented.  

Police Association President Steve Watt told Kerre Woodham New Zealand, for want of a better term, is already a surveilled state.  

He says almost every supermarket and street already has CCTV, so he struggles somewhat with the privacy issues. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

Privacy issues are still points of contention as Police take the next step towards putting body cameras on officers. &nbsp;
Police have begun researching potential cameras but are yet to secure funding or Cabinet approval. &nbsp;
The Privacy Commissioner says it could have a chilling effect on people's civil rights, but they could still be safely implemented. &nbsp;
Police Association President Steve Watt told Kerre Woodham New Zealand, for want of a better term, is already a surveilled state. &nbsp;
He says almost every supermarket and street already has CCTV, so he struggles somewhat with the privacy issues.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;

Steve Watt: Police Association President on the continued exploration of giving body cameras to police

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6bc5870b-89cc-46b4-96b5-b4ad001a481e/transcript

I cannot understand it. We have had eight years of discussion, debate, market research, investigation, draft reviews, proposed market trials, and still our police don't have bodycams. Our Corrections Officers have bodycams, they've had them since 2015. The security guard at your local mall has a bodycam. Every hoer with a mobile phone has a recording camera, and still our police officers don't have bodycams.  

Most police forces around the world have them, apart from municipal and national police organisations across developing regions in parts of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and New Zealand. They don't have body worn cameras due to budgetary constraints and infrastructure limitations, and apparently, we're with them. We're with parts of Africa and Latin America, budgetary constraints and infrastructure limitations. According to the stories I've read on this, a bodycam, along with the storage that you'd need and the technological backup, varies from $1,500 to $3,000. We have 10,000 sworn police officers who would need them, give or take the odd constable. That is not, I mean, I think Tauranga City Council paid more for their coffee machine, didn't they? I might be incorrect, but it doesn't seem like a huge constraint or hurdle for the police to clear.  

Despite Commissioner Richard Chambers tasking officials with exploring options for equipping frontline officers with body cameras as a priority last year after six years of exploration, reviews, trials, discussions. Fast forward to this year, a year later, having been told to see it as a priority, we're no further ahead. No decisions have been made, and Police could give no confirmation of timeframes. What on earth is the hold up?  

We're not inventing the wheel here. As I say our security guards have them, Corrections have had them for more than 10 years. There appears to be a willingness on the part of the Police hierarchy and on the part of the Police Association to have them. There appears to be a willingness from politicians across the political spectrum to equip our police with bodycams. The Police Association says its members are fully in support of body worn cameras because of the benefits they produce for their members and for the public.  

A study on the benefits following the introduction of body cameras saw complaints against police officers drop by 16% in one overseas jurisdiction. NZPA President Steve Watt says essentially, they're a de-escalation tool and that's how Corrections have seen them and seen the results as well, a de-escalation. The cameras improve safety for police and the public, were an evidence gathering tool, and helped with training and provided greater transparency. What on earth is the hold up? Bring them on. 

I cannot understand it. We have had eight years of discussion, debate, market research, investigation, draft reviews, proposed market trials, and still our police don't have bodycams. Our Corrections Officers have bodycams, they've had them since 2015. The security guard at your local mall has a bodycam. Every hoer with a mobile phone has a recording camera, and still our police officers don't have bodycams. &nbsp;
Most police forces around the world have them, apart from municipal and national police organisations across developing regions in parts of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and New Zealand. They don't have body worn cameras due to budgetary constraints and infrastructure limitations, and apparently, we're with them. We're with parts of Africa and Latin America, budgetary constraints and infrastructure limitations. According to the stories I've read on this, a bodycam, along with the storage that you'd need and the technological backup, varies from $1,500 to $3,000. We have 10,000 sworn police officers who would need them, give or take the odd constable. That is not, I mean, I think Tauranga City Council paid more for their coffee machine, didn't they? I might be incorrect, but it doesn't seem like a huge constraint or hurdle for the police to clear. &nbsp;
Despite Commissioner Richard Chambers tasking officials with exploring options for equipping frontline officers with body cameras as a priority last year after six years of exploration, reviews, trials, discussions. Fast forward to this year, a year later, having been told to see it as a priority, we're no further ahead. No decisions have been made, and Police could give no confirmation of timeframes. What on earth is the hold up? &nbsp;
We're not inventing the wheel here. As I say our security guards have them, Corrections have had them for more than 10 years. There appears to be a willingness on the part of the Police hierarchy and on the part of the Police Association to have them. There appears to be a willingness from politicians across the political spectrum to equip our police with bodycams. The Police Association says its members are fully in support of body worn cameras because of the benefits they produce for their members and for the public. &nbsp;
A study on the benefits following the introduction of body cameras saw complaints against police officers drop by 16% in one overseas jurisdiction. NZPA President Steve Watt says essentially, they're a de-escalation tool and that's how Corrections have seen them and seen the results as well, a de-escalation. The cameras improve safety for police and the public, were an evidence gathering tool, and helped with training and provided greater transparency. What on earth is the hold up? Bring them on.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: What's the hold up with giving police bodycams?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/5b154bd6-28f1-4fd1-813b-b4ad0008e823/transcript

David Seymour: Act leader says a vote for Act prevents a National govt that campaigns from the right and governs from the left

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips