- Today on Newshub Nation, did his beneficiary budget lack ambition? Grant Robertson answers the critics. David Seymour announces a new ACT Party policy, and has the government abandoned its nuclear-free moment? www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2021 Tena tatou katoa, I'm Tova O'Brien. Welcome to Newshub Nation. Ko nga pitopito korero i te whare paremata - in political news this week ` Budget 2021 delivered a boost for benefits, with increases of up to $55 a week. Pharmac was given an extra $200 million over four years ` a fraction of what it needs to fund the drugs on its list. Waikato DHB was targeted by a ransomware cyber attack this week. Some IT systems are still offline and surgeries have been postponed. Police are investigating. And the government is planning an immigration reset, signalling a crackdown on low-wage migrant workers. It says businesses should prepare to hire more locals. The blockbuster beneficiary booster budget. The Minister of Finance delivered his first purist Labour Budget this week. It's been criticised for not doing enough for working New Zealanders, for failing to properly fund Pharmac and that, actually, even benefit increases don't go far enough. I spoke to Grant Robertson yesterday and began by asking, is that all beneficiaries are gonna get from Labour this term? - Oh, well, no. We've said quite clearly that we want to continue to increase the incomes of the lowest-income New Zealanders, and one of the really important changes we made in the 2019 Budget was to index benefits to average wages. So there are now regular and reasonably substantial increases. - But in terms of this kind of boost, will we see a further, kind of, injection like this this term? - Look, we've just done this budget, and we're really pleased that we've been able to give the biggest increase in a generation. We've also got to bear in mind those other big priorities ` such as housing affordability, climate change ` that we've got to be making progress on; the health reforms. So there'll be a number of things to be able to look at, but we know the job's not done in terms of well-being, particularly of children, but also of our lowest-income people. - The Child Poverty Action Group says it falls short. Beneficiaries that we've spoken to say it will barely cover the cost of their petrol to get to a job interview or drop their kids off at school. So are you giving those people a commitment that there will be more in your subsequent budgets? - What I'm saying is we know the job's not done. We've just done this budget. I'm not going to commit to what's in the next two budgets in terms of these particular areas. What I would say, though, is this is the recommendation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group in terms of the rates, and we've gone beyond that for families with children. So, you know, we feel we've made a really good start here, but nobody is pretending that the job is done. - That Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations, they came out a couple of years ago. We understand that you actually wanted to raise benefits last term, is that right? What stopped you? - Well, we did in fact raise benefits last term. We raised them $25 per week` - But we understand that you wanted to adopt the recommendations of that WEAG report. You wanted to do what you've done in this budget last term. What stopped you? - We've always seen the WEAG Report as the blueprint for what we wanted to do, and obviously, you know, we made some really good progress last term, but we were in a coalition government. I'm not going to sugar-coat that. There were lots of different priorities, but I feel proud of what we did last term, and I feel very proud of what we did this week. - So you're confirming there, aren't you, what our very reliable source told us, which is that Winston Peters prevented you from doing what you did in this budget last term? - Well, we always saw WEAG as the blueprint, but there were a lot of different competing needs. And, you know, let's go back to` The very first thing we did was the Families Package. We reversed the tax cuts; we brought in the Winter Energy Payment, the Best Start payment, all of which was able to go to beneficiaries. But, look, there were always going to be competing priorities. I'm proud of what we did then, and I'm proud of what we did this week. - So the upshot is, though, isn't it, because you couldn't stand up to Winston Peters, you entrenched child poverty for an extra couple of years? - No, I don't accept that at all. We actually reduced child poverty over the term of the last government. We did that by a range of initiatives. There are always going to be competing priorities. It is obviously clear that Labour is now in government on its own, and therefore, the Budget we put out today reflects our priorities. But in the last term of government, we invested to reduce child poverty, and we did do that. - If you are really serious about addressing child poverty, what about the working poor? Why is there nothing in this budget for Working for Families? - Yeah, obviously we are reviewing Working for Families, and we have to make choices, and our choices here are to lift the incomes of the lowest-income New Zealanders. We all got through COVID-19 together, and we made sure people stayed in work. We've lifted the minimum wage. We've improved things like sick leave to help people` - Working for Families, though ` the fact that you're reviewing it, is that a commitment that Working for Families will get a boost by close of May 2023? - Again, we've just done this budget. I'm not going to announce the next two budgets today. But what we do know about the Working for Families system is it's been in place now for the best part of 15 years ` well, 16 years. It's actually a system that's served New Zealand well, but within it, there are components that I think everybody would question, the Accommodation Supplement being a really obvious one ` very important for supporting people's needs, but a real question mark about whether it's the best way to deliver accommodation support, given that it tends to end up going towards landlords ultimately. So that's the piece of work that now needs to be done` - So you could cut the accommodation support? - No, not cut the Accommodation Supplement but look at different ways of implementing it. - How would that look? What's your`? - Well, I mean, that's the piece of work we're now undertaking, but ultimately, what the Accommodation Supplement` - You usually go into these things with a bit of an end goal, though. - Yeah, but what the Accommodation Supplement does` It's a demand-driven exercise, and so what that means is as rents rise, it rises. Is that really benefiting all of those people? So another example of how you approach that is something like progressive home ownership where you think, 'Well, is there another way of this money coming through that actually 'might have a better long-term outcome for people?' So they're the kinds of ideas we're looking at. - When are we going to get some actual facts on the table in terms of what you're going to do with Working for Families, with the Accommodation Supplement? - Well, that piece of work's underway right now. - When are we going to get the results? - Oh, well, you'll see that over the term of government. - Moving on to Pharmac, when you break it down by year, you've given it $40 million. Pharmac says it needs $400 million to fund the drugs on its wish list. What are you up to? Why not give it more? - Well, we committed to $200 million in the` - But you can commit to something and give it more. - Yep, sure. But I want to make the point that we're fulfilling the commitment that we made, and we've increased Pharmac's funding by 25% since we've been in government. It's over $1 billion` - Doesn't touch the sides, Minister, of what they need. - It's over $1 billion per annum now, and this increase will mean that there are more drugs available to more people. Is Pharmac, again, the perfect model? That's why we're doing that review, and it is really important when we think about what Pharmac is. Pharmac is a bulk-buying agency that has meant that over the years, New Zealanders have got access to medicines across the country at a cheaper rate. Where the model's challenged is when it's about a rare condition or a new drug, and those issues are the ones we want to deal with in the review. Is there a better way of getting the settings right? I absolutely appreciate for people that they are going to`you know, those who have got friends and family in this position really want to see those drugs come on board. We are putting more money in and we are reanalysing the model. - But while you review that model, while you underfund Pharmac, these people with rare diseases that you talk about, they're not getting the drugs that they need. They are dying. How does that sit with your conscience? - Look, we all want to see more progress in that area, and that's why we've increased the budget so much over the four years we've been in office ` the 25%. We're over $1 billion now. - How does it sit with your conscience, Minister? - Look, I always` Like I say, we've all got friends and family who are involved in these kinds of situations. We're making progress here. We're going to keep investing, but across the board in the health sector, we need to do that as well. - Can you respond to campaigner Malcolm Mulholland, who was incredibly upset yesterday when we spoke to him after the Budget announcement? He actually swore at you. He said, 'F you, Grant Robertson.' What's your response to people like Malcolm? - Oh, look, Malcolm's been a strong advocate for these issues for a long time, and like I say, I understand the emotion that's behind this. We've all got family and friends in this position. We've put extra money in. We will keep resourcing Pharmac, and we will keep looking at the model to make sure it's fit for purpose. - So, then, your Health Minister, who said that these campaigners, campaigners like Malcolm Mulholland ` aka people dying or with dying loved ones ` when he said that they're using extremist rhetoric, I mean, is that language that you'd use to describe`? - Look, I think, you know, we're all going to respond to these questions in different ways. What I'm saying to you today is that I understand that these are very emotional` - Is it fair for your health minister to lash out at campaigners? - Well, look, you know, I mean, I haven't seen the context in which Andrew said that. But what I do know is he's working incredibly hard to make sure we've got a health system that responds to all the needs we have. And, you know, we've got a massive investment in health. We've got a full overhaul of that health system to make sure we deliver services in the best way possible. So we're going to keep working on this, and I'm sure Malcolm and others will keep advocating, and that's totally their right. - Your targeted Maori housing package ` clearly an afterthought from the March announcement. - Not at all. - But you did it; you got there. What will it do for the Maori homelessness rates by the end of the term? - Oh, look, I mean, that's not the only intervention about homelessness. I mean, there is a range of interventions there, and we obviously want to see homelessness come down. What that package is primarily about is actually making sure that we address, for example, the home-ownership rate of Maori ` significantly below the rest of the population. And so` - What is it, the...? - It's 31%... - And for Pakeha? - ...versus 52%. - So versus the rest of the pop` - Versus 57.9% for Pakeha. So what will it be by the end of this term? - I don't think we've set a specific target, but we think this kind of intervention's going to shift the dial. - Why not set a target? - Because there are a lot of different factors involved there, and we want to make sure that we make progress at a really practical level. The number of homes will increase. We will see more Maori in long-term, stable housing, as we will for the rest of the population as well. - So, holistically, what will all of the government initiatives do for Maori homelessness? What do you want Maori homelessness rates to be by 2023? - We want` There is a Homelessness Action Plan that has significant investment across the board. We want to see that come down. We want every New Zealander` - Not putting any targets on` - Look, it's about making progress in that direction of travel. You can look at the action plan; you can see the actions in that and you can measure our progress against it. - You've put $1 billion into the Maori budget this term, but you don't want any accountability measures. - There are milestones and accountability measures within every single thing we fund. - What are they, then, for Maori homelessness? - But for Maori homelessness, it's part of the overall Homelessness Action Plan to reduce that down. - OK. Whanau Ora ` how much did Peeni Henare ask for? - Look, I'd never go into how much an individual minister asks for or doesn't. - But he did ask for something, and you didn't give it to him. Why not? - No, and there was` and he wasn't alone in that as ministers. That's because Whanau Ora got an $80 million boost in Budget 2019 and $134 million over two years in Budget 2020. We've still got some of that time to go. We're going to keep investing in Whanau Ora, but you've just yourself said ` got more than $1 billion and a range of initiatives to support Maori, and so Whanau` - So is that your message to Maori, it's kind of one or the other? - No, it's that it's a fantastic package and that we build this up over time. - But do you agree`? - I mean, this is a trap to fall into, though, isn't it? To say one budget stops and then we just forget about it. That's not how it works. We fund it and it carries on. In Budget 2021, we've highlighted Maori housing, Maori health ` some of which Whanau Ora providers will be involved in delivering. - Do you agree with Peeni Henare when he says that Whanau Ora is one of the highest-performing portfolios of this government? - It's doing well, and it's achieving. And in COVID-19, it's` - It would do better if you gave it some cash. - And we have. We've given it sufficient cash. - Nothing new this year. - But again ` sorry to repeat my answer ` you can't just pick one budget out and say, 'That's it.' Look at Budget '20, look at Budget '19, and then look at Budget '22 and '23. - Unemployment insurance ` how much more tax will Kiwis have to pay? - So, the reason we put out that announcement was to make sure that people knew what we were working on. We're actually developing this policy in a different way than the way we normally do. So we're doing it with BusinessNZ and the Council of Trade Unions, and we're still working on the shape of the scheme, so we can't say today, 'It will cost this much`' - But there will be a tax that people have to pay, right? - The working proposal is an ACC-style scheme, and, yes, that would be a levy-based scheme. How much that is, exactly where that falls in terms of employers or employees ` that's what we've got to work out. But basically, this is a response to the fact that, after the Global Financial Crisis, Canterbury earthquakes, now with COVID-19, different governments have had to step in with ad hoc measures. We think we need something that's more concrete. BusinessNZ, the organisation that represents business owners, and the CTU came to us together and said, 'Let's design something. 'Round the world, Germany's got it; Canada's got it; the Nordic countries have got it.' So we're at the beginning of that process. We'll be consulting with New Zealanders, and we did commit to this in our manifesto as well. - Yeah, so given that you also committed to no new taxes this term, will you campaign on this? You won't push this through this term? - So the goal at the moment is heading towards 2023, so that would lin` - So you'll seek a mandate. - That would line up with the election, but what I do want to let you know is that BusinessNZ and the Council of Trade Unions are pushing us to go quicker, so bear that in mind. - So we could end up with a new tax under this government this term` - Yeah, look, as I say` - ...because you said you wouldn't do that. - Yeah, but it's not` I mean, we can get into a debate. I don't see it as that. I see it as actually` - A levy. - ...a levy and an insurance-based scheme. - But when is a tax a levy and when is a levy a tax? - But, look, let's wait till 2023. We're some way off. - OK, so there is a potential for another broken promise. This term, you could sneak through another tax or a levy. - It is not a broken promise, but we're a long way away from that. - OK. What kind of income brackets are we talking about? So the Prime Minister, she earns 470K. 80% cent of that is about $7000 a week. If someone like Jacinda Ardern lost her job ` because, I don't know, she introduced capital-gains tax or whatever - someone like Jacinda Ardern lost her job, would you pay 80% of that kind of salary? - No. And so, as we announced yesterday, there will be maximum and minimum caps, and they would be significantly south of that. - And could it be aligned with KiwiBuild eligibility, for example? So 120K ` would that be`? - Yeah, there's a range of different ways you could do it. That would be one. There are ones within the ACC system that you could already use, but it would be significantly south of the Prime Minister's salary. - You could cover 80% of a six-figure salary, though, for example? - You know, I mean, that would be possible, but again, we have not finalised that detail. What we do recognise is, you know, at the other end ` at the minimum-wage end ` you also have to make sure somebody's got enough to live on there too. - Do house prices need to fall? - (CHUCKLES) Well, where we've got to now and the forecasts` And I know that people will have different views on the forecast, but where we've got to with house-price inflation forecast to come down to less than 1%, I'm comfortable with that. I don't believe that I control that. It has a number of different variables and factors in it. I know 17% is too high and unsustainable, and that's why we moved the way we did. - Do you think that they need to fall? - That's not` I'm not campaigning or promising that. We put the settings in place to make sure that we don't have that advantage for investors and speculators, that we had the bright-line test extension. We then put those conditions in place. We're not targeting a percentage. I can see what the outcome is forecast by the Treasury, and I'm comfortable with that. - Our latest Newshub-Reid Research poll actually asked voters about this, and they do. They think that house prices should fall ` 73.4% of them versus just 20.7% who disagreed. So stop being so politically afraid and just say what you really feel. - No. No, and I'd actually` I mean, I don't know exactly what question you asked people in your poll` - 'Do house prices need to fall?' - I think what they mean is the rate of increase. They don't mean actually that they want the value of their homes to fall. - Are you ascribing intent to voters? - It's pretty hard to know, but what I do know from my perspective is that the main home that somebody owns is, generally speaking, often their only asset or their sole asset. We cannot sustain price increases that we've had, but I've got no desire to undermine the main asset of most New Zealanders. - But you do want to see that house-price increase flatline, as the Treasury's predicting? - Oh, I'm comfortable with where the Treasury's projection gets to. - Is that what you'd hope to achieve with that housing package? - Partly, yes. - And do you believe it? - Do I believe the forecast? - Do you believe that forecast? - Look, I mean, these are very, very hard things to do. And bear in mind that Treasury, in their projections, say it's not just about the government policy. They mention that. They also mention the Reserve Bank's 'loan-to-value ratio' policies, and then just the general economic environment. - Do you think`? Cos the forecasts have been all over the shop lately, haven't they, since COVID? - Yeah. It's very hard. - Do you think that this one is accurate? - I certainly think there will be a drop, and that is part of the reason for what we did. - OK, and this is probably a bit like choosing a favourite child, but sans Winston, was this your favourite Budget to put together and deliver? - Oh, they all have their own charm. You know, the first one was the Families Package. The second one was the Wellbeing Budget. The third one was COVID, which was, you know... Who knew that was going to happen? I'm proud of this budget. I think it addresses some long-standing needs and make some really important investments that are going to help New Zealand in the future. So, yeah, I'm not going to choose. - But the autocracy must have been a bit of fun for you. - Yeah, I've heard you use that word about me before. That's not how I see it. Cabinet still sets the Budget, and, you know, from a Labour perspective, we've been able to address some issues that matter to us. - But not having to squabble and actually do what you wanted to do ` was it a relief? - There were fewer people at the table. - Thank you very much for your time, Minister. - Thanks, Tova. - If you've got a news tip, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, and our Twitter panellists this week are Infometrics' Senior Economist, Brad Olsen, and Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative, Eric Crampton. Still to come, the week's political news, with our panel ` Brigitte Morten, Madison Reidy, and Matt Roskruge. But first ` ACT Leader David Seymour on the eve of his party conference. so it's no surprise ACT Leader David Seymour says this week's Budget was a beneficiary blowout. It's the party's conference on Sunday, and it's revealing a new policy about extending the parliamentary term, but first, let's talk about the Budget. David Seymour joins me now. Tena koe, David. Thank you very much for being here. - Good morning. - Good morning. You've described Grant Robertson's Budget as a beneficiary blowout, the La La Land Budget ` what have you got against giving people enough money to survive on? - Well, first of all, no one's opposed to that, and you've said that we'd like to cut budgets, it's interesting how quickly this handout had become the normal, and to reduce it again would be a cut. That's the problem, is that we constantly increase the amount of money handed out, and for those tax payers who are actually working hard and paying the bills, there's no relief in this budget whatsoever. I'll also just make the point that you've got to solve underlying problems, so if you look at why people are struggling, it's fundamentally because we have a housing shortage because rents have increased, and as a result of that, most of this money, much as when the student allowance was increased and the landlords said, 'Thank you, we'll have that,' most of this money, I predict, will actually go to accommodation in a tight rental market. - In the meantime, though, yes, we need to address the housing crisis, but in the meantime, people need to be able to put food on the table, petrol in the tank, right? So why not get behind this increase to benefits to align with living costs a bit more? - The problem is that this is being driven by politics, rather than economics, so, as I say, I don't think it will make a big difference to the after-housing-cost income of beneficiaries. If you're not prepared to solve the underlying problem that has caused the impoverishment of so many people, then all you're doing is borrowing money each year, handing it out, and probably leading to inflation. That means that you're going to get interest rate rises, and borrowing all this money with higher interest rates won't seem so smart in a few years' time. - And you still` ACT would have, like, an electronic card for beneficiaries, right? You say in your policy that's to prevent beneficiaries from buying tobacco and gambling and buying alcohol; do you think that's a problem? - Well, first of all, that's not our policy. Our policy is that you get four years, throughout your lifetime, of cash welfare. - Yeah, but that's part of the policy. - If you have a relationship breakdown, you need to escape a violent relationship, you can go on sole-parent support, as you can now. Where electronic income management kicks in is for people who are chronically abusing welfare for more than four years in their working life, for people that continue to have kids while they're on a benefit, that's where we think the state should actually step in and say, 'We're going to keep providing you with the necessaries of life, 'but we'll actually use electronic income management to make sure the benefits are going to the kids,' because with people that are chronically abusing it, yeah, they are. There's a whole lot of other people on benefits, and just remember, 350,000 people; that's 11% of all working-age New Zealanders on a main benefit right now. - In our Newshub-Reid Research poll this week, the public wanted to see an increase in the job benefit. In your alternative budget` - A lot of people in the public, but just remember, there's also a lot of people` - The majority. - Yeah, there's a lot of people, a very significant minority ` it was close numbers in your poll ` who actually are fed up. They've looked at this Budget; they've said there's nothing for business, there's nothing for tax payers. All there is is a borrow, handout and hope. - In your alternative budget, you would cut taxes, spend less ` $11.2 billion in savings, you reckon ` so getting rid of things like the winter energy payment, Fees Free, cutting KiwiSaver contributions, BestStart. What do you say to those New Zealanders ` the elderly, retirees, the vulnerable, babies, parents with babies, students ` who you're effectively punishing? - Well, first of all, not giving somebody other people's money is not punishing somebody. This alternative budget ` and ACT's the only opposition party that's actually published a fully-costed alternative budget. We're not just opposition. We're also putting forward proposition, a better way that New Zealand could be. But to come back to your question; take something like first year fees free. Now, that is a massive handout, a sop to voters driven by politics rather than economics, has not increased the number of people going to tertiary education. And I'm not worried about the students, frankly, in the Epsom electorate that I represent, who are already getting to tertiary education, neither are their parents when they talk to me. I'm worried about the kids that aren't attending school, aren't getting to tertiary education, aren't getting any benefit from a policy like that. So our priority is actually equal rights and equal opportunity for everybody. - You say that you're the only party to present an alternative budget this year, correct? Do you feel a bit like you're having to, with all the squabbles going on within the National Party, do you feel like you're having to stand in as a kind of de facto Leader of the Opposition at the minute? - Well, my focus is always on the people that I'm trying to represent in the Epsom electorate. - Is that the feedback you're getting, though? That you've kind of become a pseudo Leader of the Opposition? - Well, look, we're trying to be the leader of the proposition, and that's why we put forward things like our COVID 2.0 plan, like our alternative budget. It's about ideas for a better tomorrow. My friends in the National Party, you know, they've got a few challenges, and I wish them well. - Grant Robertson conceded in that interview that there could be a new tax this term, despite saying that there would be none, and that would be to pay for that unemployment insurance, which is a policy idea that you support. Will you stand down your tax attack on this one and support the policy? - Well, ACT proposed this policy of employment insurance, and as Grant Robertson said in his interview, they have it in Canada. What we proposed is tax neutral; 1% of income ` which is a 1% reduction in tax as well ` goes into an account. If you lose your job, for up to 13 weeks, you get 50% of your income, up to $60,000. So it's capped, which answers your question. So we have designed this policy. What I will say is that it's very, very hard to do. Once you make it affordable, it's not as generous as people hope. So, look, we're interested in having the discussion about that. I think employment insurance is an interesting idea. But I have to say it's pretty hard once you get down to the numbers. I wish them luck. - And the new policy you're announcing this weekend as well ` four-year parliamentary terms. But what's the catch? - Well, look, I think we should move to a four-year term. Our law-making is too rapid, politicians don't listen enough. But we actually need to do something more than just give them an extra year carte blanche. The catch in ACT's four-year term policy is that the government of the day has to put the opposition in charge of the select committees. You look at the Epidemic Response Committee that we had about a year ago now ` people were captivated, and not just because they were at home under house arrest at the time. People were watching an opposition-led select committee really take it to the government. If you had independent select committees, then you would have, effectively, 12 mini parliaments speaking on behalf of people against the parliament of the day, and for political editors and journalists, it would be fantastic ` there'd be so much more to report on in select committee. Something for everything here. - Political editors and journalists also like elections. Would you really want another four years of Jacinda Ardern? - Well, it's not about who the person is. So, under ACT's policy, this doesn't come into effect until 2026. Now, who knows who the Prime Minister will be then? Maybe, you know, you'll have your wish that it'll still be Jacinda Ardern. But I doubt` - My wish, you reckon? - Well, you were saying, 'Do we want another four years of her?' - I'm asking you. - Fair enough. Well, you know, I think that, actually, it's something that happens in a couple of elections' time. And the way I look at it is that I'm a person, then a Kiwi, then a politician. My job is to try and make things better in the long term. I think a combination of more time for more sober law-making, but then also more debate with independent select committees and more scrutiny, more consultation and accountability would improve New Zealand's law-making and make it more democratic. - Your staunch criticism of He Puapua and Maori partnership rights ` do you understand the risk of parties like yours using Maori as a political football? - Well, I don't think that's what we've done. I think there's a risk in what you've just done right now is trying to make this a race issue. It's not a race issue. It's a question about what New Zealand's constitutional underpinnings should be. For hundreds of years, the political contest has been about expanding rights that are equal to everybody. Our conception of democracy` I mean, New Zealand's greatest political achievements was Kate Sheppard, universal franchise. We want the idea that everyone has equal rights and equal opportunity. If there's going to be an elected body, then it should be one person, one vote. Now, some people say, you know, 'Maybe democracy is different in New Zealand.' I don't believe that that is the way the world should work. - But speaking to Maori about this, they feel that they have been treated like a political football, but they're not just another topic to be kicked around in parliament, are they? It's tangata whenua. And you've called He Puapua divisive, saying it will set one group of New Zealanders against another, but isn't that exactly what you're trying to do from political gain? - Well, bear in mind, we didn't publish He Puapua. We didn't commission it. We didn't propose that there be a constitutional change` - You've driven debate around things that the Government's already ruled out. - So, Tova, is your position that we should never even go into Parliament and ask the Prime Minister a question about a document that her government's produced? Because that's what I did. I said, 'This document says you're effectively going to have a separate Maori parliament. Do you support that? She said, 'No, we didn't.' We haven't talked about that. That's what opposition should do, and there's a lot of people out there, Tova, who actually want questions like that asked, and they're getting a little bit tired of anyone who asks the question about the future of our country and our constitutional arrangements being subtly branded as racist. People actually do want to have these honest conversations. - How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go? How far is your conscience going to allow you to go on this iwi-Kiwi type rhetoric? - Well, we haven't gone down any rabbit hole. We haven't used that rhetoric. What we've asked is what is the future of our country? Does democracy in New Zealand mean one person, one vote, or does it mean that some people have seats reserved at the table based on ancestry? And what astonishes me is there's a whole lot of people running around, saying that they've discovered this amazing new thing. Well, actually, it's called caste, it's called class, it's called feudalism, where you have different political rights for different sets of people based on who their ancestors were. - Another word is actually partnership. - The ACT Party is in favour` Well, that's right. - We're gonna have to leave it there, sorry, David Seymour. We're out of time. Thank you very much for joining us today. - Thank you. - Have a good party conference. That's ACT Leader David Seymour. Up next ` the news and politics of the week with our political panel. Plus ` what climate emergency? Claims the government is not rising to its nuclear-free moment. Dr Matt Roskruge, Newshub's business reporter, Madison Reidy, and Brigitte Morten from Franks Ogilvie Law. Tena koutou, thank you very much for joining us this morning. - Morena. - Morena. - Plenty to talk about in all of those interviews. Matt, starting with the budget, a lot of political capital, a lot of political` a lot to gain, really, I think, and money has never been cheaper. Should the government have done more? Was this bold enough? - Yeah, it's a really, I think, a really carefully negotiated budget. It really feels like they've spent some time trying to balance everything, but sometimes I worry, in that balance you lose some of the impact. There's certainly a bit of space there to borrow a bit more, spend a bit more. But it's a marathon, not a sprint. We still don't know what COVID recovery is really going to look like. So, I mean, I think it struck a fair balance. - And, Brigitte, you've called it a 'cheugy' budget. For our non-Gen Z viewers, what does 'cheugy' mean, and what did you` what did you make of it more broadly? - So it's, you know, it's an allegation thrown at some millennials like myself that, you know, it's out of date as out of touch. And I think that's what the budget was. We saw large amounts of money. You know, David Seymour, absolutely right. Saying we're borrowing money to, for instance, bring up benefits, but doing nothing to change that into generational wealth of those individuals. And I think that's where we need, you know, this government to be actually looking at innovative solutions to actually change the frame going forward, not just throwing money at the problem. - Do you think though, Maddie, with living costs rising as they are, I mean, yes, addressing the underlying problems, but also, I mean, did they need to boost beneficiaries this time around? - I think it was definitely a catch up budget for sure. And we heard Grant Robertson say that he was writing that wrong of 1991. I think, although there is definitely a legitimate argument in what many economists have said, is that by just giving beneficiaries more money, that it could just boost up the rising cost of living. And this budget is a huge risk to inflation. 3.8 billion splashed, so much more than we were expecting. They downplayed what they were going to spend and then just came out with big bucks on Thursday. So there really is the risk there that the cost of living could just boom off the back of this big budget boost. - And what about for Maori, Matt? About a billion dollars in the Maori budget. But nothing new for Whanau Ora. Is this is this good for Maori? - Yeah. Look, I think... People seem OK. Like you say, it's a catch up. It's, I think, a step in the right direction. You want to see this sort of investment sustained over a long period of time. I think some of the literacy around the Maori economy and Maori enterprise needs to probably improve a little bit around parliament. It's difficult to see... We weren't seeing the communication around how this money is going to be put into the Maori economy, how it's going to help Maori start businesses, grow their access to contracts. - So, the key will be in the detail, you reckon? - Yeah. And around Whanau Ora, look, it's a little bit disappointing not to see an increase there. What I'll be really looking for is where some of these new announcements and some of the existing reviews are contracted back, or passed back to Whanau Ora to contract out. And so I think there might be money for Whanau Ora in here, it's just not explicitly stated. - Were you surprised with that investment in Maori in this budget, Brigitte, that Judith Collins, given all the rhetoric that we've been hearing, she's been solely focussed in the House for nearly a month, I think, on He Puapua, on race relations. Were you surprised that she didn't climb in on this? - Well, I think, first of all, you know, the opposition doesn't get the Budget in advance` well, normally doesn't. So, you know, they had for` 2020 was a little bit different. Yeah. So, you know, so when you say what their reaction was in the first 24 hours, it's looking at what those big numbers are. And you can see there was a lot of money being spent. So, you know, this is a National opposition. They're looking at going, where's the wasteful spending? Where's the non directional spending? You know, Matt's right that we don't actually have that detail on a lot of the spending. So it doesn't surprise me that that is where they targeted their focus. - I also don't think that Judith Collins wanted to be seen as a beneficiary basher. That would have been a pretty terrible look following this budget. - It didn't work well for Simon Bridges in the past either, right? - Exactly. Exactly. It definitely goes down like a cup of cold sick, that argument. But I would have probably expected more opposition argument on the scale of the debt. I mean, we are going to be posting huge deficits of, you know, 15 billion this year, 18 billion next year. If you look at the core Crown net debt going forward, it is huge. It peaks at $184 billion in 2023. That's a heck of a lot of money. I probably would have expected to see a bit more on that. Then you made the point that you do have to borrow in times like this. - Yeah, and we've got a lot of capacity to borrow. And if you look at some of our infrastructure, houses` sorry, well, actually, our houses, our hospitals, our schools. They're all needing a lot of money spent on them. I mean, waste water, just all sorts of issues in the regions. So, look, I think borrowing, spending some money on that infrastructure, as long as we can actually deliver on that, is quite important, pretty reasonable. - I probably just would have expected more of a spotlight on the scale of those numbers. - But I don't think so, because debt doesn't actually make good retail politics, though. Most people don't actually understand this` - But it scares people, right? - People think that` - It freaks people out. - It's seeing, you know, the numbers. Once you` - I think people are starting to see the benefits from the spend, right? Do you think that Judith Collins predicting Australia's biggest spending budget will entice Kiwis back over the Tasman ` Do you think, Brigitte, we'll see another brain drain? - Yeah, I think it's definitely possible. And that some of those policy settings, you know, the public service freeze, you know, I think we are going to lose some of our medical professionals across the Tasman and some of that really small stuff. So one of the things that they did in the federal budget across the Tasman is incentives in the gaming industry. And that's really competitive, and we've got a growing industry here. And it's going to really struggle to keep up with the innovation and the great work they're doing with that kind of incentive across the Tasman. - What do we make of National having two opposition spokespeople to shadow Grant Robertson, so they've got a shadow treasurer, and they've got a shadow finance spokesman. How did National respond, do you think, to the budget this week? - I don't, really. Have you heard much from them? They've been surprisingly quiet, I found. I mean, we were sort of looking after the` after the lockup to see what was coming up from National, and it was really quiet. I'm not sure what's going on there. I think the economy is usually where National does very well, and it's something that they want to be strong on. But given the amount of money that seems to be available to spend in this and the next few budgets, they're going to have to work hard to get some angles in there. - So has it kind of been left to the ACT party and David Seymour, with that alternative budget to actually put out what the opposition would be doing? - I think this goes back again to sort of retail politics. A lot of the space is taken up by the budget. Normally, the opposition may be able to get one or two, sort of, points in. But, you know, this was a huge spend. This is a huge Labour budget. It would have been difficult for the opposition to get really that much media or that much cut through to, you know, households about what was happening. I think there's a lot in the budget to unpick. Where, you know, non-delivery of infrastructure, how some of that detail of this huge spend actually rolls out, that's where the opposition is going to shine. - And is it time for four year parliamentary term, as he's proposing? - I think so. - I think, really good proposal in terms of looking at what the select committee structure is, because that is a key accountability for us in terms of our legislative making process. And he was right, wasn't he, in terms of the Epidemic Response Committee, that was not only riveting viewing, but there was a great degree of accountability that went with it. So do you think this is a policy that other political parties might get behind. Maddie? - Absolutely. I would expect so. And especially if their one's gunning for power, I'm sure they would all love an extra year in the back pocket, if they do get elected. - What about this... The He Puapua rhetoric? I learnt a new term recently ` 'JAQing' off, 'Just Asking Questions' off. What do you think about this 'just asking questions' argument that David Seymour puts forward when it comes to some of that rhetoric we've heard around He Puapua in the House? - Yeah, it can be really dangerous. And I think it sucks some of the` I mean, it's some new ideas, it's a new initiative that people` I mean, thinking from a Maori perspective, it's something that we want to know more about. It kind of feels like you're finally getting a little bit of` and it might go nowhere, but it's a little bit of good news. You want to explore it. And straight away, it's sort of under attack. It's on the defensive. Feels like people have to pull back from this bright innovation. So that was, I think, a little bit disappointing, not to give Maori a chance to look at a report and feel some of the optimism and start to find some positions there. - And the government needs to take some responsibility for that as well, doesn't it? If you squirrel something away, hide it away, only put out a redacted version, if you don't kind of front foot some of these conversations, it looks like you have something to hide, right? - Yeah. It's not the opposition that hid this report, it's the government that put it in a drawer. And I think what's also going on is the fact that if they'd been upfront about some of the things in the proposal, you'd actually have a policy discussion. Instead, they've tried to sort of hide behind this more, 'Well, we` you shouldn't discuss that at all, 'because you are being, you know, racist in your policy, you know, in your argument.' We actually should be having a conversation about where we're going as a country and all those kind of nuances. Yes, it can be more respectful than some of the rhetoric we've heard. But ultimately, let's not discourage that conversation. - But let's maybe strip out some of that language like segregation and separatist when we doing it. Thank you all very much for joining us this morning. Matt Roskruge, Brigitte Morten and Madison Reidy. Kia ora koutou. Thank you. Up next, did the government's budget sell us out on climate change? Our climate experts with their analysis. Plus, tempers flared in the chamber this week as MPs reacted to Budget 2021. When Labour rose to power in 2017, it promised ambition and action on climate change. (RHYTHMIC UPBEAT MUSIC) - What do we want? - CROWD: Climate action! - When do we want it? - CROWD: Now! - This is my generation's nuclear-free moment. - So today, we have drawn a line in the sand. - Today, we introduce the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill to parliament. - We will have done more in this term of parliament than the previous 30 years of governments combined. - The next generation will see that we, in New Zealand, were on the right side of history. (CHEERING, APPLAUSE) - So four years into power, has Labour lived up to its promises? Russel Norman is the Executive Director of Greenpeace and climate activist India Logan-Riley attended the Paris climate talks in 2015. Tena korua. Thank you both for joining us. Just for starters, do you think that Jacinda Ardern has lived up to her nuclear-free moment? - I think what's really important to remember is, with the nuclear movement, it was grown by people, it was developed from the ground up, and then government decision-makers listened, and so what we're really looking for from Jacinda is that listening and then the action and follow-through, and that just hasn't happened. - And do you agree, Russel? - Look, I think there's been a few policies which have been significant. The ban on new oil and gas exploration was very significant. Putting a cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, which is due to roll out very shortly, is significant. And I think the rail investment is significant. Beyond that, there isn't much to see. And so we're really very much waiting after` we're in the fourth year of this government. We're still waiting for much more serious climate action. - And looking back now on those Paris climate talks in 2015, India, do they feel like just a whole lot of hot air now? Pardon the pun. - I think what's important to remember was a line in the sand, and we saw that happen again with the Zero Carbon Act. But of course, a plan then requires follow-through, and it's that follow-through that we're really looking for, and having attended the UN negotiations over the last few years after Paris, we're still continuing to see a lack of follow-through, and, I guess, a pretention from the government that we're doing what we need to do on the international stage, but not actually having integrity on that promise back home. - And what about specifically on this Budget, with the government declaring climate emergency last year, did you feel like that sense of urgency was reflected in Budget 2021? - No, it's not. I mean, if you think about the kinds of tools government has; it has fiscal tools ` and obviously the Budget is the primary mechanism for delivering those ` it has regulatory tools, and it can put a price on emissions, right? And so the Budget had the opportunity to deliver on the fiscal front. And particularly if you think about the two key areas we have; agriculture ` agribusiness is half of our emissions, transport is about 20%. Those two big areas, they haven't used the fiscal tools available to drive change in those areas. They barely used the regulatory tools. Now, to be fair to them, a lot of the transport funding comes through the National Land Transport Fund, which is a kind of separate process. But we still haven't seen the initiatives in the transport space that will drive down emissions, and that's what we're still waiting for in transport. We're also waiting for them in agriculture, of course. - We'll talk a bit more about agriculture and transport soon, but, India, why is it important to see climate through an indigenous lens? - I guess, just looking at this Budget in particular, the Maori understanding is that for the budget to be a good climate budget, it also has to be a good welfare budget, and for it to be a good welfare budget, it needs to be a good climate budget. And it has done neither adequately, and that means that when it comes to facing the impacts of climate change, our communities won't be resilient, and we will see treatment of poor people, Maori, people with disabilities, queer people, much the same as what happened in the COVID crisis, which is really poor support and a creating of tiering of support that leaves people behind. - So, when James Shaw says that there are billions set aside for climate in this Budget, a big boost for rail, low emissions vehicles, green investment fund, $3 billion ring-fence from the emissions trading scheme, do you not see that as a step in the right direction or enough? - Look, I think the biggest part was the Green Investment Fund, in terms of specific climate, and so we'll see how that delivers. So far, the Green Investment Fund hasn't delivered a lot. In terms of the rail investment, that's, you know, that's a continuation of what New Zealand First got in the last government, which was very significant ` $4 million ` but it still isn't huge. The real issue is, obviously, agriculture, right? So, this is the cow in the room. So, the government kicked the can down the road in terms of pricing agricultural emissions, so we still have a voluntary scheme ` He Waka Eke Noa. Just like` Same as John Key. It's basically the same thing. They're just going voluntary, rather than using a price signal. And we still don't have a proper process for driving down synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, which is one of the key drivers of agribusiness emissions. - Is it time for a cap on cows? - Look, we clearly have far too many cows. I mean, there's just` there's no question we need to decrease the size of the herd. We need to move from this very intensive, industrial model, towards a regenerative, organic model. There is a global market for such products, so there is a great opportunity. But it really does require government, both fiscal action to support the transition, but also regulatory action, whereby you drive down synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. - How do you have a cap on cows and also protect the agriculture sector? - I think what's important to recognise here is that a massive gap in the Government's approach is handing governance back to Maori, right? We know that in the period of colonisation and the land theft that happened resulted in a massive increase in emissions, and a majority of stolen land is used for extractive industry that contributes high emissions to the climate crisis. So what the government actually needs to be doing is, rather than just talking about cows or not, is actually handing the decision-making back to Maori because what we do works and what we do has worked in the past, and to deny us our leadership and our resourcing in this space only helps to contribute to the climate crisis. - I'm interested to know, actually, what you think about the kind of rhetoric that we've been hearing in the parliament over the last month around the He Puapua report, which addresses a lot of those very issues. - I think what's important to remember is that we have Te Tiriti o Waitangi and is kind of our superpower when it comes to addressing the climate crisis, and it's a tool that hasn't really been used. It's an approach that hasn't been used. And so if you're not keen on te tiriti, if you're not... keen on supporting Maori to do this work and to achieving those aspirations outlined by our tipuna in te tiriti, then you're actually willing to contribute to the climate crisis and to ensuring that we can't reduce our emissions. And that just does not have any room here in the situation that we're in right now globally. It just doesn't belong. - And there's a lot of political reticence ` speaking to the cap on cows ` there's a lot of political reticence, isn't there, to go after` be seen to be going after the agriculture sector? Have you ever had a conversation on the quiet, Russel, with anyone who sits around the cabinet table now who has expressed a desire to see that happen? - Look, I think that there are many people in the Labour Party who understand this problem well. I think that there is` uh, sometimes they feel pressure from the sector. The agribusiness sector, obviously, is very effective at lobbying government, as they've proven over many years. So I think there are many people who understand that they need to move on this, but have been politically afraid to do so. But, you know, to go to India's point, I mean, I think that there is` if you look at, for example, the oil and gas exploration ban ` now, that took real political courage to do that. Just last week` And the National Iwi Chairs Forum were a key ally in achieving that, so it was a fantastic example of where we were able to get, combined across the treaty, kind of, the partners, an action on that. And then just last week, the International Energy Agency came out with its report, which said, if we want to stay under 1.5 degrees, we must have no more oil and gas exploration. So Ardern showed that she can have leadership on that issue. She now needs to really invest some political capital in agribusiness, in cutting the emissions there, because so far they've been too scared - And if your Climate Change Minister doesn't have responsibility for those, the kind of biggest emitting` the portfolios that cover the biggest emitters, so transport and agriculture, does James Shaw... I mean, what even is his job? - I think what his job needs to be moving forward is really ratcheting up the visionary elements of where we can go in achieving climate justice, and part of that, of course, is looking at the massive spend in infrastructure that's going to be happening over the next four years from this government ` it is billions and billions of dollars. And what we really need to do is make sure that funding only goes to projects that reduce emissions and only goes into communities that need extra support to create the resilience. If we don't have an eye across those sorts of things, then it will only go into increasing emissions, and that means that the majority of the budget has paved us towards an unliveable future. - And as Green Party Co-Leader, is James Shaw ` a hat that you used to wear ` is James Shaw failing in that role? - The basic problem he's got, right, is that he has no power in the government, right? So, Labour has a simple majority. He's not even in cabinet. Ardern didn't particularly want him to be a minister, like, he had to fight his way in. So, if you're begging someone to be a minister, then your power over that person is marginal, right? So they're in a government where they don't have much power, and so that that puts them in a very difficult position where they basically have to defend the climate policy of the Labour Party, which they represent, right? Because they don't set the climate policy for the government, that puts them in a very difficult position. It may well be that with the hypothecation, you know, the recycling of the money from the emissions trading scheme, if he can get his hands on that money and control where it gets spent, then that might give him greater power by having some fiscal tools that he doesn't currently have. - I think my final word on that would be stop talking about electric cars and start talking about land back, because that's the direction that we need to go in, ultimately. - OK, we'll give you the final word on that. Thank you very much, India Logan-Riley and Russel Norman. Tena korua. Thank you very much for joining me. - BOTH: Kia ora. - Stay with us. We're back after the break. with MPs of all stripes piling in on Budget 2021. Here's Finn Hogan with the week that was in Wellington. - Fresh from delivering his fourth budget, the finance minister was busy patting himself on the back in the House this week. - We are announcing the biggest increases in main benefit rates for more than a generation. (APPLAUSE) - Collins, however, quite keen to rain on his victory parade. - National does not grow dependency. We grow the economy. We grow New Zealanders, and we are ambitious for a better country, unlike that lot. - Meanwhile, Rawiri Waititi was questioning the budget's math for Maori. - One year of Corrections funding adds up to more than the total sum of Treaty settlements over 30 years. This is a disgrace. - And Seymour brought his dictionary to the chamber this week, keen to correct Labour's grammar. - You got all these larrikins in the Labour Party getting up and saying that those socialists... They don't know what words mean. - But Kieran McAnulty was standing in his socialist truth. - I am a socialist and I'm proud of it. (HUBBUB) - Yeah, there you go. (APPLAUSE) Thank you very much. - And McAnulty had a choice burn for one National MP in particular. - And I say to the Honourable David Bennett, they were very happy to elect a socialist in Hamilton East as well. And I know it hurts him. I know it hurts him. And I'd say that he may as well be a socialist because his face is as red as a socialist. I can say that right now. Madam Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House. - Well, its recess next week, so hopefully this lot, socialists and capitalists alike, can come back rested and ready to yell at each other some more about other people's money. - We're back with our political panel. Matt Roskruge, Madison Reidy and Brigitte Morten. Thank you very much again, guys. Climate change. Was there enough in this budget to address it? - Yeah, I mean, again, it's one of those things that needs to happen over a long period of time. We want to see sustained investment in both the technology and mitigation around climate change. But, again, people seem OK, but not thrilled with what was announced. - Is there any way in hell that Jacinda Ardern is going to announce a cap on cows? - I don't think so. I mean, you know, she's from the Waikato. I don't think she could live with that herself. But also, you know, around this sort of climate change discussion, we saw, you know, last term that they didn't deliver at all on the climate change space, things like, you know, promising that they would have the entire public service fleet of cars` I think that by 2025, that was going to be completely electric cars or low emission. You know, they've abandoned that. There's more money in this one for, you know, a leasing option. We've got stagnating private purchasing of electric cars. You know, I think, you know, there's lots of chunks of money and funds in this budget, 40 million here and 37 million here. But no, once again, strategic, actually, what are we doing across the board? - And Maddie, what did you think of India's views there, about needing to take a te ao Maori approach to climate change action? - It was very interesting from her, actually, the fact that she sort of spoke about this collaboration between welfare and climate change and how integrated the two are and the fact that she believes both were inadequate. I mean, I think many would say that the climate change was inadequate. It was really interesting that she also thought the welfare was inadequate, too. So I think there is definitely a lot more space for those two to be integrated more. And again, I would probably agree with Brigitte. There wasn't this overarching strategy. It was quite a lolly scramble. Bit of money here, bit of money there to say, yes, we are thinking about climate change action. But there wasn't really that overarching strategy with it. - Which is why Grant Robertson, I think, keeps pointing to looking at his budgets holistically and looking at all three of them so he can point to the next one perhaps having more of a climate change focus. Pharmac was another loser in the eyes of people who have been campaigning for more funding for the drug buying agency. You work a bit with Malcolm Mulholland, don't you, Matt? - He is at Massey. - Do there was enough in there for Pharmac? - Yeah. Health economics is a terrifying area at the moment, with cost pressures, drugs coming under patent instead of` So a lot of these personalised medicines that are incredibly expensive, we're going to need to see large and sustained increases in Pharmac budget in order to deliver what is a pretty frightening increase in that cost, but an excellent increase in the quantity of drugs over the next couple of decades. 200 million probably isn't enough, certainly wasn't enough for the people who've been campaigning hard to get more. - They've been campaigning for Pharmac's budget, a billion dollar budget, to be doubled, right? - Absolutely. And if you look at the health spend here across the board, we actually see a lot of money going into what appears to be bureaucracy. And, you know, they may argue that, you know, the Maori health agency and the restructure of the DHBs will eventuate in better health service delivery, particularly in our regions and communities that are more vulnerable. But we've got none of that detail and none of the ideas. So at the moment, it just looks like we're paying for a lot of people to do a lot of reviews, a lot of policy and for a lot of the deck chairs just to be moved around. - And, Maddie, you were particularly interested in producing us during the budget lock up in Wellington. You're particularly interested in the Treasury's forecasts of the house price increases flatlining. Does the finance minister just need to own it and say, yes, house prices have got to fall? - I think now that we have this Treasury forecast, I don't think they need to say it now because now they have` especially Grant Robertson has his own economic advisers saying it's going to drop down to sub one per cent growth, which is effectively coming off a cliff compared to what we've seen last year, and what we're due to see this year ` 17% growth. So I don't think he needs to say it now. I mean, he hasn't and probably won't ever, even if we want him to, Tova. - Get out of jail free card. - Yeah, absolutely. And it's a pretty crazy, crazy forecast, though, the fact that they do expect it to drop down that much, flatline at about sort of two% rate of growth from here on out. I do think that there is a concern, though, about what that will mean, economically speaking as well. I mean, the economy has come out really well out of COVID, but a massive cornerstone of that has been house price growth, I mean, middle income New Zealand has been sitting at home going, 'Ooh, lock-down, pandemic, but I also just made 100K on my house, 'sitting in it, per month, doing absolutely nothing.' And that is why people have been out there spending. That has been the sugar hit to the economy. Without that, I think Treasury should be a little bit more cautious about what things are actually going to look like going forward. - Do you think this is a forecast that we can actually trust, given how all over the shop they are? I think the last Budget Treasurer was forecasting unemployment around 9%. It's at 4.4. Do you` do you think that we can trust this one? - Look, I am absolutely not a Treasurer, you know, analyst, and I wouldn't question the numbers down at the nitty-gritty, but it does, you know, absolutely, that narrative you've just seen of that swinging up and down, I think that will make people very cautious about whether or not we can rely on it. And it was really interesting to see the Minister of Finance go quite hard in a speech to rely on those numbers, because that's putting a lot of confidence in those Treasury numbers being right to deliver the benefits of the budget that he says they will. - And benefit` Or, deliver on the $3.8 billion housing package as well, that the government's announced. Right? We needed to see some kind of cause and effect. - Yeah, sorry, around the housing package? - Mm. - Yeah. I mean, that's an ambitious still amount of money to spend. The economy is pretty much at capacity around construction. If you look at the road and civil and house construction, it's` I mean, it's great to have money, but you still need people, you need products to deliver on that. And with global supply chains completely tied in knots, with restrictions on bringing in new labour, it's hard to see how we're going to deliver on this pipe` certainly on an expanded pipeline. So I think the number is probably quite... yeah, it's quite a real` it's getting towards pragmatic. It might still be a little bit ambitious. - Yeah. There's no timber. (ALL CHUCKLE) - We probably need to figure that one out first. - They have, like, some colossal increase in the price of timber. - And then add on that the increased cost of shipping, too. So even if you can get it here, it's going to cost you a heck of a lot. - With the Maori housing stimulus, worked out at something like, let's say, 380,000 per house, but then you've got to take some money out for bureaucracy, and also for the 700 refurbishments, you're talking maybe less than $300,000 per house. So they're looking for a considerable amount of money to come in from the iwi and Maori organisational partners. - Very sorry, we're going to have to leave it there, we're going over. Thank you very much for your insights this morning. Thank you very much Matt, Brigitte and Madison Reidy, thank you. That's all from us for now. Hope you enjoyed the programme. Nga mihi nui, we'll see you again next weekend. Captions by Able. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2021 - This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.