September 28, 2025 • 11 mins
THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Monday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) New Zealand Shows the Way. Again/What We Can't Say Here/The Old Football VS Football Argument/Feeling Richer?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk said B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on
iHeartRadio Rerap There.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Welcome to the Rewrap for Monday. All the best bits
from the my casting breakfast on news Talk said be
in a sillier package. I am Glen Hart today. What
we might know but aren't allowed to say about things
here in New Zealand that they can elsewhere in the world.
We'll do the old football versus football you know which
code rules the roost with the AFL final over the
(00:50):
weekend in rugby league and rugby games. And then are
you feeling rich because you are, You're richer than you
used to be. But before any of that, Palestine and
the recognition and the YadA YadA yahd yah.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
If you watch the Peter speech in New York like
Saturday morning, you can see why he did so well
In last week's Herald's boardroom feedback for the bloke who's
been the epitome of agro and grumpiness in his better moments,
he is as good a foreign minister as this country's
ever had. Politically, the announcement and its built up got
dragged out way longer than it ever needed to, and
therefore took up too much oxygen at a time when
(01:25):
we really should be focusing on vastly more pressing local issues.
And no matter what we said, the eyes of the
world were never really honest, despite the hysteria of too
many in our media landscape who have little or no
grip on perspective. But given we were to say something,
what we did say was logical and sensible, unlike what
was said by many far larger countries earlier in the week.
The United Nations' greatest weakness is its reliance on hot
(01:48):
air as opposed to substance, which is why we landed
where we did in our declaration. Just saying stuff counts
for nothing. It's too easy, which is why too many
people do it. By the time Peters had finished the week,
he'd done some excellent truth bomb work on climate He's
indisputably right. We make a lot of promises we know
aren't going to come to pass. And on Gaza, we're
(02:09):
all appalled at the art workings of hate, but recognizing
things doesn't stop that hate, or the war, or had
the food flow or the hostages released. Essentially, we should
expect more of both. Israel and the Palestinians. Don't ask
for recognition while you're still refusing to release hostages when
there is something a lot more tangible. New Zealand is
ready to recognize progress. Progress is tangible words, aren't The
(02:33):
idea that a lot of people saying stuff builds momentum
is simply not true. We've seen that in the past week.
A piece, if there is to be one, will be
driven by the Americans, who will corral the Israelis to
a point of some sort of submission or agreement. Albanizi
and Starbar and Carne and all the rest of them
played true to the usual lightweight verbal frippery that's made
the UN famous. We at least told it like it was.
(02:53):
It was a good moment for a small country.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
I think we quite like that, don't we, being sort
of in the minority, but having a loud voice on
a world stage, whether anybody was paying attention, or they're
all had gone to the toilet to get a puddle
of height chips or I'm thinking of halftime at the
Raby Now I know it's a rewrap. Anyway, here's what
(03:16):
some people thought about the Winston Peter's speech.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Mike the speech given by Winston Peter's at the UN
was very well worded. I was delighted that New Zealand
didn't go with the flow like other countries and recognized Palestine.
Thank you, Terry. If you can take away the politics
of it, which as it turns out I can, because
I've mentioned a number of times in the last couple
of weeks on this program, I'm not particularly exercised about it.
We could have said we all recognized Palestine. I wouldn't
(03:41):
have been particularly upset, or we could have said what
we did and I would have been. You know, I'm
nonplussed about it. We've got vastly more important domestic things
to think about, and nothing as to what we said
one way or another at the UN on Saturday, was
going to make a job of difference. So I really
didn't care. But if you listened to the speech, which
I did, I watched it live, it was a very
very well worded and extremely well argued, and even if
(04:05):
you're pro Palestinian, if you could just pay up the
emotion long enough to listen to the words that we used.
He had thought about it, and he laid on his lawyer,
which is as great as advantage. Of course, he laid
it out very clearly and very succeedsully. And even if
at the end of it, because you're so pro Palestinian,
you still thought he was wrong, you'd be churlish not
(04:26):
to argue that he didn't state the case particularly.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Well, Yeah, it sounds like Mike Well was quite impressed.
I presumably he usually watches that sort of afternoon news
that happens. He's usually on his stationary bike, but apparently
his bike became a little bit less stationary over the weekend.
He's broken it and he's got to either get a
new one or get some part for I'm assuming he
(04:49):
got so excited by Whenston Peters that he he was
on a hell climb and then kept climbing after he'd
got to the top of the hill or something, and
the bike couldn't handle it.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
So remember the big shootout the Maricopa you know, the
Thompson case and the kids and all of that carry on,
and that feeling that you didn't quite have all the facts, Well,
it's because you know, some people aren't allowed to tell
(05:20):
them to you.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
You wondered how long it would take for someone to
work out that the injunction over Tom Phillips and the
various bits and pieces weren't allowed to talk about, would
done well. We talked about maybe this is widely understood,
maybe it isn't. But an injunction is imposed by a
New Zealand court, is applicable only in New Zealand. It's
an effective mechanism if you're living in nineteen seventy nine
or even nineteen ninety nine. But post the Internet and
(05:41):
especially social media, it borders on being pointless. So what
we have post the injunction on Phillips and the various
issues around his family is everyone knows what's in it
and have done basically from the start. Offshore operators are
spreading it about the place like no tomorrow, which led
some people Friday to raise it with the Justice Minister,
who is quote unquote having a look at it as
though that means anything, but he is not optimistic, no kidding,
(06:06):
which leads to the obvious question and why go for
an injunction? And also why would a judge offer an
injunction knowing no one internationally is going to adhere to it.
Answer to the first, I don't know. Answer to the second,
my guess is no, judge wants, the state wants to
state the obvious by admitting defeat, because in turning it down,
because it's pointless, you are in effect setting a precedent
(06:27):
and every application going forward would be open to that precedent.
And therefore you don't want to be the person who
blew it all up. Also, do not underestimate I don't
think the egos associated with the judiciary, who, despite the
modern world, still hold the idea that they count for
something and they hold sway over the discourse of matters
in their courts. The other major issue, international outlets or
not is, of course, the vacuum create a vacuum, it
(06:48):
gets filled with nonsense. Now I know what's in the injunction.
I've been told by people who know as well, so
I know the weirdness that's out there that isn't real
or indeed even close to it. So all in all,
what you've got the whole thing's monumental mess. Gossip rules
the roost. The real story is there to be had.
It's all over the world, and the judiciary might want
to think about how they handle these matters going forward.
Because the horse has bolted and the Justice minister I
(07:11):
can assure you will not be offering anyone anything by
way of solution.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
It's a weird business. Of course, it's not just us
that has these rules that they apply in many places
in you know, UK, we often know about things that
are happening there more than the people in the UK know.
I just want to is there some kind of tourism
opportunity there?
Speaker 3 (07:30):
You know.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
It's a bit like you know when you go overseas
because you've bought a very expensive engagement ring and you
want to get at duty free. Could you know, if
you really want to, if you're real news hound and
you want to know what's really going on in the
world and go overseas and find out what the facts
are back here re wrap, well you might just go
(07:52):
want to go and watch a different form of footy.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Iron thing about the rugby over the weekend. I was
going to raise this with the lads up to eight
o'clock that I thought it was a superior game in
the sense it ebbed and flowed and I mean it
wasn't the tough up, the big South African thing and
all it was much. It was a superior game. And
here's the thing that the the season for all the angsties.
So when we beat Australia this coming weekend and the
Argentinians lose to South Africa, we will have one one
(08:17):
or retain the Bledisloe Cup and to won the Rugby Championship.
And therefore you can't ask.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
There's no way we can win the Rugby Championship from here.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Yes, there is. If Argentina lose to South Africa and
we beat Australia, we'll win the Rugby Championship, is my
understanding of the calculation.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
No, we'd have to lose by a we'd have to
win by a massive margin.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Yeah, but that's a negative view of the world. Why
can't we win by a massive margin for goodness sake? Anyway,
the point being, that's the other thing I was toy
I was toying between the two. So Melbourne was on.
I was talking to a daughter who's in London but
she has been living in Melbourne, so she's an AFL
fan and so we were sort of, you know, chatting
about the AFL Final which was on kind of at
the same time as the All Blacks were, and if
(08:57):
you looked at the atmosphere, the mcg save whatever you
want about Melbourne. I read a couple of articles about
Melbourne over the weekend. To my eyes was one headline.
To my eyes, Melbourne's turned weird is the lingering legacy
of long lockdowns. I may come back to that, but
you know, for all that's wrong with Melbourne, of which
there is much, on Grand Final Day, well one hundred
(09:18):
thousand people and the Snoop Dog, they seemingly can do
no wrong. So they had record crowds, they had record
eyeballs on it, and it really was until halftime a
fantastic match, and after halftime it blew out so a spectacle.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
It probably hows to have some sort of non Melbourne
teams doing well as well. That's all. That's all. I
think that always serves it. Well. I don't know much
about it, but I can recommend a very funny podcast
called Two Guys, One Cup. They described as an AFL
(09:55):
adjacent podcast. They often spend more time talking about the
players here and their socks than they do about what
they actually happen in the game. That's always a good listen.
The rerat okay, great to be feeling so ritch, so
just end the money. It's so awesome.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
Stats Department provided the news on Friday, that we are
richer than we have been. We're all significantly better off
than we would Does that feel like that's the case.
You go back a couple of years to twenty twenty one,
we were all worth collectively on average, this is all
our stuff. So you take your household as sets, you
retirement savings, your investments, you subtract the debt. What are
you left with? On average? In twenty twenty one it
(10:35):
was three hundred ninety nine thousand dollars, that's on average
what we were worth. Now it's five hundred and twenty
nine thousand, so we're we're booming. Our wealthy is twenty
percent has increased, a wealth has increased by twenty four percent,
So it's a median of two point four million. So
the wealthiest twenty percent of New Zealand is a worth
on average two point four million. Two quintiles below that
(10:57):
have increased by forty percent, and those numbers are half
a million and one million, respectively. No statistically significant change
to the twost low income group. So what you can
conclude from that, quite rightly is so often said the
richer getting richer, and the others aren't. Owner occupied housing
and other real estate represents just under half of all
(11:17):
household assets. So that's the whole story that New Zealanders
love property, rightly or wrongly, over every half of everything
we have has got to do with the house. And
that's how that works.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
So we are fabulously rich, but only if we sell
our house, and then we may have a house, so
we'll be rich and homeless. Funds what it's going? The
point of that good news, I suppose I am glen hat,
I am confused, and I probably will be again tomorrow.
I'll see you there.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
For more from News Talk set B Listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk said B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on
iHeartRadio Rerap There.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Welcome to the Rewrap for Monday. All the best bits
from the my casting breakfast on news Talk said be
in a sillier package. I am Glen Hart today. What
we might know but aren't allowed to say about things
here in New Zealand that they can elsewhere in the world.
We'll do the old football versus football you know which
code rules the roost with the AFL final over the
(00:50):
weekend in rugby league and rugby games. And then are
you feeling rich because you are, You're richer than you
used to be. But before any of that, Palestine and
the recognition and the YadA YadA yahd yah.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
If you watch the Peter speech in New York like
Saturday morning, you can see why he did so well
In last week's Herald's boardroom feedback for the bloke who's
been the epitome of agro and grumpiness in his better moments,
he is as good a foreign minister as this country's
ever had. Politically, the announcement and its built up got
dragged out way longer than it ever needed to, and
therefore took up too much oxygen at a time when
(01:25):
we really should be focusing on vastly more pressing local issues.
And no matter what we said, the eyes of the
world were never really honest, despite the hysteria of too
many in our media landscape who have little or no
grip on perspective. But given we were to say something,
what we did say was logical and sensible, unlike what
was said by many far larger countries earlier in the week.
The United Nations' greatest weakness is its reliance on hot
(01:48):
air as opposed to substance, which is why we landed
where we did in our declaration. Just saying stuff counts
for nothing. It's too easy, which is why too many
people do it. By the time Peters had finished the week,
he'd done some excellent truth bomb work on climate He's
indisputably right. We make a lot of promises we know
aren't going to come to pass. And on Gaza, we're
(02:09):
all appalled at the art workings of hate, but recognizing
things doesn't stop that hate, or the war, or had
the food flow or the hostages released. Essentially, we should
expect more of both. Israel and the Palestinians. Don't ask
for recognition while you're still refusing to release hostages when
there is something a lot more tangible. New Zealand is
ready to recognize progress. Progress is tangible words, aren't The
(02:33):
idea that a lot of people saying stuff builds momentum
is simply not true. We've seen that in the past week.
A piece, if there is to be one, will be
driven by the Americans, who will corral the Israelis to
a point of some sort of submission or agreement. Albanizi
and Starbar and Carne and all the rest of them
played true to the usual lightweight verbal frippery that's made
the UN famous. We at least told it like it was.
(02:53):
It was a good moment for a small country.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
I think we quite like that, don't we, being sort
of in the minority, but having a loud voice on
a world stage, whether anybody was paying attention, or they're
all had gone to the toilet to get a puddle
of height chips or I'm thinking of halftime at the
Raby Now I know it's a rewrap. Anyway, here's what
(03:16):
some people thought about the Winston Peter's speech.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Mike the speech given by Winston Peter's at the UN
was very well worded. I was delighted that New Zealand
didn't go with the flow like other countries and recognized Palestine.
Thank you, Terry. If you can take away the politics
of it, which as it turns out I can, because
I've mentioned a number of times in the last couple
of weeks on this program, I'm not particularly exercised about it.
We could have said we all recognized Palestine. I wouldn't
(03:41):
have been particularly upset, or we could have said what
we did and I would have been. You know, I'm
nonplussed about it. We've got vastly more important domestic things
to think about, and nothing as to what we said
one way or another at the UN on Saturday, was
going to make a job of difference. So I really
didn't care. But if you listened to the speech, which
I did, I watched it live, it was a very
very well worded and extremely well argued, and even if
(04:05):
you're pro Palestinian, if you could just pay up the
emotion long enough to listen to the words that we used.
He had thought about it, and he laid on his lawyer,
which is as great as advantage. Of course, he laid
it out very clearly and very succeedsully. And even if
at the end of it, because you're so pro Palestinian,
you still thought he was wrong, you'd be churlish not
(04:26):
to argue that he didn't state the case particularly.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Well, Yeah, it sounds like Mike Well was quite impressed.
I presumably he usually watches that sort of afternoon news
that happens. He's usually on his stationary bike, but apparently
his bike became a little bit less stationary over the weekend.
He's broken it and he's got to either get a
new one or get some part for I'm assuming he
(04:49):
got so excited by Whenston Peters that he he was
on a hell climb and then kept climbing after he'd
got to the top of the hill or something, and
the bike couldn't handle it.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
So remember the big shootout the Maricopa you know, the
Thompson case and the kids and all of that carry on,
and that feeling that you didn't quite have all the facts, Well,
it's because you know, some people aren't allowed to tell
(05:20):
them to you.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
You wondered how long it would take for someone to
work out that the injunction over Tom Phillips and the
various bits and pieces weren't allowed to talk about, would
done well. We talked about maybe this is widely understood,
maybe it isn't. But an injunction is imposed by a
New Zealand court, is applicable only in New Zealand. It's
an effective mechanism if you're living in nineteen seventy nine
or even nineteen ninety nine. But post the Internet and
(05:41):
especially social media, it borders on being pointless. So what
we have post the injunction on Phillips and the various
issues around his family is everyone knows what's in it
and have done basically from the start. Offshore operators are
spreading it about the place like no tomorrow, which led
some people Friday to raise it with the Justice Minister,
who is quote unquote having a look at it as
though that means anything, but he is not optimistic, no kidding,
(06:06):
which leads to the obvious question and why go for
an injunction? And also why would a judge offer an
injunction knowing no one internationally is going to adhere to it.
Answer to the first, I don't know. Answer to the second,
my guess is no, judge wants, the state wants to
state the obvious by admitting defeat, because in turning it down,
because it's pointless, you are in effect setting a precedent
(06:27):
and every application going forward would be open to that precedent.
And therefore you don't want to be the person who
blew it all up. Also, do not underestimate I don't
think the egos associated with the judiciary, who, despite the
modern world, still hold the idea that they count for
something and they hold sway over the discourse of matters
in their courts. The other major issue, international outlets or
not is, of course, the vacuum create a vacuum, it
(06:48):
gets filled with nonsense. Now I know what's in the injunction.
I've been told by people who know as well, so
I know the weirdness that's out there that isn't real
or indeed even close to it. So all in all,
what you've got the whole thing's monumental mess. Gossip rules
the roost. The real story is there to be had.
It's all over the world, and the judiciary might want
to think about how they handle these matters going forward.
Because the horse has bolted and the Justice minister I
(07:11):
can assure you will not be offering anyone anything by
way of solution.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
It's a weird business. Of course, it's not just us
that has these rules that they apply in many places
in you know, UK, we often know about things that
are happening there more than the people in the UK know.
I just want to is there some kind of tourism
opportunity there?
Speaker 3 (07:30):
You know.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
It's a bit like you know when you go overseas
because you've bought a very expensive engagement ring and you
want to get at duty free. Could you know, if
you really want to, if you're real news hound and
you want to know what's really going on in the
world and go overseas and find out what the facts
are back here re wrap, well you might just go
(07:52):
want to go and watch a different form of footy.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Iron thing about the rugby over the weekend. I was
going to raise this with the lads up to eight
o'clock that I thought it was a superior game in
the sense it ebbed and flowed and I mean it
wasn't the tough up, the big South African thing and
all it was much. It was a superior game. And
here's the thing that the the season for all the angsties.
So when we beat Australia this coming weekend and the
Argentinians lose to South Africa, we will have one one
(08:17):
or retain the Bledisloe Cup and to won the Rugby Championship.
And therefore you can't ask.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
There's no way we can win the Rugby Championship from here.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Yes, there is. If Argentina lose to South Africa and
we beat Australia, we'll win the Rugby Championship, is my
understanding of the calculation.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
No, we'd have to lose by a we'd have to
win by a massive margin.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Yeah, but that's a negative view of the world. Why
can't we win by a massive margin for goodness sake? Anyway,
the point being, that's the other thing I was toy
I was toying between the two. So Melbourne was on.
I was talking to a daughter who's in London but
she has been living in Melbourne, so she's an AFL
fan and so we were sort of, you know, chatting
about the AFL Final which was on kind of at
the same time as the All Blacks were, and if
(08:57):
you looked at the atmosphere, the mcg save whatever you
want about Melbourne. I read a couple of articles about
Melbourne over the weekend. To my eyes was one headline.
To my eyes, Melbourne's turned weird is the lingering legacy
of long lockdowns. I may come back to that, but
you know, for all that's wrong with Melbourne, of which
there is much, on Grand Final Day, well one hundred
(09:18):
thousand people and the Snoop Dog, they seemingly can do
no wrong. So they had record crowds, they had record
eyeballs on it, and it really was until halftime a
fantastic match, and after halftime it blew out so a spectacle.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
It probably hows to have some sort of non Melbourne
teams doing well as well. That's all. That's all. I
think that always serves it. Well. I don't know much
about it, but I can recommend a very funny podcast
called Two Guys, One Cup. They described as an AFL
(09:55):
adjacent podcast. They often spend more time talking about the
players here and their socks than they do about what
they actually happen in the game. That's always a good listen.
The rerat okay, great to be feeling so ritch, so
just end the money. It's so awesome.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
Stats Department provided the news on Friday, that we are
richer than we have been. We're all significantly better off
than we would Does that feel like that's the case.
You go back a couple of years to twenty twenty one,
we were all worth collectively on average, this is all
our stuff. So you take your household as sets, you
retirement savings, your investments, you subtract the debt. What are
you left with? On average? In twenty twenty one it
(10:35):
was three hundred ninety nine thousand dollars, that's on average
what we were worth. Now it's five hundred and twenty
nine thousand, so we're we're booming. Our wealthy is twenty
percent has increased, a wealth has increased by twenty four percent,
So it's a median of two point four million. So
the wealthiest twenty percent of New Zealand is a worth
on average two point four million. Two quintiles below that
(10:57):
have increased by forty percent, and those numbers are half
a million and one million, respectively. No statistically significant change
to the twost low income group. So what you can
conclude from that, quite rightly is so often said the
richer getting richer, and the others aren't. Owner occupied housing
and other real estate represents just under half of all
(11:17):
household assets. So that's the whole story that New Zealanders
love property, rightly or wrongly, over every half of everything
we have has got to do with the house. And
that's how that works.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
So we are fabulously rich, but only if we sell
our house, and then we may have a house, so
we'll be rich and homeless. Funds what it's going? The
point of that good news, I suppose I am glen hat,
I am confused, and I probably will be again tomorrow.
I'll see you there.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
For more from News Talk set B Listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.