October 15, 2024 • 14 mins
THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Wednesday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) Keep Eating the Rich/Forecasters Should Be Banned/Turns Out, You CAN Beat Wellington/But About Those Billboards.../The Price of Catering These Days
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 talks'd be follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio Rewrap.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Okay there, welcome to the Rewrap for Wednesday. All the
best butts from the Mike Hosking breakfast on News Talks.
He'd be in a sillier package. I am Glen Heart
and today. Why do we ever listen to anything Treasury
ever says about anything? Why would you trust the Wellington
Council to do anything? Why don't the press gallery ask
any of the right questions? And what did the film
(00:48):
Commission spend all that money on in Cahn? But before
any of that, are our leaders out of touch?
Speaker 3 (00:55):
What is it with prime ministers and houses? Our Prime
Minister is one of those rentals on the market, having
sold another one recently along with his apartment in Wellington.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
I have not mentioned any of this because I don't
think it matters. Wealth is comparative. Wealth, if we're learned,
as opposed to one or inherited, should be encouraged. And
if you have worked hard and you've got some houses,
or some savings, or some shares or some companies, good
luck to you. I would go further and suggest if
you have earned your wealth, that might indicate you have
a sense of how to run things, a quality we might,
(01:24):
I don't know, want to see more of in our
leaders Wellington. Anyone, poor Old alban Easy across the ditch,
according to yesterday's media, has made a dreadful, dreadful mistake. He,
like our prime minister, has a house. In fact, he
has a new house. One headline read there is nothing
safe about buying a house on a cliff in the
middle of a housing crisis. The article followed it was
(01:45):
not complementary. Then another headline, alban Easy defends decision to
buy cliff top house, and so it went. The problem
is the house is a bit flash as they say,
it cost a bit over four million bucks. Now four
million in New South Wales is up there, but you
can spend fifty and indeed the most expensive house this
year has just gone on the market at one hundred million.
(02:05):
But none of that matters. What matters is Old Elbow
has four million for a place with a view and
that's not fair. So what is fair? How many houses
can luxome before? It's not a good look. A lot
of talk about optics in Australia yesterday. What is acceptable
when it comes to optics? Is it the number of
houses or the size of the house, or the cost
of the house or the views of the house? Has
(02:27):
are you allowed to pull? When did we become obsessed
with the measure of money and what it says about
your ability to do a job? Did you elect Elbow
to run the country or not? Or did you elect
him to look optically correct? Is Luxen there to fix
our economic crisis or write op eds for one roof?
In rough measure, the ability to find four million for
a cliff top home or a handful of rentals represents
(02:49):
some kind of success. I've always thought success was kind
of good to be supported and encouraged. And I know
quite a few people who could raise four million dollars
for a house, and I think no less of them
because they have a bobb or too. Normally, when people
do well, we like it. Why is it different with
publicly elected officials.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Question of timing, I think when you're the labor leader
and times are tough, don't go and buy a flash house.
Just wait for a Beck. He's not going to be
either the Prime Minister or the labor leader forever. In fact,
he might not be those things much past next May.
(03:26):
But yeah, in the meantime, just hold off on the
older mansion buying. Nobody's going to care after them about anything.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Rewrap.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
So yeah, Treasury apparently are no good at their job.
He's Mike with the details.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
How many years have I been saying on this program
that Treasury are useless? The answer is a lot of years. Anyway,
A very nice piece of writing reading this morning in
the Herald from Thomas Coglan. Treasury have confirmed indeed they
are useless. It all started going wrong apparently last year.
Unexpectedly bad year last year. This is their ability to
forecast or not for years. Said you might as well
(04:03):
use a dartboard, because how many politicians come on this
program going what Treasury is to me? And I go,
who cares what Treasury is told? He's going to be
wrong anyway. April of last year revised its economic forecast
because they realized it had all gone wrong. They had
submergent briefings. Things got worse this year, some more forecast revisions.
This creates, writes Thomas, something of a nightmare for a government,
(04:23):
no kidding. Last year the agency commissioned to review into
its revenue forecasting, first review of treasury forecasting since two
thousand and five, so just hadn't reviewed themselves for twenty
odd years, even though they were getting it wrong. The straw,
writes Thomas, that appears to have broken the camel's back,
was the accidental omission of Labour's smoke free Alterhu policy
from the budget of twenty twenty three forecast. Now, the
(04:46):
review into that cockup found the inadvertent emission of the
smoke free plan from the forecast was not the result
of a single point of failure, but it arose from
multiple missed opportunities across the government. So that's code for
everyone was asleep. Read it and weep if you want.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Yeah, basically, and I've been talking about in this for
a while now, it doesn't matter what you're forecasting or
trying to forecast the weather, election results, referendum results, and
certainly economic data results. Stop doing it, let's stop listening
(05:25):
to them. You may as well just lick your finger
and stick it out the window. I think that's for
the weather, not necessarily, scearily the economic data probably just
as useful. No forecasts are heavy banned. We will not
talk to any more forecasters about anything. Ever, again, I
wonder if anybody can predict what's going to happen with
(05:47):
the Wellington Council.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
How's the government dug a hole for itself or solve
the problem? Now the trouble and any parent will confirm
this is you only use a threat if one there's
an expectation that behavior will improve, or two if it
doesn't you are prepared to act. In the Wellington case,
the threat which has now very clearly been laid down,
will not lead to behavioral improvement. They are not capable.
I mean, Wellington is such a dysfunctional mess. If they
(06:09):
were wanting to stop embarrassing themselves, they would have done
so a long time ago. It's now, I would argue,
got dangerous reputationally. The capital is shot. The rest of
the country reads a ghasted about the closure of businesses,
the destruction of the city center, the general view that
the place is run by idiots. Yes, it's been exacerbated
by the public sector layoffs, but the pipes have nothing
to do with central government. Nor does the debt or
(06:30):
the downgrading of the credit ratings and the inability to
sell some shares to offset the increasing fiscal quagma. The
place is now in so what to do? This is
where reputations come in. Having made the threat from the
Prime Minister down, they now have to act. I suppose
they can buy a bit of time if they want,
out of politeness, but given improvement isn't on the way
for their own reputational integrity, they will now have to
(06:51):
make good and pull the trigger, which, of course, if
Taaronga or Canterbury is an example no bad thing. Democracy
is only ever any good if it serves the vote
as well, and I don't think even those who voted
for this eclectic lineup of neard Wells could argue this
is what they envisaged when they gave them their tech.
We are over counciled generally, and more specifically, increasing numbers
(07:12):
of councils are having trouble making quality decisions, understanding their
brief and delivering services in a way that would pass
any sort of muster. When the capital city of a
country is on its knees through bungling and infighting, it's
time to act.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
So anyway, we can just do it for all of
them and one fell swoop, rather than wait for various
different councils around the country to crumple one by one.
Let's just get ahead of the problem and get rid
of them all. No to rash Okay Rewrap. Now we're
going to stay in Wellington here for a little bit longer.
(07:48):
Because Mike's general criticism of the news media and this
country generally it got a bit more specific yesterday when
he saw what was happening with the Press Gallery in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
It's interesting we developed a sort of a theme on
the legals this morning, but the gallery let us down yesterday,
as in the Political Gallery, and it's part of my
growing dismay at the industry. Unfortunately, I've made my living
at for forty three years. So bad was it yesterday.
So we've raised on this program the Solicitor General's guidelines
for prosecution to the police as of next year, and
(08:22):
the Solicitor General, as we revealed on the program yesterday,
relies on, among others, a Niatonu naid A natonh NAIs
a group that was set up in twenty eighteen under
the auspices of Andrew Little, who had a big get
together and these activists decided they didn't like the justice system,
so they had a meeting and they formed a group
to recognize the justice system as a settler colonial and
to be again decolonizing the injustice system. And those are
(08:44):
the people who advise the Solicitor General, who then goes
on and writes to the prosecution to think carefully when
you run into some people who might have had some
previous trouble with the judicial process. In other words, it's
all race based. So we asked the Prime Minister about this,
and this is a scandal. So does the gallery pick
up the story and run with it and ask a
few politicians when they returned to the Parliament yesterday, know
(09:06):
they do not what are they asking politicians about? Asking
about towy billboards, of course, because that's what gallery journalists
do these days, because none of them have any institutional
knowledge or any interest in real news anymore. So bad
does it get that David Seymour is standing on the
black and white tiles being interviewed by the media, suddenly goes,
I'm actually surprised, quote unquote, I'm actually surprised that there's
not more people asking. When he sees not more people asking,
(09:28):
there was actually no one asking asking about these prosecution guidelines.
They're totally inconsistent with the values of a civilized country
where everyone is equal before the law. They're totally inconsistent
with this government's commitment to need not race, which is
part of the coalition commitment. We've raised it with Judith Collins,
who says she's all over it and we look forward
to her acting on what seems to be a pretty
(09:49):
egregious breach of the foundational principles of the country. Press
gallery at that point and they go now back to
the billboards. I don't make that part up. Back to
the billboards. That's what the Gallery unfortunately have sunk to.
And that is why, yet again, why to New Zealand
view the media the way they do, with the level
of distrust they do. We've got a genuine story here,
(10:10):
if not a scandal, and you can cut it two
ways if you want one. Do you agree with race
based policy or not? You can ask about that. And
even if you do agree with race based policy and
you think it's fantastic that Murray get a better deal,
what you can ask the government about is why did
they promise a whole bunch of stuff they've not delivered
one or the other, take your pick. I don't care
Judith Colin, she's off shore. We'll be talking to us
(10:31):
next week when she gets back. So, of course, as
the Prime Minister said quite rightly on the program yesterday,
you would need to ask the Solicitor General about that.
I thought, not a bad idea. I mean, we'd obviously
already thought of it. So we ring.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Would that make a good to be billboard though probably
as the media the media is doing a great job
in this country.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Yeah right, you should call the Solicitor General and talk
to her about it. Yeah right. So anyway, we call
the Solicitor General's office, and the advantage that we have
with me is that I get to the office relatively early, because,
of course, one of the first things you can you
can do is say, oh, no busy today, No problem,
I'm here at three. What time shall we make at three, three, ten,
three fifteen, three, twenty three, forty four, ten, four point thirty,
(11:12):
et cetera. So they came back and they eventually said
to us that she wasn't available for an interview at
the moment. So we went back and we said, well, okay,
what's that the moment mean? Well, they said this week
I mean, and it is to be fair, it was Tuesday,
so you only got Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Togo. So we're
backing things up a little bit. We said, no problem,
(11:32):
how about next week any time you like? From three
in the morning on. They came back to us and said, quote,
it looks like the solicitor general are not available next
week or any week. They didn't say any week. I'm
making that part up, but my guess is the solicitor
General's never going to be made available. And so there's
your problem. So you got to scandal brewing. No one's accountable,
(11:54):
and the one people or one person or one group
that is, i e. The politicians, they're running for the
hills and the gallery. Of course again now back to
the twey billboards, and you wonder why we are where
we are.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
But seriously, though, what is going to happen with the
twey billboards? Did we get to the bottom of that
or have I missed the point? As usual? The re
rap right, So we spent a bit of time this
week talking about things that are of bad luck in
terms of spending. Is this one?
Speaker 3 (12:24):
There we come to Paul Goldsmith, who may or may
not be about to do with something about the new
Zealand Film Commission who went to cawn As in the
film festival, and they spend one hundred and forty five
thousand dollars for four staff members. That a lot of money.
I don't think that's a lot of money for four
people where I did go. That's interesting for accommodation. Twenty
four thousand dollars twenty one thousand dollars for travel for
four people to get to the other side of the world.
(12:45):
If you've seen the price of an air ticket is
not the end of it's about six thousand dollars, So
I'm guessing at that level they probably flew premium. As
an economy. They did spend twenty four grand on food
and drink, and I thought that's a lot of money
for food and drink. They spent more on food than
they spent on air fares or accommodations, so I'm thinking
something went wrong there. They defend themselves both say they
had a huge number of meetings. By our account, they
(13:06):
had as many as ten meetings a day, and meetings,
in my personal experience, are generally a waste of time.
But nevertheless, they had a lot of meetings. But one
hundred and forty five thousand dollars. I don't know that
that's necessarily.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
So, yeah, the food bill high. But don't you want
to be if you go to one of those things
and you are having to have those meetings? I mean,
seriously kill me. I don't want to ever be involved
in a job that has that many meetings. But you know,
some people are into that sort of thing you want
to be. You know, there's lots of probably film commissions
(13:37):
from different parts of the world. They're wanting people to
go to their meetings. And if you want the movers
and shakers to turn up at your meeting, you've got
to have the best or dervs, right, the best snacks.
You know, you don't just want the normal mash mallowpats.
You want the double chocolate ones. You know what I'm saying.
You want the white chop chit chats chit chats or
(14:02):
timtams that come in the white chock. Need you get
that straight? Anyway? I am being hot now I'm hungry,
which is the way that these podcasts should usually end.
And I'll see you back here again tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
More 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 talks'd be follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio Rewrap.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Okay there, welcome to the Rewrap for Wednesday. All the
best butts from the Mike Hosking breakfast on News Talks.
He'd be in a sillier package. I am Glen Heart
and today. Why do we ever listen to anything Treasury
ever says about anything? Why would you trust the Wellington
Council to do anything? Why don't the press gallery ask
any of the right questions? And what did the film
(00:48):
Commission spend all that money on in Cahn? But before
any of that, are our leaders out of touch?
Speaker 3 (00:55):
What is it with prime ministers and houses? Our Prime
Minister is one of those rentals on the market, having
sold another one recently along with his apartment in Wellington.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
I have not mentioned any of this because I don't
think it matters. Wealth is comparative. Wealth, if we're learned,
as opposed to one or inherited, should be encouraged. And
if you have worked hard and you've got some houses,
or some savings, or some shares or some companies, good
luck to you. I would go further and suggest if
you have earned your wealth, that might indicate you have
a sense of how to run things, a quality we might,
(01:24):
I don't know, want to see more of in our
leaders Wellington. Anyone, poor Old alban Easy across the ditch,
according to yesterday's media, has made a dreadful, dreadful mistake. He,
like our prime minister, has a house. In fact, he
has a new house. One headline read there is nothing
safe about buying a house on a cliff in the
middle of a housing crisis. The article followed it was
(01:45):
not complementary. Then another headline, alban Easy defends decision to
buy cliff top house, and so it went. The problem
is the house is a bit flash as they say,
it cost a bit over four million bucks. Now four
million in New South Wales is up there, but you
can spend fifty and indeed the most expensive house this
year has just gone on the market at one hundred million.
(02:05):
But none of that matters. What matters is Old Elbow
has four million for a place with a view and
that's not fair. So what is fair? How many houses
can luxome before? It's not a good look. A lot
of talk about optics in Australia yesterday. What is acceptable
when it comes to optics? Is it the number of
houses or the size of the house, or the cost
of the house or the views of the house? Has
(02:27):
are you allowed to pull? When did we become obsessed
with the measure of money and what it says about
your ability to do a job? Did you elect Elbow
to run the country or not? Or did you elect
him to look optically correct? Is Luxen there to fix
our economic crisis or write op eds for one roof?
In rough measure, the ability to find four million for
a cliff top home or a handful of rentals represents
(02:49):
some kind of success. I've always thought success was kind
of good to be supported and encouraged. And I know
quite a few people who could raise four million dollars
for a house, and I think no less of them
because they have a bobb or too. Normally, when people
do well, we like it. Why is it different with
publicly elected officials.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Question of timing, I think when you're the labor leader
and times are tough, don't go and buy a flash house.
Just wait for a Beck. He's not going to be
either the Prime Minister or the labor leader forever. In fact,
he might not be those things much past next May.
(03:26):
But yeah, in the meantime, just hold off on the
older mansion buying. Nobody's going to care after them about anything.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Rewrap.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
So yeah, Treasury apparently are no good at their job.
He's Mike with the details.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
How many years have I been saying on this program
that Treasury are useless? The answer is a lot of years. Anyway,
A very nice piece of writing reading this morning in
the Herald from Thomas Coglan. Treasury have confirmed indeed they
are useless. It all started going wrong apparently last year.
Unexpectedly bad year last year. This is their ability to
forecast or not for years. Said you might as well
(04:03):
use a dartboard, because how many politicians come on this
program going what Treasury is to me? And I go,
who cares what Treasury is told? He's going to be
wrong anyway. April of last year revised its economic forecast
because they realized it had all gone wrong. They had
submergent briefings. Things got worse this year, some more forecast revisions.
This creates, writes Thomas, something of a nightmare for a government,
(04:23):
no kidding. Last year the agency commissioned to review into
its revenue forecasting, first review of treasury forecasting since two
thousand and five, so just hadn't reviewed themselves for twenty
odd years, even though they were getting it wrong. The straw,
writes Thomas, that appears to have broken the camel's back,
was the accidental omission of Labour's smoke free Alterhu policy
from the budget of twenty twenty three forecast. Now, the
(04:46):
review into that cockup found the inadvertent emission of the
smoke free plan from the forecast was not the result
of a single point of failure, but it arose from
multiple missed opportunities across the government. So that's code for
everyone was asleep. Read it and weep if you want.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Yeah, basically, and I've been talking about in this for
a while now, it doesn't matter what you're forecasting or
trying to forecast the weather, election results, referendum results, and
certainly economic data results. Stop doing it, let's stop listening
(05:25):
to them. You may as well just lick your finger
and stick it out the window. I think that's for
the weather, not necessarily, scearily the economic data probably just
as useful. No forecasts are heavy banned. We will not
talk to any more forecasters about anything. Ever, again, I
wonder if anybody can predict what's going to happen with
(05:47):
the Wellington Council.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
How's the government dug a hole for itself or solve
the problem? Now the trouble and any parent will confirm
this is you only use a threat if one there's
an expectation that behavior will improve, or two if it
doesn't you are prepared to act. In the Wellington case,
the threat which has now very clearly been laid down,
will not lead to behavioral improvement. They are not capable.
I mean, Wellington is such a dysfunctional mess. If they
(06:09):
were wanting to stop embarrassing themselves, they would have done
so a long time ago. It's now, I would argue,
got dangerous reputationally. The capital is shot. The rest of
the country reads a ghasted about the closure of businesses,
the destruction of the city center, the general view that
the place is run by idiots. Yes, it's been exacerbated
by the public sector layoffs, but the pipes have nothing
to do with central government. Nor does the debt or
(06:30):
the downgrading of the credit ratings and the inability to
sell some shares to offset the increasing fiscal quagma. The
place is now in so what to do? This is
where reputations come in. Having made the threat from the
Prime Minister down, they now have to act. I suppose
they can buy a bit of time if they want,
out of politeness, but given improvement isn't on the way
for their own reputational integrity, they will now have to
(06:51):
make good and pull the trigger, which, of course, if
Taaronga or Canterbury is an example no bad thing. Democracy
is only ever any good if it serves the vote
as well, and I don't think even those who voted
for this eclectic lineup of neard Wells could argue this
is what they envisaged when they gave them their tech.
We are over counciled generally, and more specifically, increasing numbers
(07:12):
of councils are having trouble making quality decisions, understanding their
brief and delivering services in a way that would pass
any sort of muster. When the capital city of a
country is on its knees through bungling and infighting, it's
time to act.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
So anyway, we can just do it for all of
them and one fell swoop, rather than wait for various
different councils around the country to crumple one by one.
Let's just get ahead of the problem and get rid
of them all. No to rash Okay Rewrap. Now we're
going to stay in Wellington here for a little bit longer.
(07:48):
Because Mike's general criticism of the news media and this
country generally it got a bit more specific yesterday when
he saw what was happening with the Press Gallery in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
It's interesting we developed a sort of a theme on
the legals this morning, but the gallery let us down yesterday,
as in the Political Gallery, and it's part of my
growing dismay at the industry. Unfortunately, I've made my living
at for forty three years. So bad was it yesterday.
So we've raised on this program the Solicitor General's guidelines
for prosecution to the police as of next year, and
(08:22):
the Solicitor General, as we revealed on the program yesterday,
relies on, among others, a Niatonu naid A natonh NAIs
a group that was set up in twenty eighteen under
the auspices of Andrew Little, who had a big get
together and these activists decided they didn't like the justice system,
so they had a meeting and they formed a group
to recognize the justice system as a settler colonial and
to be again decolonizing the injustice system. And those are
(08:44):
the people who advise the Solicitor General, who then goes
on and writes to the prosecution to think carefully when
you run into some people who might have had some
previous trouble with the judicial process. In other words, it's
all race based. So we asked the Prime Minister about this,
and this is a scandal. So does the gallery pick
up the story and run with it and ask a
few politicians when they returned to the Parliament yesterday, know
(09:06):
they do not what are they asking politicians about? Asking
about towy billboards, of course, because that's what gallery journalists
do these days, because none of them have any institutional
knowledge or any interest in real news anymore. So bad
does it get that David Seymour is standing on the
black and white tiles being interviewed by the media, suddenly goes,
I'm actually surprised, quote unquote, I'm actually surprised that there's
not more people asking. When he sees not more people asking,
(09:28):
there was actually no one asking asking about these prosecution guidelines.
They're totally inconsistent with the values of a civilized country
where everyone is equal before the law. They're totally inconsistent
with this government's commitment to need not race, which is
part of the coalition commitment. We've raised it with Judith Collins,
who says she's all over it and we look forward
to her acting on what seems to be a pretty
(09:49):
egregious breach of the foundational principles of the country. Press
gallery at that point and they go now back to
the billboards. I don't make that part up. Back to
the billboards. That's what the Gallery unfortunately have sunk to.
And that is why, yet again, why to New Zealand
view the media the way they do, with the level
of distrust they do. We've got a genuine story here,
(10:10):
if not a scandal, and you can cut it two
ways if you want one. Do you agree with race
based policy or not? You can ask about that. And
even if you do agree with race based policy and
you think it's fantastic that Murray get a better deal,
what you can ask the government about is why did
they promise a whole bunch of stuff they've not delivered
one or the other, take your pick. I don't care
Judith Colin, she's off shore. We'll be talking to us
(10:31):
next week when she gets back. So, of course, as
the Prime Minister said quite rightly on the program yesterday,
you would need to ask the Solicitor General about that.
I thought, not a bad idea. I mean, we'd obviously
already thought of it. So we ring.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Would that make a good to be billboard though probably
as the media the media is doing a great job
in this country.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Yeah right, you should call the Solicitor General and talk
to her about it. Yeah right. So anyway, we call
the Solicitor General's office, and the advantage that we have
with me is that I get to the office relatively early, because,
of course, one of the first things you can you
can do is say, oh, no busy today, No problem,
I'm here at three. What time shall we make at three, three, ten,
three fifteen, three, twenty three, forty four, ten, four point thirty,
(11:12):
et cetera. So they came back and they eventually said
to us that she wasn't available for an interview at
the moment. So we went back and we said, well, okay,
what's that the moment mean? Well, they said this week
I mean, and it is to be fair, it was Tuesday,
so you only got Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Togo. So we're
backing things up a little bit. We said, no problem,
(11:32):
how about next week any time you like? From three
in the morning on. They came back to us and said, quote,
it looks like the solicitor general are not available next
week or any week. They didn't say any week. I'm
making that part up, but my guess is the solicitor
General's never going to be made available. And so there's
your problem. So you got to scandal brewing. No one's accountable,
(11:54):
and the one people or one person or one group
that is, i e. The politicians, they're running for the
hills and the gallery. Of course again now back to
the twey billboards, and you wonder why we are where
we are.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
But seriously, though, what is going to happen with the
twey billboards? Did we get to the bottom of that
or have I missed the point? As usual? The re
rap right, So we spent a bit of time this
week talking about things that are of bad luck in
terms of spending. Is this one?
Speaker 3 (12:24):
There we come to Paul Goldsmith, who may or may
not be about to do with something about the new
Zealand Film Commission who went to cawn As in the
film festival, and they spend one hundred and forty five
thousand dollars for four staff members. That a lot of money.
I don't think that's a lot of money for four
people where I did go. That's interesting for accommodation. Twenty
four thousand dollars twenty one thousand dollars for travel for
four people to get to the other side of the world.
(12:45):
If you've seen the price of an air ticket is
not the end of it's about six thousand dollars, So
I'm guessing at that level they probably flew premium. As
an economy. They did spend twenty four grand on food
and drink, and I thought that's a lot of money
for food and drink. They spent more on food than
they spent on air fares or accommodations, so I'm thinking
something went wrong there. They defend themselves both say they
had a huge number of meetings. By our account, they
(13:06):
had as many as ten meetings a day, and meetings,
in my personal experience, are generally a waste of time.
But nevertheless, they had a lot of meetings. But one
hundred and forty five thousand dollars. I don't know that
that's necessarily.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
So, yeah, the food bill high. But don't you want
to be if you go to one of those things
and you are having to have those meetings? I mean,
seriously kill me. I don't want to ever be involved
in a job that has that many meetings. But you know,
some people are into that sort of thing you want
to be. You know, there's lots of probably film commissions
(13:37):
from different parts of the world. They're wanting people to
go to their meetings. And if you want the movers
and shakers to turn up at your meeting, you've got
to have the best or dervs, right, the best snacks.
You know, you don't just want the normal mash mallowpats.
You want the double chocolate ones. You know what I'm saying.
You want the white chop chit chats chit chats or
(14:02):
timtams that come in the white chock. Need you get
that straight? Anyway? I am being hot now I'm hungry,
which is the way that these podcasts should usually end.
And I'll see you back here again tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
More 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
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.