April 5, 2025 • 40 mins
Today on The Panel, Tim Beveridge is joined by Irene Gardiner and Brad Olsen to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.
New polls, Manawanui's autopilot failure, the Greens' are in hot water again, Liam Lawson's first race after being dropped from Oracle, and more!
LISTEN ABOVE
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 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from news Talk, SAIDB,
debating all the issues and more. It's the panel on
the Weekend Collective on news Talk, said B. High El
(00:28):
seven higher.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Welcome, so hard.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
And very warm. Welcome to you, good afternoon, Welcome to
the Weekend Collective for the Saturday, the fifth of April.
And you can text your feedback anytime on nine two
nine two or email Tim B at Newstalks ab dot
cod z if you're not in a hurry. But of
course we'll be looking forward to your calls later on
coming up on today's show in just a moment our
panel who I'll be introducing shortly, looking a little further
(01:00):
ahead to when we will be taking your calls. As
I mentioned on eight hundred eighty ten eighty for the
one roof radio show, we've got Ed McKnight joining us.
He's a resident economist at Opez Partners, asking the question
is the golden age of property investment over? But also
we might dwell in two we've got time alternative ways
of getting attention for your property that's just not selling,
(01:21):
such as I don't know a one dollar dollar reserve,
dangerous game and after five o'clock for the Parents Squad.
Sarah chap When joins us. She's a psychologist at Mind
Works now talking about managing a household with a blended family.
So all, if you've got the step kids and the
blended family of children, who can tell whose kids what
and what are the rules? We love your input on this.
On eight hundred and eighty ten to eighty and before six,
(01:42):
we're talking to our own superman, Christopher Reeve. He is
a sports journalist with zed Mee and it's Auckland def
C versus Western Sydney Wanderers. We're going to preview that
as well as get his take on the upcoming qualifying
rounds for the f one which of this evenings, So
that is lots to get our heads around. Welcome to
the Weekend Collective. It's eight minutes past.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Three, entertaining and always boys. Tim Beverage on the Weekend
Collective News talks that'd.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Be oh yes, indeed and no particular ordership. We introduced
her quite modestly as a producer and journalist. But she's
I think over the course of your career, she said,
her fingers and all sorts of pies, isn't she it's
Irene Gardener.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Hello Irene, how are you?
Speaker 4 (02:24):
I'm very well, thank you.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
That you've had a fairly eclectic You've got lots of
interest seven arts and broadcasting.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
Journalist and TV producer by trade. But yeah, these days
I do boards and things like that, and so yeah,
I'm a bit of cross that I do boards.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
I do boards on board.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
That's quite that was quite bad grammar for someone claiming
to a FA.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Journalists boards works for me, and he is. I was
just reflecting with Irene and my producer, just the insufferable
youth of Brad Olsen, the CEO of in for Metrics,
and I thought of you as we played that slightly
groovy music, Brad, that you'd be wanting to bust some moves.
But coming to us down the line from Elington, good ay, gooday.
Speaker 5 (03:06):
Look, I was trying to bust some moves. Although if
you ask me any details about the song when it
came out and who made it, I'm not sure if
I'm quiet as across that detail.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Possibly before you were born, I'm guessing really likely. What's
everything old is new again?
Speaker 6 (03:21):
They know, Brad.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Anyway, nice to have you guys on the show. Look,
let's let's rip into it, shall we. The first thing
look just a quick thing.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
So we've got another pole out and it's the Taxpayer
Unions Union Curier pole, and it has had several poles
that have been bad news for the government. But it
looks like it's switched around a bit and probably, of
course Labor's fallen a few points. Inexplicably, the Greens are
up to eleven points. I guess maybe the needge to
that pole. Now it might be a bit different. New
(03:51):
Zealand First is up two point three to seven point
four and Act up two point three to ten percent.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Here's the thing.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
When I saw it as another pole out, I thought,
oh God, who cares? I mean, who cares about poles?
I don't even really believe them because I look at
the results on think, how can the Greens be on
eleven percent?
Speaker 4 (04:08):
What do you think?
Speaker 2 (04:09):
What's your take on the polls, brad Oh, I.
Speaker 5 (04:11):
Mean they are a snapshot in time, but I mean,
tim if they reflected exactly what you thought then that
you know it'd be just one one party in power,
just simply mathematically. And I think that's the thing. It
just reflects the all encompassing views of a range of
New Zealanders in this case. I think normally most of
the poles are about a thousand people, but there are
(04:31):
a thousand different people every time, So looking through those numbers,
I don't take a lot pole to pole in the
fact that you know anyone's up one or two points,
because that's within the eraror margin. The fact that Label
was down four point three points, a little bit above
the era margin does sort of suggest is a little
bit less there for them at the moment. But the
fact that National didn't go up all that much, I mean,
(04:52):
there's been a lot in the last couple of weeks
You've had, of course the Prime Minister's trip to India
that was quite successful on the international front, but a
lot of questions being still back at home around delivery
and particularly the economy.
Speaker 6 (05:04):
So so I think.
Speaker 5 (05:05):
Realistically it's probably that you look through a couple of
the poles that have been released the last couple of weeks,
people are still pretty questioning of where the economy's at,
but also obviously showing a bit of frustration with the
opposition too. That is probably we you'd expect to be,
given where we are in the political cycle, sort of Midtermish.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Irene. Do you follow the poles much?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Oh, yes, I'm always interested. I mean, you know, as
Brad says, they're kind of a snapshot, they're a bit
of a guide and they are often affected by you know,
who's just had a good week, month whatever. I mean,
you know, looking at the bunch of them lately, you'd
have to say that, you know, the two blocks are
feely even. The two main parties are fairly even. I
think they actually are quite important, even though they can
(05:47):
sometimes be wrong. I think that I think, you know,
it's a read for governments to kind of, you know,
realize if they're doing what the people who voted for
them kind of want them to be doing or not.
I mean, I know they do their own internal polling,
but I think it's good that we as the public
are aware of polling as well. So yeah, I think
polls are okay. The ones just before the election are
(06:08):
quite often wrong.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
However, Yeah, Actually, I think the thing is is that
so we see this and as a headline it's been
good news for the government, and then we'll see another
one done by a different polster being reported in a
week or two or three, and it will look completely
the opposite, and we seem to have so much swaying
around that I'm wondering if we still have a way
to go brown on the methodology and getting consistency that,
(06:31):
for instance, re research versus the taxpayer union pole in
my memory, and I don't lock these things too hard
that they always tell a different story just because they're
different polsters.
Speaker 5 (06:41):
Yeah, I mean you can see that throughout different poles.
I mean, to be fair, if you had the Taxpayers
Union that did one a week later, you'd probably get
a different result. Again, I mean just because you're calling it.
You've only got a thousand people that are polled in
these when we've got what five million odd New Zealanders.
You will get a different view every time. But they
will generally trend around the same area what we generally do.
And maybe it's less about what we do with the
(07:03):
polls and maybe how we talk about that instead of
referring just to the latest snapshot whenever it might have been.
What often you see a lot of informed commentators do
is they'll look through the latest polls. I'll sort of
average the last three to five or so and go, look,
what is there A bit of a broad trend Are
things trending up trending down? You don't want to sort
of look at one pole and think, oh, it's definitely
(07:23):
the absolute gold stand and all the other ones beforehand
was silly. You more want to try and take a
bit of that overtime vibe shift. Is there a trend
up for one party or a trend down? So I
think that's where often we could do a little bit
better as going, hey, is this showing better things overall
for the government? Is there more concerned with the opposition
how the minor party is doing? But again, we're also
a long way away from an election, so what does
(07:44):
it matter.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
What does it do to us? Not a lot. At
the moment.
Speaker 5 (07:47):
It just sort of keeps us broadly informed with how
people are trending, and at the moment things seem to
be a little bit more even Stevens than before in
terms of the blocks of power.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Can I just ask it as an economist as a
useful guide for us, because we hardly ever when there's
a poll out And mind what I know, I never
noticed that anyone actually acknowledges too much. By the way,
this is within the margin of eraror can you explain
to us, so people can when they hear the next
pole come out, they can go put it in context.
What is the margin of error and how significant is
(08:19):
it when you get a point five percent shift out
of one thousand people?
Speaker 5 (08:23):
Yep, So I mean most of the time you do
see the margin of eraror reported, but it's often not
put in as much context. So the pole that came
out and we're talking about at the moment a thousand
people were surveyed, it's got a maximum margin of era
of three point one percent. So basically the long too
long don't read there is if you've got a shift
above three point one percent, hey yeah, it's material. It's
it's sort of big enough to actually pay a bit
(08:45):
of attention to if it's below three point one percent.
So if it's point five percent, even if it's one percent,
there's a question of is it a real genuine shift
or is it just a little bit of noise in
the data because you ask some different people are the
same questions at different time, So realistically we start to
get a lot more interested when you start to see
those shifts over time. That's also where the averaging comes
in so usefully, though, Like if you had one party
(09:07):
on twenty five percent, and then over the course of
five to seven polls it ended up on thirty five percent.
That's pretty big, So every time you saw it wouldn't
necessarily mean it was better worse for otherwise, but you
do want to look at that trend. So generally, what
you're trying to figure out is is this actual reality
a big change, something noticeable, or is it just that
a few different people have been asked a slightly different question.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I've got one more question, sorry that Irene will want
to chip in in a second, but not on the economics.
Shaking your head, is it more significant when you if
you are polling four or five percent, does it mean
that the shifts that your experience need to be taken
with a bigger grain assault than the big parties who
are getting thirty three thirty four percent each?
Speaker 5 (09:45):
Well, well, basically, I mean if you're you know, I
think there was a report about the likes of to
party madia A who increased. I think I'm just looking
through the numbers here. They fell two point two to
four point three. I mean that says that their support haved.
I mean, really, you know, do they really whips all
that much likely hood is no, they didn't. It's just
(10:06):
you're talking pretty small numbers there. Of course, it does
meta for the political calculus, because five percent is that
sort of magic threshold number, and it does matter how
many people you get. But yeah, you should. I mean
put it this way. I think take political polls with
a grain of salt generally. Don't sort of look at
the last one and go it's absolute gospl and all
the other ones I just disregard, sort of got to
put them in the mix with everything else you see
(10:27):
out there, How many poles have come through? What other
informations are out there?
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Have you ever been polled?
Speaker 6 (10:31):
Irene?
Speaker 4 (10:33):
No?
Speaker 1 (10:33):
No, me?
Speaker 6 (10:34):
No you Brad, Oh no, I'm gutted. I mean I'd
love to. It'd be so interesting.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
I'm dying to be polled for the radio survey because
they'd say, who do you listen to? I'd say the
Weekend Collective all day long, every time it's on. Do
you listen to anyone else? No?
Speaker 6 (10:51):
And who are you calling? Nix? I can prep them
with the romance exactly.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
Anyway, let's move on to well, this is an awkward
story for the Navy.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Of course.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
The man and ma nui. I don't think there's anyone's
surprise here, Irene. That was human there. And as we've learned,
the failure to disengage in autopilot control as the root
cause of the New Zealand Navy ship running aground and sinking.
What's your what's your feeling about this? The damage that
does to the impression that we get of I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
The Navy at least.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
Yeah, it's not great.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Is it.
Speaker 6 (11:24):
Not great?
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Understand?
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Not good? Not good?
Speaker 4 (11:29):
And you know, it's been quite a serious I have
a friend who's been up there working as part of
a environmental missile to make sure, you know, to mitigate
the potential damage there. Oh yeah, I mean I know
I shouldn't on such a serious story, but there was
a little part of me because part of it, yes,
there was that auto part of the thing, but part
(11:49):
of it was also an acceleration instead of a breaking incident.
And I know so many people who have done that
in a car. And you don't drive, so this is
not you, and you think that you would do that
in a fairy It's like it's kind of like no, no, no, no.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
No, no, no way back back back.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Well, actually I think most of us would have guessed
this almost because we saw it with the ferry that
ran aground and the sounds. It wasn't that an autopilot
thing as well, the cursored autopilot Brown.
Speaker 5 (12:16):
It was indeed, I mean and like like our you know,
embarrassing that we did manage to speed up into a
reef and then lose one hundred million dollar warship. We
don't have a lot of them to start with, so,
you know, losing something pretty pretty vital. I think the
difficulty here, Wright, is that, like New Zealand's navy, we've
got some good players, we've got some good ships, we've
(12:37):
got some great people. But on this occasion, we just
fell really really short of the mark. Why does that matter? Well,
it's really hard for us to go back into the
Pacific and say, hey, we're here to support you when
the last time we did we sank a ship in
someone else's brief. And the global sort of position here,
Wright is that you know, international partners are saying, and
they've started almost jokingly say it publicly, is New Zealand
(12:58):
serious on this front? I mean, like, can we can
we rely on New Zealand? So we've got to make
sure that from this we take some pretty serious lessons,
we do something pretty serious about it. The Navy has
got to take this and move it forward and figure
out what we do at the other side, because the
training apparently just was an up to standard. I mean, Tim,
I don't know if you've gone read the transcript, but
some of the stuff that's been coming through it suggests that, look,
(13:20):
we just weren't as in control as what we needed
to be and that is a fundamental failure.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Yes, it'd be interesting to see.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Actually, just reminds me of the budget that's coming up,
that what we're going to announce for our defense spending,
because we are I think there's some pressure on us
to look like we're taking it seriously. So anyway, look
on to other things. The Green the story with the
Greens this week with the Green MP Benjamin Doyle with
appropriate inappropriate language next to photos on social media, the
(13:47):
Greens saying that context is critical and actually they've had
a bit of a caning from one of the people
who broke the story, Ani O'Brien for saying, look, you
know you're saying that this is normal for all of
us and trying to group all people in the LGBTQI community.
Here's my quick take before I go to you, Irene. Tragically,
for the Greens, this is going to keep giving because
if they did decide they needed to make some sort
(14:09):
of change, they'll be the last to do it and
it'll take them months and months and months.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
But what did you think of this whole story?
Speaker 4 (14:16):
Well, unlike you Tim who cruelly said earlier in the program,
you couldn't understand how ten percent of New Zealand voted
for the Greens, I can, because you know, mostly they're
there as an environmental wing, and I think a lot
of people support that. I think where they start to
come acropper is when they start getting into culture wars
and tribal stuff and so on and so forth, and
(14:36):
we start to lose people. To be fair, I can
see what Chloe Schwarbrick was trying to say, because it
is entirely possible that this person hasn't really done anything wrong,
that the post was just a bit of you know,
silly lingo, so on and so forth. Hard to really know,
(15:01):
and I think that Benjamin Doyle needs to speak well,
actually address things. Was it just a silly, lighthearted comment
and actually they're a good person and there's nothing to
worry about or what.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Well, yes, indeed, just to pick you up on one
of the things that I've picked up and talked aback
with people who might otherwise be Green voters is that
the last thing they are is Green's at the moment,
and they should rename themselves the Red Party because the
environmental issues. I mean that the ghost of I picture
the political ghost of James Shaw just being.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
And that's what you hear people saying, don't you. They say,
this is not James Shaw, this is not Rod and Jeanette.
Where you know where they're going, and I think it is.
It is the wander over into cultural wars, tribal land.
I mean, someone like myself, if they really were just
the Green Party.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I mean, that's the whole thing. I mean, I think
a lot of us care about green issues, but it's
a cry from it. But Brad, this issue is going
to keep on giving because at some stage Benjamin Door
is going to return to Parliament and probably play the
victim card about threats and all that sort of thing,
And the last thing they will do is actually address
the appropriateness of those texts, which, to be clear, to
(16:20):
people had sexualized language and with photos with children in them,
including an emoji which is an emoji which is the
other meaning for it as an emoji for pedophilia. So
it was pretty dodgy.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Anyway, they're going to keep giving, aren't they, as a
gift for the newsmakers.
Speaker 5 (16:37):
Well, I mean, look, people have asked questions. And let's
be quite realistic here. If you are becoming a politician,
the scrutiny is intense. The people are have elected you
to represent them, they are paying your salary. That scrutiny
comes through and it looks at stuff that happened even
before you were a politician. I mean to say that
this is sort of you know, private and shouldn't be
(16:57):
in the public eye, or the horse has already bolted
on that front. People are asking questions and I do
expect that at some point Doyle will have to front
up on these conversations because people are going, well, what
is this all about? And let's be real if we
look at other politicians out there across the spectrum, if
they've done something similar or of a very different vein,
(17:18):
but in the same sort of thing, and it appeared
on their social media. I'm pretty sure that we would
be hounding them for answers. Same same across the board,
no matter what political party, no matter what you are
the posters about or similar. There are questions that are
asked and they do want to be answered.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
I can put it in more bluntly than that, if
I posted something with a sexual reference with one of
my children in the photo, I would have been gone yesterday.
It'd be whatever happened to Tim Beveridge as opposed to
know it would be let's be honest. But somehow they'll
keep pushing back and somehow they're the victims in it all.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
I do think it's important to highlight that the likes
of death threats in that that have been leveled against
Ail are completely completely inappropriate, and that is not how
we go about this conversation. The media are asking questions
and that's the appropriate way to do it. But I
I think also we're poorly served right when we go
to either end of the distinction here. On one hand,
the grains are saying that, you know, the answers can't
(18:12):
be coming through because of the likes of death threats
and similar. On the other hand, people are saying there
are questions to be answered, but no one's fronting up
like we do have to figure out a way how
do we have a sensible conversation. There are questions that
are being asked by members of the public. There is
some sort of expectation for an answer or some sort
of additional detail, and I don't think that just bearing
it is going to do anyone particularly well, because people
(18:32):
will continue to ask.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Actually, it does amaze me the number of people who
think that it's okay to offer a death threat. I mean,
I hope that if there's a serious threat to me made,
I hope you face the full consequences of the law.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Because it's just obsaying.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
No, death threats are never the solution to anything.
Speaker 6 (18:45):
Who loves time for that?
Speaker 5 (18:47):
I mean honestly, who I just I really find that
sort of stuff bizarre. I mean, look, I often read
stuff and I don't necessarily agree with it. I mean
one to even offer that level of feedback is insane
in my mind. But at the same time, to include
a death threat, I mean, who do these people think
they are?
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Well, I've got I can't really answer that. Really, there's
so many how do you put that in context? But anyway,
that's the way some people want to respond. I'm just
saying because as a talkback case, we do get some
fairly horrendous stuff, and I just sometimes am amazed at
the number of things that people will attribute to their
own phone number and names.
Speaker 6 (19:22):
It's like, what you see your text machine.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Oh, I'll better go and have a look at it.
Speaker 6 (19:28):
Oh no, no, not not this time. But I've seen
the ZB text machine.
Speaker 4 (19:32):
There.
Speaker 5 (19:32):
There are lots again here, importantly, nine percent, the absolute
vast majority of people have something interesting to add into
the conversation, something useful, and they are doing it in
the right way. It's just that very very slim group
of absolute idiots bordering on criminal twits.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Actually, just on a lighter note, I just think it's
marvelous that we still refer to our computer system which
shows our text as the text machine. It sounds very
old scored, isn't it like that thinging machine that does that,
you know, the one with the lights and the pictures
and in the text. Yes, the computer.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
But anyway, there we go. That's my terminology. We use
it here anyway.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
It's twenty six past three. Way back in just a moment,
I feel my jem run.
Speaker 6 (20:27):
Hell the on Fleen watch for your long.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Yes, welcome back to the Weekend Collective. I've a little
bit of Elvis. I wanted to let that role, but
I think we can only really go about twelve bars
before we got a kick, and that was probably about
sixteen bars.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Anyway, I have a little bit of Elvis. But there
we are.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Welcome to the Weekend Collective. My panelists Irene Gardner and
Brad Olsen. Now, guys, I am I've become such a
fan off one that I'm anticipating the practice round and
the qualifying rounds and the race which are this evening,
and the race tomorrow with Liam Lawson with more anticipation
(21:04):
iron than an all black match. I'm right into it.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
Where are you at the with the F one and
Liam quite like the motor racing, and I would like
quite like the motor racing. And I feel for Liam,
you know, if one minute he was everything and then
he was kind of nothing, and that's so hard. We're
so hard on our young sports people, aren't.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
We well bred?
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Bullwork very Yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
I have this feeling, and look, I might be proved
to be completely wrong that he's going to completely come
back from this completely triumph completely be a megastar at
some point, whether that's now, whether it's a bit later,
I mean maybe in a way, I mean you can
sort of go, oh, well, on the one hand, he's
still under huge pressure because now it's his whole career
is on the line. But I don't know. I think
maybe he's in a better spot now.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Well, there has been a joke going around that max
verstaff and if he went to racing ball it would
be seen as a promotion because the racing balls are
doing quite well.
Speaker 6 (21:58):
But are you into the F one Brad? Look? Can
I be honest?
Speaker 5 (22:02):
Up until recently, I know I was it had I
had no interest whatsoever, like genuinely wouldn't have known any
of the players. But I have started to get into
it enough that every time I see a new headline,
I've got real. I've been like, look, I don't care,
but I care a little bit. I just want to
have a little bit.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
Of a look.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
And it has been interesting right that even in I
think the practice races are for the Japanese Grand Prix,
and I know that that it's pre not pricks, because
that's what it looks like. Look, I really didn't care,
but hate leam Mawson. He actually finished faster than the
guy who that's just replaced him, So maybe this has
been a good move from a blessing in disguise. As
(22:40):
much as it has looked like a high profile tumble,
I think he's actually possibly looking better out of it.
Speaker 6 (22:46):
I think so.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
And actually, if you want to get into it, Brad,
I would suggest watching maybe just the last couple of
series start on Netflix of Drive to Survive, because I
think the thing is about the appeal Irene is that.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
We get.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
It's they're all thoughtful, intelligent people by the look of it.
All the means you get around what's happening in each
franchise or each within each team. Should I say, they
all sort of speak relatively openly intelligently as opposed to
I don't know. It's a contrast to some of the
sporting codes where you go, I don't want to single
out any player. The boys did a good job all that,
(23:22):
and you get to have an insight into it and
to care about I don't know. And also it's at
the it's at the pinnacle of a particular sport of technology,
strategy skill.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
What I was just going to say, it's such a
high level of strategy, strategic where and I think that's
why you get the smarts, you know. I mean, I
don't think you can actually be a top driver without
being pretty smart. And of course, see, because as you
pointed out earlier, Brad is so very young, I might
not know that New Zealand has a very rich history
in motor racing.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
I think he knows. I think Brad knows. But of
course the McLaren team, which is named after Blues or
Bruce McLaren's I reckon, Brad, the gateway for you into
this is to do an economic analysis of just whether
it's actually worth owning an F one team, And we'll
ask you next time you come back in. And but
by then you'll be like, well this particular driver blah
(24:18):
blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
You'll be all over it.
Speaker 5 (24:20):
I think I can give you that answer now, like
absolutely not from a pure economic thing. But look, if
I was a petrol head, I think I'd be totally
into it. I mean, maybe I should watch drive to
what Drive to Survive?
Speaker 2 (24:30):
It's called Drive to Survive.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
It's on Netflix, and I accidentally watched season six first
or season five the last couple of here and and
got right into it.
Speaker 6 (24:40):
This sounds like the Love Island of like car racing.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
Except all the people on it are genuinely at the
top of their game. Sorry, but I don't even know
what you're talking You're talking about one of those celebrity series.
Speaker 6 (24:53):
I guess, yeah, yeah, yeah, let's not get into that now.
It's a whole different topic for a whole other show.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Okay, Well, speaking of amazing events that are going on
that we're not going to be seeing, I'm sort of
ambivalent a little bit about the America's Cup, whether it's
here or not. Irene, but I wonder if here's the thing.
A week before, Christopher Luxon said, we've become a country
that says no, and you've just pointed at me, going damn,
(25:20):
you've just stolen my thunder. And it's like, well, hey, Chris,
how about we get the America's Cup here as an
event to get everyone fizzing in the economy and all
that computer says no, what do you reckon?
Speaker 4 (25:30):
I kind of tend to agree. I've always been quite
supportive of America's Cup because I think as well as
that it has a strong positive economic impact for New Zealand.
I think it's something that we get really excited about
and it makes Peel happy, and these are good things
and we're good at the moment. We're a good team.
You know, things are going well. I was really disappointed
(25:51):
when the last one went offshore and to think that
we had the opportunity again and if we really did
just lose that for.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Seventy five million apparently.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
Yeah, But I do think the government was in a
really no win situation because I think if they had
invested the money, we would have got more than that back. Yes,
I mean, I'm open to being corrected by that by
the actual economist in the room, but I just think
in the current climate, I think they would have been
so criticized for it.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
I think you have nailed it.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
I think that they they didn't have the intestinal fortitude
for the political criticisms that would come their way, even
if those political criticisms were maybe unfair, because they'd be like, oh,
you've got enough money for your rich boys and girls sport,
but you haven't got enough money for.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
Them of oh yeah, but we're getting more back is
I mean, I have to make that argument a lot
professionally because of the freebate. You get people to understand that,
you know, the screen production rebate. Yes, we give some
money out, but we get way more money in. And
I'm constantly having to make that argument wearing that hat.
And that's you know, for the government to have to
make that argument on this in the current climate.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Yes, because Brad, if I can bring you in in
a second, so in now should I say, because you
are the economists in the room. So Barcelona it generated
an additional two billion New Zealand dollars one point nine billion.
I gather we would to get I don't know how
it works with GST, but somebody, I think the guy
(27:22):
from the Hospitality Association said that if we pulled in.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Well, I did the calculations.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
If we pulled in five hundred and seventy five million,
seventy five million of that would generally be GST in
terms of the spend that would come in, so we
would only need to be a third as successful as
Barcelona anyway, But your analysis, please, Well, I was going to.
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Say, I when you started this, you know, saying that
the Prime Minister is talking about how we don't want
to be a country of no I didn't realize that
a country of yes meant yes, government hand me out
and do it all for me in the private sector,
be damned. I mean, come on, if it's that good,
and it's supposedly that good, then I'm not sure why
international business people were not lining up to bankroller. And
if they're not, that tells me quite a lot. Maybe
it's not the best.
Speaker 6 (28:02):
Let's be real.
Speaker 5 (28:02):
The last time that we had the America's Cup in
New Zealand, it made a loss of our about one
hundred and sixty million dollars. It made less money than
we put in.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
But so I think you're being unfair because that was
post COVID and no one could come here.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Well you say that no one could come here, but
we still seem to have enough to keep running it.
Why did they not postpone and pause it for a
couple of years. They kept going even because they had
some of that good, good taxpayer money. I think it
is inconceivable when the government accounts are in deficit until
the twenty thirties, perhaps to be spending money on a
yacht race. Is that really what the Texas are supposed
(28:38):
to go to?
Speaker 6 (28:38):
Absolutely not.
Speaker 5 (28:39):
I couldn't give a stuff, And I think the vast
majority of New Zealander is or won't.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
Even know it hot take. But the thing is, I mean, say,
for instance, the F one in Victoria, the Victorian state
government put in one hundred million Sorry what did they
put in? Yeah, they put in over one hundred million
Australian into it. Because these events attract business. They are
like an export business. They bring money into the country. So,
(29:03):
putting aside your mild lowing for the event, if you
do generate that income, let's just make it a billion.
And look, that's an optimistic you know that, even making
half of what Barcelona did. But let's say we brought
in enough money where the GST you made off the
spend basically pay for itself. That's money we wouldn't have had.
Doesn't it work like that?
Speaker 5 (29:22):
But that's true of just about literally everything that the
government would spend on. So no matter what they put
the seventy five mil on, they could do it for that,
They could go and do it for a Taylor Swift concert.
They could go and do it just by giving households
the money and going to ask them to spend a
bit more, you will still get a bit of a
multiplier effect out of that government spending anyway, this is
an opportunity cost The government needs all the money that's got,
(29:42):
where is it going to best put it, and most importantly,
what was it not going to fund because it had
to spend that seventy five million on the America's cup
Because I do really think that, yes, you'll always get
people in and coming to spend for various things, especially
if you subsidize it to the turn of seventy five mil.
The question for me is that, well, from a government perspective,
can you stand up and justify that when you're not
spending on other things? And I really think for the
(30:05):
government that this was the exact right move to say, look,
we would.
Speaker 6 (30:08):
Love to do it.
Speaker 5 (30:09):
And I think importantly again, if private business want to
do it, if they think it's a good enough investment,
they should totally go for it. And if they don't
think it's a good enough investment to run it themselves,
then I'm not sure the government is somehow smarter to
think they can pull it off better.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
I think the only the only distinction I would draw
was that if you are putting money into an event
where everyone participates is buying a ticket, then that would
be a business, but where the money, where the benefit
is benefiting in a more amorphous way an economy. It's
not private. Private business don't money make money off the GST.
They make money off the other activities.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
But you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
It's like, for instance, the government became a shareholder in
Taylor Swift and said we're going to produce a taste.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
And we're going to clip the ticket.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Well, actually, so there are people who'd say we should
actually have put money in to get Taylor over here
because it would have been.
Speaker 5 (30:57):
Huge, correct, And I still would have disagreed with that
at that time. I mean, there it is a real challenge.
And look, I mean this is economists. We sort of
loved to go and find the worst sort of possible
stance of all this stuff. But I really do think
that Look, I mean there's a big question here over
The big question is if you went out to every
New Zealander and said, hey, if you have to pay
an extra whatever for the America's Cup, would people do it?
(31:19):
I wouldn't, And I'd much rather that people that did
actually put their money in. And because at the end
of the day, I really don't see that. I mean,
you've already seen this go off shore once.
Speaker 6 (31:28):
We know as well.
Speaker 5 (31:29):
The only reason it was going to get going was
if the government allowed an accommodation levy to come through.
The government said that wasn't happening. They felt like there
were so many barriers in the mix that I would
have been really worried that the government would have committed
this money. It wouldn't have gone quite as far. And
then at the other end we would have gone, oh gosh,
this made less money than we thought. Why has this
happened again?
Speaker 6 (31:46):
And again?
Speaker 5 (31:47):
We have some proof here. Yes it was COVID, but
there's some pretty firm proof that the cost benefit and
now assistants stack up the next time. I just don't
think it would do the same more differently this time.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Now.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
That was a surprise to me because I thought I'd
be disagreeing with Irene on this one and agreeing with Brad.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
But it's the other way around.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
So mean, no, diary, It might be made right, but
it can't be right all the time.
Speaker 4 (32:08):
Doesn't stack up. My assumption was that it did, but.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Maybe it doesn't. We're going to get you too to
discuss the film commission next time you're on together, because
I'm getting this one. Anyway, we're gonna be we need
to take a break. It's eighteen minutes to four news Talks.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
Be back and a tick.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
It's welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This song is
the Killers. That's by request of Brad Olsen. We like
to give our panelists and our guests the request. Our
own hasn't put one in yet, but anyway, hey, welcome
back to the Weekend Collective. As I say, I'm Tim Beverage.
It's Brad Olsen, an honoring iron gardener with us. Now, Brad,
we're going to go to you first on this one.
The in fact, it was one of the biggest stories,
but I thought we'd push it to later in the
(33:01):
hour to give us, you know, a second wind. The
Liberation Day, the tariffs of Kickton Wall Street has had
the biggest fall since the COVID pandemic demic. I heard,
I think one news had someone from Auckland's Business school
who said that listening to Trump's reasons was like listening
to a flat earther. I thought that was quite a good,
(33:24):
strong comment from an academic.
Speaker 5 (33:26):
Actually, it's been a really tough couple of days to
try and understand what's going on and just what the
justification is behind it. I mean that the end result
has been a swift and savage drop to the markets.
I mean the worst day since the pandemic. As you noted,
something like six six and a half trillion US and
value wiped out.
Speaker 6 (33:45):
I mean the number of it. They're so big that
you sort of can't comprehend how big those numbers are.
But it's been bad.
Speaker 5 (33:52):
I think, in fact, the last two days it's the
fourth worst day in US market history over a two
day period. The only worst ones where the likes at
the start of the pandemic, the GFC, and then you've
got to go back to the Great Depression. I mean
that this is serious stuff, and this is like artificially engineered.
Speaker 6 (34:10):
The tariffs. I mean, we knew they were coming.
Speaker 5 (34:13):
They were worse, I think than we all thought at
a national at a global scale, for New Zealand, they
weren't quite as bad as they could have been. That's
sort of the only silver lining you can possibly come
out with.
Speaker 6 (34:23):
But the risk of.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
Global growth is clear. The fact that these tariffs are
big and they could well go bigger. The fact that
there's now been retaliation like all around, this is a
self engineered economic catastrophe. The risk now, I think from
JP Morgan they've put the risk of recession out sixty
percent for the US economy this year. Like this has
sort of changed the economic game, and I don't think
(34:44):
even we as economists have fully got our head around
about how bad this could and is likely going to be.
Speaker 3 (34:52):
The thing is they seem to calculate so for the
thirty four percent tariff on China, they looked at the
trade deficit, divided it by the imports and came up
with sixty seven percent, and half of that it had
nothing to do with reciprocal tariffs.
Speaker 6 (35:05):
It's just exactly the looky lou stuff.
Speaker 5 (35:08):
You look at New Zealand right the latest report from
the US Trade Representative says in twenty twenty three, New
Zealand's tariff right on the US was one point nine percent.
Yet that big board that the President held up in
the Rose Garden said twenty percent. And we're all going,
what is this? Has he included a bit of gst
what's he done? And literally they've now published a series
(35:30):
of calculations that effectively boil down to your trade deficit
divided by your total trade with the US in the
last period that you've got available. The crack up thing
is is they've put a bunch of Greek letters in
there and said, well, we chose a bunch of important
parameters that basically boil down to they just equal one.
So for all of the tom foolery and trickery that's
(35:50):
gone on, the numbers boil down to there is no
reciprocity in here. There's no a few tarifast will tariff you.
The saying back, it's I think that the US President
clearly thinks that there should be no trade deficits with
the US. US should be doing all of the manufacturing,
all of the trade, sending it all out there. I mean,
the numbers are very hard to comprehend. But the worst
(36:11):
thing is is that if that's the level of analysis
that is coming out of the US administration at the moment,
I don't think there's a lot of hope for good,
long standing negotiations. This is just going to continue to happen.
Speaker 3 (36:21):
I thought the thing one of the other thing that
stood out to me and Arena is that as the
bullying of these very poor economies, forty nine percent tariff
on Cambodia, forty eight percent for Laois and forty six
percent for Vietnam. The word unconstionable stroke comes to mind
for that rule.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
It's just I just don't I don't understand. I read
a really good column today from an American economist basically saying,
don't try and look for the method and the madness.
There isn't any It's just completely idiotic. You know, none
of these things will help anybody, let alone America.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
The problem is is he demands such loyalty from his
circle of advisers that who's going to actually tell him
this is a really dumb idea.
Speaker 4 (37:03):
And you know I heard someone that he you know,
the people had got to speak saying, you know, just
a very ordinary American guy from you know, smallish town
talking about how wonderful it would because all the manufacturing
jobs would be back in the factories and so on
and so, and you know, he seemed so genuine.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
That's what Trump's messaging.
Speaker 4 (37:21):
And I just thought, oh no, that's just I don't
think that's going to happen. It's just it's all just
a sort of track.
Speaker 5 (37:27):
Really.
Speaker 2 (37:27):
Oh well, you know, so he doesn't like the stock market.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
Falling to be fair, Trump does have this weird style
where he announces something truly horrendous and shocking and then
he sort of walks back from it. So I wonder
if there might be an element, you know, I think
New Zealand is right to just sort of sit tight
and you know, not react too much and just oh yeah,
we'll keep see what happened, keep their heads.
Speaker 3 (37:49):
Down, keep fill golf out of the picture. Anyway, We'll
be back in just a moment. It's nine minutes to four.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
Yes, and that request from Irene Gardener. That's here.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
It comes with my Girl from Tommy, Tom Petty and
the Heartbreakers. I'm Tim Beveridge and my other panelist is
Brad Olsen and Lucky last story. Guys, it's funny. I
always thought Kiwi are so cute as our bird. They're
so sort of likable with their long beaks and they
sort of you know, trot around and anyway, there are
so many at the moment. There have been a video
called of a couple fighting in a Northland backyard. Actually
(38:43):
surprises surprise as well, and not nighttime.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
It sort of looked like.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
It was dusk or daylight. But I read that was
slightly jarring and comical at the same time.
Speaker 4 (38:51):
To say it's kei we going for If anyone hasn't
seen it, do look it up because it is fantastically funny.
They just look ridiculous fighting. I don't mean to be
I'm going to get in trouble now for insulting our
beloved nationals. Go for it. I always find Key's very
weird looking because they they really look like they need
something other.
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Than those two They look like they need arms.
Speaker 4 (39:10):
Don't look think they need either wings or sort of
like little kangaroo type arms.
Speaker 3 (39:14):
Well, they do have little wings, you just don't can't
see them. They've just got these little in the fight.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
They just look even more ridiculous because they've got nothing
to really fight with. They're sort of bouncing on their
two legs and beaking, and they're just the weirdest kicking
dudes that ever they were.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
I was wondering what happens if they fall over one,
but they seem to the upright, Brad. We were impressed
by that video and slightly shocked that Kiwi are so
aggressive to each other.
Speaker 6 (39:36):
I did.
Speaker 5 (39:36):
I mean, I thought it was quite exciting as well. Look,
I'm a north under I think it shows that, you know,
Jesus if you go up north and you get to
see some pretty spectacular sights, and sometimes.
Speaker 6 (39:45):
It includes kiwi fighting in your backyard. I mean, how good.
Speaker 3 (39:48):
Actually, wouldn't that be amazing? Seriously to look out in
your backyard and see a kiwi or two, isn't that?
I think it just seems so surreal because I've always
thought they're so rare and endangered, and yet there's somebody's
got a water bowl out and then they're fighting over it.
Speaker 6 (40:02):
They are such incredible animals.
Speaker 5 (40:04):
I've seen the when I was on Stuart Island, you know,
did of night heaving would be very quiet, and I
think it's quite cool to see, you know, that there
are now enough of them and we're getting there in
terms of their numbers that they can fight in the backyard.
They are peculiar looking creatures, That's that's sure. I feel
like if they fall over, they almost just must spring
back up on the hind legs and right.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Again, like the Kung Fu thing.
Speaker 6 (40:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
I mean maybe eventually, hopefully this is a new tourism
ed that we can start to put out.
Speaker 3 (40:31):
You know, I can see you doing that move on
the on the dance floor when you slip over bread.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
Hey, look, we haven't got time to say goodbye, except
we can say goodbye. We'll be back in just a
moment with the One Radio Show. Thanks Irene, Thanks Brad.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
Catch us own for more from the Weekend Collective. Listen
live to news talks'd be weekends from three pm, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from news Talk, SAIDB,
debating all the issues and more. It's the panel on
the Weekend Collective on news Talk, said B. High El
(00:28):
seven higher.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Welcome, so hard.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
And very warm. Welcome to you, good afternoon, Welcome to
the Weekend Collective for the Saturday, the fifth of April.
And you can text your feedback anytime on nine two
nine two or email Tim B at Newstalks ab dot
cod z if you're not in a hurry. But of
course we'll be looking forward to your calls later on
coming up on today's show in just a moment our
panel who I'll be introducing shortly, looking a little further
(01:00):
ahead to when we will be taking your calls. As
I mentioned on eight hundred eighty ten eighty for the
one roof radio show, we've got Ed McKnight joining us.
He's a resident economist at Opez Partners, asking the question
is the golden age of property investment over? But also
we might dwell in two we've got time alternative ways
of getting attention for your property that's just not selling,
(01:21):
such as I don't know a one dollar dollar reserve,
dangerous game and after five o'clock for the Parents Squad.
Sarah chap When joins us. She's a psychologist at Mind
Works now talking about managing a household with a blended family.
So all, if you've got the step kids and the
blended family of children, who can tell whose kids what
and what are the rules? We love your input on this.
On eight hundred and eighty ten to eighty and before six,
(01:42):
we're talking to our own superman, Christopher Reeve. He is
a sports journalist with zed Mee and it's Auckland def
C versus Western Sydney Wanderers. We're going to preview that
as well as get his take on the upcoming qualifying
rounds for the f one which of this evenings, So
that is lots to get our heads around. Welcome to
the Weekend Collective. It's eight minutes past.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Three, entertaining and always boys. Tim Beverage on the Weekend
Collective News talks that'd.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Be oh yes, indeed and no particular ordership. We introduced
her quite modestly as a producer and journalist. But she's
I think over the course of your career, she said,
her fingers and all sorts of pies, isn't she it's
Irene Gardener.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Hello Irene, how are you?
Speaker 4 (02:24):
I'm very well, thank you.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
That you've had a fairly eclectic You've got lots of
interest seven arts and broadcasting.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
Journalist and TV producer by trade. But yeah, these days
I do boards and things like that, and so yeah,
I'm a bit of cross that I do boards.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
I do boards on board.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
That's quite that was quite bad grammar for someone claiming
to a FA.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Journalists boards works for me, and he is. I was
just reflecting with Irene and my producer, just the insufferable
youth of Brad Olsen, the CEO of in for Metrics,
and I thought of you as we played that slightly
groovy music, Brad, that you'd be wanting to bust some moves.
But coming to us down the line from Elington, good ay, gooday.
Speaker 5 (03:06):
Look, I was trying to bust some moves. Although if
you ask me any details about the song when it
came out and who made it, I'm not sure if
I'm quiet as across that detail.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Possibly before you were born, I'm guessing really likely. What's
everything old is new again?
Speaker 6 (03:21):
They know, Brad.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Anyway, nice to have you guys on the show. Look,
let's let's rip into it, shall we. The first thing
look just a quick thing.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
So we've got another pole out and it's the Taxpayer
Unions Union Curier pole, and it has had several poles
that have been bad news for the government. But it
looks like it's switched around a bit and probably, of
course Labor's fallen a few points. Inexplicably, the Greens are
up to eleven points. I guess maybe the needge to
that pole. Now it might be a bit different. New
(03:51):
Zealand First is up two point three to seven point
four and Act up two point three to ten percent.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Here's the thing.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
When I saw it as another pole out, I thought,
oh God, who cares? I mean, who cares about poles?
I don't even really believe them because I look at
the results on think, how can the Greens be on
eleven percent?
Speaker 4 (04:08):
What do you think?
Speaker 2 (04:09):
What's your take on the polls, brad Oh, I.
Speaker 5 (04:11):
Mean they are a snapshot in time, but I mean,
tim if they reflected exactly what you thought then that
you know it'd be just one one party in power,
just simply mathematically. And I think that's the thing. It
just reflects the all encompassing views of a range of
New Zealanders in this case. I think normally most of
the poles are about a thousand people, but there are
(04:31):
a thousand different people every time, So looking through those numbers,
I don't take a lot pole to pole in the
fact that you know anyone's up one or two points,
because that's within the eraror margin. The fact that Label
was down four point three points, a little bit above
the era margin does sort of suggest is a little
bit less there for them at the moment. But the
fact that National didn't go up all that much, I mean,
(04:52):
there's been a lot in the last couple of weeks
You've had, of course the Prime Minister's trip to India
that was quite successful on the international front, but a
lot of questions being still back at home around delivery
and particularly the economy.
Speaker 6 (05:04):
So so I think.
Speaker 5 (05:05):
Realistically it's probably that you look through a couple of
the poles that have been released the last couple of weeks,
people are still pretty questioning of where the economy's at,
but also obviously showing a bit of frustration with the
opposition too. That is probably we you'd expect to be,
given where we are in the political cycle, sort of Midtermish.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Irene. Do you follow the poles much?
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Oh, yes, I'm always interested. I mean, you know, as
Brad says, they're kind of a snapshot, they're a bit
of a guide and they are often affected by you know,
who's just had a good week, month whatever. I mean,
you know, looking at the bunch of them lately, you'd
have to say that, you know, the two blocks are
feely even. The two main parties are fairly even. I
think they actually are quite important, even though they can
(05:47):
sometimes be wrong. I think that I think, you know,
it's a read for governments to kind of, you know,
realize if they're doing what the people who voted for
them kind of want them to be doing or not.
I mean, I know they do their own internal polling,
but I think it's good that we as the public
are aware of polling as well. So yeah, I think
polls are okay. The ones just before the election are
(06:08):
quite often wrong.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
However, Yeah, Actually, I think the thing is is that
so we see this and as a headline it's been
good news for the government, and then we'll see another
one done by a different polster being reported in a
week or two or three, and it will look completely
the opposite, and we seem to have so much swaying
around that I'm wondering if we still have a way
to go brown on the methodology and getting consistency that,
(06:31):
for instance, re research versus the taxpayer union pole in
my memory, and I don't lock these things too hard
that they always tell a different story just because they're
different polsters.
Speaker 5 (06:41):
Yeah, I mean you can see that throughout different poles.
I mean, to be fair, if you had the Taxpayers
Union that did one a week later, you'd probably get
a different result. Again, I mean just because you're calling it.
You've only got a thousand people that are polled in
these when we've got what five million odd New Zealanders.
You will get a different view every time. But they
will generally trend around the same area what we generally do.
And maybe it's less about what we do with the
(07:03):
polls and maybe how we talk about that instead of
referring just to the latest snapshot whenever it might have been.
What often you see a lot of informed commentators do
is they'll look through the latest polls. I'll sort of
average the last three to five or so and go, look,
what is there A bit of a broad trend Are
things trending up trending down? You don't want to sort
of look at one pole and think, oh, it's definitely
(07:23):
the absolute gold stand and all the other ones beforehand
was silly. You more want to try and take a
bit of that overtime vibe shift. Is there a trend
up for one party or a trend down? So I
think that's where often we could do a little bit
better as going, hey, is this showing better things overall
for the government? Is there more concerned with the opposition
how the minor party is doing? But again, we're also
a long way away from an election, so what does
(07:44):
it matter.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
What does it do to us? Not a lot. At
the moment.
Speaker 5 (07:47):
It just sort of keeps us broadly informed with how
people are trending, and at the moment things seem to
be a little bit more even Stevens than before in
terms of the blocks of power.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Can I just ask it as an economist as a
useful guide for us, because we hardly ever when there's
a poll out And mind what I know, I never
noticed that anyone actually acknowledges too much. By the way,
this is within the margin of eraror can you explain
to us, so people can when they hear the next
pole come out, they can go put it in context.
What is the margin of error and how significant is
(08:19):
it when you get a point five percent shift out
of one thousand people?
Speaker 5 (08:23):
Yep, So I mean most of the time you do
see the margin of eraror reported, but it's often not
put in as much context. So the pole that came
out and we're talking about at the moment a thousand
people were surveyed, it's got a maximum margin of era
of three point one percent. So basically the long too
long don't read there is if you've got a shift
above three point one percent, hey yeah, it's material. It's
it's sort of big enough to actually pay a bit
(08:45):
of attention to if it's below three point one percent.
So if it's point five percent, even if it's one percent,
there's a question of is it a real genuine shift
or is it just a little bit of noise in
the data because you ask some different people are the
same questions at different time, So realistically we start to
get a lot more interested when you start to see
those shifts over time. That's also where the averaging comes
in so usefully, though, Like if you had one party
(09:07):
on twenty five percent, and then over the course of
five to seven polls it ended up on thirty five percent.
That's pretty big, So every time you saw it wouldn't
necessarily mean it was better worse for otherwise, but you
do want to look at that trend. So generally, what
you're trying to figure out is is this actual reality
a big change, something noticeable, or is it just that
a few different people have been asked a slightly different question.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I've got one more question, sorry that Irene will want
to chip in in a second, but not on the economics.
Shaking your head, is it more significant when you if
you are polling four or five percent, does it mean
that the shifts that your experience need to be taken
with a bigger grain assault than the big parties who
are getting thirty three thirty four percent each?
Speaker 5 (09:45):
Well, well, basically, I mean if you're you know, I
think there was a report about the likes of to
party madia A who increased. I think I'm just looking
through the numbers here. They fell two point two to
four point three. I mean that says that their support haved.
I mean, really, you know, do they really whips all
that much likely hood is no, they didn't. It's just
(10:06):
you're talking pretty small numbers there. Of course, it does
meta for the political calculus, because five percent is that
sort of magic threshold number, and it does matter how
many people you get. But yeah, you should. I mean
put it this way. I think take political polls with
a grain of salt generally. Don't sort of look at
the last one and go it's absolute gospl and all
the other ones I just disregard, sort of got to
put them in the mix with everything else you see
(10:27):
out there, How many poles have come through? What other
informations are out there?
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Have you ever been polled?
Speaker 6 (10:31):
Irene?
Speaker 4 (10:33):
No?
Speaker 1 (10:33):
No, me?
Speaker 6 (10:34):
No you Brad, Oh no, I'm gutted. I mean I'd
love to. It'd be so interesting.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
I'm dying to be polled for the radio survey because
they'd say, who do you listen to? I'd say the
Weekend Collective all day long, every time it's on. Do
you listen to anyone else? No?
Speaker 6 (10:51):
And who are you calling? Nix? I can prep them
with the romance exactly.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
Anyway, let's move on to well, this is an awkward
story for the Navy.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Of course.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
The man and ma nui. I don't think there's anyone's
surprise here, Irene. That was human there. And as we've learned,
the failure to disengage in autopilot control as the root
cause of the New Zealand Navy ship running aground and sinking.
What's your what's your feeling about this? The damage that
does to the impression that we get of I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
The Navy at least.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
Yeah, it's not great.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Is it.
Speaker 6 (11:24):
Not great?
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Understand?
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Not good? Not good?
Speaker 4 (11:29):
And you know, it's been quite a serious I have
a friend who's been up there working as part of
a environmental missile to make sure, you know, to mitigate
the potential damage there. Oh yeah, I mean I know
I shouldn't on such a serious story, but there was
a little part of me because part of it, yes,
there was that auto part of the thing, but part
(11:49):
of it was also an acceleration instead of a breaking incident.
And I know so many people who have done that
in a car. And you don't drive, so this is
not you, and you think that you would do that
in a fairy It's like it's kind of like no, no, no, no.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
No, no, no way back back back.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Well, actually I think most of us would have guessed
this almost because we saw it with the ferry that
ran aground and the sounds. It wasn't that an autopilot
thing as well, the cursored autopilot Brown.
Speaker 5 (12:16):
It was indeed, I mean and like like our you know,
embarrassing that we did manage to speed up into a
reef and then lose one hundred million dollar warship. We
don't have a lot of them to start with, so,
you know, losing something pretty pretty vital. I think the
difficulty here, Wright, is that, like New Zealand's navy, we've
got some good players, we've got some good ships, we've
(12:37):
got some great people. But on this occasion, we just
fell really really short of the mark. Why does that matter? Well,
it's really hard for us to go back into the
Pacific and say, hey, we're here to support you when
the last time we did we sank a ship in
someone else's brief. And the global sort of position here,
Wright is that you know, international partners are saying, and
they've started almost jokingly say it publicly, is New Zealand
(12:58):
serious on this front? I mean, like, can we can
we rely on New Zealand? So we've got to make
sure that from this we take some pretty serious lessons,
we do something pretty serious about it. The Navy has
got to take this and move it forward and figure
out what we do at the other side, because the
training apparently just was an up to standard. I mean, Tim,
I don't know if you've gone read the transcript, but
some of the stuff that's been coming through it suggests that, look,
(13:20):
we just weren't as in control as what we needed
to be and that is a fundamental failure.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Yes, it'd be interesting to see.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Actually, just reminds me of the budget that's coming up,
that what we're going to announce for our defense spending,
because we are I think there's some pressure on us
to look like we're taking it seriously. So anyway, look
on to other things. The Green the story with the
Greens this week with the Green MP Benjamin Doyle with
appropriate inappropriate language next to photos on social media, the
(13:47):
Greens saying that context is critical and actually they've had
a bit of a caning from one of the people
who broke the story, Ani O'Brien for saying, look, you
know you're saying that this is normal for all of
us and trying to group all people in the LGBTQI community.
Here's my quick take before I go to you, Irene. Tragically,
for the Greens, this is going to keep giving because
if they did decide they needed to make some sort
(14:09):
of change, they'll be the last to do it and
it'll take them months and months and months.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
But what did you think of this whole story?
Speaker 4 (14:16):
Well, unlike you Tim who cruelly said earlier in the program,
you couldn't understand how ten percent of New Zealand voted
for the Greens, I can, because you know, mostly they're
there as an environmental wing, and I think a lot
of people support that. I think where they start to
come acropper is when they start getting into culture wars
and tribal stuff and so on and so forth, and
(14:36):
we start to lose people. To be fair, I can
see what Chloe Schwarbrick was trying to say, because it
is entirely possible that this person hasn't really done anything wrong,
that the post was just a bit of you know,
silly lingo, so on and so forth. Hard to really know,
(15:01):
and I think that Benjamin Doyle needs to speak well,
actually address things. Was it just a silly, lighthearted comment
and actually they're a good person and there's nothing to
worry about or what.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Well, yes, indeed, just to pick you up on one
of the things that I've picked up and talked aback
with people who might otherwise be Green voters is that
the last thing they are is Green's at the moment,
and they should rename themselves the Red Party because the
environmental issues. I mean that the ghost of I picture
the political ghost of James Shaw just being.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
And that's what you hear people saying, don't you. They say,
this is not James Shaw, this is not Rod and Jeanette.
Where you know where they're going, and I think it is.
It is the wander over into cultural wars, tribal land.
I mean, someone like myself, if they really were just
the Green Party.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I mean, that's the whole thing. I mean, I think
a lot of us care about green issues, but it's
a cry from it. But Brad, this issue is going
to keep on giving because at some stage Benjamin Door
is going to return to Parliament and probably play the
victim card about threats and all that sort of thing,
And the last thing they will do is actually address
the appropriateness of those texts, which, to be clear, to
(16:20):
people had sexualized language and with photos with children in them,
including an emoji which is an emoji which is the
other meaning for it as an emoji for pedophilia. So
it was pretty dodgy.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Anyway, they're going to keep giving, aren't they, as a
gift for the newsmakers.
Speaker 5 (16:37):
Well, I mean, look, people have asked questions. And let's
be quite realistic here. If you are becoming a politician,
the scrutiny is intense. The people are have elected you
to represent them, they are paying your salary. That scrutiny
comes through and it looks at stuff that happened even
before you were a politician. I mean to say that
this is sort of you know, private and shouldn't be
(16:57):
in the public eye, or the horse has already bolted
on that front. People are asking questions and I do
expect that at some point Doyle will have to front
up on these conversations because people are going, well, what
is this all about? And let's be real if we
look at other politicians out there across the spectrum, if
they've done something similar or of a very different vein,
(17:18):
but in the same sort of thing, and it appeared
on their social media. I'm pretty sure that we would
be hounding them for answers. Same same across the board,
no matter what political party, no matter what you are
the posters about or similar. There are questions that are
asked and they do want to be answered.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
I can put it in more bluntly than that, if
I posted something with a sexual reference with one of
my children in the photo, I would have been gone yesterday.
It'd be whatever happened to Tim Beveridge as opposed to
know it would be let's be honest. But somehow they'll
keep pushing back and somehow they're the victims in it all.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
I do think it's important to highlight that the likes
of death threats in that that have been leveled against
Ail are completely completely inappropriate, and that is not how
we go about this conversation. The media are asking questions
and that's the appropriate way to do it. But I
I think also we're poorly served right when we go
to either end of the distinction here. On one hand,
the grains are saying that, you know, the answers can't
(18:12):
be coming through because of the likes of death threats
and similar. On the other hand, people are saying there
are questions to be answered, but no one's fronting up
like we do have to figure out a way how
do we have a sensible conversation. There are questions that
are being asked by members of the public. There is
some sort of expectation for an answer or some sort
of additional detail, and I don't think that just bearing
it is going to do anyone particularly well, because people
(18:32):
will continue to ask.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Actually, it does amaze me the number of people who
think that it's okay to offer a death threat. I mean,
I hope that if there's a serious threat to me made,
I hope you face the full consequences of the law.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Because it's just obsaying.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
No, death threats are never the solution to anything.
Speaker 6 (18:45):
Who loves time for that?
Speaker 5 (18:47):
I mean honestly, who I just I really find that
sort of stuff bizarre. I mean, look, I often read
stuff and I don't necessarily agree with it. I mean
one to even offer that level of feedback is insane
in my mind. But at the same time, to include
a death threat, I mean, who do these people think
they are?
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Well, I've got I can't really answer that. Really, there's
so many how do you put that in context? But anyway,
that's the way some people want to respond. I'm just
saying because as a talkback case, we do get some
fairly horrendous stuff, and I just sometimes am amazed at
the number of things that people will attribute to their
own phone number and names.
Speaker 6 (19:22):
It's like, what you see your text machine.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Oh, I'll better go and have a look at it.
Speaker 6 (19:28):
Oh no, no, not not this time. But I've seen
the ZB text machine.
Speaker 4 (19:32):
There.
Speaker 5 (19:32):
There are lots again here, importantly, nine percent, the absolute
vast majority of people have something interesting to add into
the conversation, something useful, and they are doing it in
the right way. It's just that very very slim group
of absolute idiots bordering on criminal twits.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Actually, just on a lighter note, I just think it's
marvelous that we still refer to our computer system which
shows our text as the text machine. It sounds very
old scored, isn't it like that thinging machine that does that,
you know, the one with the lights and the pictures
and in the text. Yes, the computer.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
But anyway, there we go. That's my terminology. We use
it here anyway.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
It's twenty six past three. Way back in just a moment,
I feel my jem run.
Speaker 6 (20:27):
Hell the on Fleen watch for your long.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Yes, welcome back to the Weekend Collective. I've a little
bit of Elvis. I wanted to let that role, but
I think we can only really go about twelve bars
before we got a kick, and that was probably about
sixteen bars.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Anyway, I have a little bit of Elvis. But there
we are.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Welcome to the Weekend Collective. My panelists Irene Gardner and
Brad Olsen. Now, guys, I am I've become such a
fan off one that I'm anticipating the practice round and
the qualifying rounds and the race which are this evening,
and the race tomorrow with Liam Lawson with more anticipation
(21:04):
iron than an all black match. I'm right into it.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
Where are you at the with the F one and
Liam quite like the motor racing, and I would like
quite like the motor racing. And I feel for Liam,
you know, if one minute he was everything and then
he was kind of nothing, and that's so hard. We're
so hard on our young sports people, aren't.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
We well bred?
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Bullwork very Yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
I have this feeling, and look, I might be proved
to be completely wrong that he's going to completely come
back from this completely triumph completely be a megastar at
some point, whether that's now, whether it's a bit later,
I mean maybe in a way, I mean you can
sort of go, oh, well, on the one hand, he's
still under huge pressure because now it's his whole career
is on the line. But I don't know. I think
maybe he's in a better spot now.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Well, there has been a joke going around that max
verstaff and if he went to racing ball it would
be seen as a promotion because the racing balls are
doing quite well.
Speaker 6 (21:58):
But are you into the F one Brad? Look? Can
I be honest?
Speaker 5 (22:02):
Up until recently, I know I was it had I
had no interest whatsoever, like genuinely wouldn't have known any
of the players. But I have started to get into
it enough that every time I see a new headline,
I've got real. I've been like, look, I don't care,
but I care a little bit. I just want to
have a little bit.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
Of a look.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
And it has been interesting right that even in I
think the practice races are for the Japanese Grand Prix,
and I know that that it's pre not pricks, because
that's what it looks like. Look, I really didn't care,
but hate leam Mawson. He actually finished faster than the
guy who that's just replaced him, So maybe this has
been a good move from a blessing in disguise. As
(22:40):
much as it has looked like a high profile tumble,
I think he's actually possibly looking better out of it.
Speaker 6 (22:46):
I think so.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
And actually, if you want to get into it, Brad,
I would suggest watching maybe just the last couple of
series start on Netflix of Drive to Survive, because I
think the thing is about the appeal Irene is that.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
We get.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
It's they're all thoughtful, intelligent people by the look of it.
All the means you get around what's happening in each
franchise or each within each team. Should I say, they
all sort of speak relatively openly intelligently as opposed to
I don't know. It's a contrast to some of the
sporting codes where you go, I don't want to single
out any player. The boys did a good job all that,
(23:22):
and you get to have an insight into it and
to care about I don't know. And also it's at
the it's at the pinnacle of a particular sport of technology,
strategy skill.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
What I was just going to say, it's such a
high level of strategy, strategic where and I think that's
why you get the smarts, you know. I mean, I
don't think you can actually be a top driver without
being pretty smart. And of course, see, because as you
pointed out earlier, Brad is so very young, I might
not know that New Zealand has a very rich history
in motor racing.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
I think he knows. I think Brad knows. But of
course the McLaren team, which is named after Blues or
Bruce McLaren's I reckon, Brad, the gateway for you into
this is to do an economic analysis of just whether
it's actually worth owning an F one team, And we'll
ask you next time you come back in. And but
by then you'll be like, well this particular driver blah
(24:18):
blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
You'll be all over it.
Speaker 5 (24:20):
I think I can give you that answer now, like
absolutely not from a pure economic thing. But look, if
I was a petrol head, I think I'd be totally
into it. I mean, maybe I should watch drive to
what Drive to Survive?
Speaker 2 (24:30):
It's called Drive to Survive.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
It's on Netflix, and I accidentally watched season six first
or season five the last couple of here and and
got right into it.
Speaker 6 (24:40):
This sounds like the Love Island of like car racing.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
Except all the people on it are genuinely at the
top of their game. Sorry, but I don't even know
what you're talking You're talking about one of those celebrity series.
Speaker 6 (24:53):
I guess, yeah, yeah, yeah, let's not get into that now.
It's a whole different topic for a whole other show.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Okay, Well, speaking of amazing events that are going on
that we're not going to be seeing, I'm sort of
ambivalent a little bit about the America's Cup, whether it's
here or not. Irene, but I wonder if here's the thing.
A week before, Christopher Luxon said, we've become a country
that says no, and you've just pointed at me, going damn,
(25:20):
you've just stolen my thunder. And it's like, well, hey, Chris,
how about we get the America's Cup here as an
event to get everyone fizzing in the economy and all
that computer says no, what do you reckon?
Speaker 4 (25:30):
I kind of tend to agree. I've always been quite
supportive of America's Cup because I think as well as
that it has a strong positive economic impact for New Zealand.
I think it's something that we get really excited about
and it makes Peel happy, and these are good things
and we're good at the moment. We're a good team.
You know, things are going well. I was really disappointed
(25:51):
when the last one went offshore and to think that
we had the opportunity again and if we really did
just lose that for.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Seventy five million apparently.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
Yeah, But I do think the government was in a
really no win situation because I think if they had
invested the money, we would have got more than that back. Yes,
I mean, I'm open to being corrected by that by
the actual economist in the room, but I just think
in the current climate, I think they would have been
so criticized for it.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
I think you have nailed it.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
I think that they they didn't have the intestinal fortitude
for the political criticisms that would come their way, even
if those political criticisms were maybe unfair, because they'd be like, oh,
you've got enough money for your rich boys and girls sport,
but you haven't got enough money for.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
Them of oh yeah, but we're getting more back is
I mean, I have to make that argument a lot
professionally because of the freebate. You get people to understand that,
you know, the screen production rebate. Yes, we give some
money out, but we get way more money in. And
I'm constantly having to make that argument wearing that hat.
And that's you know, for the government to have to
make that argument on this in the current climate.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Yes, because Brad, if I can bring you in in
a second, so in now should I say, because you
are the economists in the room. So Barcelona it generated
an additional two billion New Zealand dollars one point nine billion.
I gather we would to get I don't know how
it works with GST, but somebody, I think the guy
(27:22):
from the Hospitality Association said that if we pulled in.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Well, I did the calculations.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
If we pulled in five hundred and seventy five million,
seventy five million of that would generally be GST in
terms of the spend that would come in, so we
would only need to be a third as successful as
Barcelona anyway, But your analysis, please, Well, I was going to.
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Say, I when you started this, you know, saying that
the Prime Minister is talking about how we don't want
to be a country of no I didn't realize that
a country of yes meant yes, government hand me out
and do it all for me in the private sector,
be damned. I mean, come on, if it's that good,
and it's supposedly that good, then I'm not sure why
international business people were not lining up to bankroller. And
if they're not, that tells me quite a lot. Maybe
it's not the best.
Speaker 6 (28:02):
Let's be real.
Speaker 5 (28:02):
The last time that we had the America's Cup in
New Zealand, it made a loss of our about one
hundred and sixty million dollars. It made less money than
we put in.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
But so I think you're being unfair because that was
post COVID and no one could come here.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Well you say that no one could come here, but
we still seem to have enough to keep running it.
Why did they not postpone and pause it for a
couple of years. They kept going even because they had
some of that good, good taxpayer money. I think it
is inconceivable when the government accounts are in deficit until
the twenty thirties, perhaps to be spending money on a
yacht race. Is that really what the Texas are supposed
(28:38):
to go to?
Speaker 6 (28:38):
Absolutely not.
Speaker 5 (28:39):
I couldn't give a stuff, And I think the vast
majority of New Zealander is or won't.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
Even know it hot take. But the thing is, I mean, say,
for instance, the F one in Victoria, the Victorian state
government put in one hundred million Sorry what did they
put in? Yeah, they put in over one hundred million
Australian into it. Because these events attract business. They are
like an export business. They bring money into the country. So,
(29:03):
putting aside your mild lowing for the event, if you
do generate that income, let's just make it a billion.
And look, that's an optimistic you know that, even making
half of what Barcelona did. But let's say we brought
in enough money where the GST you made off the
spend basically pay for itself. That's money we wouldn't have had.
Doesn't it work like that?
Speaker 5 (29:22):
But that's true of just about literally everything that the
government would spend on. So no matter what they put
the seventy five mil on, they could do it for that,
They could go and do it for a Taylor Swift concert.
They could go and do it just by giving households
the money and going to ask them to spend a
bit more, you will still get a bit of a
multiplier effect out of that government spending anyway, this is
an opportunity cost The government needs all the money that's got,
(29:42):
where is it going to best put it, and most importantly,
what was it not going to fund because it had
to spend that seventy five million on the America's cup
Because I do really think that, yes, you'll always get
people in and coming to spend for various things, especially
if you subsidize it to the turn of seventy five mil.
The question for me is that, well, from a government perspective,
can you stand up and justify that when you're not
spending on other things? And I really think for the
(30:05):
government that this was the exact right move to say, look,
we would.
Speaker 6 (30:08):
Love to do it.
Speaker 5 (30:09):
And I think importantly again, if private business want to
do it, if they think it's a good enough investment,
they should totally go for it. And if they don't
think it's a good enough investment to run it themselves,
then I'm not sure the government is somehow smarter to
think they can pull it off better.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
I think the only the only distinction I would draw
was that if you are putting money into an event
where everyone participates is buying a ticket, then that would
be a business, but where the money, where the benefit
is benefiting in a more amorphous way an economy. It's
not private. Private business don't money make money off the GST.
They make money off the other activities.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
But you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
It's like, for instance, the government became a shareholder in
Taylor Swift and said we're going to produce a taste.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
And we're going to clip the ticket.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Well, actually, so there are people who'd say we should
actually have put money in to get Taylor over here
because it would have been.
Speaker 5 (30:57):
Huge, correct, And I still would have disagreed with that
at that time. I mean, there it is a real challenge.
And look, I mean this is economists. We sort of
loved to go and find the worst sort of possible
stance of all this stuff. But I really do think
that Look, I mean there's a big question here over
The big question is if you went out to every
New Zealander and said, hey, if you have to pay
an extra whatever for the America's Cup, would people do it?
(31:19):
I wouldn't, And I'd much rather that people that did
actually put their money in. And because at the end
of the day, I really don't see that. I mean,
you've already seen this go off shore once.
Speaker 6 (31:28):
We know as well.
Speaker 5 (31:29):
The only reason it was going to get going was
if the government allowed an accommodation levy to come through.
The government said that wasn't happening. They felt like there
were so many barriers in the mix that I would
have been really worried that the government would have committed
this money. It wouldn't have gone quite as far. And
then at the other end we would have gone, oh gosh,
this made less money than we thought. Why has this
happened again?
Speaker 6 (31:46):
And again?
Speaker 5 (31:47):
We have some proof here. Yes it was COVID, but
there's some pretty firm proof that the cost benefit and
now assistants stack up the next time. I just don't
think it would do the same more differently this time.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Now.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
That was a surprise to me because I thought I'd
be disagreeing with Irene on this one and agreeing with Brad.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
But it's the other way around.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
So mean, no, diary, It might be made right, but
it can't be right all the time.
Speaker 4 (32:08):
Doesn't stack up. My assumption was that it did, but.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Maybe it doesn't. We're going to get you too to
discuss the film commission next time you're on together, because
I'm getting this one. Anyway, we're gonna be we need
to take a break. It's eighteen minutes to four news Talks.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
Be back and a tick.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
It's welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This song is
the Killers. That's by request of Brad Olsen. We like
to give our panelists and our guests the request. Our
own hasn't put one in yet, but anyway, hey, welcome
back to the Weekend Collective. As I say, I'm Tim Beverage.
It's Brad Olsen, an honoring iron gardener with us. Now, Brad,
we're going to go to you first on this one.
The in fact, it was one of the biggest stories,
but I thought we'd push it to later in the
(33:01):
hour to give us, you know, a second wind. The
Liberation Day, the tariffs of Kickton Wall Street has had
the biggest fall since the COVID pandemic demic. I heard,
I think one news had someone from Auckland's Business school
who said that listening to Trump's reasons was like listening
to a flat earther. I thought that was quite a good,
(33:24):
strong comment from an academic.
Speaker 5 (33:26):
Actually, it's been a really tough couple of days to
try and understand what's going on and just what the
justification is behind it. I mean that the end result
has been a swift and savage drop to the markets.
I mean the worst day since the pandemic. As you noted,
something like six six and a half trillion US and
value wiped out.
Speaker 6 (33:45):
I mean the number of it. They're so big that
you sort of can't comprehend how big those numbers are.
But it's been bad.
Speaker 5 (33:52):
I think, in fact, the last two days it's the
fourth worst day in US market history over a two
day period. The only worst ones where the likes at
the start of the pandemic, the GFC, and then you've
got to go back to the Great Depression. I mean
that this is serious stuff, and this is like artificially engineered.
Speaker 6 (34:10):
The tariffs. I mean, we knew they were coming.
Speaker 5 (34:13):
They were worse, I think than we all thought at
a national at a global scale, for New Zealand, they
weren't quite as bad as they could have been. That's
sort of the only silver lining you can possibly come
out with.
Speaker 6 (34:23):
But the risk of.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
Global growth is clear. The fact that these tariffs are
big and they could well go bigger. The fact that
there's now been retaliation like all around, this is a
self engineered economic catastrophe. The risk now, I think from
JP Morgan they've put the risk of recession out sixty
percent for the US economy this year. Like this has
sort of changed the economic game, and I don't think
(34:44):
even we as economists have fully got our head around
about how bad this could and is likely going to be.
Speaker 3 (34:52):
The thing is they seem to calculate so for the
thirty four percent tariff on China, they looked at the
trade deficit, divided it by the imports and came up
with sixty seven percent, and half of that it had
nothing to do with reciprocal tariffs.
Speaker 6 (35:05):
It's just exactly the looky lou stuff.
Speaker 5 (35:08):
You look at New Zealand right the latest report from
the US Trade Representative says in twenty twenty three, New
Zealand's tariff right on the US was one point nine percent.
Yet that big board that the President held up in
the Rose Garden said twenty percent. And we're all going,
what is this? Has he included a bit of gst
what's he done? And literally they've now published a series
(35:30):
of calculations that effectively boil down to your trade deficit
divided by your total trade with the US in the
last period that you've got available. The crack up thing
is is they've put a bunch of Greek letters in
there and said, well, we chose a bunch of important
parameters that basically boil down to they just equal one.
So for all of the tom foolery and trickery that's
(35:50):
gone on, the numbers boil down to there is no
reciprocity in here. There's no a few tarifast will tariff you.
The saying back, it's I think that the US President
clearly thinks that there should be no trade deficits with
the US. US should be doing all of the manufacturing,
all of the trade, sending it all out there. I mean,
the numbers are very hard to comprehend. But the worst
(36:11):
thing is is that if that's the level of analysis
that is coming out of the US administration at the moment,
I don't think there's a lot of hope for good,
long standing negotiations. This is just going to continue to happen.
Speaker 3 (36:21):
I thought the thing one of the other thing that
stood out to me and Arena is that as the
bullying of these very poor economies, forty nine percent tariff
on Cambodia, forty eight percent for Laois and forty six
percent for Vietnam. The word unconstionable stroke comes to mind
for that rule.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
It's just I just don't I don't understand. I read
a really good column today from an American economist basically saying,
don't try and look for the method and the madness.
There isn't any It's just completely idiotic. You know, none
of these things will help anybody, let alone America.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
The problem is is he demands such loyalty from his
circle of advisers that who's going to actually tell him
this is a really dumb idea.
Speaker 4 (37:03):
And you know I heard someone that he you know,
the people had got to speak saying, you know, just
a very ordinary American guy from you know, smallish town
talking about how wonderful it would because all the manufacturing
jobs would be back in the factories and so on
and so, and you know, he seemed so genuine.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
That's what Trump's messaging.
Speaker 4 (37:21):
And I just thought, oh no, that's just I don't
think that's going to happen. It's just it's all just
a sort of track.
Speaker 5 (37:27):
Really.
Speaker 2 (37:27):
Oh well, you know, so he doesn't like the stock market.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
Falling to be fair, Trump does have this weird style
where he announces something truly horrendous and shocking and then
he sort of walks back from it. So I wonder
if there might be an element, you know, I think
New Zealand is right to just sort of sit tight
and you know, not react too much and just oh yeah,
we'll keep see what happened, keep their heads.
Speaker 3 (37:49):
Down, keep fill golf out of the picture. Anyway, We'll
be back in just a moment. It's nine minutes to four.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
Yes, and that request from Irene Gardener. That's here.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
It comes with my Girl from Tommy, Tom Petty and
the Heartbreakers. I'm Tim Beveridge and my other panelist is
Brad Olsen and Lucky last story. Guys, it's funny. I
always thought Kiwi are so cute as our bird. They're
so sort of likable with their long beaks and they
sort of you know, trot around and anyway, there are
so many at the moment. There have been a video
called of a couple fighting in a Northland backyard. Actually
(38:43):
surprises surprise as well, and not nighttime.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
It sort of looked like.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
It was dusk or daylight. But I read that was
slightly jarring and comical at the same time.
Speaker 4 (38:51):
To say it's kei we going for If anyone hasn't
seen it, do look it up because it is fantastically funny.
They just look ridiculous fighting. I don't mean to be
I'm going to get in trouble now for insulting our
beloved nationals. Go for it. I always find Key's very
weird looking because they they really look like they need
something other.
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Than those two They look like they need arms.
Speaker 4 (39:10):
Don't look think they need either wings or sort of
like little kangaroo type arms.
Speaker 3 (39:14):
Well, they do have little wings, you just don't can't
see them. They've just got these little in the fight.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
They just look even more ridiculous because they've got nothing
to really fight with. They're sort of bouncing on their
two legs and beaking, and they're just the weirdest kicking
dudes that ever they were.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
I was wondering what happens if they fall over one,
but they seem to the upright, Brad. We were impressed
by that video and slightly shocked that Kiwi are so
aggressive to each other.
Speaker 6 (39:36):
I did.
Speaker 5 (39:36):
I mean, I thought it was quite exciting as well. Look,
I'm a north under I think it shows that, you know,
Jesus if you go up north and you get to
see some pretty spectacular sights, and sometimes.
Speaker 6 (39:45):
It includes kiwi fighting in your backyard. I mean, how good.
Speaker 3 (39:48):
Actually, wouldn't that be amazing? Seriously to look out in
your backyard and see a kiwi or two, isn't that?
I think it just seems so surreal because I've always
thought they're so rare and endangered, and yet there's somebody's
got a water bowl out and then they're fighting over it.
Speaker 6 (40:02):
They are such incredible animals.
Speaker 5 (40:04):
I've seen the when I was on Stuart Island, you know,
did of night heaving would be very quiet, and I
think it's quite cool to see, you know, that there
are now enough of them and we're getting there in
terms of their numbers that they can fight in the backyard.
They are peculiar looking creatures, That's that's sure. I feel
like if they fall over, they almost just must spring
back up on the hind legs and right.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
Again, like the Kung Fu thing.
Speaker 6 (40:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
I mean maybe eventually, hopefully this is a new tourism
ed that we can start to put out.
Speaker 3 (40:31):
You know, I can see you doing that move on
the on the dance floor when you slip over bread.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
Hey, look, we haven't got time to say goodbye, except
we can say goodbye. We'll be back in just a
moment with the One Radio Show. Thanks Irene, Thanks Brad.
Speaker 1 (40:43):
Catch us own for more from the Weekend Collective. Listen
live to news talks'd be weekends from three pm, 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
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!