The centre-right bloc is at odds over voting strategies. 

Christopher Luxon and former leader John Key implored voters at National's campaign launch to simply party vote National and ignore any call for strategic voting. 

The strategy is aimed at creating an overhang and maximising the number of aligned MPs in Parliament. 

Key told Kerre Woodham for the Coalition, it would result in a lot more ACT and NZ First ministers, trading talented National ministers like Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, or Paul Goldsmith for people voters have potentially never heard of and don't want. 

He says if you broadly want a National Government, then vote for what you want instead of potentially ending up with buyer's remorse. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

The centre-right bloc is at odds over voting strategies.&nbsp;
Christopher Luxon and former leader John Key implored voters at National's campaign launch to simply party vote National and ignore any call for strategic voting.&nbsp;
The strategy is aimed at creating an overhang and maximising the number of aligned MPs in Parliament.&nbsp;
Key told Kerre Woodham for the Coalition, it would result in a lot more ACT and NZ First ministers, trading talented National ministers like Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, or Paul Goldsmith for people voters have potentially never heard of and don't want.&nbsp;
He says if you broadly want a National Government, then vote for what you want instead of potentially ending up with buyer's remorse.&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

John Key: Former National Party Leader urges against strategic voting

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/00a6a73d-c336-4a30-bcae-b4d4000dced4/transcript

How big is his hole? Nicola Willis was asking Grant Robertson back in 2023, where are you going to find the money to fill that Government's financial fiscal hole? And now yesterday, she says that Labour has another fiscal hole to fill and it's a beauty. She told us yesterday when she was a guest in studio that there is no way Labour can afford to fund their pay equity promises, far less many of the other promises they're making to voters. Labour in response has said, well just taihoa, all will be revealed when our fiscal plan is produced sometime soon.  

Now some of this is electioneering and there's a surprise given we're in the middle of an election campaign. For example, National says that Labour's promise to fund public transport for many parts of the country, up to a certain point, will come out of the Crown balance sheet. Labour says absolutely not, they'll take the money from the Land Transport Fund. They won't pay for something that's been promised out of the Land Transport Fund. They won't pay for that, they'll pay for their public transport fares. It's called reprioritisation – the money does exist for the public transport fares, they just won't pay for something else. Some of the funding though is a mystery. I have no idea where they think they're going to get 11, 13, 14 and counting billion dollars for pay equity. Chris Hipkins, opposition leader, is adamant the money can be found within the budget as he told Mike Hosking yesterday. 

CH: We're going to set out in our plan, you know, we're going to demonstrate in our fiscal plan, you know, when we set out our breakdown of numbers that we have room there to pay for pay equity. What I said yesterday, and you know, there's a bit of divining tea leaves has been going on here, is that we're not going to have a specific line item, but the, our fiscal plan will clearly demonstrate that there is money in there to be able to meet the cost of pay equity. 

MH: So why isn't it a line item? 

CH: Because you don't basically, when you're going through a bargaining process, you don't tell the other side what's in the envelope. And you know, we wouldn't do that with any other process of bargaining. We've never done that with pay equity. The Crown has never put a line item in the budget that said here's how much we're setting aside for pay equity, but it has been there. And our fiscal plan will be the same. 

MH: It'll be about $12 or $13 billion. Is that fair though? Within that ballpark, that's what we're dealing with. 

CH: We certainly expect it to be a big number. 

Yeah, so it's going to be a big number. If it's coming from the budget, that's 13, 14, 15, whatever billion —billion, not million— that won't be spent on something else. And I don't know that there's that much wiggle room. The free doctors visits aren't going to be funded by a capital gains tax, I think surely even Labour's accepted that, given that Treasury forecasts house prices not going up anytime soon. Something else will have to be cut to fund those. Nicola Willis has accused Labour of fiscal fraud, but until Labour finally comes up with their fiscal plan, it's a bit like waiting for Keri Hulme to come up with a sequel to The Bone People. You should, I suppose, give them the benefit of the doubt. But do you believe it is in any way possible for any party to find —let's be generous— $10 billion from the budget without ripping the guts out of the essentials and without undoing the hard work that we have endured over the past three years? Where the hell do you imagine it's going to come from? 

How big is his hole? Nicola Willis was asking Grant Robertson back in 2023, where are you going to find the money to fill that Government's financial fiscal hole? And now yesterday, she says that Labour has another fiscal hole to fill and it's a beauty. She told us yesterday when she was a guest in studio that there is no way Labour can afford to fund their pay equity promises, far less many of the other promises they're making to voters. Labour in response has said, well just taihoa, all will be revealed when our fiscal plan is produced sometime soon. &nbsp;
Now some of this is electioneering and there's a surprise given we're in the middle of an election campaign. For example, National says that Labour's promise to fund public transport for many parts of the country, up to a certain point, will come out of the Crown balance sheet. Labour says absolutely not, they'll take the money from the Land Transport Fund. They won't pay for something that's been promised out of the Land Transport Fund. They won't pay for that, they'll pay for their public transport fares. It's called reprioritisation – the money does exist for the public transport fares, they just won't pay for something else. Some of the funding though is a mystery. I have no idea where they think they're going to get 11, 13, 14 and counting billion dollars for pay equity. Chris Hipkins, opposition leader, is adamant the money can be found within the budget as he told Mike Hosking yesterday.&nbsp;
CH: We're going to set out in our plan, you know, we're going to demonstrate in our fiscal plan, you know, when we set out our breakdown of numbers that we have room there to pay for pay equity. What I said yesterday, and you know, there's a bit of divining tea leaves has been going on here, is that we're not going to have a specific line item, but the, our fiscal plan will clearly demonstrate that there is money in there to be able to meet the cost of pay equity.&nbsp;
MH: So why isn't it a line item?&nbsp;
CH: Because you don't basically, when you're going through a bargaining process, you don't tell the other side what's in the envelope. And you know, we wouldn't do that with any other process of bargaining. We've never done that with pay equity. The Crown has never put a line item in the budget that said here's how much we're setting aside for pay equity, but it has been there. And our fiscal plan will be the same.&nbsp;
MH: It'll be about $12 or $13 billion. Is that fair though? Within that ballpark, that's what we're dealing with.&nbsp;
CH: We certainly expect it to be a big number.&nbsp;
Yeah, so it's going to be a big number. If it's coming from the budget, that's 13, 14, 15, whatever billion —billion, not million— that won't be spent on something else. And I don't know that there's that much wiggle room. The free doctors visits aren't going to be funded by a capital gains tax, I think surely even Labour's accepted that, given that Treasury forecasts house prices not going up anytime soon. Something else will have to be cut to fund those. Nicola Willis has accused Labour of fiscal fraud, but until Labour finally comes up with their fiscal plan, it's a bit like waiting for Keri Hulme to come up with a sequel to The Bone People. You should, I suppose, give them the benefit of the doubt. But do you believe it is in any way possible for any party to find —let's be generous— $10 billion from the budget without ripping the guts out of the essentials and without undoing the hard work that we have endured over the past three years? Where the hell do you imagine it's going to come from?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Just how big is Labour's fiscal hole?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4e64211a-3ff3-482a-bbf9-b4d5018ad596/transcript

I really like the idea of David Seymour's to turn the old teachers' training college in Epsom into a new co-ed public school. I like even more the idea that it not be zoned. In David Seymour's ideal world, the lovely old 37 acre site that is owned by the University of Auckland and currently lies empty would be jointly operated by two of the top state schools in the country, Auckland Grammar and Epsom Girls Grammar. They're both bursting at the seams with the number of students wanting entry through their gates. If the land that the teachers' training college is on right now was sold and used for more housing, there'd be even more pupils knocking on the door looking for entry at Auckland Grammar and Epsom Girls Grammar. If it was retained for educational purposes, in this case a school, not a teachers' training college, it would also mean there's a bit of green grass in a highly intensified area.  

I love the idea of it being available to any student across Auckland, no zoning, which begs the question around zoning full stop. Why should your child have to go to the state school nearest you? Why should you not be able to shop around and decide for yourself which school aligns with your child's educational abilities, your child's educational needs, and with your family's values? Is zoning archaic? Being told you have to go there, you don't have a choice. School zones don't just affect education, they also affect property prices too. Zones drive up housing and rental prices in sought after areas, sometimes adding massive premiums to homes near top performing schools, and buying into the area, even if you might have gone to that school and you'd quite like your children to go there, but you can't afford to get there, your family connections count for nothing.  

Is your child going to the school you want them to go to, or are they having to go to the one that's in your zone? And if you have been resigned to the fact that they have to go to the one that's in zone, are you happy with it, or given the choice, would you send them somewhere else that you think delivers more on your aspirations, your belief about what education should look like? Should families be able to decide for themselves where their children receive their education? Is it time to put an end to zoning full stop and just let parents decide? Are you for or against the idea and the reality of zoning? If you could, would you send your child to another school, or are you perfectly happy with the one you've got now? And for those who are living in the leafy suburb of Epsom, what's the ideal use of the vacant teachers' training college? A school? Sold for more housing? I think I know what you'd prefer. 

I really like the idea of David Seymour's to turn the old teachers' training college in Epsom into a new co-ed public school. I like even more the idea that it not be zoned. In David Seymour's ideal world, the lovely old 37 acre site that is owned by the University of Auckland and currently lies empty would be jointly operated by two of the top state schools in the country, Auckland Grammar and Epsom Girls Grammar. They're both bursting at the seams with the number of students wanting entry through their gates. If the land that the teachers' training college is on right now was sold and used for more housing, there'd be even more pupils knocking on the door looking for entry at Auckland Grammar and Epsom Girls Grammar. If it was retained for educational purposes, in this case a school, not a teachers' training college, it would also mean there's a bit of green grass in a highly intensified area. &nbsp;
I love the idea of it being available to any student across Auckland, no zoning, which begs the question around zoning full stop. Why should your child have to go to the state school nearest you? Why should you not be able to shop around and decide for yourself which school aligns with your child's educational abilities, your child's educational needs, and with your family's values? Is zoning archaic? Being told you have to go there, you don't have a choice. School zones don't just affect education, they also affect property prices too. Zones drive up housing and rental prices in sought after areas, sometimes adding massive premiums to homes near top performing schools, and buying into the area, even if you might have gone to that school and you'd quite like your children to go there, but you can't afford to get there, your family connections count for nothing. &nbsp;
Is your child going to the school you want them to go to, or are they having to go to the one that's in your zone? And if you have been resigned to the fact that they have to go to the one that's in zone, are you happy with it, or given the choice, would you send them somewhere else that you think delivers more on your aspirations, your belief about what education should look like? Should families be able to decide for themselves where their children receive their education? Is it time to put an end to zoning full stop and just let parents decide? Are you for or against the idea and the reality of zoning? If you could, would you send your child to another school, or are you perfectly happy with the one you've got now? And for those who are living in the leafy suburb of Epsom, what's the ideal use of the vacant teachers' training college? A school? Sold for more housing? I think I know what you'd prefer.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Is school zoning archaic?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/84c9dffb-993f-4f54-9380-b4d5000373de/transcript

The idea of a new co-ed school in the Auckland suburb of Epsom came from the schools involved – Epsom Girls and Auckland Grammar. 

ACT Leader and Epsom MP David Seymour says the idea is to ease pressure on the existing single-sex schools. 

He'll campaign on acquiring Auckland University's $150 million site, formerly used for teacher training and which currently sits empty. 

Seymour told Kerre Woodham the heads of EGGS and Grammar have had this idea in the works for months. 

He says Brenda McNaughton and Tim O'Connor approached him, have the backing of their boards, and are very serious. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

The idea of a new co-ed school in the Auckland suburb of Epsom came from the schools involved – Epsom Girls and Auckland Grammar.&nbsp;
ACT Leader and Epsom MP David Seymour says the idea is to ease pressure on the existing single-sex schools.&nbsp;
He'll campaign on acquiring Auckland University's $150 million site, formerly used for teacher training and which currently sits empty.&nbsp;
Seymour told Kerre Woodham the heads of EGGS and Grammar have had this idea in the works for months.&nbsp;
He says Brenda McNaughton and Tim O'Connor approached him, have the backing of their boards, and are very serious.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

David Seymour: ACT Leader and Epsom MP on the proposal for a new co-ed school in Epsom

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/277e2270-0fb2-4836-a022-b4d500003eef/transcript

John Key: Former National Party Leader urges against strategic voting

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips