Podcast appearances and mentions of David Seymour

On Saturday, roughly 20,000 marched in the pro-Palestine rally, the ‘March for Humanity,' with protesters walking from Aotea Square to Victoria Park in Auckland's CBD.  For our weekly catchup with the ACT Party's Simon Court, News and Editorial Director and Monday Wire Host, Joel, spoke to Simon about the rally and what protestors are calling on the government for, regarding their response to Israel's war on Gaza, as the death toll in Gaza reaches over 64,000, according to Gaza's Ministry of Health. As well as this, Regulations Minister and ACT Party Leader, David Seymour, has not ruled out changes to the labelling of alcohol, nicotine, and tobacco products. However, firstly, they discussed the ‘March for Humanity' rally.

David Seymour says changes to warning labels for tobacco, nicotine and alcohol products are on the table - despite pleas from public health groups. Guyon Espiner spoke to Ingris Hipkiss.

The New Zealand First convention took place at the Distinction Hotel in Palmerston North over the weekend. And all these silver fern, pin-wearing NZ First faithful gathered, along with a few wannabes, like Stuart Nash, he spoke. Just a few formalities to go through and it looks like Stuart Nash will be a signed-up member of NZ First and one of their high-profile names going forward at the next election. I don't know how the coalition government decided who would go first in the Deputy Prime Minister's role. If they said how they did it, it's escaped me, I'm sorry. They might have tossed a coin. They might have played paper scissors rock. They might have put their names in a hat and Christopher Luxon drew out one. Might have been done on seniority - oldest and most experience goes first. You just know that Winston Peters, leader of NZ First, would have totally gamed the system to ensure he served first as Deputy Prime Minister because after a good stint of being Foreign Affairs Minister, which he still is and which he still works hard at, and a good stint of standing in for the Prime Minister when he was out of the country and fulfilling his obligations admirably, it free's him up now, now that David Seymour's in the role, to really get the campaigning underway for NZ First well before 2026 rolls around. To be fair, ACT are not far behind. David Seymour's State of the Nation speech at the beginning of the year was a rallying cry to the party faithful. But at NZ First's convention over the weekend, you heard speeches that sounded more like promises. Promises that would normally be made on the hustings. It wasn't a convention per se, it was more of a, "Let's get going, brothers. Let's start promising," the kind of glorious kind of promises that NZ First voters are looking for when it comes to political parties. Things like making KiwiSaver compulsory, contributions being raised to 10%, offsetting that raise with tax cuts. What's happened here is you've got thousands and thousands of people, hundreds of thousands have signed up, but they're not contributing. They're not saving. And so it's not as easy as some of the journalists thought, just to work out what's going on. But we're going to make it compulsory and we're going to ensure this is phased in at a level which you'll see comprehensively is followed overseas. We need to turn this into a super, super saving fund and a super investment fund at the same time, but not in the control of politicians. And when you talked about yesterday tax cuts, that's literally a tax cut for a person who's contributing to KiwiSaver, or is it a rebate or how would it work? That's a tax cut for the person contributing to Kiwi Saver and also for the employer. Right, so I would pay less tax if I'm contributing to Kiwi Saver. You still with us? Yes, I said exactly, yeah. I think there must have been a drop out on the line. That was Winston Peters talking to Mike Hosking this morning. There was more preaching to the converted. Winston Peters called for new migrants having to sign a Kiwi values document, incorporating respect for the flag, respect for democracy, one person, one vote, that sort of thing. I imagine it'd be much like the Australian values statement that migrants to Australia must sign. And Peters said the party was responsible for getting cabinet to agree to bring legislation to the House very shortly, making English an official language of New Zealand. As is generally the case with election campaign promises, there wasn't a great deal of specific detail. No costings from Peters on how much the Kiwi Saver policy would cost or how it would be implemented, other than to say the rise in contributions would be staggered, first 8% then 10%. But let him be perfectly clear, there is life in the old boy yet and he is determined to get himself and NZ First back into Parliament and back into government with even more sway than he had this time around. As far as Winston Peters is concerned, ‘25, as in 2025 is done and dusted. It is 2026, baby. NZ First is on the road, looking to win over voters who are unimpressed and underwhelmed by National and Labour. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Recently, ACT Party Leader, David Seymour, announced the party's position statement on climate, saying that if the Paris Agreement isn't reformed, the country should leave the agreement. The Paris Agreement, signed by New Zealand by the then National-led government in 2016, aims to keep the global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with an overall aim of keeping the temperature increase to 1.5°C. Currently, Aotearoa is one of 195 UN parties to adopt this framework. If the country were to leave the Paris Agreement, the country would join the likes of the US, who signed an executive order to withdraw this year, and Iran, Libya, and Yemen, who have never formally joined the agreement. For our weekly catchup with the ACT Party's Simon Court, News and Editorial Director and Monday Wire Host Joel spoke to him about the Paris Agreement, and our future with this framework.

Recently, ACT Party Leader, David Seymour, announced the party's position statement on climate, saying that if the Paris Agreement isn't reformed, the country should leave the agreement. The Paris Agreement, signed by New Zealand by the then National-led government in 2016, aims to keep the global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with an overall aim of keeping the temperature increase to 1.5°C. Currently, Aotearoa is one of 195 UN parties to adopt this framework. If the country were to leave the Paris Agreement, the country would join the likes of the US, who signed an executive order to withdraw this year, and Iran, Libya, and Yemen, who have never formally joined the agreement. For our weekly catchup with the ACT Party's Simon Court, News and Editorial Director and Monday Wire Host Joel spoke to him about the Paris Agreement, and our future with this framework.

There's a stoush brewing over the future of Auckland's plan for housing intensification. Auckland Council is meeting later this month to decide on its new draft plan for the city which could reshape the city and create up to two million homes. Chris Bishop has said he wants to see the Resource Management Amendment Bill changed so buildings up to 15 storeys high can be built around City Rail Link stations. But ACT leader David Seymour has said parts of the plan are not necessary, and spoke to Lisa Owen.

Today on the podcast...   Chris Hopkins is failing to tell the truth over the lifting of the foreign house buying ban. Hip suggests foreigners will flood our shores buying all these houses.They won't. Just 0.2% of all sales last year were houses over 5 million. Just, just over a hundred. Stu Nash says his old labor colleagues are deluded and out of touch if they want to block rich foreigners coming into the country with their capital. David Seymour, uh, will join me on the podcast Get in touch with Duncan - duncan@rova.nz and join us on the socials. Website: https://www.rova.nz/home/podcasts/duncan-garner---editor-in-chief.html Instagram: @DuncanGarnerpodcast TikTok: @DuncanGarnerpodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Anne Daniels President of the NZ Nurses Organisation joins the show to talk about this weeks' strike action.Chloe Swarbrick and David Seymour on Herald NOW to discuss the Paris Climate Agreement that Seymour has called for NZ to leave.Helen Clarke and John Key were in China for celebrations, representing NZ alongside some controversial guests.... And just a day later Judith Collins makes a secret visit to Kyiv Ukraine to show NZ's support.=================================Come support the work we're doing by becoming a Patron of ⁠⁠#BHN⁠⁠ www.patreon.com/BigHairyNews⁠=================================Merch available at www.BHNShop.nz Like us on Facebookwww.facebook.com/BigHairyNews Follow us on Twitter.@patbrittenden @Chewie_NZFollow us on BlueskyPat @patbrittenden.bsky.socialChewie @chewienz.bsky.socialEmily @iamprettyawesome.bsky.socialMagenta @xkaosmagex.bsky.social

The battle over intensification of housing has reached cabinet level, with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing Minister at odds over Chris Bishop's plan to get hundreds of thousands of houses built in the super city. “It's 2 million,” I hear you say. “They want to build two million houses.” Well, the Housing Minister addresses this in his column in this morning's Herald. There will be the ability for the council to consent two million homes. That doesn't mean they will all be built, as he says, the Auckland unitary plan enabled around a million homes. Ten years later, only around 10% of that enabled capacity has actually turned into new housing. The idea that a plan change that enables two million homes is suddenly going to result in two million homes being built in the short term is nuts, he says. Housing capacity does not immediately mean construction. It means the ability to do it, and it means infrastructure can be sequenced and coordinated to support it. He said, "I expect that the housing capacity the Auckland Council is enabling through this new plan change will support Auckland's growth over the next 30 to 50 years." Chris Bishop says in the past week or so we've seen an almost unprecedented level of misinformation spread about the new draft plan change. He says Auckland is not about to be overrun with sky-riser apartments. The tree-lined streets of the suburbs are not about to be destroyed. Raw sewage will not be bubbling up onto the footpaths or into the Waitematā. The Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the MP for a suburb of tree-lined streets, says the new plan is flawed and he will lobby for changes. He told a public meeting last week that he and supporters must impress on Chris Bishop that this plan is not necessary and it will have negative unintended consequences, as he told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. “The plan that has been produced by Auckland Council, as Chris Bishop noted in his column this morning, that requires almost no greenfield development, all intensification. It requires half of Parnell to have 50-metre buildings. Now, I just make the point that, you know, it's only two years ago that we had a building fall into a sinkhole because a 120-year-old brick sewer underneath Parnell imploded and everything fell down into it and we had two years of fixing that up. So, the idea you're going to intensify at that rate there, doesn't make sense. “So, we've got an improvement, but now we've got, an obligation, I think, to make sure that we really go through this from an Auckland perspective and make sure that the plan actually makes sense.” I think, David Seymour, as the MP for Epsom, makes a very good point. There was a great big sinkhole in Parnell because the pipes imploded. Their necessary infrastructure wasn't there. And I wish every single time the government or the council or developers talked about houses, they added the words ‘and the supporting infrastructure'. I can see where both ministers are coming from. We need more housing and supporting infrastructure in all of New Zealand cities. Chris Bishop is passionate about this. He wants to get housing affordability down, the best way to do that is to increase the supply of houses and the supporting infrastructure. But I'm wary of his comment in his column that cities aren't museums, that our streets should not be shrines to the past. Chris Bishop was only a baby when the wholesale destruction of Auckland's Victorian and Edwardian buildings took place. He didn't experience the horror of seeing beautiful old buildings torn down and replaced with priapic smoked glass monstrosities erected in the name of men's egos. Hideous. Not all old buildings are created equal. Not every single building born and erected before 1900 should be saved and preserved in aspic, but we need to keep some links with our past. To know where we're going, we need to know where we've been. We need more housing. We need more affordable housing. We need a variety of housing. It can't all be created equal. Chris Bishop says too in his columns, that he's perplexed by the council's aversion to new greenfield housing, big new subdivisions on the city fringe. He says that he's in favour of greenfield housing where the infrastructure costs can be recovered from new residents. He says in his view, the council should be zoning more for this sort of housing. The new draft plan is a missed opportunity, he says, but it's a draft and the council has a chance to improve it. But I guess the council's looking at arable land. You can't just soak up the land where food is produced to plonk more people there. So, what would you rather? Go up, the high-density apartment buildings? Go out? The greenfield housing on the outskirts of the city where you contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure needed to have long-term viable housing there? Can we have a little bit of everything? A little bit of the old buildings, a little bit of the heritage buildings, a few tree-lined streets, apartment living for those who, who want it and love it. I'm wary of more big subdivisions on the city fringe because I'm mindful that land is usually good land for growing food. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour says he's opposing planning changes in Auckland in his role as local MP, rather than his role as Act Party Leader. Seymour's opposing a move to allow more intensification near transport corridors. The Deputy Prime Minister and MP for Epsom told a public meeting that supporters must impress on Housing Minister Chris Bishop that the plan is not necessary. Seymour told Mike Hosking he's representing the views of his Epsom electorate constituents. He says his job is to ensure Epsom, Mt Eden, Newmarket, Parnell, and Remuera have their interests advocated for. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Questions have been raised over New Zealand's future in the Paris Accord, with National holding steady in support for the agreement. Yesterday, ACT's David Seymour said New Zealand should leave unless the terms are changed, but Prime Minister Chris Luxon said backing out would mean we aren't a trusted partner on trade - and would punish our farmers. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says the Government has no plans to pull out, and they're committed to the emissions targets. "The reality is, is that we're a major export nation. I've just come back from Beijing on Friday, speaking with the Chinese Minister, they're committed to the Paris Agreement." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prime Minister ponders the Act Party’s new position on the Paris Agreement. David Seymour is effectively siding with Winston Peters. How much heat/friction is this going to cause for the Coalition? We also discuss the latest Roy Morgan Poll, the Amazon deal and relaxing foreign investment. Are New Zealand farms next on the chopping block?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT Party Leader David Seymour has set the cat among the pigeons, or the Huntaway among the cattle, by calling for New Zealand to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a pact that's part of the UN's framework convention on climate change, which started in 1992 with the Rio Earth Summit. The main goal of the Paris Agreement is to keep long-term global temperatures from warming 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, and if not that, then well below 2 degrees Celsius by slashing planet-warming emissions from coal, oil, and gas. It's not working, the numbers are still too high, but who knows what they would have been had the Paris Agreement not been in place. It works as a binding but voluntary programme for the member countries. Every five years, countries are required to submit a goal or a plan for what it will do about heat-trapping emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases. And these goals are supposed to get more ambitious every five years – you're supposed to improve on what you did last time. The countries themselves decide what's in those goals, and there is no punishment for countries who miss the goals. Despite this, despite the fact that there are no teeth and no punitive measures if you don't meet the self-imposed targets, ACT says that the Paris Agreement needs to change, or New Zealand needs to leave. David Seymour says it demands targets that are disconnected from science and blind to New Zealand's realities. Net zero targets have been set without regard for the real cost to firms, farms, and families, they say, so they want New Zealand out, like the US. “At the moment, we face being punished for being a methane-heavy economy. I think it's about time that we, perhaps along with like-minded nations, I'm thinking South American nations like Uruguay that have a lot of livestock, also a lot of Southeast Asian nations which produce a lot of rice, which it turns out actually produces a lot of methane – we should be going to Paris saying, "hang on a minute', instead of our government officials making representations to the public that pay them on behalf of these global institutions, maybe they should actually be going on our behalf overseas to say, ‘you guys need to give a fair deal to methane-heavy economies,' because methane's a very different gas. It has a much different effect on climate because it breaks down over time, and therefore that scientific reality needs to be recognised.” So that was David Seymour talking to Heather du Plessis-Allan last night. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it's not going to happen; we're not going to leave. It would only hurt and punish and damage our farmers. He says our competitor countries would like nothing more than to see New Zealand products off the shelves, and he added that, having worked in multinationals, the companies would just move to another supplier, a more public-friendly, a more agreeable, a more green-friendly supplier. He does have a point. Well, both men have points, really. David Seymour is quite right in that methane is a different sort of a gas, that New Zealand does it the best in the world. New Zealand produces food better than anybody else in terms of accounting for climate change targets and goals. But Christopher Luxon has a point too, because green and social accounting is part of global financial reporting. We're seeing it right down to the smallest business in New Zealand. Your bank wants to see you committing to various environmental targets, goals, achievements. If you don't, the money comes at a higher rate. And it's the same for them. Their masters, their overlords, want to see that the banks themselves have required their clients to commit to environmental goals. It's absolutely entwined within the way the world does business. I don't know how you can separate one from the other. It would be very easy for New Zealand to be made an example of, far harder for the US because it is a global powerhouse. Notwithstanding Modi, Xi, and Putin all getting together to try and form another cabal or block of power, but the US is too powerful to punish. Were we to say, "You know what, we're out," it would be very, very easy for us to be made an example of. We're small, quite loud, there would be some people around the world who would have heard of us, so if we're made an example of, it would only hurt us. Nobody else would care. Furthermore, Christopher Luxon says that New Zealand has taken farming out of the ETS, the Emissions Trading Scheme, and promises there'll be an announcement on methane targets in the very, very near future. So where do you stand on this one? As I'm aware, farming as an industry and farming as a science is constantly working to improve efficiencies in the way they do things. Our scientists and our ag researchers are working overtime to try and bring down any harmful gases caused in the manufacture of food. Farmers are implementing all sorts of measures, and if they don't, they're off the books. They are no longer clients of places like Fonterra. So you have to meet really high standards before you can consider yourself a farmer in the modern age. I would have thought farming as an industry understood the global realities, given that they are a major global player. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A former Climate Change Minister believes New Zealand should stay in the Paris Climate Agreement. ACT leader David Seymour's announced a policy to leave the global pact unless rules are loosened for our farmers. New Zealand First has also floated the idea of withdrawing, as some larger nations have ditched it. Tim Groser told Kerre Woodham this goes against public sentiment. He says polls indicate a large majority of Kiwis believe we should do our share on climate change. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We would be mad to pull out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. ACT leader David Seymour thinks differently though, saying its emissions targets are "disconnected from science and blind to New Zealand's realities". He says net zero targets have been set with no regard for the real cost to firms, farms, and families, and he wants out. Out of 197 countries, 193 are signed up to the accord. David Seymour wants us to join what would be a very exclusive club of five. I can kind-of understand the thinking of the people who would like us to end our involvement, because New Zealand is a tiny cog in the climate change machine and really, what difference can we actually make? The other reason people are anti-the Paris agreement is their impression that the big countries —the big polluters— aren't really doing their bit. So if they're not, why should we? I get that. The thing is though, when it comes to climate change you have to take a long-term view, and you have to think about the bigger picture. And it's not just about the climate itself. The main reason I want us to stay involved is the same reason David Seymour wants us out: the economy. He says the targets we've signed up to are forcing farmers off the land (which you have to question), forcing people out of the regions, and making food and electricity more expensive. But whether we like it or not, our free trade agreement with the European Union has specific references to climate change and the Paris agreement. If we did pull out, there could be serious trade and economic consequences for us. So we have to stick with it. Whether we like it or not. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast for Wednesday 3rd of September, our tourism stats are slowly continuing to move in the right direction. So when will we reach 100% of our pre-Covid numbers? David Seymour says New Zealand should pull out of the Paris Agreement – National says no. Former Fed Farmers Chair and Associate Agricultural Minister Andrew Hoggard speaks on the topic. On Politics Wednesday, Ginny Andersen and Mark Mitchell talk the Tamaki Makaurau byelection and Brooke van Velden's controversial comments, plus Mike extracts a promise as to how early they'd get up in the morning for a prerecord. Get the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast every weekday morning on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour's call around the Paris Accord merely adds to the list of calls around the Paris Accord. If we could park the emotion and the bandwagons associated with the obsession around saving the planet, the case for 2050 would no longer add up. For example, take the countries that never signed up, take the countries like America that are leaving, take the future British Tory Government who will bail, take the world's biggest climate alliance for banks who have suspended their activities and proposed a vote on scrapping its current structure after a whole pile of members bailed. The Net-Zero Banking Alliance stated their commitment was to align their lending with achieving net zero. It didn't work. It didn't come close. Since Paris in 2015, banks globally have provided loans of $6.4 trillion USD to oil and gas and $4.3 trillion to green projects. The founder of Reclaim Finance Lucie Pinson says the reality is the banking alliance never truly challenged the fossil fuel business models. On facts alone, climate is losing. You can argue forever about why and whether that's good or not, but if it is fact you are using, then the Seymour call and the growing actions of places like America are actually sensible. Just how much farce, how many COPs 18, 19, 27, 32, do you want to continue the failure? How many press releases do you want asking for us to redouble our efforts, knowing it will never happen? How much funding? How many air miles? How many promises that will never come close to reality do we want to pursue in what is simply a vain hope? A well-intentioned hope, yes. Laudable, but futile. Maybe net zero or Paris is a guide and an aspiration. A "let's give it a go and see how close we get" sort of thing. Perhaps with no target the whole thing falls apart. But like a lot of nonsensical ideas, this one has fast become exposed as a bust. If good intention and hot air was currency it might be different, but the facts and the truth tell us it isn't. Maybe we are all going to hell in a handcart, a dirty, filthy, climate-induced hand cart. Or maybe we aren't. But the juggernaut of Paris isn't working and never really did. Good, clear, decisive decision making would mean we stop the rot, expense and energy sooner rather than later. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight on The Huddle, journalist Clare de Lore and former Labour Minister Stuart Nash joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more! ACT leader David Seymour says the Paris Agreement needs to be reformed - or else New Zealand should walk away. Is he right? Will National get on board for it? Helen Clark and John Key are set to attend China's big military parade alongside Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. What do we make of this? Will Luxon and Winston be glad they don't have to go? The Polish CEO who made headlines after he snatched a child's hat at the US Open has since apologised - do we believe this? NZI says we have three times as many ministerial portfolios as we need - do we need to make some cuts? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive Full Show Podcast for Tuesday, 2 September 2025, ACT leader David Seymour explains why he wants to pull out of the Paris Agreement if the conditions don't change. Luxury real estate agent Anthony Morsinkhof says his phone's been ringing all day with foreign investors wanting to start buying houses here. Sir Peter Gluckman tells Heather why we need to toughen up our university entry requirements. Amazon's NZ Country Manager Manuel Bohnet explains the company's investment in NZ - but gets unstuck when Heather digs deeper. Plus, the Huddle debates the hideous CEO who snatched a signed cap off a kid at the US Open. Get the Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive Full Show Podcast every weekday evening on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Finally, we have a serious party who has spent time thinking about it - and is now seriously suggesting that New Zealand should pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Now, that was what came from that ACT Party announcement that I told you would be coming today that you needed to keep an eye out for. ACT says Paris isn't working for New Zealand and it says we should push for the agreement to be reformed - and if it isn't reformed, then we should pull out of it. It isn't working, ACT says, because it's pushing up our food prices and it's pushing up our power prices and it's forcing the farmers off the land to make way for trees. And you can add to that list something that we've seen a lot of this winter and last winter - it is shutting down industry because of those high power prices. Now, there will be a lot of people who hear this from ACT and write it off as nutty climate change denier stuff. It is not. Think about the Paris Agreement critically, right? Set aside, you know, your vibes, whether you want to help the climate, set all of that stuff aside. Just think about this critically as to whether it works or not. And you can see it doesn't work. I mean, I stand to be corrected, but I cannot see any country that is meeting the targets. We will not meet the targets. The US, one of the world's biggest polluters, has pulled out. China, the world's biggest polluter, is still building coal-powered plants. I mean, we are fretting about the one coal-powered plant that we've got and they're building heaps of them. India, another one of the biggest polluters, is also doing the same with coal-powered plants. In which case, why would a country responsible for 0.17 percent of the world's emissions - or something like that - continue to persist with the Paris Agreement? Because we're not saving the planet, we're just making Kiwis poorer. And power is so expensive that we now have people who cannot turn on the heater every time Huntley burns expensive coal. Coal, by the way, which is not expensive, but which we have decided to artificially make expensive in order to save the planet. Now, the Nats have shot this down already and say it's not happening. That's smart politics for them, because they've got to hold on to the swing voters who might react badly, you know, without thinking things through to anything that looks like climate change denial. The Nats might want to be careful about what they rule in or out hard before the election, because they might need flexibility afterwards, given both of their coalition partners want out of Paris. ACT officially wants out unless things change, New Zealand First keeps hinting at it. And if National is honest with itself, they should want to get out of it too, because Paris is making us poorer, but not doing anything to save the planet. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's hopes from David Seymour that he can convince National to get on board with ditching climate change targets. The ACT leader wants New Zealand to leave the Paris climate change agreement - unless we can negotiate a better deal. But Prime Minister Chris Luxon says leaving the deal will only hurt our farmers, as international consumers value New Zealand's clean brand. David Seymour says his party is influential. "We've got a pretty good track record - if you look at the influence that ACT has had over this Government, I think it's profound. So watch this space." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jamie Mackay talks to David Seymour, Bryce McKenzie, Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Todd Clark, and Phil Duncan.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"The only party that opposed the Zero Carbon Act is now calling for a better deal from Paris,” says the Act Leader as the Party released its position statement on climate today.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's been plenty of debate about New Zealand's future in the Paris Agreement, following some comments made by David Seymour. The ACT leader wants New Zealand to pull out of the global climate agreement, unless the targets are realistic. Newstalk ZB senior political correspondent Barry Soper says Luxon won't withdraw from the agreement - at least not until the 2026 election is over. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You might remember, those of you who were listening around about a month ago when the Prime Minister was in the studio, taking your calls. Steve rang in and gave the PM a bit of ginger over the economy. He said, "I know you're between a rock and a hard place, Prime Minister, with the economy. Not really any more levers you can pull to do much, and you guys are just treading water. It's a PR machine to gloss over while you pray that somehow the economy's going to pick up." He said to the Prime Minister, "There's one lever you have yet to pull, and I think you know that for the short-term sugar that will bring something into this economy, that's a foreign buyers' ban. If that comes off, you know that will bring a bit of money in, and that will have a proper, tangible effect rather than just being all talk, talk." But of course, that's not going to happen with Winston. CL: On foreign buyers, that is a conversation that Winston and I are having, so watch this space. Let's see whether we can make some progress through that one. KW: Interesting. How will you get him to change his mind? What bauble are you able to offer? CL: No, no, no. I think actually both of us recognise that if people are going to come to this country and make an investment and partner with a New Zealand company, you know, think about a technology person in San Francisco wanting to come out here. They don't want to rent a house in Auckland. They want to be able to buy a house, and you think about what's happening in places like Tara Iti up the road from Auckland. You've got massive investment, 140 Americans here building, you know, $20 million plus homes, all that sort of stuff. So there has to be a way through that. So, you know, watch this space. It might be a bit more positive than Steve thinks. And what do you know? That was on the 7th of August. We watched the space, and on the 1st of September, the announcement came. Foreigners spending $5 million on approved investments in exchange for residency visas will be able to buy homes. But not just any old tat. They will only be able to buy homes that are $5 million plus. The Prime Minister said the changes aim to attract rich immigrants who find the thought of having a home in New Zealand attractive, without opening the market to widespread foreign property ownership. And he's right. I mean, there are some Kiwis looking at the $5 million plus homes, but it's not me. Is it you, Helen? No. No, she's not in the market for a $5 million home. Young Olivia, who's just joined us, no. No, she has yet to buy her first home, so it won't be in the $5 million plus category. It is not the majority of us, I would venture to suggest. And apparently, offshore buyers have responded immediately. High-end real estate agents say the word has gone out that New Zealand is welcoming people back into the country – but then you become a high-end real estate agent by talking up the market, don't you? So, you know, but you take them at their word. The word goes out from the Prime Minister that if you want to come to New Zealand and you want residency, guess what? You can buy a house, which makes sense. But it's got to be $5 mil plus, which for some people is what they would spend on a bach. You know, these kinds of high-end investors, it's the sort of money you'd spend on a bach in New Zealand. The Labour-New Zealand First coalition banned most foreign buyers in 2017 out of a belief they were contributing to skyrocketing house prices. The New Zealand First of that coalition is now the New Zealand First of this coalition that has reversed that ban. But Winston Peters is adamant that the ban actually remains. He says, "We have ensured that there are tight restrictions on eligibility and on what these current residence visa holders can purchase," including that existing restrictions, excluding the sale of rural farm and sensitive land, will still apply, as well as ensuring we don't get a repeat of the Canadian experience where there is a constant recycling of the same investment funds. The visa holders will be restricted to only one home, either purchasing an existing home or building a new one, with the value of that home being a minimum of $5 million. This will exclude over 99% of New Zealand homes on the market, protecting the vast majority from sale to foreigners and will not affect the wider housing market for Kiwis. He says that New Zealand First supporters understand that this is not a U-turn, that the ban remains – except it doesn't. The ban remains except for those who are buying houses over $5 million. So, shall we call it a clarification, Winston? Not a ban per se, just a clarification. Is he right? If you are dyed-in-the-wool anti-immigration, and you swallow a dead rat, as Winston has done, by accepting migrants who can afford to drop $5 million in investment money and $5 million on a new pad? Are those migrants okay? The ban in general remains, but for a very few people in the rarefied position of having $10 million to spend, then they are welcome, the welcome mat is there for them. So, the only thing that really does make me wonder is what Christopher Luxon and possibly David Seymour had to give Winston Peters to get this over the line? That experienced old horse trader doesn't give it up for nothing. You know, you want it, you pay for it. So, I want to know what the cost was to get that, let's not say U-turn, let's not say reversal, let's say clarification. And I also want to know what New Zealand First voters think. I know you love him, you'd follow him over the trenches. There's no man like Winston. He's probably up there next to Michael Joseph Savage on the wall, the framed print with some plastic roses in a vase underneath, gathering dust. But do you understand that he has made this decision for the right reasons? To me, it makes sense. I'm sure there will be some cashed-up Kiwis who are a little brassed off that their dream home may now go up in price by half a million dollars more because you've got foreign buyers bidding on the same property. But I'm not going to cry in my cornies over them. There's not going to be that many affected. So, I get where they're coming from, I just want to know how much it cost National and Act to get New Zealand First agreement because you don't get something for nothing. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pulling out of the Paris Climate agreement has got the backing of ACT and New Zealand First, who say we're overdoing it. And my first reaction is yes. The thing isn't working. It's never worked. It has always felt like something the world does to make itself feel like it's doing something, even though it's doing nothing When you combine it with the Emissions Trading Scheme —which is a giant Ponzi scheme made to make Coldplay feel better about touring the world in jet planes, meanwhile filling our pastures with trees— then the whole thing seems useless, so why be involved? And we're so little. New Zealand's biggest contribution to CO2 numbers is our farming, which is fairly benign polluter, because the world needs food. The world doesn't need more cheap jeans and plastic crap, but the people who make that stuff are merrily pumping rubbish into our atmosphere. So why should we be punishing the cornerstone of our economy when in the scheme of things, it contributes so little while the real polluters keep on polluting? So yeah, let's stand up. Tell the world they're in a fool's paradise of virtue signalling and get on with feeding the people we can. But. The rest of world, with the exception of the United States, still believe in this mirage. And they're the ones buying our food, and they're also the ones who will find any way to blacklist our awesome agricultural products. So pulling out of the charade may see us cutting our nose off to spite our face. It may reduce the compliance costs on our farmers in the first instance, but what's the point of that if it makes the rest of the world turn their back on our milk and butter and meat? ACT and New Zealand First may think that this posturing is helping our farmers, but in fact it could be penalising them even more heavily And maybe ACT and New Zealand first are playacting this for votes just as much as the Paris Climate Accords are playacting for the environment So let's call this thing for what it is, and rather than just pulling our in a flounce, advocate for real change to the Accords and the policies and actually get on with helping the environment.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A push to slim down New Zealand's unusually large number of ministerial portfolios is being met with caution. A report by the New Zealand Initiative's found comparable countries have a third of our 81 portfolios and is calling for a cull. PSA's national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons says they don't object to a discussion around this. But she told Andrew Dickens it's taking place in a political context, driven by the ACT Party. Fitzsimons says David Seymour's been vocal about dismissing more public servants and moving to a model of privatisation. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Early last week, ACT MP, Todd Stephenson, re-lodged his End of Life Choice Amendment Bill, which seeks to expand the eligibility of the End of Life Choice Act. This follows recommendations from the Ministry of Health's office review into the law, which was an official requirement of the original 2019 Act. Stephenson's bill has accepted all 25 recommendations. National's coalition agreement with ACT requires any proposed changes to the Act having to be progressed through as a member's bill. As well as this, Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche, has not ruled out absorbing ministries such as the Ministry of Women and Ministry of Pacific People into larger ministries. In 2023, the ACT Party had campaigned on removing these ministries. And last week, The Justice Select Committee report into four-year parliamentary terms recommended a referendum on the potential move, but had recommended some provisions of ACT Party Leader, David Seymour, be scrapped. These provisions include an incoming government only being allowed a four-year term if the government agreed to give the opposition the majority in the select committee. This would mean that some governments would be three-terms, and some would be four terms. For our weekly catchup with ACT MP Simon Court, News and Editorial Director and Monday Wire Host, Joel, spoke to him about all these topics, starting with Todd Stephenson's members bill.

Early last week, ACT MP, Todd Stephenson, re-lodged his End of Life Choice Amendment Bill, which seeks to expand the eligibility of the End of Life Choice Act. This follows recommendations from the Ministry of Health's office review into the law, which was an official requirement of the original 2019 Act. Stephenson's bill has accepted all 25 recommendations. National's coalition agreement with ACT requires any proposed changes to the Act having to be progressed through as a member's bill. As well as this, Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche, has not ruled out absorbing ministries such as the Ministry of Women and Ministry of Pacific People into larger ministries. In 2023, the ACT Party had campaigned on removing these ministries. And last week, The Justice Select Committee report into four-year parliamentary terms recommended a referendum on the potential move, but had recommended some provisions of ACT Party Leader, David Seymour, be scrapped. These provisions include an incoming government only being allowed a four-year term if the government agreed to give the opposition the majority in the select committee. This would mean that some governments would be three-terms, and some would be four terms. For our weekly catchup with ACT MP Simon Court, News and Editorial Director and Monday Wire Host, Joel, spoke to him about all these topics, starting with Todd Stephenson's members bill.

I would have thought the timing could not be more awkward. If you broadly accept the current narrative that this Government is working awfully hard to get us out of the massive economic hole left to it by the previous Government, and if you accept that the previous Government was one of the worst in living memory, then just imagine where we would be if that hopeless lot of 2020-2023 had actually been rampaging across the countryside until last year because they had had a four-year term. Surely it's that cold, present, still-throbbing reality that prevents a discussion on a four-year term going much further. A lot of politicians seem to want one, and who can blame them? There is logic to what they argue. In year one you arrive in your office, introduce yourself to everyone, put a few press releases out and start the spade work. In year two you go for broke because year three is written off in campaign mode. As Britain is discovering, five years is an awfully long time and until they changed the law about calling early elections, they got into a nasty habit of calling early elections because five years tended to exhaust them, and various calamities would present themselves with the only exit strategy being a vote. So, if you're following the logic three years isn't enough and five is too long. So four years is goldilocks. Or is it? David Seymour is a fan of four years. He argued that most countries have longer terms and there are very few countries with three years. There are also very few countries that balance their budgets or pay down their debt. That doesn't make it good. What is good is his admission that the gerrymandered shambles he offered up as a twist on an extended term with committees and numbers will never see the light of day. It's taken us 25 years to get our head around MMP. The Seymour version of an extended term has a half-life of eight million years. So, four or not? My gut says it will get to be a thing. Change is coming. But here's a small warning: time isn't the issue. It's quality. Time doesn't bring talent, or skill, or insight, or dedication, professionalism, or success. It just brings time. The rest is what we should be way more concerned about. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight, on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Cindy Mitchener and Rajorshi Chakraborti. First up, David Seymour has admitted his approach to four-year parliamentary term was too complicated, but he's having another go. The Panel discusses if it has merit. Then a spike in anti-social behaviour has forced a popular restaurant in Auckland to get rid of its pokie machines. What's going on?

I think it is significant that David Seymour has walked away from supporting his own bill to bring in four-year terms for the Government. He was the one who introduced this bill - but he's now pulled ACT's support. Every other party in parliament appears to still back it, but he's pulled support because the safeguards that he wanted are gone. His idea was that we increase the terms from three to four years. So you vote the Government and you get three years - and now he wants to make it four years, which basically means giving the Government more power. But he was only okay with that if we balanced it out by taking away some power. And his idea was to allow the opposition parties to control every single select committee, giving them the power. But that part of the plan, the select committee part, has been removed. So David Seymour doesn't support his own idea anymore, which frankly, I think is a good idea, because he has ended up exactly where I have been this entire time. No to four-year terms unless there are new limits, because as it is, Governments in this country do not have much in the way of limits. If they want to pass a law, they can - they can do it under urgency if they want to. They can announce and pass it in literally the same day. That is what happened with the pay equity law. Did you like that? You want some more of that? Because that would happen with four years. This is why Jeffrey Palmer said that we have the fastest law in the West. Other countries have ways to limit or control or check the power of the executive. They have upper houses, they have senates, whatever. We've got nothing. Given that everyone else in parliament seems to support this, it seems to me there's a fair chance this is going to go to referendum for us to decide, perhaps at the next election. And people who want four years will tell you that you must say yes because Governments don't have enough time to do what they want, which is utter bollocks, because they do have enough time. I've realized in the last couple of years, it's not because of lack of time they don't get things done, it's because of a lack of will. This Government had enough time to make changes to the supermarkets and make changes to the banks and make changes to the energy sector. They've talked about it enough - but they haven't done it because they don't want to do it, because it takes balls. I don't want four years because two blocks of three years of Jacinda Ardern's lunatic Labour administration was enough. Can you imagine how broke the country would be after two blocks of four years? Unless there are new safeguards brought in - and there are no safeguards proposed. So it's a hard no. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight on The Huddle, Kiwiblog's David Farrar and Ali Jones from Red PR joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more! David Seymour says the coalition isn't saving as much money as ACT would have. What do we make of this? Police Commissioner Richard Chambers gave an interview to the NZ Herald saying we should feel lucky to live in New Zealand. What do we make of this? A Wellington restaurant is asking people to sign a contract before taking leftovers home.. to ensure they're not liable for any food safety issues. Is this over the top? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The ACT leader has promised less spending and fewer public servants. It comes after numerous redundancies in the public sector, following calls for efficient spending as the coalition's budgets were being delivered. David Seymour says the Government is not cutting costs as much as ACT would. "We said that we wanted to reduce the number of public servants back to pre-Labour levels, and we also said that we wanted to reduce spending by about 8 or 9 billion each year." Seymour's reiterating the comments made yesterday when reacting to a further OCR cut. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight, on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Sally Wenley and Peter Fa'afiu. First up, the government has announced it's making major changes to the building consent system; The Panel discusses if this may mean a return to leaky buildings. Then The Panel mulls over news that David Seymour sought advice on the benefits of making wearing bicycle helmets voluntary. The Ministry for Regulation told him it would lead to more deaths and as a result no further action has been taken. But is there a case for it?

A cyclist group says it's worth looking into changing helmet laws, following the release of a new report. Newstalk ZB has revealed the Regulation Ministry has advised its Minister the risks of not requiring the protective measures would outweigh any benefits. David Seymour asked it to look into dumping the rule. Cycling Advocates Network spokesperson Patrick Morgan says Seymour made the wrong call to drop this, as helmets put people off. "If we're trying to solve the problem of inactivity, which we know is killing more than 2,000 people a year in New Zealand, you'd want more people to be active. Anything that's a barrier to cycling - we should look at removing that." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight on The Huddle, Trish Sherson from Sherson Willis PR and Child Fund CEO Josie Pagani joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more! There's growing calls to change the working holiday age limit from 30 to 50 to boost tourism. Is this a good idea? Would you go on a working holiday in your 40s? Volodymyr Zelenskyy - alongside a group of EU leaders - are set to meet with Donald Trump at the White House tomorrow. How do we think this meeting will go? David Seymour reportedly asked the Ministry for Regulation to look into removing bike helmet requirements. Should we change the rules? Will any of us be reading Grant Robertson's book? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jamie Mackay talks to David Seymour, Mark de Lautour, and Kevin "Smiley" Barrett. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Act Party leader talks beer, lefty haters, collateral damage, Dad Dancing and twerking, Grant Robertson's denial over Covid spend up, bike helmets and fiddling while Rome burns when there are bigger fish to fry. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Luxon is defending saying Israel's leader has 'lost the plot' in the face of pushback. The Prime Minister criticised Benjamin Netanyahu over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where people are starving. Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister responded that Luxon can't comprehend the challenges of facing Hamas. NZ Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan says Luxon's put his own views out there - in a change of pace from factoring in Winston Peters and David Seymour. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can't blame you if your assessment of Parliament today is that it's become a circus, because what happened today is kind of hard to defend or even explain. Chlöe was kicked out, Brownlee suspended her for a week and all of the Government parties voted for that punishment - and that includes New Zealand First, before Winston Peters then got up to tell Jerry Brownlee that the punishment wasn't fair, even though he just voted for the punishment. And then Debbie got up and said the C-word again. Now, Chlöe did actually break the rules. I mean, this is another one of those seemingly arbitrary or hard to explain rules in Parliament - that MPs can't accuse each other of being cowards. Nick Smith did it in 2003, he accused MPs across the house of not having the spine to debate a vote. He withdrew and apologized. Steve Chadwick did it in 2007, she accused the opposition of being absolutely gutless and spineless. She withdrew and apologized. John Key did it in 2015, quite famously when he yelled at Labour to get some guts over the war, but he got away with it and actually probably shouldn't have. So Chlöe did break the rules. But then, Debbie got up and said the C-word, and she didn't break the rules. So explain that. How is accusing other MPs of being spineless worse than dropping the C-bomb in the House of Representatives? I mean, sure, one is aimed at someone and the other one is just a swear word that's been dropped. But when you get into explaining that level of nuance on offensiveness, I think you've lost the audience. Plus, why is Gerry Brownlee all of a sudden the tough cop? I mean, this is the guy who was wringing his hands over the Māori Party getting kicked out of Parliament for 3 weeks for the haka in David Seymour's face and for refusing to turn up to the Privileges Committee and for them leaking the recommended punishment from the Privileges Committee. But when Chlöe says basically the same thing that John Key once said without punishment, Jerry comes down on her like a ton of bricks. Frankly, none of this makes sense anymore. I mean, it does on a level of detail and minutia, sure, but explaining it to a normal person, no sense whatsoever. But guess who's loving this? Chlöe's loving this, because Chlöe's learned from Te Pāti Māori and the haka that there's one surefire way to get attention, and that's to break the rules of Parliament and not be sorry. What a circus. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Hipkins came undone yesterday, twice. You would hope, given there is literally no pressure on him right now and he basically gets to spend his days bagging the Government, he might want to sharpen up, given next year is a whole different kettle of fish. Mistake number 1: He attempted to gain points on Palestine by suggesting David Seymour was holding the Government to some sort of ransom and if it wasn't for the veto they would have declared support for statehood by now. What Seymour said was Hamas would need to be demilitarised. Now, apart from the fact that's not radical, new, or an already widely held view by many who want to recognise Palestine – what is it Hipkins is saying? He doesn't mind Hamas or Hamas being a terror group? Would he be happy with the two state solution, with Hamas at the control panel? If he does, no problem, just say so. Mistake number 2: For reasons best known to himself he got trapped in a discussion about his tax policy. What tax policy, you ask? Exactly. But he somehow managed to suggest that even though there isn't a tax policy, what there is, is broad agreement around a wealth tax and a capital gains tax. And then the bullet in the foot – he couldn't rule in, or out, the possibility that the family home was part of that tax capture. Tip number 1: Drop the Middle East. No vote is moved in this country on a place that has been a disaster zone for decades and the more you look like you tolerate terrorists the more you put middle New Zealand off you. Tip number 2: If you are stupid enough to even hint that a family home could be part of a new tax, give up right now because you are toast. As history shows, a CGT with the family home exempt has been trialled and rejected multiple times by his own party. The irony of ironies being it was Hipkins himself with a captain's call that dropped it last time. So not only is he clearly not committed or convinced, he seemingly may have been hijacked by some left-leaning radicals inside his own camp to get the family home involved. So, a party that can tolerate Hamas and tax your family home. What could possibly go wrong? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast for Wednesday 13th of August, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour comments on the debate around recognising Palestine as a state. New rules have been announced for the next America's Cup – Team NZ boss Grant Dalton gives the lowdown. Ginny Andersen and Mark Mitchell discuss the success rate of the boot camps, Willow-Jean Prime, and Mike's advice for Question Time on Politics Wednesday. Get the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast every weekday morning on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Parliament is becoming increasingly divided over the situation with Palestine. Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was barred from Parliament yesterday when she suggested MPs not backing her bill to sanction Israel were spineless. She believes an apology from her isn't needed, and is engaging with Speaker Gerry Brownlee about returning to the House today. Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour raised the question to Mike Hosking of how can you call for an international rules-based order when you can't follow the basic rules in your own workplace. Swarbrick has been a Member of Parliament for more than half her life, he said, so she should be able to debate on the issues – and if she can't, she should be asking why she's not persuading people. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Deputy Prime Minister has shaken off accusations from the opposition over the Government's decision to take its time in recognising a Palestinian state. The Government plans to make an official decision in the coming weeks. David Seymour says the Government will take the time needed to decide its stance. "The Government is taking its time - some say this conflict goes back 4000 years. I don't think it's a major problem for the Government of New Zealand on the other side of the world to take a few weeks to come to a sober and sensible decision." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Labour leader Chris Hipkins has rebuked his education spokesperson after finding out she ignored, then rejected offers to work with the government on NCEA reforms. ACT's David Seymour said if she was one of his MPs, he would have fired her. But Labour is pushing, and said there still needs to be more consultation on the NCEA changes. Russell Palmer reports.

On the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast for Friday 8th of August, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour joins to talk about the huge number of kids leaving school without a single qualification. In sporting news – Richie Mo'unga is coming back so there's cause for celebrations for Canterbury and All Blacks fans. And we look at a massive make-or-break weekend for the Warriors to see whether they are serious contenders this year. Kate Hawkesby and Tim Wilson Wrap the Week and talk about whether Mike is going to feature on reality TV in the very near future. Get the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast every weekday morning on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Deputy Prime Minister says he'd sack Willow Jean-Prime for declining numerous Government requests for collaboration on NCEA reform. Documents show Labour's education spokesperson declined an advisor's meeting and didn't answer a text and multiple emails from Education Minister Erica Stanford regarding planned changes to NCEA. David Seymour told Mike Hosking if he were Labour's leader, he would drop her because there are better people for the job. He says he wouldn't know what to do because she may be the best option that Labour has. Seymour says we need alternative schooling options to keep students in schools, with more than ten and a half thousand students leaving school last year with no educational qualifications. Ministry of Education data reveals 16% didn't achieve NCEA Level 1 or above – 6% more than in 2017. He told Hosking the education system has become less appealing because children don't believe they're missing something valuable. There's also ethnic disparity, with 28% of Māori school leavers having achieved no qualifications, compared to 19% of Pacific leavers and 14% of Pākehā leavers. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's putting product labelling regulations under the microscope in another attack on red tape. The Ministry for Regulation's reviewing labelling standards, and expects to be finished by the end of the year. Newstalk ZB political editor Jason Walls says Minister for Regulation David Seymour has pointed out the compliance standards companies are subject to - and he's looking to make some changes. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Deputy PM comments on what, if anything, we can do about Trump's 15% tariff. Plus, he also comments on a radical shake-up of the country’s main secondary school qualification, which will see NCEA abolished and replaced with two new qualifications at Years 12 and 13. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.