September 13, 2025 • 40 mins
This week on The Panel, Tim Beveridge is joined by barrister Brigitte Morten, and journalist Wilhelmina Shrimpton, to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.
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 Talks
EDB debating all the issues and more. It's the panel
on the Weekend Collective on News Talks ed B.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Starts to see you this week can never be Oh
now miss you?
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Coming to see you? Now is you?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
It starts.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
To sink you come here.
Speaker 5 (00:52):
And a very good afternoon to you. I'm Tim Beverage.
Welcome to the Weekend Collective the Saturday, the thirteenth of September,
and you can tax your feedback anytime. Don't forget on
nine two nine two. If you're not in a hurry,
you can always email and be at News Talks dB
dot court at n Z because I'm very unpredictable with
my reading my email. Anyway, Coming up on today's show
(01:12):
and just a moment, I'll be introducing our illustrious panelists,
but looking further forward to when we will be taking
your calls after four for the one Roof Radio show.
James Logan's with us. He's the founder and director of
roof Buddy and we can have a chat about Roof's
surprise surprise. The warning signs on your roof house should
you be maintaining it, do you always need a roof
for you know, when should you replace your roof? How
(01:33):
much should you put up with? How much did you
put up with with your with your house and gets
onto the whole thing about DIY getting onto the roof
with the ladder, which is a recipe for acc to
come calling. And after five to four the Parents Squad
John Cown is with us because there's been some stats
around the number of kids, young people dropping out of
school being given permission to drop out of school early
(01:55):
because they really know what they want to do. But
how do you have that conversation around dropping out with
your kids and also how do you create a healthy
relationship with food for our check ldren as well. If
we've got time, we'll touch on that and the sports
rapp shortly before six of course Jason Pine, as you know,
he's coming to us from the Test Match Arena and
sky Stadium All Blacks and spring Box at seven oh
(02:18):
five we'll be previewing that the Warriors and the Panthers
six o five and of course the Black Ferns versus
South Africa, the World Cup quarter final which is happening
at midnight. But we're chatting with Jason shortly before six o'clock.
About that he'll be joining us for the sports rap
so lots to get on with. Welcome to the Weekend Collective.
It is nine minutes past three.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Insightful, entertaining and always old points Tim Beveridge on the
Weekend Collective News Talks'.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
B Yes, and firstly, welcome our first panelist who is
coming in to us down the line from Wellington. She
is a barrister and her name is Bridget Morton. Bridget, Hello,
good afternoon. How are you.
Speaker 6 (02:54):
I'm pretty good. It's a beautiful day in Wellington as
per normal.
Speaker 5 (02:57):
Are you bragging because where it's blowing like? I can't
use the metaphor I want to use for the wind
in Auckland right now that is quite well.
Speaker 6 (03:06):
No, it's a blue sky and it's a dental breeze
by Wellington stands.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
Okay, so it's blowing like well actually on that theme
and I look, I've got look. Maybe we don't blame
Auckland Transport. But our other panelist, Wilhelmina Shrimpton, a journalist
and other things. A journalist and in love. She is
stuck in traffic because of the closure of the Auckland
(03:31):
harbor Bridge, and so we're sort of hating the weather
right now, Wilhelmina, aren't we. I think you're there now,
we there, Wilhelmina.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
I am, I am, And it's indeed not a nice
day in Auckland. I actually just got stuck on my
way to the studio stuff in the Harbor Bridge, complete standstill,
couldn't take a turn off, couldn't go anywhere. And so
I'm being into you live from my car. But I
can tell you right now I'm just passing Victoria Park
Market as we speak, so becoming.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Loud and clear.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
How exciting is that an update? Because actually, so let's
what a week for news it's been. Let's get into
it and we'll look at well. And when you do
arrive at the car park, just tell us and you
can jump on out and I'll just chat with Bridget
for a while and we'll just be witty and amusing
between the two of us. But firstly, look, I was
(04:23):
trying to remember where I was when I heard that
the news about Tom Phillips being killed and his children
being found. Look, just in general, let's start with you, Bridget.
What's your reaction to the story when you heard that
news break and there's a lot of issues that have
come out of it. Well, let's your first impression.
Speaker 6 (04:41):
Yeah, I think, like most New Zealand is there's a
little bit of relief the fact that those children are
no longer in that situation. But it's hard to think
of a way in which it could have ended more badly,
you know, for police, for Tom Phillips, for those children,
in terms of the tragedy that has occurred. So I
think for most of us it is hard to not
(05:02):
look away. There's been so much media and so much
interest in it. But ultimately I think that it comes
a time in which we're going to have to let
that family grieve and that family have some peace in
privacy to actually get on with actually trying to get
back to some form of new malasine.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
Because the thing that really I was, I mean, we
always get affected by these stories, but I really felt
affected by the news of that police officer had been
shot and the terrible injuries he'd suffered. Wills just dreadful,
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
Oh, It's awful, And you know, you think about every
single police officer who puts themselves at risk every single
day that they go to work, and they do a really,
really great job, and they put themselves in the firing line,
on the front line, and it's just such a shame
that it came to this.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
I agree with Bridget.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
My first thought was about those children, and particularly the
one who was there at the scene and saw it
all unfold and then was also under pressure to help
police and to try and give them as much information
as possible to negotiate the safe return the other two.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
So there's just this, there's so.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
Much to unpack and there's so many unanswered questions around,
you know, what they've been doing for the past four years,
why it hasn't come to a conclusion earlier, And it's
just such a shame that it had to end this way.
And I'm just so relieved that that police officer is alive,
(06:29):
but they's got a long road to recovery ahead.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Now.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
I'm actually about to pull.
Speaker 5 (06:32):
Up, going to jump off, jump off, and we'll see
in a couple of minutes. Bridget the let's get onto
the questions around. I think the thing that I feel
uneasy about. There's been a lot of talk about whether
there should be a documentary, and we know that that
there is a camera crew and there, and Julie Christie's
(06:53):
planning a documentary and I sort of feel I'll give
you my view on it. You can push back or whatever,
that all stories, no matter you know, how tragic, always
end up getting told. I can look at all sorts
of terrible stories over the course of history with tragedy
where kids have been the victim and there have ultimately
(07:14):
been documentaries on it. And there's a bit of a
pushback at the moment. And I think there's two sides
to it. One is that we're all just as a country.
There's a sense of we're all bit overwrought, and there's
a sense of grief and shock and everything, and so
it just feels a bit jarring to see that one
particular camera is allowed in whereas the other media are not.
(07:38):
But I tend to think that overseas documentary makers, whether
it be Netflix or whoever, someone's going to do something
on this, and I'd rather it was told with a
New Zealand lens, via a producer who is part of
our community and capable of exercising the sensitivity that someone
from frankly in the middle of I don't know, Texas
(07:59):
might decide to make a documentary and it could be dreadful.
What do you think?
Speaker 6 (08:03):
Yeah, absolutely, I can completely understand if I was the
family that I would be quite distraught that of the
thought of a documentary being made, because obviously they're thinking
about the next couple of days, but also the next
few years, which is frankly when the documentary is probably
going to come out. I think there is a real
question though about giving that level exclusive access to one
(08:23):
particular media outlet, and I think that could have been
handled differently by police, particularly in such sense of times.
It's not like any other media can then get in
behind that cord and that the documentary makers then had
I think there is a sensitivity around this, and I
think being told with the New Zealand voice and with
a Kiwi voice is actually the most powerful and I'd
(08:44):
much rather that happened than elsewhere. And ultimately, well, since
the focus on the children at the moment, I think
we rightly will need to ask questions if we go
forward about whether or not the police should have done
things differently over the last four years where the oil
and Tamaiky, you know, when there's other avenues for resolving
this that should have happened earlier and some of that
can be highlighted or how to account through a documentary.
(09:08):
So yeah, it is a little bit of the nation story,
but I do hope that it's told in the most
sensitive way possible for those children.
Speaker 5 (09:14):
Yeah, what's your take? So well, just while you were
parking there, we were talking about the two aspects to it.
I think a documentary is inevitable because the world's a
large place with a lot of different voices who can
tell the story. I'd rather it's a New Zealand voice.
But I'm really uncomfortable with one particular camera being allowed
there while the media. You can understand the police will
(09:35):
wish to control it, but it does feel a little
bit weird to have one camera crew behind the scenes
and the rest shut out.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
What do you think, Yeah, look, there's so many aspects
to that to consider. Of course, what you were saying
about protecting the children and making sure that they're not
overwhelmed by having so many media and so many cameras
and so many things coming at them.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
But I also think.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
Yeah, there is that there's that awkward question around police
controlling that narrative. It doesn't feel like it's an independent
documentary because police have final say and final sign off
what goes out, and I know it's subject to a
whole range of investigations, but in order to be an impartial,
independent documentary, I feel like it shouldn't have that level
of sign off. I understand there been some control around it,
(10:18):
but it just doesn't feel quite right.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Yeah. Have you got any follow up on that bridget
as well?
Speaker 6 (10:26):
Yeah? Absolutely, And I think that's the point of having
multiple independent media is the fact that you actually get
to counter and have a little different perspective. And I
think there's ways of managing having multiple cameras ultimately. I
mean you guys will well know you can have things
like pull footage and ways of sharing some of those
resources so that there is not a disruption to that
(10:49):
scene or an overwhelming of actually the true purpose for
the police being there, which is actually to investigate a
crime that's been that says has occurred.
Speaker 5 (10:57):
And it's worth pointing out that the camera is not
actually having access to any of the children at all,
So that's that's good. Sorry.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
Will see was also concerning as well as that the
whole family have said that they don't condone, they don't
consent to this documentary. Being made, which I know is
easy to say because it's up to whoever wants to
do a documentary on something. They don't necessarily need people's
consent to tell a story from a particular angle. But
I think at the moment right now, there's so much
(11:26):
sensitivity around it. I think it's really important to tread carefully.
But what's to say that another party can't come in
and do their own documentary all further down the track
that the family grant you a particular media access to
tell another side of the story.
Speaker 5 (11:39):
Yeah, I agree. I think that there are so many
angles to the story that it doesn't actually need to
focus so much on the kids anyway. That there's the
law enforcement there, there's just the purity bunch of people
in the community, and I think it's worth pointing out
there it's some great people within the community around there,
but there are also going to be those who've been complicit,
and so there's a lot more to come with the story.
(12:02):
So that's why the public interest is going to be
through the roof for quite a while, I think.
Speaker 6 (12:06):
Bridget Yeah, I think so absolutely, And I think you know,
there's a good comparison at the moment from across the
Tasman which was the mushroom cook, you know, the woman
who poisoned her in laws.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
My goodness, almost feels like a lighter story, doesn't that after?
Speaker 1 (12:25):
I know?
Speaker 6 (12:26):
But ultimately, you know, there's been multiple podcasts. But I
saw today that you know, the husband, so you know,
the son of those who passed is looking at doing
his own podcast, so we make it his own perspective
as well. So I think there's ultimately there's we do
have the ability and this current aide for multiple people
to have their voice. Ultimately, the children I think have
(12:48):
been well protected in that case, and I hope that
that's the same here.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
In the interest of open justice as well. What if
if it is true that we keep protecting the children.
I think the actual documentary, knowing the ins and outs
of the police investigation process, I think will be really
really interesting for the New Zealand public to get a
grass and get an understanding.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Not because this has been a four year long saga.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Yeah, so many questions people going why haven't there why
haven't we been able to find them already?
Speaker 3 (13:16):
Yeah, So I think.
Speaker 5 (13:17):
There's a lot more to come out, isn't it. Hey,
By the way, just on the Aaron Patterson thing. We
haven't slated that. For conversation, I was surprised that thirty
three years non parole. I was guessing sort of twenty five.
Any of you guys surprised. I mean, I think she's
getting what she deserves. But do you have any reaction in.
Speaker 6 (13:32):
That bridget Yeah, I think I'm not surprised given the
number of the public interest in it, but also the
evidence that's become public since the case about the fact
that this is very premeditated, This was based on long
you know, this is something she thought about for a
long time and actually done a lot of research on.
This wasn't sort of a spur of the moment. This
(13:53):
is very much what the outcoming.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
Sinister stuff, isn't it. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
Yeah, the premeditation piece, and also the fact that it
was in such a huge level of public.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
Interest, they couldn't not come down hard on her.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
They've got to set an example of what, you know,
I imagine if you end up doing something that is
so meticulously planned.
Speaker 5 (14:14):
One of what the chances are that over the course
of thirty three years, you'll get a job in the kitchen.
You know, you'll be giving the beef Wellington dished up
by Aaron Patterson. A few nervous and mates, we let
that we took Aaron for a walk in the bushes
just to find some spices. Sorry, I mean sorry, but
you know you gotta have a bit of black humor.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Hey.
Speaker 5 (14:30):
Look, I interviewed Stuart Nash last Sunday for Politics Central
and there was an amusing interview because he sort of
danced on the head of a penet as to whether
he wanted to be a candidate, and so that was
it was a sort of slotly wild wild goose chase
for a while and then I saw, you know, was
it a day or two later? And I'm not going
(14:51):
to use the language because it is twenty past three
on a Saturday afternoon, but his way of describing what
a woman was and simply referred to a couple of
bits of anatomy in a very crude fashion. I mean,
I'm sorry, but I think it's the kiss of death politically.
But will it be Wilhelmina.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
I think it doesn't bode well. I don't think you
know starts you mean to continue, right, If that's how
you're starting, it's probably.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Not going to go too well. And I love how we.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Prefaced this with I've been in trouble for saying this before.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Mate.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
If you've been in trouble saying it before, you probably
shouldn't say it again, particularly in a public forum. And
the fact that it took his wife to then break
him over the calls for him to realize that he
probably should have. Can you imagine that young when he
got home, even on the probably he probably got a
text as soon as he came off here.
Speaker 5 (15:43):
I'd love to be behind the scenes on that one.
But Bridget, is it the death knew for him?
Speaker 6 (15:48):
I don't think it is, but it certainly is a
problem for him. It has dented the shine. But ultimately
for New Zealand First, he was a prospective replacement for
Winston Peters. He does have a lot of popularity in
the regions he appeals to I think a regional voter
and probably a predominantly male voter, so there will be
(16:09):
some males out there will be like, well yeah, he
just total like it is. The problem he's got though,
is New Zealand First is still led by Winston Peters,
and Winston Peters is a classy conservative guy. This is
not kind of language that Winston Peters would ever condone No,
that he would have been very unhappy that essentially the
star of the conference just days before is suddenly distracting
(16:32):
with this kind of talk.
Speaker 5 (16:34):
But Winston is also a political pragmatist and a schema
and tactician, isn't he? So he's going to he's I
guess there is.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
He loves to rile people.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
Is he going to be doing? Is this the equation
he's going to consider? Okay, my core New Zealand First supporters,
are they still going to vote for me regardless of
whether Stuart's on the bill or not? And if they are,
can I still attract more people by having Stuart on there?
Will it come down? I mean, I'll stick with you
on that one, Bridget, and then we'll go to Wills.
(17:05):
I mean, there's a ruthless, cynical political equation here. Is Okay,
ninety percent of the population or eighty five percent might
be offended, But if most of them are not my base,
then who cares?
Speaker 6 (17:17):
Yeah? Absolutely, And I think he will be thinking about
New Zealand First voters. But ultimately I think there will
be a number of New Zealand First voters that don't
like that. Well, there are some that would, as I've
said before, will be fine with that, but ultimately that's
not the language or the standards of the party that
Winston Peters wants. So I think I think Stuart Nash
is still very likely to be a candidate for New
(17:38):
Zealand First. But does he have the level of influence
or the prominence within the party that he would have
hoped for. I think he's probably got some thinking to
do about how he wins back that confidence.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
Well, I'm sure talk Back is licking its lips at
the prospect of him being.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
It's interesting what you said about you know, maybe ninety
percent of the NZ First voter base don't actually mind,
and it's water if a ducts back for them. But
isn't the whole point to grow your voter base. So
if everyone else who supports them already is like it's fine,
it doesn't matter, But then everybody on the outside is like,
well that's a bit crass. I was maybe thinking about
buying into New Zealand First. Maybe I was on the fence,
(18:16):
but that guy's gone and put the nail in the
coffin for me.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
I don't know. Yeah, I think, well, we.
Speaker 5 (18:22):
Know someone who used that language before and he's now president.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
So I mean that that is true.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
That is true, the rules, that is true, and also
I meany there's a whole other thing, right, I mean,
you can't say that it's not you know, all publicity
is good publicity, because that's not always the case, but
bad publicity still dominates the headlines in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
First is and all of that, you.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Know, as part of this story, and people are talking
about it, and we're talking about it now well as
Oscar wild publicity, it's not necessarily good.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
It's a great quote. A isn't Oscar Wild. There's only
one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Well, it's so good good I don't know how many times.
Speaker 5 (19:02):
Hey, look, we'll be back in just a moment. I'm
Tim Beverage's is the panel on the Weekend Collective. Bridget
Morton and Wilhelmina Shrimpton, well done for making it and
so quickly after the bridge closure. Well done.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
I'm sorry for I saut a little bit puffed.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
I actually ran I ran, I sprinted from the street
outside and I'm recovering from a little cold as well.
Speaker 5 (19:20):
I feel exhausted looking at you. Oh you should be
a cup of TEENA lie down and back at the moment.
Twenty six past three. That's welcome back to the weekend Collective.
(19:50):
Tim Beverage, Bridget Morton and Wilhelmina Shrimpton, my guests. Now
we're gonna actually we're going to cross over a little
bit too sport territory here. Dame Noline Toto stood down
and this being has sort of brought a lot of
things to the the being former players and coaches who
have backed her up and said, you know, talked about
the attitude of the players and what sort of thing.
(20:11):
Laura Langmann was an outspoken supporter of her. But then
I sort of also think, well, the handling of it
communication wise by netball in New Zealand, is there a
clean way to do this sort of stuff? Probably not,
So let's go to the master of you're both masters
of communication or I can't say mistresses of communication because
that sounds wrong, but anyway, Will's.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Wow, wow, Yeah, Look, I think it's interesting timing. You know, it's,
what is it, two weeks before the next big games,
so surely this was bubbling away for a wee while,
and perhaps it should have been dealt with earlier.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
One.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
Again, we don't know what's happening behind closed doors, but
I think leaving it this late in the play does
kind of make it look very dramatic.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
It makes it look like something really, really big.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
And I know that there's been kind of assurances that's
not a bit situation, it's not something like that. But
I feel like the term bullying is very subjective as well.
It depends on the individual.
Speaker 5 (21:13):
Yeah, I mean what Bridgett are. You've got netball follower
or more a process person, and you're just communications and
you've got some you could have a take from every angle.
You might even have some inside knowledge.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (21:26):
Look, I played netball for twenty odd years and I've
played center, which means I'm all over the court. So
this also all over the court. Because on one perspective,
I can absolutely see how you end up in the
situation two weeks out where clearly this has been going
on for a long time and they've got to a
crisis point. Otherwise you would not make this kind of
(21:47):
public statement because ultimately they know that if the games
don't go well in a couple of weeks time that
there's going to be a lot of pushback and a
lot of blowback on the.
Speaker 5 (21:58):
On the games haven't been going well till now recently,
have they?
Speaker 6 (22:02):
Well, it doesn't It doesn't matter from a communications point
of view. Everyone point back to this point and say, well, look,
this is clearly a sign that you know, the players
are not properly supported, that they have not been well
looked after, etc. So I think for Net New Zealand,
what I mean, it's absolutely right they should have dealt
with this earlier. They should have put a plan B
in as such and made it look like a smoother transition.
(22:23):
But this does screen like a sporting crisis.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
Yes, I was gonna say the issue as well as
if they go into these games and then it also
doesn't garner the result that they wanted as well, because
it's obviously throwing things a bit into turmoil. You know,
it's disrupted the flow of practice, it's disrupted the flow
of whatever the team has behind the scenes. So I mean,
I hope that they will do well, but also it
(22:48):
was this a good thing to disrupt?
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Yeah, so close to such an important moment.
Speaker 5 (22:53):
I think it's a bit I mean, look, I'm not
not an insider on the stuff at all, and it's
difficult to know what's been going on, but I do
it feels that the voices supporting Dame Noline have been
very loud, and I think that the question I just have,
which to me is an obvious one, is it's not
a case we've heard from players who've spoken out, but
(23:14):
some of them have made themselves unavailable for their country.
So instead of speaking out, they've simply gone, I'm going
to give up my ambition of playing for my country,
because clearly something's going on. So I just think that
there's a lot to this that we're probably never going
to find out. But also the other one is people,
you know, the old school saying oh, you know, the
(23:35):
players are too soft and all that sort of stuff. Ultimately,
if the players are not getting on with the coach,
what's the coach's job? The coaches the unifier the unifier,
and so I don't know. I think this a complex issue.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Well exactly, and the fact that they decided to make
themselves unavailable again, that's a trigger point to go, what's
going on here?
Speaker 3 (23:56):
Should we delve deeper? Should we do something earlier on?
Speaker 4 (23:59):
During that process so that it doesn't get to this
pivotal moment two weeks out.
Speaker 5 (24:03):
When players are walking with their you know, voting with
their feet. It's pretty powerful or disturbing fact, isn't it.
Speaker 6 (24:11):
Yeah, it is. I don't know if I agree that
the coach's role is to be unified. I think there's
actually the captain or the leadership of the team that's
their job is to deal with that. The coach is
actually to get high standards and performance out of that team.
And I think there's been a lot of discussion about
this coach's approach in the past, about long training sessions,
early mornings, late nights, hard drills. So it's not surprising
(24:34):
that there is around that. But it's not twenty nineteen
when you know, she pulled off that amazing when the
World Cup after a sort of a really short time
as coach, and maybe her practices do have to change.
Maybe there is actually, you say, two sides to this,
that there is something that the coach has to bring
to the table as well.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Well.
Speaker 5 (24:54):
I mean, as we know cliches, I don't think this
is oscar while but there are two sides for every store.
I think it's just a fact doesn't it.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
It's just the book of cliches.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
That's hardly Oscar wild that stuff, isn't it anyway? No doubt,
it's not the It's not the last thing that we're
going to hear about with when it comes to that story.
And you know what I've gone and done. I've gone
and put my bit of paper down which shows us
what we're going to be talking about next time. I
can't find it, but here it is there. We gave
filling for time right now. I don't know how we actually,
(25:22):
I don't know how we segue on this one, but
that it is. I was a little bit more sort
of you know, that sense of angst that you get
about the news of Poland and how they Poland had
shot down some Russian drones which had incur they made
an incursion into Poland's airspace, and you get this sort
(25:43):
of thing by Russia. It's like always an accident sort
of thing like that, nothing happens by accident, And it's
what's your reaction to it?
Speaker 6 (25:51):
To bridget Well, first of all, does Russia think that
it's a good idea They can show their military resources
are so bad that this is the kind of accidental
thing that they do, like they clearly know that they
are sending a signal. The thing that really like bamboos
wo meet, which wouldn't come as a surprize. But President
Trump's you know, equivalent to tweet on his true social platform,
(26:13):
which was something along the lines of like what's with
these drones? And you're like, you're the president of the US,
You've got a lot of people that you can ask
for this kind of advice. Instead, he's like putting it
on his platform as if he has no idea what
is going on. He clearly know what's going on. His
own ambassador to NATO condemned the drones being in that airspace.
(26:33):
It just seems quite bizarrely.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
Does he know what's going on? Or has the Oval
office looked more like a goldfish bowl where he just
swims around every fifteen seconds getting a new memory.
Speaker 6 (26:43):
Well, I mean there's a lot of gold. I don't
know if you've seen those pictures, but he's put a
lot of gold into that over office around looking at
his own reflection. No, but ultimately, you know, he's promised
to resolve this, He's promised to bring the you know,
the summits, the peace summit, together with the Ukrainian Russian
leaders in the same room, and clearly he's failing to
(27:04):
do that. But like the Russians, though, why would you
openly say on your own platform that you have no
idea what's going on? Why would you give anyone any
reason to doubt you?
Speaker 5 (27:15):
Well, I guess that Putin blatantly makes up nonsense all
the time. I mean, I mean the thing that he
was when he was in China and he was giving
some interview and saying, oh that you know, they have
never deliberately invaded anyone. It's like, what did you do?
Just trip over the border in Ukraine and far a
few missiles off. I mean, I'm having to censor myself
(27:37):
because of the contempt I have for him. But I mean,
the fact that we can all spot that what he
sees and what Russia says is nonsense doesn't stop them
from saying stuff that's complete bs, does it?
Speaker 4 (27:48):
Well, it just seems like a suspiciously deliberate move to
suddenly be an absolute mistake. And is he doing things
or directing things or making directors and then waiting to
see what the reaction is before actually.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Saying what the intent was.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
There's just so much back and forth, it up around,
and you know, between him and Trump, it's it's quite
hard to keep up with what the direction is.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
How concerned were you about it, though, I mean, it's
it's not just Ukraine, it's now a member of NATO.
If there is any incursion deliberately that they decide that then,
I mean we've got three jets of being Raphael Jets.
I think that the French have sent to Poland. How
concerned are you, Wills?
Speaker 4 (28:28):
I think there's always a concern that the conflict will
spread far beyond the borders that it's contained with at
the moment, and anything that does happen like this that's
outside of that perimeter is of course really worrying. So
it's about what the response is to that, and can
we stop it from actually becoming something more than what
it is and hopefully it continues to be an accident
(28:49):
and nothing.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
How I reckon, get the summit together maybe and just
give up. Get Aaron Patterson to cook for Vladimir Putin
and give them a little dish of mushroom bef for Wellington.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Said Aaron Patterson. Aaron, oh, yes, our mushroom cook.
Speaker 5 (29:02):
Yeah, I mean she could be the secret weapon anyway.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
I just say that violence is not the answer to Well, that's.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
An interesting one, is it violence? That's a whole separate discussion.
Any follow up on that bridget though not necessarily my
cheap little remark there, but just the biggest situation.
Speaker 6 (29:17):
Yeah, I mean, ultimately they think this is the closest
that Europe and particularly Poland has got to sort of
a military conflict, you know, once it's tarted to occur
into the EU. How the EU and NATA is responding
is exactly what Russia is testing. They want to know
whether or not they comeback, was forced, whether they'll try
to ignore it that. I think these are all tests
(29:37):
from Russia to see just how much they can get
away with before they get ultimately pushed back. And at
the moment it's hard to see NATO really coming together
to all push back other than through dramatic responsible also and.
Speaker 5 (29:50):
Trump as well. I mean, he talks a big game,
but there's no follow up, and I just don't think
they take him seriously any longer. The whole China thing.
Speaker 6 (29:57):
Was just a bit indicating that they were taking him
seriously before.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
Ah No, they might have been more cautious because he
was unpredictable. But I think he's becoming more predictable, that
he's just words rather than action.
Speaker 6 (30:08):
Yes, I think you're absolutely right. I think yeah, he
came in with a big game in his first term.
Speaker 5 (30:13):
It was very quickly.
Speaker 6 (30:13):
Also that didn't really actually have a lot of power,
and certainly not as much power as he indicates, because
unlike those leaders, he doesn't actually have sort of a
dictatorship or autotocracy here. He doesn't have the level of
control over his country in the same way that Putin.
Speaker 5 (30:29):
Does, no, although I think he aspires to it. Anyway, Look,
we take a quick moment because there are some other
serious things in the States. Will touch on the Charlie
Kirk assassination shooting was and what that means for well
the rest of us, I guess, and globally, and the
political debate and the quality of it and the divisiveness
and all that. It's nineteen minutes to four News Talk ZEDB.
Welcome back to News Talk zed B. My guests are
(30:52):
Bridget Morton and Wilhelmina Shrimpton. Now moving on to the
events of the States in the last sort of forty
eight to seventy two hours Charlie Kirk, who was an
influential right wing activist. Look, we know he was shot
dead on Wednesday, was speaking of an event in Utah. Look,
it's just he wasn't He was very politically prominent, but
(31:15):
he wasn't a politician. I don't know how you qualify
someone's been shot because of their political views, whether you
agree with them or not. Bridget what do you think
I mean these things? I don't think this is the
last time we're going to see this sort of thing.
Somebody tried to knock Trump off. There have been other
politicians who been attacked and killed, and Charlie Kirk was
(31:35):
a prominent person. Does it have any relevance in New
Zealand or is it just a headline where we look
at the states and go, you are so screwed over there.
Speaker 6 (31:44):
No, it absolutely does have relevance in New Zealand, and
I think it really points to where we could get
if we don't think more carefully about the polarization of
views that we have. Ultimately, we're not entirely clear what
the alleged killers' views, you know, what his motivation was,
(32:05):
but we do know that there was possibly Yeah, yeah,
I mean possibly I mean there's some stuff that was
supposedly on the bullet casings. I mean it's a little
bit confused, But ultimately, here was a guy who had
some strong political views, but he was sitting on a
university campus talking to people that predominantly did not agree
(32:25):
with him in a respectful way, and on a university
which is meant to be a place for debate, for
free speech, for the expiration of ideas, for this to occur,
if you were anyone from any political point of view,
would you feel safe actually putting you in theself in
that situation again, I think that's what's really worrying.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
And ultimately we don't.
Speaker 6 (32:46):
Have the US situation of this extreme polarization or even
the level of sort of I think access to firearms,
but we still have You can see New Zealand some
New Zealander's reaction to it that they don't see any
problem with this happening. And actually, you know, the people
(33:06):
that actually came out in support of his sensual assassination
is it's really worrying and I think will have a
chilling effect on people speaking out.
Speaker 5 (33:16):
Yeah that I think, Look, yeah, I agree, I mean,
you can't be okay if it happens to the other
side unless you're happy for it to happen to your side.
If that's the way you see it. I don't see
it in terms of sides. I just think in terms
of just the fact of gun violence in the States
as well. I mean, how many gun violence deaths do
they have a year, thirty three thousand or something.
Speaker 4 (33:36):
I see it as the fact that a guy who
is just trying to share his views, regardless of whether
or not they're controversial, whether or not we agree with them,
whether or not they're extreme. A guy who was trying
to share his views in a public sitting, in a
public forum and a place that was controlled and calm,
ended up getting shot dead. A guy who's also a father,
he's a husband, you know, he's got I think he's
(33:57):
got two young kids. I think his wife just spoke
out today for the first time since it happened. And
I think it does it sets It's a really really
bad example, a scary example of what could happen if
you do share your views. And I think it's awful
that people are saying that he deserved it, that it
should have happened, that you know, they could see it
happening to us, to others, and would hope it would
(34:19):
happen to others.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
I think it's awful.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
I think people should be allowed to share their views
regardless of whether or not we agree with them or not.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
And it is scary, and you know.
Speaker 4 (34:27):
What would make you, as a person who is a
thought leader and opinion leader, want to actually put yourself
in a situation in the States particularly, but even in
other forums. And it's not just in public forums as well.
I think you know, we've been talking about how we
wouldn't well, we haven't seen violence like this in New Zealand,
but a lot of the the trial is then moved
(34:49):
online and there's lots of politicians, political figures, thought leaders,
opinion leaders, business leaders who are targeted online as well.
And it's relentless and it's awful, and it's it's horrid
just for sharing your views and believing in a particular side.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
That's why, I mean, that's why I just wonder if
how how we get back to, in the more extreme
parts of political debate, just being able to answer each
other with words rather than anything else, forget the insults, whatever,
But we're getting further away from it, and whether it
be because of online trolls and anonymity and all that
sort of stuff. Bridget what do you think from the
(35:25):
New Zealand context, because we can think of plenty of
examples here just in terms of divisive vitriol that I
think is totally unnecessary.
Speaker 4 (35:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (35:34):
Absolutely, And I think this is one of the problems
with the essentially the democratization of media, and that we
all have the ability to just follow what's in our
algorithm means that we often end up in echo chambers.
And in those echo chambers we get our own thoughts
and beliefs reinforced and elevated and amplified, and in many
(35:55):
of those contexts, that's how you can get to more
and more polarizing views. I think I go back to
the problem here is that Charlie Kirk was actually outside
of that. He wasn't sitting at his own he wasn't
preaching to the converted. He was talking to people that
didn't agree with them in that respectful way. And if
we can't have that exchange of ideas and for people
to feel safe in those context, they're not going to
(36:16):
do it because they'll just keep talking to the people
that agree with them and that means we're just going
to get more and more divided. I think we've all
been quite privileged in New Zealand that we haven't had
that In some ways. That comes because we're a small
nation where everyone's somebody else's cousin. But you know, it's
not far until you can see how some of the
views that you know have been coming in from the
(36:39):
US and things could actually end up in a circumstance
like this. When you've got lots of people already condemning
having particular people on university campuses because they don't agree
with their views.
Speaker 5 (36:49):
You know that. You know the fact is this is
not the last time we're going to see it. I
mean you never. You wouldn't be bettying against it. The
amount of gun violence and stuff in the States, plus
the political divisiveness and the way people interact with each other,
it's just a matter of time before another tragedy, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (37:05):
And because this has happened, then people who are supportive
of of Charlie Kirk and his views and that supporting group,
then that makes them feel even stronger about their opposing side,
and they feel like they then need to come out stronger.
I mean, even just hearing what his wife was saying,
not saying that she's going to resort to violence, but
she was saying, you know, she's going to make sure
(37:25):
that his legacy continues on and stronger than ever before.
So I just think it's the either side one up
in each other. And we talked about this idea or
Bridget right, the idea of that, you know, the echo
chambers existing online, and that was separate to what was
there on the day. I think the line is blurring.
I think the echo chambers are everywhere. They start online
and then they leak and seep out into society and
(37:46):
two gatherings like.
Speaker 5 (37:47):
This, Yeah, oh well, at least we don't have the
gun lass they've got over there, because that the more
and more guns you've got, the more likely someone's going
to use them, isn't it Anyway, Look, nine minutes to
four will be back in just a moment News Talks.
He'd be yes, welcome back to the panel of Wilhelmine
Shrimpton and Bridget Morton. I thought with codvid had so
many grim topics to discuss, guys, I just want to
(38:09):
go at in a lighter note that I love the
news of jet Star's expansion. They've got a a big
its single biggest expansion ever of New Zealand trans Tasma
network flights Hamilton christ Church and also a lot more
flights between Auckland and christ Church as well starting first
of December. And as a family man wanted to fly
to christ Church Christmas, I like a bit of competition.
(38:30):
Bridget yeah, thoughts and prayers.
Speaker 6 (38:35):
Well, sometimes it feels like thoughts and prayers when you
get on that you book a flight these days because
it's so costly, and I think often, you know, from
a business point of view, flying between Wellington and Auckland,
the cost has gone up so much that I just
can't actually believe sometimes how much it's going to cost.
Speaker 5 (38:55):
I mean, christ Churches or Sydney, you know, Shall I
go to Sydney instead? It's so expensive? What are you in,
Wilhelmina Ah.
Speaker 4 (39:01):
Anything that means that prices are cheaper, I'm all for.
I booked I'm in New Zealand back from New York,
I know, but I booked it on sale because it
was on sou I go for the cheapest price. I'm
a New Zealand girl through and through, but I will
ultimately go for the cheapest price. And I booked last
minute to go to christ Church before I went away
a couple of weeks ago and did start seventy nine
(39:21):
bucks one way in New Zealand twing tonight for this.
Speaker 3 (39:28):
He's riffing tomorrow tomorrow moving tomorrow.
Speaker 5 (39:31):
Which game is that?
Speaker 3 (39:32):
That's the n PC? Ah right, Okay, he is down
in Oh my gosh, christ Church.
Speaker 5 (39:37):
Test match where he is you're going into the game?
Speaker 6 (39:41):
No A, were you watching it from my couch? Where
that that great Wellington breeze is not going to get?
Speaker 2 (39:47):
That?
Speaker 5 (39:48):
Was it sky Stadium? I actually was like, where's sky Stadium?
And then somebody said the captain, we go the captain.
We love the Caked Bridget. Do you love it?
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (39:57):
I've never heard anyone local call it the sky Stadium.
I think, I mean, I understand from a branding point
of view, but it's the Cakedain.
Speaker 3 (40:03):
They need a biscuit brand to chip.
Speaker 5 (40:05):
Yes. Indeed. Hey, thanks guys, thanks so much for joining us,
and we'll be back with the one roof radio show,
Talking Roofs. This is News Talk seed B.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
For more from the weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk s EDB weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks
EDB debating all the issues and more. It's the panel
on the Weekend Collective on News Talks ed B.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Starts to see you this week can never be Oh
now miss you?
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Coming to see you? Now is you?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
It starts.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
To sink you come here.
Speaker 5 (00:52):
And a very good afternoon to you. I'm Tim Beverage.
Welcome to the Weekend Collective the Saturday, the thirteenth of September,
and you can tax your feedback anytime. Don't forget on
nine two nine two. If you're not in a hurry,
you can always email and be at News Talks dB
dot court at n Z because I'm very unpredictable with
my reading my email. Anyway, Coming up on today's show
(01:12):
and just a moment, I'll be introducing our illustrious panelists,
but looking further forward to when we will be taking
your calls after four for the one Roof Radio show.
James Logan's with us. He's the founder and director of
roof Buddy and we can have a chat about Roof's
surprise surprise. The warning signs on your roof house should
you be maintaining it, do you always need a roof
for you know, when should you replace your roof? How
(01:33):
much should you put up with? How much did you
put up with with your with your house and gets
onto the whole thing about DIY getting onto the roof
with the ladder, which is a recipe for acc to
come calling. And after five to four the Parents Squad
John Cown is with us because there's been some stats
around the number of kids, young people dropping out of
school being given permission to drop out of school early
(01:55):
because they really know what they want to do. But
how do you have that conversation around dropping out with
your kids and also how do you create a healthy
relationship with food for our check ldren as well. If
we've got time, we'll touch on that and the sports
rapp shortly before six of course Jason Pine, as you know,
he's coming to us from the Test Match Arena and
sky Stadium All Blacks and spring Box at seven oh
(02:18):
five we'll be previewing that the Warriors and the Panthers
six o five and of course the Black Ferns versus
South Africa, the World Cup quarter final which is happening
at midnight. But we're chatting with Jason shortly before six o'clock.
About that he'll be joining us for the sports rap
so lots to get on with. Welcome to the Weekend Collective.
It is nine minutes past three.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Insightful, entertaining and always old points Tim Beveridge on the
Weekend Collective News Talks'.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
B Yes, and firstly, welcome our first panelist who is
coming in to us down the line from Wellington. She
is a barrister and her name is Bridget Morton. Bridget, Hello,
good afternoon. How are you.
Speaker 6 (02:54):
I'm pretty good. It's a beautiful day in Wellington as
per normal.
Speaker 5 (02:57):
Are you bragging because where it's blowing like? I can't
use the metaphor I want to use for the wind
in Auckland right now that is quite well.
Speaker 6 (03:06):
No, it's a blue sky and it's a dental breeze
by Wellington stands.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
Okay, so it's blowing like well actually on that theme
and I look, I've got look. Maybe we don't blame
Auckland Transport. But our other panelist, Wilhelmina Shrimpton, a journalist
and other things. A journalist and in love. She is
stuck in traffic because of the closure of the Auckland
(03:31):
harbor Bridge, and so we're sort of hating the weather
right now, Wilhelmina, aren't we. I think you're there now,
we there, Wilhelmina.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
I am, I am, And it's indeed not a nice
day in Auckland. I actually just got stuck on my
way to the studio stuff in the Harbor Bridge, complete standstill,
couldn't take a turn off, couldn't go anywhere. And so
I'm being into you live from my car. But I
can tell you right now I'm just passing Victoria Park
Market as we speak, so becoming.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Loud and clear.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
How exciting is that an update? Because actually, so let's
what a week for news it's been. Let's get into
it and we'll look at well. And when you do
arrive at the car park, just tell us and you
can jump on out and I'll just chat with Bridget
for a while and we'll just be witty and amusing
between the two of us. But firstly, look, I was
(04:23):
trying to remember where I was when I heard that
the news about Tom Phillips being killed and his children
being found. Look, just in general, let's start with you, Bridget.
What's your reaction to the story when you heard that
news break and there's a lot of issues that have
come out of it. Well, let's your first impression.
Speaker 6 (04:41):
Yeah, I think, like most New Zealand is there's a
little bit of relief the fact that those children are
no longer in that situation. But it's hard to think
of a way in which it could have ended more badly,
you know, for police, for Tom Phillips, for those children,
in terms of the tragedy that has occurred. So I
think for most of us it is hard to not
(05:02):
look away. There's been so much media and so much
interest in it. But ultimately I think that it comes
a time in which we're going to have to let
that family grieve and that family have some peace in
privacy to actually get on with actually trying to get
back to some form of new malasine.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
Because the thing that really I was, I mean, we
always get affected by these stories, but I really felt
affected by the news of that police officer had been
shot and the terrible injuries he'd suffered. Wills just dreadful,
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
Oh, It's awful, And you know, you think about every
single police officer who puts themselves at risk every single
day that they go to work, and they do a really,
really great job, and they put themselves in the firing line,
on the front line, and it's just such a shame
that it came to this.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
I agree with Bridget.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
My first thought was about those children, and particularly the
one who was there at the scene and saw it
all unfold and then was also under pressure to help
police and to try and give them as much information
as possible to negotiate the safe return the other two.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
So there's just this, there's so.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
Much to unpack and there's so many unanswered questions around,
you know, what they've been doing for the past four years,
why it hasn't come to a conclusion earlier, And it's
just such a shame that it had to end this way.
And I'm just so relieved that that police officer is alive,
(06:29):
but they's got a long road to recovery ahead.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Now.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
I'm actually about to pull.
Speaker 5 (06:32):
Up, going to jump off, jump off, and we'll see
in a couple of minutes. Bridget the let's get onto
the questions around. I think the thing that I feel
uneasy about. There's been a lot of talk about whether
there should be a documentary, and we know that that
there is a camera crew and there, and Julie Christie's
(06:53):
planning a documentary and I sort of feel I'll give
you my view on it. You can push back or whatever,
that all stories, no matter you know, how tragic, always
end up getting told. I can look at all sorts
of terrible stories over the course of history with tragedy
where kids have been the victim and there have ultimately
(07:14):
been documentaries on it. And there's a bit of a
pushback at the moment. And I think there's two sides
to it. One is that we're all just as a country.
There's a sense of we're all bit overwrought, and there's
a sense of grief and shock and everything, and so
it just feels a bit jarring to see that one
particular camera is allowed in whereas the other media are not.
(07:38):
But I tend to think that overseas documentary makers, whether
it be Netflix or whoever, someone's going to do something
on this, and I'd rather it was told with a
New Zealand lens, via a producer who is part of
our community and capable of exercising the sensitivity that someone
from frankly in the middle of I don't know, Texas
(07:59):
might decide to make a documentary and it could be dreadful.
What do you think?
Speaker 6 (08:03):
Yeah, absolutely, I can completely understand if I was the
family that I would be quite distraught that of the
thought of a documentary being made, because obviously they're thinking
about the next couple of days, but also the next
few years, which is frankly when the documentary is probably
going to come out. I think there is a real
question though about giving that level exclusive access to one
(08:23):
particular media outlet, and I think that could have been
handled differently by police, particularly in such sense of times.
It's not like any other media can then get in
behind that cord and that the documentary makers then had
I think there is a sensitivity around this, and I
think being told with the New Zealand voice and with
a Kiwi voice is actually the most powerful and I'd
(08:44):
much rather that happened than elsewhere. And ultimately, well, since
the focus on the children at the moment, I think
we rightly will need to ask questions if we go
forward about whether or not the police should have done
things differently over the last four years where the oil
and Tamaiky, you know, when there's other avenues for resolving
this that should have happened earlier and some of that
can be highlighted or how to account through a documentary.
(09:08):
So yeah, it is a little bit of the nation story,
but I do hope that it's told in the most
sensitive way possible for those children.
Speaker 5 (09:14):
Yeah, what's your take? So well, just while you were
parking there, we were talking about the two aspects to it.
I think a documentary is inevitable because the world's a
large place with a lot of different voices who can
tell the story. I'd rather it's a New Zealand voice.
But I'm really uncomfortable with one particular camera being allowed
there while the media. You can understand the police will
(09:35):
wish to control it, but it does feel a little
bit weird to have one camera crew behind the scenes
and the rest shut out.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
What do you think, Yeah, look, there's so many aspects
to that to consider. Of course, what you were saying
about protecting the children and making sure that they're not
overwhelmed by having so many media and so many cameras
and so many things coming at them.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
But I also think.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
Yeah, there is that there's that awkward question around police
controlling that narrative. It doesn't feel like it's an independent
documentary because police have final say and final sign off
what goes out, and I know it's subject to a
whole range of investigations, but in order to be an impartial,
independent documentary, I feel like it shouldn't have that level
of sign off. I understand there been some control around it,
(10:18):
but it just doesn't feel quite right.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Yeah. Have you got any follow up on that bridget
as well?
Speaker 6 (10:26):
Yeah? Absolutely, And I think that's the point of having
multiple independent media is the fact that you actually get
to counter and have a little different perspective. And I
think there's ways of managing having multiple cameras ultimately. I
mean you guys will well know you can have things
like pull footage and ways of sharing some of those
resources so that there is not a disruption to that
(10:49):
scene or an overwhelming of actually the true purpose for
the police being there, which is actually to investigate a
crime that's been that says has occurred.
Speaker 5 (10:57):
And it's worth pointing out that the camera is not
actually having access to any of the children at all,
So that's that's good. Sorry.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
Will see was also concerning as well as that the
whole family have said that they don't condone, they don't
consent to this documentary. Being made, which I know is
easy to say because it's up to whoever wants to
do a documentary on something. They don't necessarily need people's
consent to tell a story from a particular angle. But
I think at the moment right now, there's so much
(11:26):
sensitivity around it. I think it's really important to tread carefully.
But what's to say that another party can't come in
and do their own documentary all further down the track
that the family grant you a particular media access to
tell another side of the story.
Speaker 5 (11:39):
Yeah, I agree. I think that there are so many
angles to the story that it doesn't actually need to
focus so much on the kids anyway. That there's the
law enforcement there, there's just the purity bunch of people
in the community, and I think it's worth pointing out
there it's some great people within the community around there,
but there are also going to be those who've been complicit,
and so there's a lot more to come with the story.
(12:02):
So that's why the public interest is going to be
through the roof for quite a while, I think.
Speaker 6 (12:06):
Bridget Yeah, I think so absolutely, And I think you know,
there's a good comparison at the moment from across the
Tasman which was the mushroom cook, you know, the woman
who poisoned her in laws.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
My goodness, almost feels like a lighter story, doesn't that after?
Speaker 1 (12:25):
I know?
Speaker 6 (12:26):
But ultimately, you know, there's been multiple podcasts. But I
saw today that you know, the husband, so you know,
the son of those who passed is looking at doing
his own podcast, so we make it his own perspective
as well. So I think there's ultimately there's we do
have the ability and this current aide for multiple people
to have their voice. Ultimately, the children I think have
(12:48):
been well protected in that case, and I hope that
that's the same here.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
In the interest of open justice as well. What if
if it is true that we keep protecting the children.
I think the actual documentary, knowing the ins and outs
of the police investigation process, I think will be really
really interesting for the New Zealand public to get a
grass and get an understanding.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Not because this has been a four year long saga.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Yeah, so many questions people going why haven't there why
haven't we been able to find them already?
Speaker 3 (13:16):
Yeah, So I think.
Speaker 5 (13:17):
There's a lot more to come out, isn't it. Hey,
By the way, just on the Aaron Patterson thing. We
haven't slated that. For conversation, I was surprised that thirty
three years non parole. I was guessing sort of twenty five.
Any of you guys surprised. I mean, I think she's
getting what she deserves. But do you have any reaction in.
Speaker 6 (13:32):
That bridget Yeah, I think I'm not surprised given the
number of the public interest in it, but also the
evidence that's become public since the case about the fact
that this is very premeditated, This was based on long
you know, this is something she thought about for a
long time and actually done a lot of research on.
This wasn't sort of a spur of the moment. This
(13:53):
is very much what the outcoming.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
Sinister stuff, isn't it. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
Yeah, the premeditation piece, and also the fact that it
was in such a huge level of public.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
Interest, they couldn't not come down hard on her.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
They've got to set an example of what, you know,
I imagine if you end up doing something that is
so meticulously planned.
Speaker 5 (14:14):
One of what the chances are that over the course
of thirty three years, you'll get a job in the kitchen.
You know, you'll be giving the beef Wellington dished up
by Aaron Patterson. A few nervous and mates, we let
that we took Aaron for a walk in the bushes
just to find some spices. Sorry, I mean sorry, but
you know you gotta have a bit of black humor.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Hey.
Speaker 5 (14:30):
Look, I interviewed Stuart Nash last Sunday for Politics Central
and there was an amusing interview because he sort of
danced on the head of a penet as to whether
he wanted to be a candidate, and so that was
it was a sort of slotly wild wild goose chase
for a while and then I saw, you know, was
it a day or two later? And I'm not going
(14:51):
to use the language because it is twenty past three
on a Saturday afternoon, but his way of describing what
a woman was and simply referred to a couple of
bits of anatomy in a very crude fashion. I mean,
I'm sorry, but I think it's the kiss of death politically.
But will it be Wilhelmina.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
I think it doesn't bode well. I don't think you
know starts you mean to continue, right, If that's how
you're starting, it's probably.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
Not going to go too well. And I love how we.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Prefaced this with I've been in trouble for saying this before.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Mate.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
If you've been in trouble saying it before, you probably
shouldn't say it again, particularly in a public forum. And
the fact that it took his wife to then break
him over the calls for him to realize that he
probably should have. Can you imagine that young when he
got home, even on the probably he probably got a
text as soon as he came off here.
Speaker 5 (15:43):
I'd love to be behind the scenes on that one.
But Bridget, is it the death knew for him?
Speaker 6 (15:48):
I don't think it is, but it certainly is a
problem for him. It has dented the shine. But ultimately
for New Zealand First, he was a prospective replacement for
Winston Peters. He does have a lot of popularity in
the regions he appeals to I think a regional voter
and probably a predominantly male voter, so there will be
(16:09):
some males out there will be like, well yeah, he
just total like it is. The problem he's got though,
is New Zealand First is still led by Winston Peters,
and Winston Peters is a classy conservative guy. This is
not kind of language that Winston Peters would ever condone No,
that he would have been very unhappy that essentially the
star of the conference just days before is suddenly distracting
(16:32):
with this kind of talk.
Speaker 5 (16:34):
But Winston is also a political pragmatist and a schema
and tactician, isn't he? So he's going to he's I
guess there is.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
He loves to rile people.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
Is he going to be doing? Is this the equation
he's going to consider? Okay, my core New Zealand First supporters,
are they still going to vote for me regardless of
whether Stuart's on the bill or not? And if they are,
can I still attract more people by having Stuart on there?
Will it come down? I mean, I'll stick with you
on that one, Bridget, and then we'll go to Wills.
(17:05):
I mean, there's a ruthless, cynical political equation here. Is Okay,
ninety percent of the population or eighty five percent might
be offended, But if most of them are not my base,
then who cares?
Speaker 6 (17:17):
Yeah? Absolutely, And I think he will be thinking about
New Zealand First voters. But ultimately I think there will
be a number of New Zealand First voters that don't
like that. Well, there are some that would, as I've
said before, will be fine with that, but ultimately that's
not the language or the standards of the party that
Winston Peters wants. So I think I think Stuart Nash
is still very likely to be a candidate for New
(17:38):
Zealand First. But does he have the level of influence
or the prominence within the party that he would have
hoped for. I think he's probably got some thinking to
do about how he wins back that confidence.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
Well, I'm sure talk Back is licking its lips at
the prospect of him being.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
It's interesting what you said about you know, maybe ninety
percent of the NZ First voter base don't actually mind,
and it's water if a ducts back for them. But
isn't the whole point to grow your voter base. So
if everyone else who supports them already is like it's fine,
it doesn't matter, But then everybody on the outside is like,
well that's a bit crass. I was maybe thinking about
buying into New Zealand First. Maybe I was on the fence,
(18:16):
but that guy's gone and put the nail in the
coffin for me.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
I don't know. Yeah, I think, well, we.
Speaker 5 (18:22):
Know someone who used that language before and he's now president.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
So I mean that that is true.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
That is true, the rules, that is true, and also
I meany there's a whole other thing, right, I mean,
you can't say that it's not you know, all publicity
is good publicity, because that's not always the case, but
bad publicity still dominates the headlines in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
First is and all of that, you.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Know, as part of this story, and people are talking
about it, and we're talking about it now well as
Oscar wild publicity, it's not necessarily good.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
It's a great quote. A isn't Oscar Wild. There's only
one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Well, it's so good good I don't know how many times.
Speaker 5 (19:02):
Hey, look, we'll be back in just a moment. I'm
Tim Beverage's is the panel on the Weekend Collective. Bridget
Morton and Wilhelmina Shrimpton, well done for making it and
so quickly after the bridge closure. Well done.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
I'm sorry for I saut a little bit puffed.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
I actually ran I ran, I sprinted from the street
outside and I'm recovering from a little cold as well.
Speaker 5 (19:20):
I feel exhausted looking at you. Oh you should be
a cup of TEENA lie down and back at the moment.
Twenty six past three. That's welcome back to the weekend Collective.
(19:50):
Tim Beverage, Bridget Morton and Wilhelmina Shrimpton, my guests. Now
we're gonna actually we're going to cross over a little
bit too sport territory here. Dame Noline Toto stood down
and this being has sort of brought a lot of
things to the the being former players and coaches who
have backed her up and said, you know, talked about
the attitude of the players and what sort of thing.
(20:11):
Laura Langmann was an outspoken supporter of her. But then
I sort of also think, well, the handling of it
communication wise by netball in New Zealand, is there a
clean way to do this sort of stuff? Probably not,
So let's go to the master of you're both masters
of communication or I can't say mistresses of communication because
that sounds wrong, but anyway, Will's.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Wow, wow, Yeah, Look, I think it's interesting timing. You know, it's,
what is it, two weeks before the next big games,
so surely this was bubbling away for a wee while,
and perhaps it should have been dealt with earlier.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
One.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
Again, we don't know what's happening behind closed doors, but
I think leaving it this late in the play does
kind of make it look very dramatic.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
It makes it look like something really, really big.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
And I know that there's been kind of assurances that's
not a bit situation, it's not something like that. But
I feel like the term bullying is very subjective as well.
It depends on the individual.
Speaker 5 (21:13):
Yeah, I mean what Bridgett are. You've got netball follower
or more a process person, and you're just communications and
you've got some you could have a take from every angle.
You might even have some inside knowledge.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (21:26):
Look, I played netball for twenty odd years and I've
played center, which means I'm all over the court. So
this also all over the court. Because on one perspective,
I can absolutely see how you end up in the
situation two weeks out where clearly this has been going
on for a long time and they've got to a
crisis point. Otherwise you would not make this kind of
(21:47):
public statement because ultimately they know that if the games
don't go well in a couple of weeks time that
there's going to be a lot of pushback and a
lot of blowback on the.
Speaker 5 (21:58):
On the games haven't been going well till now recently,
have they?
Speaker 6 (22:02):
Well, it doesn't It doesn't matter from a communications point
of view. Everyone point back to this point and say, well, look,
this is clearly a sign that you know, the players
are not properly supported, that they have not been well
looked after, etc. So I think for Net New Zealand,
what I mean, it's absolutely right they should have dealt
with this earlier. They should have put a plan B
in as such and made it look like a smoother transition.
(22:23):
But this does screen like a sporting crisis.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
Yes, I was gonna say the issue as well as
if they go into these games and then it also
doesn't garner the result that they wanted as well, because
it's obviously throwing things a bit into turmoil. You know,
it's disrupted the flow of practice, it's disrupted the flow
of whatever the team has behind the scenes. So I mean,
I hope that they will do well, but also it
(22:48):
was this a good thing to disrupt?
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Yeah, so close to such an important moment.
Speaker 5 (22:53):
I think it's a bit I mean, look, I'm not
not an insider on the stuff at all, and it's
difficult to know what's been going on, but I do
it feels that the voices supporting Dame Noline have been
very loud, and I think that the question I just have,
which to me is an obvious one, is it's not
a case we've heard from players who've spoken out, but
(23:14):
some of them have made themselves unavailable for their country.
So instead of speaking out, they've simply gone, I'm going
to give up my ambition of playing for my country,
because clearly something's going on. So I just think that
there's a lot to this that we're probably never going
to find out. But also the other one is people,
you know, the old school saying oh, you know, the
(23:35):
players are too soft and all that sort of stuff. Ultimately,
if the players are not getting on with the coach,
what's the coach's job? The coaches the unifier the unifier,
and so I don't know. I think this a complex issue.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Well exactly, and the fact that they decided to make
themselves unavailable again, that's a trigger point to go, what's
going on here?
Speaker 3 (23:56):
Should we delve deeper? Should we do something earlier on?
Speaker 4 (23:59):
During that process so that it doesn't get to this
pivotal moment two weeks out.
Speaker 5 (24:03):
When players are walking with their you know, voting with
their feet. It's pretty powerful or disturbing fact, isn't it.
Speaker 6 (24:11):
Yeah, it is. I don't know if I agree that
the coach's role is to be unified. I think there's
actually the captain or the leadership of the team that's
their job is to deal with that. The coach is
actually to get high standards and performance out of that team.
And I think there's been a lot of discussion about
this coach's approach in the past, about long training sessions,
early mornings, late nights, hard drills. So it's not surprising
(24:34):
that there is around that. But it's not twenty nineteen
when you know, she pulled off that amazing when the
World Cup after a sort of a really short time
as coach, and maybe her practices do have to change.
Maybe there is actually, you say, two sides to this,
that there is something that the coach has to bring
to the table as well.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Well.
Speaker 5 (24:54):
I mean, as we know cliches, I don't think this
is oscar while but there are two sides for every store.
I think it's just a fact doesn't it.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
It's just the book of cliches.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
That's hardly Oscar wild that stuff, isn't it anyway? No doubt,
it's not the It's not the last thing that we're
going to hear about with when it comes to that story.
And you know what I've gone and done. I've gone
and put my bit of paper down which shows us
what we're going to be talking about next time. I
can't find it, but here it is there. We gave
filling for time right now. I don't know how we actually,
(25:22):
I don't know how we segue on this one, but
that it is. I was a little bit more sort
of you know, that sense of angst that you get
about the news of Poland and how they Poland had
shot down some Russian drones which had incur they made
an incursion into Poland's airspace, and you get this sort
(25:43):
of thing by Russia. It's like always an accident sort
of thing like that, nothing happens by accident, And it's
what's your reaction to it?
Speaker 6 (25:51):
To bridget Well, first of all, does Russia think that
it's a good idea They can show their military resources
are so bad that this is the kind of accidental
thing that they do, like they clearly know that they
are sending a signal. The thing that really like bamboos
wo meet, which wouldn't come as a surprize. But President
Trump's you know, equivalent to tweet on his true social platform,
(26:13):
which was something along the lines of like what's with
these drones? And you're like, you're the president of the US,
You've got a lot of people that you can ask
for this kind of advice. Instead, he's like putting it
on his platform as if he has no idea what
is going on. He clearly know what's going on. His
own ambassador to NATO condemned the drones being in that airspace.
(26:33):
It just seems quite bizarrely.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
Does he know what's going on? Or has the Oval
office looked more like a goldfish bowl where he just
swims around every fifteen seconds getting a new memory.
Speaker 6 (26:43):
Well, I mean there's a lot of gold. I don't
know if you've seen those pictures, but he's put a
lot of gold into that over office around looking at
his own reflection. No, but ultimately, you know, he's promised
to resolve this, He's promised to bring the you know,
the summits, the peace summit, together with the Ukrainian Russian
leaders in the same room, and clearly he's failing to
(27:04):
do that. But like the Russians, though, why would you
openly say on your own platform that you have no
idea what's going on? Why would you give anyone any
reason to doubt you?
Speaker 5 (27:15):
Well, I guess that Putin blatantly makes up nonsense all
the time. I mean, I mean the thing that he
was when he was in China and he was giving
some interview and saying, oh that you know, they have
never deliberately invaded anyone. It's like, what did you do?
Just trip over the border in Ukraine and far a
few missiles off. I mean, I'm having to censor myself
(27:37):
because of the contempt I have for him. But I mean,
the fact that we can all spot that what he
sees and what Russia says is nonsense doesn't stop them
from saying stuff that's complete bs, does it?
Speaker 4 (27:48):
Well, it just seems like a suspiciously deliberate move to
suddenly be an absolute mistake. And is he doing things
or directing things or making directors and then waiting to
see what the reaction is before actually.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Saying what the intent was.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
There's just so much back and forth, it up around,
and you know, between him and Trump, it's it's quite
hard to keep up with what the direction is.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
How concerned were you about it, though, I mean, it's
it's not just Ukraine, it's now a member of NATO.
If there is any incursion deliberately that they decide that then,
I mean we've got three jets of being Raphael Jets.
I think that the French have sent to Poland. How
concerned are you, Wills?
Speaker 4 (28:28):
I think there's always a concern that the conflict will
spread far beyond the borders that it's contained with at
the moment, and anything that does happen like this that's
outside of that perimeter is of course really worrying. So
it's about what the response is to that, and can
we stop it from actually becoming something more than what
it is and hopefully it continues to be an accident
(28:49):
and nothing.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
How I reckon, get the summit together maybe and just
give up. Get Aaron Patterson to cook for Vladimir Putin
and give them a little dish of mushroom bef for Wellington.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Said Aaron Patterson. Aaron, oh, yes, our mushroom cook.
Speaker 5 (29:02):
Yeah, I mean she could be the secret weapon anyway.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
I just say that violence is not the answer to Well, that's.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
An interesting one, is it violence? That's a whole separate discussion.
Any follow up on that bridget though not necessarily my
cheap little remark there, but just the biggest situation.
Speaker 6 (29:17):
Yeah, I mean, ultimately they think this is the closest
that Europe and particularly Poland has got to sort of
a military conflict, you know, once it's tarted to occur
into the EU. How the EU and NATA is responding
is exactly what Russia is testing. They want to know
whether or not they comeback, was forced, whether they'll try
to ignore it that. I think these are all tests
(29:37):
from Russia to see just how much they can get
away with before they get ultimately pushed back. And at
the moment it's hard to see NATO really coming together
to all push back other than through dramatic responsible also and.
Speaker 5 (29:50):
Trump as well. I mean, he talks a big game,
but there's no follow up, and I just don't think
they take him seriously any longer. The whole China thing.
Speaker 6 (29:57):
Was just a bit indicating that they were taking him
seriously before.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
Ah No, they might have been more cautious because he
was unpredictable. But I think he's becoming more predictable, that
he's just words rather than action.
Speaker 6 (30:08):
Yes, I think you're absolutely right. I think yeah, he
came in with a big game in his first term.
Speaker 5 (30:13):
It was very quickly.
Speaker 6 (30:13):
Also that didn't really actually have a lot of power,
and certainly not as much power as he indicates, because
unlike those leaders, he doesn't actually have sort of a
dictatorship or autotocracy here. He doesn't have the level of
control over his country in the same way that Putin.
Speaker 5 (30:29):
Does, no, although I think he aspires to it. Anyway, Look,
we take a quick moment because there are some other
serious things in the States. Will touch on the Charlie
Kirk assassination shooting was and what that means for well
the rest of us, I guess, and globally, and the
political debate and the quality of it and the divisiveness
and all that. It's nineteen minutes to four News Talk ZEDB.
Welcome back to News Talk zed B. My guests are
(30:52):
Bridget Morton and Wilhelmina Shrimpton. Now moving on to the
events of the States in the last sort of forty
eight to seventy two hours Charlie Kirk, who was an
influential right wing activist. Look, we know he was shot
dead on Wednesday, was speaking of an event in Utah. Look,
it's just he wasn't He was very politically prominent, but
(31:15):
he wasn't a politician. I don't know how you qualify
someone's been shot because of their political views, whether you
agree with them or not. Bridget what do you think
I mean these things? I don't think this is the
last time we're going to see this sort of thing.
Somebody tried to knock Trump off. There have been other
politicians who been attacked and killed, and Charlie Kirk was
(31:35):
a prominent person. Does it have any relevance in New
Zealand or is it just a headline where we look
at the states and go, you are so screwed over there.
Speaker 6 (31:44):
No, it absolutely does have relevance in New Zealand, and
I think it really points to where we could get
if we don't think more carefully about the polarization of
views that we have. Ultimately, we're not entirely clear what
the alleged killers' views, you know, what his motivation was,
(32:05):
but we do know that there was possibly Yeah, yeah,
I mean possibly I mean there's some stuff that was
supposedly on the bullet casings. I mean it's a little
bit confused, But ultimately, here was a guy who had
some strong political views, but he was sitting on a
university campus talking to people that predominantly did not agree
(32:25):
with him in a respectful way, and on a university
which is meant to be a place for debate, for
free speech, for the expiration of ideas, for this to occur,
if you were anyone from any political point of view,
would you feel safe actually putting you in theself in
that situation again, I think that's what's really worrying.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
And ultimately we don't.
Speaker 6 (32:46):
Have the US situation of this extreme polarization or even
the level of sort of I think access to firearms,
but we still have You can see New Zealand some
New Zealander's reaction to it that they don't see any
problem with this happening. And actually, you know, the people
(33:06):
that actually came out in support of his sensual assassination
is it's really worrying and I think will have a
chilling effect on people speaking out.
Speaker 5 (33:16):
Yeah that I think, Look, yeah, I agree, I mean,
you can't be okay if it happens to the other
side unless you're happy for it to happen to your side.
If that's the way you see it. I don't see
it in terms of sides. I just think in terms
of just the fact of gun violence in the States
as well. I mean, how many gun violence deaths do
they have a year, thirty three thousand or something.
Speaker 4 (33:36):
I see it as the fact that a guy who
is just trying to share his views, regardless of whether
or not they're controversial, whether or not we agree with them,
whether or not they're extreme. A guy who was trying
to share his views in a public sitting, in a
public forum and a place that was controlled and calm,
ended up getting shot dead. A guy who's also a father,
he's a husband, you know, he's got I think he's
(33:57):
got two young kids. I think his wife just spoke
out today for the first time since it happened. And
I think it does it sets It's a really really
bad example, a scary example of what could happen if
you do share your views. And I think it's awful
that people are saying that he deserved it, that it
should have happened, that you know, they could see it
happening to us, to others, and would hope it would
(34:19):
happen to others.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
I think it's awful.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
I think people should be allowed to share their views
regardless of whether or not we agree with them or not.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
And it is scary, and you know.
Speaker 4 (34:27):
What would make you, as a person who is a
thought leader and opinion leader, want to actually put yourself
in a situation in the States particularly, but even in
other forums. And it's not just in public forums as well.
I think you know, we've been talking about how we
wouldn't well, we haven't seen violence like this in New Zealand,
but a lot of the the trial is then moved
(34:49):
online and there's lots of politicians, political figures, thought leaders,
opinion leaders, business leaders who are targeted online as well.
And it's relentless and it's awful, and it's it's horrid
just for sharing your views and believing in a particular side.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
That's why, I mean, that's why I just wonder if
how how we get back to, in the more extreme
parts of political debate, just being able to answer each
other with words rather than anything else, forget the insults, whatever,
But we're getting further away from it, and whether it
be because of online trolls and anonymity and all that
sort of stuff. Bridget what do you think from the
(35:25):
New Zealand context, because we can think of plenty of
examples here just in terms of divisive vitriol that I
think is totally unnecessary.
Speaker 4 (35:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (35:34):
Absolutely, And I think this is one of the problems
with the essentially the democratization of media, and that we
all have the ability to just follow what's in our
algorithm means that we often end up in echo chambers.
And in those echo chambers we get our own thoughts
and beliefs reinforced and elevated and amplified, and in many
(35:55):
of those contexts, that's how you can get to more
and more polarizing views. I think I go back to
the problem here is that Charlie Kirk was actually outside
of that. He wasn't sitting at his own he wasn't
preaching to the converted. He was talking to people that
didn't agree with them in that respectful way. And if
we can't have that exchange of ideas and for people
to feel safe in those context, they're not going to
(36:16):
do it because they'll just keep talking to the people
that agree with them and that means we're just going
to get more and more divided. I think we've all
been quite privileged in New Zealand that we haven't had
that In some ways. That comes because we're a small
nation where everyone's somebody else's cousin. But you know, it's
not far until you can see how some of the
views that you know have been coming in from the
(36:39):
US and things could actually end up in a circumstance
like this. When you've got lots of people already condemning
having particular people on university campuses because they don't agree
with their views.
Speaker 5 (36:49):
You know that. You know the fact is this is
not the last time we're going to see it. I
mean you never. You wouldn't be bettying against it. The
amount of gun violence and stuff in the States, plus
the political divisiveness and the way people interact with each other,
it's just a matter of time before another tragedy, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (37:05):
And because this has happened, then people who are supportive
of of Charlie Kirk and his views and that supporting group,
then that makes them feel even stronger about their opposing side,
and they feel like they then need to come out stronger.
I mean, even just hearing what his wife was saying,
not saying that she's going to resort to violence, but
she was saying, you know, she's going to make sure
(37:25):
that his legacy continues on and stronger than ever before.
So I just think it's the either side one up
in each other. And we talked about this idea or
Bridget right, the idea of that, you know, the echo
chambers existing online, and that was separate to what was
there on the day. I think the line is blurring.
I think the echo chambers are everywhere. They start online
and then they leak and seep out into society and
(37:46):
two gatherings like.
Speaker 5 (37:47):
This, Yeah, oh well, at least we don't have the
gun lass they've got over there, because that the more
and more guns you've got, the more likely someone's going
to use them, isn't it Anyway, Look, nine minutes to
four will be back in just a moment News Talks.
He'd be yes, welcome back to the panel of Wilhelmine
Shrimpton and Bridget Morton. I thought with codvid had so
many grim topics to discuss, guys, I just want to
(38:09):
go at in a lighter note that I love the
news of jet Star's expansion. They've got a a big
its single biggest expansion ever of New Zealand trans Tasma
network flights Hamilton christ Church and also a lot more
flights between Auckland and christ Church as well starting first
of December. And as a family man wanted to fly
to christ Church Christmas, I like a bit of competition.
(38:30):
Bridget yeah, thoughts and prayers.
Speaker 6 (38:35):
Well, sometimes it feels like thoughts and prayers when you
get on that you book a flight these days because
it's so costly, and I think often, you know, from
a business point of view, flying between Wellington and Auckland,
the cost has gone up so much that I just
can't actually believe sometimes how much it's going to cost.
Speaker 5 (38:55):
I mean, christ Churches or Sydney, you know, Shall I
go to Sydney instead? It's so expensive? What are you in,
Wilhelmina Ah.
Speaker 4 (39:01):
Anything that means that prices are cheaper, I'm all for.
I booked I'm in New Zealand back from New York,
I know, but I booked it on sale because it
was on sou I go for the cheapest price. I'm
a New Zealand girl through and through, but I will
ultimately go for the cheapest price. And I booked last
minute to go to christ Church before I went away
a couple of weeks ago and did start seventy nine
(39:21):
bucks one way in New Zealand twing tonight for this.
Speaker 3 (39:28):
He's riffing tomorrow tomorrow moving tomorrow.
Speaker 5 (39:31):
Which game is that?
Speaker 3 (39:32):
That's the n PC? Ah right, Okay, he is down
in Oh my gosh, christ Church.
Speaker 5 (39:37):
Test match where he is you're going into the game?
Speaker 6 (39:41):
No A, were you watching it from my couch? Where
that that great Wellington breeze is not going to get?
Speaker 2 (39:47):
That?
Speaker 5 (39:48):
Was it sky Stadium? I actually was like, where's sky Stadium?
And then somebody said the captain, we go the captain.
We love the Caked Bridget. Do you love it?
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (39:57):
I've never heard anyone local call it the sky Stadium.
I think, I mean, I understand from a branding point
of view, but it's the Cakedain.
Speaker 3 (40:03):
They need a biscuit brand to chip.
Speaker 5 (40:05):
Yes. Indeed. Hey, thanks guys, thanks so much for joining us,
and we'll be back with the one roof radio show,
Talking Roofs. This is News Talk seed B.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
For more from the weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk s EDB weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.