April 4, 2026 • 11 mins
This week on the Sunday Panel, Director at Capital, Ben Thomas, and Resident Economist at Opes Partners, Ed McKnight, joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
The Government had their Cabinet reshuffle last week, with Minister Chris Bishop losing a few key roles. What did we make of this? Should Chris Bishop be worried?
The Tom Phillips doco - will we watch it? Given the police involvement, are we confident it’ll be an accurate account of what happened?
Would we pay to own one of Bob Marley's dreadlocks?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudgin
from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
EDB it is time for the panel and joining me now.
We have got director at Capital Ben Thomas. Good morning,
Ben Modernor, and we have resident economists at Opie's Partners.
Ed mcnight, Good morning, Ed.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Great to be here, Francisca, Oh look.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
I love that energy, Ben. Can I start with you.
We had the cabinet reshuffle, National's cabinet reshuffle over the week.
I think a lot has been made out of Chris
Bishop lost campaign chair to Simmy and Brown, a little
bit of movement there, but he picked up. Attorney General
(00:47):
lost Associate Sports Minister, Leader of the House. Maybe a
very mild kind of punishment for possibly looking at a
leadership challenge last year. But I don't think there's a
lot in that as there.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
Well, yeah, look to you know, it depends on your perspective.
For instance, I'm a former Press secretary for the Attorney General,
would say he's got the only promotion that matters, the
most important one in Parliament. On the other hand, if
you're a real diet in the whole party sort of person,
you're a political animal, you might say campaign chair. That's
(01:19):
actually extremely significant Leader of the House. Also, that's the
real long for parliament nerds. You really get to sort
of set the schedule at the timetable. Everybody has to
come to you asking for time for their bill to
be read in the House. So you know, look, these
are positions of some sort of moment in that kind
of situation. But yeah, look, in terms of the portfolios
(01:40):
that Bishop has, there's certainly no sort of casting out
into the wilderness. He has still sort of got a
handful of the most important portfolios that his sort of vision,
which is, you know, that vision for sort of bringing
down house prices, for really radicalizing I guess, you know,
urban development that's still intact and hasn't been sort of
(02:02):
you know, pulled away from him as some people might
have thought was have been on the cards after those
sort of Brookland back downs. Soh look, no, I think
you know a bit of internal sort of party shuffling
around probably, I think, yeah, in response to Bishop maybe
not sort of quieting those rumors about leadership early enough
last year and just a bit of a swat from
(02:25):
the leadership in that respect.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Yeah, your thoughts zed, Well, the one that really surprised
me was was Goldsmith getting the Minister of Pacific Peoples.
I thought that was a very strange and interesting appointment.
But on bishop look, he still has some very important portfolios,
like the Minister of Finance. Though it did seem a
bit petty to take off from Associate Minister of Sport,
(02:49):
and it felt personal because he wasn't replaced by anybody. Now,
having said that, I think it's probably makes sense to
get rid of some portfolios that don't make much sense.
I mean, sometimes I wonder why we have a Minister
of Sport and then why we have an Associate Minister
as well. I think it almost boggles the mind. But
that one's felt quite personal. I suppose since it wasn't
(03:11):
big place.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
That's only because we see that as the as the
ministry where you just get free tickets to go to
you know, or it's appropriate to turn up at Rugby
World Cups and things like that. That's how we see it.
I'm sure there's a lot more that goes into it
than that, but it just looks like a good kind
of you get to go on if you're good. Junkets
sort of really don't they.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
I think that's right. Isn't it. I'm not sure that
there was an Associate Minister of Sports when Bishop was
the minister, you know, at the beginning of the term.
And I think he became associate during last year's reshuffle,
and that was sort of, you know, in order to
not entirely cut them off from you know, the black
Caps games overseas and I guess that the Soccer World
(03:54):
Cup maybe this year, and so, you know, I guess
it's one of those things if you create the association
position for somebody when they're in favor, and you maybe
take it away when they're out of favor. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Look, the other the other reason why you do a
bit of a reshuffle is to promote new talent. Do
you think, Ben, with the promotion of Nicola Gregg and
also Cameron Brewer and Mike Butterick, that we're seeing that
that happen, that that's a good thing to see going
into an election.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
Yeah. So Penny Simmons was promoted into cabinet along with
Chris Penk and then Nicola Grig got that environment portfolio
that would from Penny Simmons, I guess given her elevation.
But yeah, look, I think that was an interesting one. Look,
I was doing a bit of commentary before the reshuffle
and I was sort of saying, well, it'll be very conservative.
(04:49):
You know, there's two out two ministers retiring, so you
bring two new people into the ministry, probably outside cabinet.
Cameron Brewer a bit of a no brainer. He's the
chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That's seen as
the sort of waiting room before you become a minister.
And then I think Mike but he was, he was
the Boulter. You know that not since the days of
(05:11):
sort of all Black trials have you seen sort of
somebody somebody coming as sort of as much of a
dark horse from nowhere, I think. And the argument for
that is, you know National is lacking in sort of
some rural voices up the top. It's it's you know,
it's a Minister for Agriculture for the National Party not
(05:32):
a farmer. For the first time in a long long time.
It's I used I call them a gentleman of the land.
Todd McLay and does a good job in the primary
industry's portfolio, but not from a farming background. And and
so Butterick, you know he is a farmer. He was
very active in one of these sort of anti forestry
farm groups before joining parliament. But yeah, even in terms
(05:57):
of the farmers that came in as first term, you know,
inmp's last time, which you'd say Grant McCullum from Northland,
Suho's red name and bring a ticket, you'd say, Mike
Butterick should probably go and buy a lottery ticket.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Can I change the topic? If that's okay, Ed, I'd
love to hear your thoughts. We got a lot of
information on Thursday about the appropriateness maybe of the relationship
between the police and a production company when it comes
to the Tom Phillips Netflix documentary. We learned a lot
more just about behind the scenes, how it's come to
be and that relationship. Are you at all interested? Will
(06:37):
you watch it? If they are able to contractually do
what they're obliged to do, and that for is to
protect and keep the children out of it?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Well, I wasn't that interested until I started reading about
how much access the production company actually got, and then
I thought, wow, this is going to be a very
interesting documentary because they were filming at the crime scene
while there was an active investigation going on, and I'm
sure that they would have been able to get extremely
good footage and takes of what the police were doing
(07:06):
while they're undergoing their work, and I kind of wasn't
that interested until I thought, actually, this is going to
be something quite interesting here.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Now.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I know some people are thinking, well, if the police
is so involved in giving footage and supporting the production,
can the documentary or is it likely that it's going
to be at all critical of what the police are doing.
And the answer is probably not if they're that involved.
But the way I think about it is a documentary,
especially one that goes on Netflix, isn't necessarily about saying
(07:37):
exactly what happened. It's entertainment, and given they've got that
sort of access, I think it's going to be pretty entertaining.
So I'll be tuning in on Netflix.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
I don't know how much. Yeah, I'm not going to watch.
I'm not intrigued to see it for entertainment's sake. I'm
intrigued to see it because the police do feel that
they were doing a lot of work behind the scenes
that we're not aware of and we don't understand. And
for you know, New Zealanders were sort of those who
were concerned about the welfare of the children, felt like
nothing was happening, and obviously there were things happening, Ben,
(08:09):
and that intrigues me. I'm interested to see a little
bit more transparency about what was happening behind the scenes
over those four years.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Well yeah, Lookle, ultimately we know what happened, and you know,
if the police were doing more work behind the scenes,
which I you know, I fully understand it, except and
we've heard sort of, you know, stories about basically Says
being brought in to do a bit of tracking in
the forest and that kind of thing. But look, ultimately
we know what happens. I think that with anything of
(08:39):
this nature there there is a bit of a danger
that you know, even a small part of the audience
will sort of idealize the scumbag. You know, they'll sort
of guy, I can understand so many problems or whatever.
You know, there has been a tendency you know, to
sort of by some to sort of suggest that he's
(08:59):
this kind of man alone hunt for the wilder people
sort of New Zealand stereotype. And I just think the
whole thing is so fetted and squalid. I personally have
no interest in watching it. But look, I do accept
the argument that, you know, there is probably an interest
in singing some of what the policemans do it what
police were doing, you know, just from that sort of
(09:21):
procedural aspect.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Yeah, it feels to me like it just sits right
in the middle of the tension between public interest storytelling
and the welfare of vulnerable children. That's kind of where
it sits very quickly. I don't know if either of
you are into music memorabilia, it's probably a good investment edge,
you know, I'm thinking of a guitar or written lyrics,
But how about a dreadlock? Would you pay twenty five
thousand pounds for one of Bob Marley's dreadlocks?
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Yeah, I don't know what the capital growth rate is
on a piece of hug. It's amazing that somebody is
willing to pay, or it is about to pay twenty
five thousand pounds for a lot of this guy's here.
I mean, I'm personally not into it, and it looks
like it's in a little plastic bag. But maybe somebody
will drop that sort of money on a zip lock
(10:05):
with some here in.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
It, something that you were done display at home.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Ben, I uh, well, you know, Look, I'm always googling
hair how much online and everythies, you know, so I mean,
if this came up, I made order it by mistake.
You never know. Look, the one thing I was thinking
that I you know, I as a fan back in
(10:29):
my youth, and I'd go to go to shows and
concerts and would do something that you was called moshing
back in the day, like jumping around and just just
just triggered a memory. Nothing hurt more than being whipped
by someone's dreadlock if you're if you're in the moshpat
and there was a heavily dreaded man around, usually man
(10:49):
in front of you, it was it was incredible. It
was like it's sort of like a whip that would
sort of just like hit you. And they're quite dense
and yeah, so no, look, I probably wouldn't pay the
regal of those memories.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Then go and enjoy Easter Sunday lunch with your grandmother.
D Thank you so much for joy us today, much appreciated.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live to News Talks a B from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudgin
from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
EDB it is time for the panel and joining me now.
We have got director at Capital Ben Thomas. Good morning,
Ben Modernor, and we have resident economists at Opie's Partners.
Ed mcnight, Good morning, Ed.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Great to be here, Francisca, Oh look.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
I love that energy, Ben. Can I start with you.
We had the cabinet reshuffle, National's cabinet reshuffle over the week.
I think a lot has been made out of Chris
Bishop lost campaign chair to Simmy and Brown, a little
bit of movement there, but he picked up. Attorney General
(00:47):
lost Associate Sports Minister, Leader of the House. Maybe a
very mild kind of punishment for possibly looking at a
leadership challenge last year. But I don't think there's a
lot in that as there.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
Well, yeah, look to you know, it depends on your perspective.
For instance, I'm a former Press secretary for the Attorney General,
would say he's got the only promotion that matters, the
most important one in Parliament. On the other hand, if
you're a real diet in the whole party sort of person,
you're a political animal, you might say campaign chair. That's
(01:19):
actually extremely significant Leader of the House. Also, that's the
real long for parliament nerds. You really get to sort
of set the schedule at the timetable. Everybody has to
come to you asking for time for their bill to
be read in the House. So you know, look, these
are positions of some sort of moment in that kind
of situation. But yeah, look, in terms of the portfolios
(01:40):
that Bishop has, there's certainly no sort of casting out
into the wilderness. He has still sort of got a
handful of the most important portfolios that his sort of vision,
which is, you know, that vision for sort of bringing
down house prices, for really radicalizing I guess, you know,
urban development that's still intact and hasn't been sort of
(02:02):
you know, pulled away from him as some people might
have thought was have been on the cards after those
sort of Brookland back downs. Soh look, no, I think
you know a bit of internal sort of party shuffling
around probably, I think, yeah, in response to Bishop maybe
not sort of quieting those rumors about leadership early enough
last year and just a bit of a swat from
(02:25):
the leadership in that respect.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Yeah, your thoughts zed, Well, the one that really surprised
me was was Goldsmith getting the Minister of Pacific Peoples.
I thought that was a very strange and interesting appointment.
But on bishop look, he still has some very important portfolios,
like the Minister of Finance. Though it did seem a
bit petty to take off from Associate Minister of Sport,
(02:49):
and it felt personal because he wasn't replaced by anybody. Now,
having said that, I think it's probably makes sense to
get rid of some portfolios that don't make much sense.
I mean, sometimes I wonder why we have a Minister
of Sport and then why we have an Associate Minister
as well. I think it almost boggles the mind. But
that one's felt quite personal. I suppose since it wasn't
(03:11):
big place.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
That's only because we see that as the as the
ministry where you just get free tickets to go to
you know, or it's appropriate to turn up at Rugby
World Cups and things like that. That's how we see it.
I'm sure there's a lot more that goes into it
than that, but it just looks like a good kind
of you get to go on if you're good. Junkets
sort of really don't they.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
I think that's right. Isn't it. I'm not sure that
there was an Associate Minister of Sports when Bishop was
the minister, you know, at the beginning of the term.
And I think he became associate during last year's reshuffle,
and that was sort of, you know, in order to
not entirely cut them off from you know, the black
Caps games overseas and I guess that the Soccer World
(03:54):
Cup maybe this year, and so, you know, I guess
it's one of those things if you create the association
position for somebody when they're in favor, and you maybe
take it away when they're out of favor. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Look, the other the other reason why you do a
bit of a reshuffle is to promote new talent. Do
you think, Ben, with the promotion of Nicola Gregg and
also Cameron Brewer and Mike Butterick, that we're seeing that
that happen, that that's a good thing to see going
into an election.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
Yeah. So Penny Simmons was promoted into cabinet along with
Chris Penk and then Nicola Grig got that environment portfolio
that would from Penny Simmons, I guess given her elevation.
But yeah, look, I think that was an interesting one. Look,
I was doing a bit of commentary before the reshuffle
and I was sort of saying, well, it'll be very conservative.
(04:49):
You know, there's two out two ministers retiring, so you
bring two new people into the ministry, probably outside cabinet.
Cameron Brewer a bit of a no brainer. He's the
chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That's seen as
the sort of waiting room before you become a minister.
And then I think Mike but he was, he was
the Boulter. You know that not since the days of
(05:11):
sort of all Black trials have you seen sort of
somebody somebody coming as sort of as much of a
dark horse from nowhere, I think. And the argument for
that is, you know National is lacking in sort of
some rural voices up the top. It's it's you know,
it's a Minister for Agriculture for the National Party not
(05:32):
a farmer. For the first time in a long long time.
It's I used I call them a gentleman of the land.
Todd McLay and does a good job in the primary
industry's portfolio, but not from a farming background. And and
so Butterick, you know he is a farmer. He was
very active in one of these sort of anti forestry
farm groups before joining parliament. But yeah, even in terms
(05:57):
of the farmers that came in as first term, you know,
inmp's last time, which you'd say Grant McCullum from Northland,
Suho's red name and bring a ticket, you'd say, Mike
Butterick should probably go and buy a lottery ticket.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Can I change the topic? If that's okay, Ed, I'd
love to hear your thoughts. We got a lot of
information on Thursday about the appropriateness maybe of the relationship
between the police and a production company when it comes
to the Tom Phillips Netflix documentary. We learned a lot
more just about behind the scenes, how it's come to
be and that relationship. Are you at all interested? Will
(06:37):
you watch it? If they are able to contractually do
what they're obliged to do, and that for is to
protect and keep the children out of it?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Well, I wasn't that interested until I started reading about
how much access the production company actually got, and then
I thought, wow, this is going to be a very
interesting documentary because they were filming at the crime scene
while there was an active investigation going on, and I'm
sure that they would have been able to get extremely
good footage and takes of what the police were doing
(07:06):
while they're undergoing their work, and I kind of wasn't
that interested until I thought, actually, this is going to
be something quite interesting here.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Now.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I know some people are thinking, well, if the police
is so involved in giving footage and supporting the production,
can the documentary or is it likely that it's going
to be at all critical of what the police are doing.
And the answer is probably not if they're that involved.
But the way I think about it is a documentary,
especially one that goes on Netflix, isn't necessarily about saying
(07:37):
exactly what happened. It's entertainment, and given they've got that
sort of access, I think it's going to be pretty entertaining.
So I'll be tuning in on Netflix.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
I don't know how much. Yeah, I'm not going to watch.
I'm not intrigued to see it for entertainment's sake. I'm
intrigued to see it because the police do feel that
they were doing a lot of work behind the scenes
that we're not aware of and we don't understand. And
for you know, New Zealanders were sort of those who
were concerned about the welfare of the children, felt like
nothing was happening, and obviously there were things happening, Ben,
(08:09):
and that intrigues me. I'm interested to see a little
bit more transparency about what was happening behind the scenes
over those four years.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Well yeah, Lookle, ultimately we know what happened, and you know,
if the police were doing more work behind the scenes,
which I you know, I fully understand it, except and
we've heard sort of, you know, stories about basically Says
being brought in to do a bit of tracking in
the forest and that kind of thing. But look, ultimately
we know what happens. I think that with anything of
(08:39):
this nature there there is a bit of a danger
that you know, even a small part of the audience
will sort of idealize the scumbag. You know, they'll sort
of guy, I can understand so many problems or whatever.
You know, there has been a tendency you know, to
sort of by some to sort of suggest that he's
(08:59):
this kind of man alone hunt for the wilder people
sort of New Zealand stereotype. And I just think the
whole thing is so fetted and squalid. I personally have
no interest in watching it. But look, I do accept
the argument that, you know, there is probably an interest
in singing some of what the policemans do it what
police were doing, you know, just from that sort of
(09:21):
procedural aspect.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Yeah, it feels to me like it just sits right
in the middle of the tension between public interest storytelling
and the welfare of vulnerable children. That's kind of where
it sits very quickly. I don't know if either of
you are into music memorabilia, it's probably a good investment edge,
you know, I'm thinking of a guitar or written lyrics,
But how about a dreadlock? Would you pay twenty five
thousand pounds for one of Bob Marley's dreadlocks?
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Yeah, I don't know what the capital growth rate is
on a piece of hug. It's amazing that somebody is
willing to pay, or it is about to pay twenty
five thousand pounds for a lot of this guy's here.
I mean, I'm personally not into it, and it looks
like it's in a little plastic bag. But maybe somebody
will drop that sort of money on a zip lock
(10:05):
with some here in.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
It, something that you were done display at home.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Ben, I uh, well, you know, Look, I'm always googling
hair how much online and everythies, you know, so I mean,
if this came up, I made order it by mistake.
You never know. Look, the one thing I was thinking
that I you know, I as a fan back in
(10:29):
my youth, and I'd go to go to shows and
concerts and would do something that you was called moshing
back in the day, like jumping around and just just
just triggered a memory. Nothing hurt more than being whipped
by someone's dreadlock if you're if you're in the moshpat
and there was a heavily dreaded man around, usually man
(10:49):
in front of you, it was it was incredible. It
was like it's sort of like a whip that would
sort of just like hit you. And they're quite dense
and yeah, so no, look, I probably wouldn't pay the
regal of those memories.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Then go and enjoy Easter Sunday lunch with your grandmother.
D Thank you so much for joy us today, much appreciated.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live to News Talks a B from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast 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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.