Podcast appearances and mentions of David Seymour

The Deputy Prime Minister and Act Party leader denies the election will be fought by celebrities more interested in glitz than graft. Plus, he comments on NZ First’s oil and gas policy and why we should make life easier for agricultural drone users.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jamie Mackay talks to Ray Smith, David Seymour, Mike Whitty, Karn Dhaliwal, and Phil Duncan.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With Paul Henry standing for ACT, one thing is guaranteed: people will pay attention. Love him or loathe him, Henry knows how to command an audience, and in modern politics that's no small advantage. New Zealanders likes to think we vote on policy, and we should, but personality has always mattered. John Key's easy-going style, Jacinda Ardern's empathy, and Winston Peters' theatre are contrasting examples of how politicians communicate being just as important as what they say. I was fortunate enough to sit on TVNZ's Breakfast TV couch with Paul Henry a couple of times a week for a few years, and saw his strengths up close. He's articulate, quick-thinking, intelligent, confident, fun and fearless in front of a microphone. Those are valuable political skills. As we've seen in the short space of time since he announced his intention to stand as a list candidate for ACT, Henry attracts the kind of media coverage ACT can't buy, brings fresh attention to the party, and will probably reach voters who wouldn't normally tune into politics. If he made it into Cabinet his communication skills could make him a persuasive minister. But there's a risk. This is the man who told me I was the size of a whale live on TV when I was pregnant. Twice. Big personalities can suck the oxygen out of a campaign. David Seymour has spent years carefully building ACT into a significant political force based on consistent messaging and disciplined policy. If every interview becomes about Paul Henry rather than ACT the party, it risks becoming a personality show instead of a political movement. That's a difficult balance for any leader to manage. Henry will also be a tough character to reign in. It's a little like dealing with an adolescent - Seymour will need to set some strong boundaries. If he manages this, then Henry will probably help ACT more than he will hurt it. If Henry accepts that Seymour is the leader and not the supporting act, the two could successfully complement each other - Seymour providing the policy depth, Henry bringing the attention. As for Labour, National and the other parties, they'd be wise not to focus on Paul Henry. Taking personal shots only feeds the publicity machine - and they're unlikely to come out on top. Henry has spent decades handling criticism and often thrives on confrontation. If they do need to respond to the Henry machine, the smarter move will be to challenge his policies, question his experience, and let voters decide whether media success automatically translates into political ability. Ultimately, celebrity may get you elected, but it won't keep you there. New Zealanders enjoy a colourful character, but we also expect substance. Paul Henry will 100% make this general election campaign more entertaining. Whether he can convert attention into effective public service is still up in the air.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT's David Seymour has floated the idea of a smartphone ban for under-16s to replace a social media ban, allowing teenagers to only use good old brick phones. Could this be a good alternative to the social media ban, or should this not be government decision? John Cowan joins Tim Beveridge for The Parenting Squad to discuss. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Restrictions on innovation are being seen as a form of self-sabotage. ACT wants to introduce innovation trials – letting government ministers pause existing regulations if they block tests of new technology. Leader David Seymour told innovators the country punches above its weight when we back ourselves, but someone needs to build the framework to make it happen. New Zealand Initiative Chief Economist Dr Eric Crampton told Mike Hosking it's something New Zealand should be progressing with. He says we are too small to be stupid in this space, and need to enable innovation in new ways. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT leader David Seymour wants New Zealand to become a testing ground for emerging technologies - by allowing companies to temporarily bypass regulations through a regulatory exemption scheme. Seymour says the existing rules are 'prohibitive' and that the 'innovation trials' will help get new technology like self-driving vehicles, agricultural drones and crypto going into New Zealand faster. He says it's important we start experimenting more if we want to see technology appear in New Zealand, instead of overseas nations overlooking the country. "We've talked to people - we don't want to say exactly who - but there's certainly people who would be interested in bringing autonomous taxi services to New Zealand." LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight on The Huddle, Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers' Union and former Labour Minister Phil Goff joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more! Councils have been signing iwi partnership agreements before the RMA is replaced - are we worried about this? What is Chris Bishop trying to do? ACT leader David Seymour is looking into banning smartphones for under-16s. Do we think this is the way to go? Should we wait and figure things out? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The political angst over kids on social media has gone next level with this idea David Seymour is pushing today. He's saying that, instead of banning kids under-16 from social media, we could just ban them from having smartphones. Quite rightly, he thinks it would be too easy for kids to get around a social media ban, that the likes of National are in favour of. And I couldn't agree with him more on that. But banning kids from having a smartphone? Dream on! At least with the social media ban idea, it sounds good on paper. And only on paper. But trying to ban kids from having a smartphone doesn't even sound good on paper. I'm not sure what David Seymour is trying to do here. If he just doesn't support a social media ban, leave it at that. Because we know already that it isn't working in Australia. In just the past week, we've found out that over there it's failed at the first hurdle. Because the social media companies aren't even complying with the requirement to check the ages of new users. As I've said all along, we should - at the very least - be waiting for this experiment in Australia to show some positive results before we start going down the same track. But it won't work. The early results show that. And we shouldn't be thinking it would work any better here. Because the horse has already bolted. And the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that's what happens in the online world and the technology world. Kids under 16 wouldn't just use virtual private networks to access their social media accounts. There'd be some kids who would create their own social media platforms. That's how it is. And don't just listen to me. Listen to experts from Queensland University who say banning under-16s from social media is a pipedream. They say there is insufficient evidence to show social media is responsible for the increase in youth mental health problems. They say some marginalised young people actually benefit from social media. Example: I remember hearing someone who works with young members of the Rainbow community saying that social media can be really valuable for the kids he works with. These researchers in Australia also say there is a lack of clarity as to what social media actually is. For example, are all those WhatsApp groups you're part of, are they social media? David Seymour needs to forget about this idea of the government coming in and telling kids they're not allowed to have a smartphone. Because, just like the kids using VPNs to access social media if they were banned from using it in New Zealand, they'd also get around a smartphone ban. Because it wouldn't stop them using their laptops and tablets. So it's a weird idea David Seymour is floating today. The fact that it's coming from someone who is all for personal freedoms and liberties, makes it even weirder. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Should we be looking at banning youth from owning smartphones instead of banning them from social media? ACT Leader David Seymour has suggested that under-16s should be limited to “dumbphones” that can't access the internet, but can text and call. While not suggesting it as official policy yet, he says social media has caused anxiety, depression, self-harm, poor body image, loneliness, and declining life satisfaction. President of the New Zealand Principals' Federation, Jason Miles told Kerre Woodham he would recommend parents give their kids a dumb phone – the practical elements are appealing. However, he says, the pressure that comes with the expanding online world will always be there now, and it should be on the social media companies to keep kids safe. Miles asks why social media companies should be driving how society acts, telling Woodham that it's surely something our government, parents, and educators should be doing. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The ACT Party's not really a “ban” sort of a party. I've always thought they supported the idea of letting people go to hell in their own way. If you want to make your own decisions, fill your boots – if they're bad ones, live with the consequences. And perhaps they do still support the idea of adults going to hell in their own way, but not when it comes to kids. Leader David Seymour did not support the National Party ban getting kids off social media. They've said that's a dumb idea, there's no way you can police the internet. But what David Seymour has proposed is a total ban on smartphones for under 16-year-olds. He says Parliament could prohibit the purchase, possession, and supply of smartphones in much the same way we prohibit young people from purchasing alcohol and tobacco, and we prohibit adults from supplying minors with these substances. He's putting smartphones in the same category as tobacco and alcohol. He says teenagers are perfectly able, in his world, to have dumb phones, but given the known link between smartphones and the social media apps you can access on them and anxiety, depression, and self-harm, he says we should consider a smartphone yet another harmful substance that should only be available to adults. Now, of course, if you don't want your child to have a smartphone, you don't have to get them one. You can make your own rules in your own house for your own kids. But it's really hard to make a rule for your child that other parents don't have for their children. It's really hard too, in this day and age, to access notices at school about upcoming events, sports practices, lifts that people are offering to get your kid to training and back again. Everything's on platforms these days that you need the phones to access. There must be a way around it. We can just get the Gestetner out and get the school notices home again. There was a time where we had a perfectly functioning community and civilisation that did not have smartphones, so there must be a way to do it. And if the Government is willing to do the heavy lifting and play bad cop so you don't have to, so much the better. “I want a smartphone, everybody else has got one," says the 13-year-old. “I'm sorry, it's against the law. In the same way I can't give you alcohol or cigarettes, I can't give you a smartphone." It makes it easier if there's a ban. Of course, kids will still get them in the same way they will do workarounds if there's a ban on under 16s going onto certain social media apps. There'll be a workaround. But if the general accepted norm is that young people do not have access to smartphones until they're 16, it's just one of those things. Children, young people, don't drink until they're 18. Of course, some of them do, but the general accepted norm is that they don't. The general accepted norm is that you don't buy cigarettes for children. Could it be possible that the general accepted norm becomes young people do not get smartphones until they're 16? It doesn't seem impossible. Yes, smartphones are everywhere now, but it's not that long ago that they didn't used to be. You don't have to have them. Some people don't, some people still don't. The world can perfectly capably function without them. And certainly, in the world of a teenager, you should be able to function without them. There is no doubt that the anxiety, the bullying, the depression, the self-harm, the self-doubt has got worse. Social skills have got worse. The ability to function in the real world has got worse because you can hide away, you go through a portal into an app, through the other side, through your smartphone, and you don't have to face reality. No good has come of allowing the kids access to smartphones. There are kids as under 13 who are able to use them and accessing them. Once you see something, once you get embroiled in something beyond you, that's it. You can't unsee something, you can't unhear something. Keep the ugly, unpatrolled, unpoliced dark side of the web away from our kids until they're able to cope, they've got to build up a bit more resilience to cope. David Seymour says banning smartphones will be a lot easier than trying to police the internet, and he's right. So if you're looking for a way to protect our young people, do you go with David Seymour's total ban on smartphones for under 16s, or do you try and patrol the internet by denying them access to certain apps? I think I'd just go for the ban. Quicker, easier, simpler. Cigarettes, alcohol, smartphones – no access till you're an adult. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT Party leader and Acting Prime Minister David Seymour joined John MacDonald in the studio. They discussed his idea of a smartphone ban for under-16-year-olds, Paul Henry throwing his hat into the ring for ACT, and Seymour's views on the Government's school lunch programme. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Julian Wilcox sats down with ACT's deputy leader Nicole McKee to talk about her new role, party politics, and race relations. The Act leader David Deymour has suggested smartphones could be banned for under-16-year-olds. In a speech to a business leaders' dinner on Wednesday night, David Seymour said it's clear anxiety, depression and self-harm has increased in children and young people since the advent of smartphones.All parties in the by-election called by Nigel Farage have pulled out leaving on Count Binface as his opponent. It seems like a brilliant move by all the other political parties to show the UK exactly what this by-election is, a farce and a clown show.Let's have a look at the money behind Opportunity as well, does this give us a better idea where they may sit on the political spectrum++++++++++++++++++++Like us on Facebook.com/BigHairyNetwork Follow us on Twitter.com/@bighairynetworkFollowing us on TikTok.com/@bighairynetworkSupport us on Patreon www.patreon.com/c/BigHairyNewsCheck out our merch https://bhn.nz/shop/Donate to our work https://bhn.nz/shop/donation/

After years of preparing for its arrival, New Zealand has confirmed its first case of the H5N1 bird flu strain in a wild seabird, with authorities warning the virus' potential impact on the country's unique native birdlife remains unknown.ACT leader David Seymour and Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick clash over benefit levels, the poverty trap and solutions to helping people find employmentNZ First wants more unemployed youth to join the military. Shane Jones announced the policy on Duncan Garner's podcast but now it appears maybe NZ First is walking it back a little bit.++++++++++++++++++++Like us on Facebook.com/BigHairyNetwork Follow us on Twitter.com/@bighairynetworkFollowing us on TikTok.com/@bighairynetworkSupport us on Patreon www.patreon.com/c/BigHairyNewsCheck out our merch https://bhn.nz/shop/Donate to our work https://bhn.nz/shop/donation/

Is banning smart phones for kids a dumb idea? That would leave them with dumb phones, sans apps and the internet, just texts and phone calls. Remember the old Nokia? Or Alcatels? They came in that weird light orangey-peachy colour and a purpley-blue. David Seymour's talking about this after a blog post suggesting it'd be easier, and less restrictive for everyone else, if we banned the hardware not the software. Make smartphones like cigarettes or beer – if you saw a 12-year-old with one, you'd judge the parents, wouldn't you? At present, parents hand them out like candy, caving by osmosis to the their kid's peer pressure to own one. The social media bans don't seem to work very well —as we've spoken about before— half the Aussie kids get around theirs. Where there's a will, there's a way. Banning the actual device itself does, on the face of it, make more sense. You can still communicate, but not with the entire world. And not with the entire sum of human knowledge —good and bad— at your unsupervised fingertips. This way, adults can keep using social media and not have to use some ID or date of birth test to log in. Which all sounds great. Except the real problem here is parents themselves. They're often the ones on their phones and ignoring their kids in the first place. If you were a child, wouldn't you want to be doing whatever your parents are doing too? It doesn't really matter what the law says, and changing it won't change everything, it's ultimately up to adults raising those kids to teach them right from wrong, good from bad, and whether 8 hours a day doom scrolling is a behaviour that's acceptable – for them or their kids. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Paul Henry is everything Christopher Luxon isn't. He's everything Chris Hipkins isn't. He's everything his potential new boss, ACT leader David Seymour, isn't. Which is why his announcement that he's standing in this year's election has taken a lot of people by surprise. And has got some people excited. But aren't we over celebrity politicians? I certainly am. Nevertheless, if there was a political party in New Zealand that Paul Henry might be a good fit for, philosophically, it would be the ACT Party. But is he a good fit for Parliament? Or is Parliament a good fit for him? Or, more to the point - is this personality and wit that people are talking about - are they the kinds of things we need in our politicians right now? I don't think so. It's what the ACT Party needs right now. Because, of the three parties in the current coalition government, it needs a bit of a boost. And there's no doubt that Paul Henry's announcement has put the spotlight on the ACT Party. But, a lot of the time, publicity doesn't lead to substance or delivery. Take Jacinda Ardern, when she became leader of the Labour Party just weeks out from the 2017 election, she was a publicity darling. She was someone who could spin a good yarn. A great communicator, as they say. But we all got sick of that. And, as Thomas Coughlan points out in the NZ Herald, Paul Henry's announcement yesterday was a communications “masterclass”. Thomas writes: “After a brief introduction from Seymour, Henry gave probably one of the best ‘new job' press conferences since Dame Jacinda Ardern's famous 2017 effort after becoming Labour leader.” He does point out, though, that there were some differences. Yesterday, Paul Henry wasn't facing the full gallery of political journalists. He didn't need to defend any policies. And he didn't have to look like he could credibly be Prime Minister in a matter of weeks. Nevertheless, he made a good fist of it. Which you would expect from someone who's been in the public eye for yonks. Who is well used to talking about himself in front of an audience and who has a truckload of experience in the live broadcast environment. Where you have to think on your feet all the time. No wonder David Seymour and the ACT Party welcomed him with open arms. Because they need him way more than he needs them. And he has said as much. But I thought, after the Jacinda Ardern experience, that we were over celebrity politicians. I certainly am. Which is why I can't get excited about Paul Henry potentially being in Parliament after this year's election. Because I don't care about charisma. All I care about is substance. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Paul Henry and I go back a long way. Decades in fact. He used to read news on a show of mine. I can't say I saw politics in his future, but then I can't say I could have ruled it out either. And why not him? He's retired, he could be bored, or he could be driven to make a contribution, if hanging out in Wellington is a contribution you want to make. He is good fun, he is bright, and he is worldly. But I don't think he will fit well into the “system”. He is a free spirit, and those sorts of people don't tend to operate well in teams with instruction. He spoke passionately about his country. It could be age, but I feel exactly the same way. I don't have to live here, I chose to because I love this place. He is in the same sort of position, so why not try to lend a hand? He spoke singularly about our debt and he is indisputably right. He could have stolen the lines and concern from me. Maybe all blokes of 60-ish age worry about our debt and our country. Maybe it's because we are old enough to remember better days and see no reason why we can't re-engineer the place to be like it once was. But politics is about more than debt. The other issue is if you're going to Wellington to save the country you really need to be in a position of power and National has more power than ACT. So this is clearly also a philosophical or ideological decision – he likes the cut of their libertarian gib. In terms of performance the place will be better for him. He's fun and quick. He might want to watch the line between serious and clown, entertaining and nutty, professional and self-indulgent. The big gamechanger for him will be accountability. Once they vote for you, once they pay for you, they own you and, boy, they let you know it. But I like people who don't have to do stuff, doing stuff. They are generally there for the right reasons. David Seymour told me it's just the shot in the arm they need right now. I think he's right. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former broadcaster Paul Henry recently confirmed he plans to run for the ACT Party this election, and leader David Seymour has expressed confidence in him. Henry has announced he's running as a list-only candidate, and has resigned from TVNZ's board. The famed former broadcaster failed in a National bid for Wairarapa in 1999. He says he wants to be a minister - but won't name a portfolio. Newstalk ZB senior political correspondent Barry Soper explained further. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour announced that this election Paul Henry would be standing as an ACT candidate in the general election. When asked why he wanted to be an MP, Henry, says he's “enormously disappointed with National”, and prime minister's performance especially.Labour leader Chris Hipkins says “it's still very early days” to consider speaking with Opportunity, and urged left-leaning voters to consider their vote carefully, after the fledgling party came close to the 5% threshold to enter Parliament in the latest political poll.RNZ and Reid Research released their latest poll which is bad news for National yet okay news for the right and pretty good news for Labour and below average for the left. Opportunity is again featuring in polling discussions with both Luxon and Hipkins now saying a vote for Opportunity is a vote to put the other side in.++++++++++++++++++++Like us on Facebook.com/BigHairyNetwork Follow us on Twitter.com/@bighairynetworkFollowing us on TikTok.com/@bighairynetworkSupport us on Patreon www.patreon.com/c/BigHairyNewsCheck out our merch https://bhn.nz/shop/Donate to our work https://bhn.nz/shop/donation/

ACT leader David Seymour is welcoming former broadcaster Paul Henry's expression of interest in joining up with the party. Henry revealed this morning he'll be running as a list candidate for ACT, with Seymour promising he'll be placed at an electable position. Henry stood for National in 1999, but is best known for hosting TVNZ's Breakfast in the mid-2000's. Seymour says Henry is a 'serious and thoughtful' person outside of his public image, with genuine concerns about the country. "We're thrilled to have him on board, both for his presence, his energy, his communication, his infectious enthusiasm, all of those things are awesome." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast for Monday the 13th of July, we've upgraded our relationship with India and Modi, so what does this 'Strategic Partnership' mean for us? David Seymour is the Acting Prime Minister and joins on the Modi visit, the social media ban and why we can't build anything on time or on budget in this country. Jason Pine and Andrew Saville cover off a huge weekend of sport - the All Blacks, the Warriors, the World Cup, Supercars and more. 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 been left in awe of the Indian Prime Minister's x-factor. Narendra Modi stopped by Auckland on Saturday, attending a series of business, political and community events. He and Chris Luxon agreed to attempt to double two-way trade by 2030. Acting Prime Minister David Seymour told Mike Hosking that he heard Modi speak at a rally, which he attended out of political nerd-ism. He says Modi's a cross between a charismatic Baptist preacher, Winston Churchill, and a new world leader. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hamish McKay talks to David Seymour, Tom Slee, Ben Picton, Dr Robyn Dynes, and Harry Newey.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams is joined by ACT Leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour for a wide-ranging pre-election interview on coalition tensions, regulatory overreach, free speech, KiwiSaver, Treaty politics, and ACT's record in Government.From “political neutrality” rules for regulators and the Ministry of Regulation's war on red tape, to compulsory savings, bond markets, the Treaty Principles Bill, and whether ACT can grow its vote, Seymour makes the case that his party has delivered — and argues it is the only vote to both lock Labour out and unlock New Zealand's potential.Support the show

Labour has announced their SolarSaver policy looking to make access to solar panels easier and more affordable. National has claimed Labour is copying them, but we wonder if this new policy by Labour is "GST off fruit and veggies Mark 2" leading to a pretty insignificant improvement in the weekly finances of those hit the hardest with the cost-of-living crisis.Christopher Luxon fronted up to a rare public meeting in Whangārei last night, where about 300 locals showed up to hear what he had to say. The National leader acknowledged it has been a tough few years, but pointed out areas where he felt his party had succeeded.Marama Davidson educates David Seymour and Ryan Bridge when the two of them were very flippant about the Greens Drink, Swim, Fish policy in a clam and precises manner which demonstrated exactly why right-wing talking points fall over after the slightest scrutiny++++++++++++++++++++Like us on Facebook.com/BigHairyNetwork Follow us on Twitter.com/@bighairynetworkFollowing us on TikTok.com/@bighairynetworkSupport us on Patreon www.patreon.com/c/BigHairyNewsCheck out our merch https://bhn.nz/shop/Donate to our work https://bhn.nz/shop/donation/

Hamish McKay talks to David Seymour, Tom Slee, Harry Newey, and Phil Duncan.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Deputy Prime Minister on the importance of trade deals for New Zealand. Plus, would Act work with The Opportunity Party, and what happened with school lunches? And his plan to streamline government by reducing the number of ministers.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We look at the massive shakeup to New Zealand's road cone madness as new deregulation rules kick in. David Seymour has already saved taxpayers millions of dollars, but the Wellington media bubble completely ignored the announcement. Plus, we expose the truth about The Opportunity Party and their actual political agenda. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Security guards will be given the power to detain people and use force under a sweeping ACT Party proposal that makes the very fair point that police are overstretched, and businesses can no longer wait for officers to respond. Some of them would see tectonic plates drift as they waited for the Police to respond to shoplifters who are slowly but surely causing their business to buckle under the pressure and the increased costs. Repeated shoplifters, those who just wander in, take what they want and leave because they know nobody's coming. Those who urinate in doorways and do all sorts of vile things I've heard about from inner city retailers because they know they're not a high priority. It's not good enough and nobody's come up with a solution yet until ACT's proposal. Under the plan, the accredited security operators would have and could use new powers on private premises, filling in the gap between police and community patrols. The policy would allow retailers, business associations, transport operators and others to deploy the guards. In the story in the Herald this morning, David Seymour said the law and order pledge would protect business owners. He said police can't respond quickly to every call and we know that – security professionals have the potential to fill the gap. New Zealand has twice as many licensed security officers as police officers, but they currently have no more authority than any other citizen. And it's true that this has been a hardy talkback chestnut. The question is always asked; why can security guards tackle pitch invaders but not shoplifters who are brazenly walking out of supermarkets with hundreds of dollars worth of goods in their trolleys, taking one hand off the trolley to give two fingers to the supermarket owners, the customers and the security guards? The answer is that pitch invaders are a threat to public safety apparently, to the players, to other people. So security guards are allowed to prevent disruption and mitigate high risk safety threats by tackling the hoors, whereas walking out with trolleys worth of stuff is not considered a threat to public safety. The physical intervention, the thumping tackles and the arm behind the back and the walking out of the grounds is purely for expulsion and safety, not for recovering property, which makes the tackle legally defensible if it prevents physical harm or major disruption. The question is would you want to? Do security officers want the expectation on the part of the business owner and on the part of the customers, the legal customers, do you want that expectation on your shoulders that you will intervene? Do you want everybody to look at you and say well go after them? There's all kinds of crazy out there, especially with people who are just blatant career thieves. Will it escalate violence? If you do the thumping tackle, can you expect that the person who's trying to flee will resort to violence to get away? Will simply the threat of security guards being able to act rather than having to stand there like cardboard cutouts of coppers while the thieves laugh all the way to the boot of their car and load it up with all their goods? That must be so galling for everybody, for paying customers to have to see it, for the business owner to have to see it, for the security guards to have to see it, these lowlifes just walking out and laughing because they know that everybody is powerless. If you're given power, if the security officers have the power, will that be a sufficient deterrent? I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this. I don't know the answer. I'd love to see them get the powers, the legal powers to intervene, but are you paid enough to risk your life? The coppers aren't and yet they do and they're paid a lot more than you guys and girls. There's enormous acts of bravery on the part of security officers, but should there be an expectation of that kind of bravery? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's looking to "move on" from free school lunches for every kid in a poor school. David Seymour told me this week they're looking at making changes, potentially tightening things up. At present, if your kid's school is signed up, your kid automatically gets a lunch. The only way to stop that is to actually contact the school and opt out on an individual basis. I reckon they'll change this so parents will have to 'opt in'. This makes much more sense. If it's true that half the lunches aren't being eaten, then why waste that resource? It's taxpayer resource. If the food was good enough for the 50% of kids who did eat it, then why wasn't it good enough for the 50% who didn't? It's obvious. They're not hungry. There is an alternative. If there really is a problem with the quality of the lunches, producing fewer of them will lower costs and perhaps allow quality to improve further. I must say, it seems odd that all the meals must be hot when all most Kiwis pre-the Previous Labour Government were raised on a lunch of cold sandwiches. Hot meals were dinner only. Anyway, to those frustrated by the media coverage of these stories this week, and there've been many of you, it seems like change is coming, which should mean only those kids who are actually hungry will get fed by the State. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ryan Bridge went full gangsta mode against Brian Tamaki making it clear of the hypocrisy that Tamaki is involved with and how any normal New Zealander would see his actions as concerning for someone who have numerous firearmsChloe Swarbrick and David Seymour clashed this morning over school lunches and lazy beneficiaries who fall asleep during the work afternoon "because of the P"The Ombudsman has upheld a complaint against the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) for its handling of an official information request, which resulted in a document showing industry lobbyists met with Christopher Luxon's chief policy adviser not being released.++++++++++++++++++++Like us on Facebook.com/BigHairyNetwork Follow us on Twitter.com/@bighairynetworkFollowing us on TikTok.com/@bighairynetworkSupport us on Patreon www.patreon.com/c/BigHairyNewsCheck out our merch https://bhn.nz/shop/Donate to our work https://bhn.nz/shop/donation/

Can we all just accept now that David Seymour's school lunch programme is a dog's breakfast? With this report out from the Auditor-General saying only 50 percent of the lunches are up-to-scratch on the nutrition front and about 20,000 meals a day aren't being eaten. The Associate Education Minister has hit back of course, using his usual tricks of discrediting the report and going on about how much money he's saved. Tell that, though, to all the people who have been vindicated by this report. People like Christchurch principal Peggy Burrows who ended up in a tit-for-tat spat with Seymour over mouldy lunches, and who was to blame. The Auditor-General's report paints a pretty shambolic picture. It says last year only 50 percent of the school lunch collective's meals met the ministry of education's nutrition standards. That improved a bit later in the year. I'll come back to the nutrition part. Because I think a re-think is needed on that front, but I reckon the biggest concern has to be how much food is being wasted. Not that that's a major surprise. because we've seen plenty of reports of food being fed to pigs and principals getting into trouble for letting their staff take uneaten food home. Now I'm a big supporter of the government providing school lunches. But I can't support that level of waste. 20,000 meals a day. I'm a big supporter because, as anyone will tell you, it's no use sitting a hungry kid in front of a teacher. You know what it's like trying to do something yourself when you're hungry, hopeless, and that's why we just can't have hungry kids at school. And if that means the government feeding these kids at lunchtime, then I've got no problem with that. But I can't turn a blind eye to 20,000 meals a day being chucked out. Which brings me to the criticism in this Auditor-General's report that the school lunches aren't nutritious enough. I've always said that we can go on as much as we like about our school lunches when we were kids being pretty basic. And I guarantee my school lunches would never have met these nutrition standards the ministry of education has these days for the lunch programme. The difference is, though, I didn't go to school hungry in the first place. I had breakfast and I had dinner at night.Some kids these days don't, but aren't we defeating the purpose if the kids themselves aren't even eating the lunches because they don't like them? Which is why I think the ministry of education needs to accept that it's got things wrong. It needs to go back to what you might call the basics and serve up something the kids will actually eat. And if that means something basic like a cheese sandwich, then do it. Because eating something has to be way better than eating nothing. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From Michelin stars to school lunches, sublime, ridiculous. I think it's safe to say none of the school lunches on offer will be getting Michelin stars. Then the last lot probably wouldn't have either. A scathing report has been issued by the Auditor General, which says only 50% percent of the meals delivered by the new school lunch programme in 2025 complied with the Ministry of Education's nutrition standards. We haven't talked about the school lunches for a hot minute, have we? Remember when it was the topic du jour? The parliamentary watchdog also took aim at inaccurate costings for the lunches, safety issues, contingency planning, and their rollout. Associate Minister for Education and the equivalent of 'Thatcher Thatcher milk snatcher', David Seymour is the one that said no, we're going to do away with them altogether, oh all right we'll keep them, but they have to be cheaper. He's hit out at the criticism, inferring the Auditor General took far too much notice of malcontents formerly involved in the scheme. “What they haven't done is a comparison of the quality before and after I took over. So they've been very critical in various ways and I'm happy to to answer their criticisms, but they haven't evaluated the whole programme and it appears that a lot of the initiation of the report and the feed into the report came from people that frankly had to be sacked after they were not able to manage the programme when I came in, and those who previously supplied the government, often at twice the current price. None of those people are very happy and they seem to have had a pretty good hearing from the Auditor General.” I don't think we can shoot the messenger. The office of the Auditor General has done some sterling work over the past few years and they're just simply looking at the numbers. But should we just do away with them altogether? Because when it was initially conceived, I mean if you look at the data, the 50% nutrition figure for the School Lunch Collective's meals was calculated by the Ministry of Education. It was disputed by the Collective, which said by Term 3 we'd got it up to 69% of the lunches complying with nutrition standards, and in Term 4 compliance was 75%. I bet your bottom dollar I was churning out school lunches back in the day that did not comply with the Ministry's nutrition standards. And probably, if you look at the kids' lunchboxes this morning, there's a lot of pressure from schools and fellow parents to produce nutritional, yet decorative, eye catching, pleasing to the palate school lunches. Honestly, that thing where you're doing the bento boxes with the pretty patterns in the sandwiches, as if parents didn't have enough to do of a morning. Anyway, they probably wouldn't meet the criteria every day either. And that's the thing. When school lunches were first envisaged, you and I, and indeed the MPs involved in the decision making, probably imagined a couple of Marmite or cheese sandwiches, some yoghurt, a muesli bar and an apple. Easy. Why not? Fill your boots. Do it. But that's where you and I, and indeed the MPs, are coming from a place of privilege. Who knew that a Marmite sandwich was privilege? It is. Bureaucrats stuck their oars in and said, no, when it comes to the school lunches for certain children, the school lunch may well be the only regular meal of the day. You privileged people with your Marmite sandwich go home to cooked dinners full of protein and veggies. These children don't. Therefore, we must cram as many nutrients and veggies as we possibly can into the school lunch to ensure these poor kids get their daily allowance. That's where it all got very, very, very complicated. Because if you're trying to make the school lunch the main meal of the day, generally it'll have to be heated. And you'll have to pack it full of veggies and some of these kids, you, some of these kids don't even know the texture of raw vegetables or couscous or rice or anything of the like. Some providers did it very well. Remember that school in Porirua? Where we had the lovely principal and they got the parents involved and they did their own lunches. And they were mums and they were sensible and they knew how to make meals on the smell of an oily rag and how to disguise vegetables. You grate the carrot into the spaghetti bolognese. You don't put it there in big lumps because they're not used to that, a lot of these kids – they don't want to eat chunks of carrot. Most parents who are listening to this show will know how you disguise veggies into food. You usually do it when they're about 18 months old, nine months to 18 months old. You don't make it slop, but get them used to texture and chewing and the like. And that's what you do. You don't hit them up with a couscous salad on day one and expect them to scarf it down. We come back to what success looks like for this programme. For me, I never imagined in 10 trillion years that it would cause this much angst, political toing and froing, that it would cost that much, around $328 million a year, that it would take up, command so much airtime and column inches in the media. It's absurd. I thought it would be a lunch as you and I know it, not every single calorie and veggie a child would need in a day. That it would be about improving attendance because when the kids knew there was a good meal for them, they'd turn up to school, and performance would improve. But no, that hasn't happened. School attendance hasn't improved and the only data around improved classroom performance is non-existent. You just get the touchy feelies – the children reported a better sense of wellbeing. Well, that's not getting an A+, is it? That's not being able to sit through a reading lesson. No, the programme's become more trouble than it's bloody worth. Do away with the government being involved, you know, give some money to the charities that do provide, KidsCan provide lunches, Sanitarium and Fonterra provide breakfast clubs. Either scale it right back and keep it simple and keep it as cheap as possible, the sandwich, the yoghurt, the apple, or just don't do it at all. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A report into the revamped school lunch programme has found it saved money, but it's not clear whether it is meeting its main goals of reducing food insecurity and improving student achievement, because there's no robust monitoring. The report by the Auditor General revealed only about 50 percent of school meals were meeting nutritional standards last year. Associate Minister of Health, David Seymour spoke to Lisa Owen.

On the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast for Wednesday 1st of July, an independent review is highlighting the Treasury's flaws – Secretary Iain Rennie unpacks the results. Associate Education Minister David Seymour responds to the report criticising the school lunch programme. Mark Mitchell and Ginny Andersen discuss Labour's proposed Apprenticeship Boost expansion and the abuse Matt Doocey is facing on Politics Wednesday. And the chef at New Zealand's first two Michelin star restaurant discusses what the honour means to them. 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.

David Seymour says the Auditor General's report on the Healthy School Lunches programme is one half of the story. Only 50% of last year's lunches complied with Education Ministry nutrition standards, and the Auditor General also took aim at safety issues, contingency planning and rollout. The Associate Education Minister claims the report's driven by former lunch providers upset about changes to the scheme. Seymour told Mike Hosking that the report doesn't compare the quality of the programme before and after he took over. He says they've been very critical in various ways, and he's happy to answer their criticism, but they haven't evaluated the whole programme. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour claims the Auditor General has credibility issues, after releasing a scathing report into the Healthy School Lunches Programme. Only half of last year's lunches complied with the Ministry of Education's nutrition standards. Newstalk ZB senior political correspondent Barry Soper explained the data further. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Work and Income's former boss says ACT's new welfare policy is 'sensible'. Party leader David Seymour's pledging to restrict what beneficiaries can buy, via work-ready Jobseekers' payment cards after four months. It'd block spending on alcohol, gambling, tobacco and cash withdrawals - allowing only essentials like groceries and rent. Christine Rankin says they shouldn't spend taxpayer money on that anyway. "It's not their money, it's given to them to help them not be stuck in poverty, because benefits equal poverty." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Mike Hosking Breakfast Full Show Podcast for Monday the 29th of June, David Seymour is into election year with plans to get rid of the size of Government and what to do with the bill for beneficiaries. The Prime Minister responds to truckies, gets asked why they backed down on the conservation bill and discusses Act's ideas. Andrew Saville and Jason Pine talk the All Whites being bundled out of the World Cup, the Warriors and just how many injuries happened at the charity rugby game involving politicians! 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.

The Act Party is accusing some doctors of wrongfully signing off people as 'unable to work'. Under its newly announced welfare policy, the party would require all health and disability benefits to be issued by government-employed doctors. It says the number of people who are deemed not 'work ready' has increased in the last three years, despite the Government's best efforts. Act Leader David Seymour told Mike Hosking that abusive behaviour and packed waiting rooms can pressure GPs to deem a patient 'unfit for work'. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT's leader says the party will be ramping up its messaging as it heads towards polling day. The party's holding its AGM and its first rally of election year today, less than a week after TVNZ's Verian poll showed the party at its lowest point since entering Government. David Seymour says the party's been heavily focused on the work of governing - and has its sights on another term in power. Newstalk ZB political reporter Azaria Howell says the party will be unveiling its new deputy leader today - as well as some new policies. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Minister responsible for the drug buying agency Pharmac is doubling down on his call for efficencies driven by AI. In a letter to Pharmac detailing his expectations for the next year, David Seymour has emphasised investment in data and digital infrastructure to enhance core functions, including the use of artificial intelligence. Associate Minister of Health David Seymour spoke to Lisa Owen.

Jamie Mackay talks to David Seymour, Dr Victoria Hatton, Farmer Tom Martin, Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, and Wayne Langford. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The only winner out of political polls is the media for the simple reason it gives them a chance to pontificate and clickbait. "Luxon fronts media after bad poll”. Why is that the headline as opposed to "Hipkins answers questions after poll collapse"? Let's do some simple math: there are about 53% of voters who are broadly centre-right. Pollsters will tell you this to be true. If you accept NZ First are doing well, their highest number is 15% so take that off your 53%, you are down to 38%. Take a chunk off for ACT, they seem to be about 7-9% so let's call it 8%, and you're at 30%, which is where National roughly are. The numbers make perfect sense. It's not a "bad poll", it's simple math. If there is one “real” story in any given poll, especially this week's one, it's that the main parties of Labour and National are sharing a shrinking slice of the vote, which if you like MMP is what is supposed to happen. The Greens, ACT and NZ First have established themselves as a permanent presence. We should be celebrating this, not because of specific policy, but because we voted for a system that spreads the vote and provides greater representation. That's what we wanted so that is good news. Also, you've got Opportunity at 4%. I don't think they'll get there, but if I'm wrong and they get the 5% and they go on to become the newest member of the permanent club, that is further support that will bleed away from the major players. The media coverage discusses none of this because I suspect they haven't thought about it, or indeed they may not even understand it. A lot of Europe with proportional systems have Governments led by parties who won the election with a vote in the 20's, if not low 20's. That is proportional representation. Here's the next big question: it's been ruled out by the Greens, but not Labour, so why not cut the head of Opportunity an electorate deal in Mt Albert? Mt Albert is tight. Helen White won it by a whisker. Opportunity could split the vote and hand the place to the Nats, or Labour could David Seymour it and Epsom her into Parliament and thus create a brand-new coalition partner. That's the really interesting part of the polls and machinations. But no, the media just want "Luxon fronts media after bad poll". They are stuck in the 90's. This is a way more gripping story than they are telling. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Has the Act leader and Deputy Prime Minister been knifed in the back by Simeon Brown, who compared him and Winston Peters to fighting children?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jamie Mackay talks to Grant Nisbett, David Seymour, Justin Ruygrok, Phil Duncan, and Jeremy Rookes.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We are finally seeing a pushback against the absurd woke compliance industry that has crept into our workplaces and professional regulators. Why should a real estate agent or nurse risk losing their livelihood over a lawful opinion? ACT leader David Seymour joins us to break down his new legislation aimed at stopping ideological gatekeeping. Plus, we look at public service growth and whether the economy is turning a corner. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Achievement and attendance gains are being celebrated at some charter schools for disengaged students. Annual reports show four of the seven that opened last year met Government attendance or achievement targets. Associate Education Minister David Seymour says Christchurch's Mastery School is the standout performer, despite missing achievement targets. He told Heather du Plessis-Allan it was established for students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities, and they're close to ticking boxes. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jamie Mackay talks to Wayne Langford, David Seymour, Farmer Tom Martin, Blair McLean, and Phil Duncan. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Act Party leader and Deputy PM talks about Fieldays and why he’s leaving a lot of the heavy lifting there to his Ag Spokesperson, Andrew Hoggard. We also pay tribute to the departing Mark Cameron and cast a critical eye over the Labour Party list rankings.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour has unveiled a report that's made extensive use of AI to reveal a messy maze of regulations that suck up people's time. The regulations minister's report into regulatory duplication and inefficiency comes just a day after the bombshell announcement of deep cuts to the public service. It was followed up with confirmation the New Zealand government logo would feature English first, ahead of Te Reo Maori. Political reporter Russell Palmer has the story.