The Sunday Panel: Should we be worried about political corruption?

This week on the Sunday Panel, journalist and broadcaster Wilhelmina Shrimpton and Chris Henry from 818 PR Agency joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!

Should we be more concerned about political corruption? A new report from the Helen Clark foundation suggests the political sector needs reform, citing concerns about donations and lobbying. Do we need to address this?

Why are we so mean? Between the Rachael ‘Raygun’ Gunn backlash at the recent Olympics and the hate directed at Marla Kavanaugh, it feels like people are piling on with the abuse and vitriol. What do we make of this?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News Talks EDB all the highs and lows talking
the big issues.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Of the week.

Speaker 1 (00:17):
The Panel on the Sunday Session.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Joining us this morning. On the panel, we have journalists
and broadcaster Wilhelmina Shrimptone. Good morning, will Amina, good morning,
and we're also joined by managing director of eight one
eight PR Agency, Chris Henry.

Speaker 3 (00:38):
How you doing, Chris, You're well, Thank you.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Good to have you both with us. Hey, this morning,
we were taking a look at a report which has
been released by the Helen Clark Foundation, are making some
suggestions that we could probably be a little bit more
transparent with our political system and make sure that we
are not allowing ourselves to be corrupted. Do you think
we are naive in New Zealand potential political corruption? Willemina?

(01:03):
Do we just sort of expect people are going to
do the right thing?

Speaker 4 (01:06):
Yeah, definitely, I think when naive to think that it
doesn't happen. And look, it's probably nowhere near the scale
that we see in overseas governments, but that's not to
say that nothing that's going wrong or being done badly
has actually even come to light yet. I think we've
seen more situations like that, you know, paying for business
events attended by ministers and other officials, which essentially is

(01:27):
buying access to them. There's issues with donations. The lines
are often blurred, and we are seeing situations more and
more occur ministers coming into question over this type of thing.
And I also think there's concerns, you know, without proper
regulation around this, that we then rely on the media
to then bring it to light, and that brings in

(01:48):
a whole nother argument there. With all the changes around media,
you know, newsrooms making cuts, newsrooms being closed, we're losing
that ability to actually hold these people to account and
shed light on these issues.

Speaker 5 (02:01):
So it's dwindling more and more.

Speaker 4 (02:02):
So I think there's a real need to do something
to make sure that those lines are just not so
blurry anymore.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
Chris, I think lobbying is quite an interesting issue. We've
seen quite a few former ministers go from sort of
you know, being in cabinet one minute, a few weeks
later sort of walking in and starting a new job
as a lobbyist.

Speaker 5 (02:20):
Do you think that's an issue?

Speaker 3 (02:22):
I mean, it's so bizarre and in a normal corporate setting,
you'd have a restraint of trade that would take you
out of the business for at least six months. So
the idea that we don't have it in politics and
you can just sort of turn up the next day
with you with your new hat on, I think is
totally weird and definitely something I think they should look
at well.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
I mean, what about the OA. Have you had any difficulties,
you know, if you've applied for some information, have you
had difficulties getting it and feeling like you were getting
all the information that you'd ask for?

Speaker 3 (02:49):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (02:50):
My god, all the time. I've filed so many oas.
Often they are constantly late, so it's twenty working days
where they're actually meant to return a response to you,
and within that twenty working days they can then say, hey,
we're going to extend it by another twenty working days.
I've had so many situations where that those forty working
days have lapsed.

Speaker 5 (03:08):
I've had to chase it up.

Speaker 4 (03:09):
Eventually, finally, something in my inbox are going great, I've
got this information, I've got access to this report, to
these emails as communications, and then nearly everything is redacted.
You've then got to take it to the onwardsman, which
is a process in itself. It just feels like everything
is so inaccessible. It often feels like things are purposely
being hidden. I know that there's issues with privacy that

(03:31):
come in come into come into play here, which is
really important.

Speaker 5 (03:34):
Often things are redacted because.

Speaker 4 (03:35):
Of privacy issues, But it just feels like things are
being hidden, you know, under the guise of you know, particular.

Speaker 5 (03:43):
Elements in the Official Information Act.

Speaker 2 (03:45):
So, Chris, if you were advising a politician, would you
suggest that they look at this review or actually would
probably not work in their favor, you know, strengthening some
of these issues.

Speaker 3 (04:00):
Well, I suppose it depends about whether you're doing the
right thing for you or the right thing for it
to market. I mean, I think transparency is key and
it's it's obviously something that everyone really appreciates. So definitely
taking some of these the fearback on board, I think
is definitely a good idea. And you know, we're a
small country, We're all kind of in this together. I

(04:20):
do think that that taking on some of these findings
would be helpful and I think it would be seen
well by the public.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
Do we use the word transparency too often, especially when
we're talking about politics.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
Possibly, Transparency is a word that we use that we
do use a lot, but I mean it is important,
isn't it. I mean, it's the one thing that I
suppose we have in New Zealand over other countries and parts,
you know, that we that we are. We do like
to pride ourselves on being a transparent market, and so
I definitely think that we should keep it on I.

Speaker 2 (04:48):
Think it might be a bit of lip service there occasionally.
I would that be fair to.

Speaker 4 (04:52):
Says say, we definitely need to walk that talk.

Speaker 5 (04:55):
You know, you can say.

Speaker 4 (04:56):
Transparency into you're black and blue in the face, but
if you're not actually acting it and you're not following
through on it, it's just kind of completely pointless and
a really completely point less novelty, which is unfortunate, and
then that affects pub trust.

Speaker 2 (05:11):
I was talking at the beginning of the show just
about a few articles that have popped up recently about
how quick we are to react to people and their
success or their lack of success, and how cruel people
are these days, how we seem to be able to
dish out personal abuse and death threats and feel no

(05:36):
sort of responsibility for it at people, and I was
talking about Reagan, and I was talking about the New
Zealand singer who sang the anthem and San Diego of course,
and then of course there was another. The brother a
rugby player, came out and said, I cannot believe the
amount of abuse that you know that professional sports people

(05:57):
get as well. Why are we such can't use that word,
you know, Why are we so awful? Why are are
we so cruel? Is any of this reaction and hate justified?
Do you think, Chris?

Speaker 3 (06:12):
I definitely don't think it's justified. But I think from
as long as time has gone, people love a bit
of a pylon. It's not the right thing, but it
kind of is that community thing where you can have
an opinion on something that somebody else has done. And
I don't think that we quite realize how that these
people can hear what we're saying and they can see
what we're saying online. You know, I've worked in lots
of places across my work where you know, we tell

(06:34):
them often not to read the comments section because people
with this keyboard worry is hide behind keyboards and say
whatever they want. I think people need to probably take
a step back and think of the impact that it
has on the people that they're talking about, and think
would they like that to happen to themselves?

Speaker 2 (06:48):
Because well, I mean, you'll know from working in radio
and working here at news Talks, you'd be most people
actually are really good at disagreeing agreeably. They'll get their
points across. They might disagree with you, they might think
differently to you, But it doesn't have to come wrapped
up in personal abuse.

Speaker 5 (07:06):
Does it?

Speaker 2 (07:07):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (07:07):
One hundred percent? I feel this so deeply in my bones.

Speaker 4 (07:10):
And I did a documentary on trolling and online bullying
about a year ago in my previous role, and it
actually is the smallest minority of those people who are
actually the loudest and the most relentless and the ones
that don't stop. And you know, I feel like most
people are willing to have a constructive argument, but there
are others who just will not let it go. And

(07:30):
I remember something that I found from doing that documentary
and talking to a couple of cyber bullying experts work
sort of saying this idea of it people thinking it
increases your social currency by actually jumping on the bandwagon
and being this kind of not so much an activist voice,
but being a voice who's kind of calling someone up,
calling someone out sorry, or saying something.

Speaker 5 (07:53):
But then people just take it too far.

Speaker 4 (07:54):
And my partner, he's an international referee, he gets a
lot of it, and it's really completely unjustified when people
are just trying to do their jobs.

Speaker 5 (08:02):
And the ray Gun thing, I feel for her so much.

Speaker 4 (08:05):
You know, look, it wasn't a performance that we probably expected,
but she didn't deserve this. And it's been really disheartening
to see some people who I know have actually spoken
out against online bullying, have been voices for the little guy,
actually jump on the bandwagon. And it's because everyone else is.
You know, it's like we're all like lemmings online. I
feel like when everyone just wants to reshare and repost.

Speaker 2 (08:27):
I think you're so right, Chris. We do love a pilon.
But once upon a time, you'd pilon and then you'd
move on.

Speaker 5 (08:33):
Yeah, these days, you'd.

Speaker 2 (08:37):
You'd make your comment, you'd sort of do your thing,
but then we move on. But these people that these
just keeps coming for weeks and weeks, as one of
the meaning is just doesn't stop.

Speaker 3 (08:45):
And I think that the Wills is totally right in
terms of that idea of social currency. You know, everyone's
trying to get their latest hot taken. Oh I've got
something else I can say about this. You know, the
Internet has made us all broadcasters in our own backyards.
So the opportunity for us to be able to get
our zings and all of that sort of stuff is
so strong now. But I don't think that we realize
that these are real people and what's going on. Reagan's

(09:06):
a prime example, and you know you hear. I always
think about the professional sports players, like you know, some
people talk about their losses like it's like a personal
family family situation, like it's just wild.

Speaker 2 (09:19):
Oh look, thank you both so much for joining me
this morning, Wilhelmina Shrimpton and Chris Henry.

Speaker 1 (09:25):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin. Listen
live to News Talks it'd be from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio