
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


By Newstalk ZB
5
11 ratings
The podcast currently has 21,861 episodes available.
The most played episodes among Podcast App listeners.

Hands up - who believes Labour when they say none of their political mates will be allowed to introduce their taxes in a future Labour-led Government? This started on Mike's show, with Ginny Andersen on Politics Wednesday saying, "Nah, the Greens aren't going to be allowed to introduce their wealth tax, and nah, Te Pāti Māori isn't going to be allowed to introduce its land tax." A few hours later, on Kerre Woodham's show, Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick replied: "Nah, we're going to be fighting tooth and nail for the wealth tax." Now tell me, after hearing that, whether you're absolutely, absolutely, absolutely sure Labour won't say yes to the Greens if they're sitting in that coalition negotiation room after November 7, and Chlöe and Marama are sitting on the other side of the table, and everything else has been agreed, and the wealth tax is the only thing standing between Chris Hipkins becoming Prime Minister again or not. And tell me he doesn't say, "Bugger it. All right, you can have your wealth tax," and then decide to deal with all of our outrage later. I think we've seen too many of these concessions to be sucked in now. Just look at the last set of coalition negotiations. Christopher Luxon made it very clear he would not support ACT's Treaty Principles Bill, yet in negotiations he gave ACT the debate and two-thirds of the journey through Parliament anyway, then dealt with the outrage later. Or take National's plan to fund its tax cuts with a levy on foreign buyers purchasing homes here. Winston Peters wouldn't allow it. He wouldn't let foreign buyers back into the market, so Christopher Luxon went, "Okay, bugger it, fine, you can keep your ban," and dealt with the outrage later. The major parties nowadays aren't big enough to dictate to the minor parties what will or won't happen after an election. The Greens are polling at only around a third of Labour's size, yet they're going to have a lot of power. In fact, the power increasingly lies in the hands of the minor parties. So I don't think Labour can say with complete confidence that a wealth tax or a land tax won't happen. And I don't think any of us should believe them when they do. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight on The Huddle, Trish Sherson from Sherson Willis PR and Josie Pagani from Child Fund joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more! The Government has deferred the planned fuel tax increase - with a smaller five cent hike planned for 2028 instead. Do we think this is the right move, or will this cost us in the long run? ACT's David Seymour says New Zealand needs to renegotiate its role in the Paris Agreement - or step away. This follows Luxon saying National will stay in the agreement and hold firm to this in future coalition negotiations. Do we agree with Luxon or Seymour? Which will be better for the economy - and New Zealand's future? Some jets flew quite low over the stadium ahead of the second All Blacks v Springboks test in Cape Town - and it sparked a divided response on social media. Was this too risky or are people just being uptight again? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT remaining firm on demanding New Zealand renegotiate the Paris climate agreement, or quit it. It wants a better methane deal, and says we should otherwise walk away. But National leader Chris Luxon says remaining in the pact is a bottom line for his party. Leader David Seymour says we're likely to miss the 2030 target, so the issue must come to a head soon. "You have to negotiate when reality comes calling, and as he himself said this morning - three-quarters of the countries in the Paris Agreement aren't on track to meet their commitments." LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think I'm probably more optimistic about the social media ban than most people. I do accept that the thing is not going to work, according to the accepted definition of what it means to work, but I think it will work for enough people for it to, in my mind, work - if you follow what I'm saying. Let me explain: I have a friend who has a 13-year-old at a private girls' school in Auckland and she's desperate to get her daughter off social media. But she can't, because the girl belongs to a house at school and the senior girls, who are 17 and 18 years old, run the house. They organise activities and communicate through Instagram. So she can't get her daughter off Instagram because her daughter needs to be on Instagram for school. This ban would put a stop to that, because the school would be forced to acknowledge that it's unlawful for younger girls to be on Instagram. The older girls would then be forced to stop using Instagram for school-related organising. There is a practical way in which it would help parents get their kids off social media. Australia is being used as an example of the ban not working. That fails to acknowledge that somewhere between 20 percent and 40 percent of young people in Australia have come off social media. Sure, 60 percent to 80 percent are still on it, but 20 percent to 40 percent are off and that is a success for those families. My bet is that those numbers would be concentrated in clusters: clusters within a school, a suburb, or friendship groups where parents are actively engaged and banding together to enforce the ban. That is already happening in certain schools, suburbs and friendship groups in New Zealand, where parents are taking it upon themselves to do this. The best-case scenario here in New Zealand is that, over time, this may become like the anti-smacking legislation. It gradually became socially unacceptable to do the thing. Smacking your child? Socially unacceptable. In the future, perhaps letting your underage child use social media will be socially unacceptable too. Now, I'm not Pollyannaish about this. I know it's not going to work for all kids, largely because the Facebooks of this world want kids on social media, and they cannot be forced to follow every rule in every country because they're now bigger and more powerful than many Governments. But it will work for some kids if their schools and parents want to use this as a tool to get them off social media. And 20 percent to 40 percent of kids is better than 0 percent. What's the saying? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Instagram and Tiktok could soon become off-limits for under-16s. A new Online Safety Bill introduced to Parliament today requires a range of social media platforms to block teen accounts. It establishes a regulator to monitor compliance, and fines for companies not following the law. Education Minister Erica Stanford says it builds on lessons from Australia's ban. She says our legislation will be different in explicitly ruling out check-box age verification to make accounts. "Lots of children were using that to get around it, so that's why you saw in the beginning that it wasn't having the same level of effectiveness." LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The podcast currently has 21,861 episodes available.

40 Listeners

24 Listeners

2 Listeners

54 Listeners

1 Listeners

4 Listeners

4 Listeners

8 Listeners

88 Listeners

2 Listeners

54 Listeners

0 Listeners

5 Listeners

0 Listeners

1 Listeners

25 Listeners

151 Listeners

0 Listeners

19 Listeners

24 Listeners

0 Listeners

4 Listeners

0 Listeners

0 Listeners

9 Listeners

7 Listeners

71 Listeners

3 Listeners

0 Listeners

0 Listeners

0 Listeners

1 Listeners

19 Listeners

0 Listeners

0 Listeners