February 28, 2025 • 40 mins
Today on The Panel, Francesca Rudkin is joined by Liam Hehir and Jo McCarroll to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.
Zelenskyy's White House visit, changes to the citizen's arrest law, workplace opioid use is up, Andrew Bayly resigns his ministerial positions, 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 SAEDB,
debating all the issues and more. It's the panel on
the Weekend Collective on News Talk saed B.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Sometime I feel love God too, run away godzoo, get.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Away, run the pain you.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
Drive, and to love me.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Good afternoon and welcome to the Weekend Collective. I'm Francisca
rad Can filling in for Tim. He's going to be
back with you tomorrow. Today on the show after four pm,
we have the one roof radio show and I'm joined
by property investor Nicole Lewis. Now apparently investors are back
borrowing almost twice as much as a year ago, so
we're going to discuss whether this is a good time
to invest and also why women don't invest in property
(00:58):
as much as men. After five, John Cowen joins me
on the Parent Squad. And at this time of the year,
any parents are dealing with teenagers leaving home, some for
the first time, either to university or maybe on an oe,
and it can be a bit rocky for both parent
and teen And I'm sure that John is going to
have some sage advice as to how we deal with
this stage of life. It's great to have you with us.
(01:20):
It is seven past three.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Coming up now with you your weekend, Your Way for
the weekend collective with Francesca Rudkin. News Talk said, be.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
We have the panel, and I am thrilled to welcome
to the panel today our commentator and editor at New
Zealand Gardener Joe McCarroll. Good afternoon, let's get that mic on.
Thank you very much, and also welcoming Liam here, who
is a commentator and partner at Freebahn and Heir Lawyers.
Good afternoon, Liam, Good hell over you both. Good to
(01:52):
have you both with us.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Look, I am no diplomat, but after watching Trump and
Zelenski and a Dvance have a rather heated exchange in
the Oval offices, I don't think that there was anything
diplomatic about what took place, even though Advance kept calling
for diplomatic measures.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
Show Oh, I've seen a higher standard of diplomatic language,
and you know, Matt time at the primers, it felt
like an absolutely, it felt like an ambush to me.
I think Trump set that up to reframe Zelenski as
a villain and reframe Putin as an ally. And I
am shocked to think that he might succeed in doing that.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
Did you see it, Liam, Yeah, I have watched it,
and your thoughts, well, Look, I think these types of meetings,
these types of robust six straight changes, they.
Speaker 6 (02:48):
Do happen in the planacy, but normally behind closed doors,
and the most we might see of it or hear
of it is the leaked discussions afterwards, you know, where
sources say that you know they had this kind of
confrontation or argument, and it was quite astonishing to see
it play out in public. I have to say. It
(03:09):
might be your opinion, but I really think it was
a mistake for Zelensky to If you think it was
a provocation of by Trump advance, it was a mistake
for him to rise to it. No matter the rights
and the wrongs of it. He's the one going there
as a supplicant. He's the one who needs them more
than they need him. And you know, when you're going
there as a supplicant, you have to there's a certain
(03:31):
amount of humiliation you just have to endure. And the
question I would have would be, after that argument and
all that that display, is it more or less likely
that money and material will continue flowing from the United
States to Ukraine, and the answer has got to be
less likely, right, And maybe that's what Trump and Advance intended.
(03:53):
But you know, it's not that hard to take. It's
not that hard to get on Trump's good side as
a foreign leader. Kim Jong un figured it out.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
I just really have to say, I really would challenge
that point of view.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Liam.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
I mean, I think an independent Ukraine is in the
interests of the Western world. I think, you know the
fact that Vance and Trump are, you know, pushing against
the idea that that this is in their own best interest,
and that is aside from the deal on minerals, which
is absolutely in the US best interest. I think the
(04:27):
idea that that Zelenski is a supplicants, I think that
is the narrative Trump is pushing, but I don't think
it is anyway true.
Speaker 6 (04:37):
He definitely is a supplicant. Who who needs more? Who
needs more, who's they're going there, who's paying money to, who,
Who's who's needing aid from home? Ukraine's giving? Do you need.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
To disrespect people and sort of throw that in their faces?
I mean, the guy has been his country's being torn apart,
people are dying there at war, and Trump is sort
of taunting him, going, we've got all the cards, We've
got all the cards, and then they're speaking to him
like I would have spoken to my kids when they
were smaller, like where's your toitude say thank you? I
don't know. I'm not entirely surely and that actually, and
(05:10):
I get your point. We're all we're all trying to
take that step towards peace and find a resolution.
Speaker 6 (05:14):
I'm not saying that at all.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
I'm not entirely sure we are going to get there.
Speaker 6 (05:18):
That's you know, you misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that
Trump will.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
You're saying they're going to get what they want out
of it.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
Yeah. What I'm saying is that if you're You're Lensky,
You've got one job. It's not to maintain your personal dignity.
It's to continue to get the flow of aid funds
and material from the United States. You've got it in
the migration. They wants to cut it off. When you
rise to the provocation, you make it easier for them
to do that. And that's why it's a mistake.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
I'm not talking about around that much. Though I'm not
sure he did much. I felt like he sat there
and took it and then realized that he wasn't going
to get a word, and that he was going to
and and you know, I.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
Think this is the dreams that people see different colors.
I saw Zelensky attempting to engage in and explain and
agent diplomacy, and then I saw I would have to say,
I agree with you, Francesca. I thought Trump advance behaved
like bullies at a level that would not be tolerated
amongst teenagers at school.
Speaker 6 (06:19):
I don't go into the bank, and I'm on to
the bank and give me an exction of an overdraft.
It doesn't matter how the bank officers act, you know,
to an extent leads you know, I'm not going to
go there, and I'm not going to annoy the bank.
Why even things like not dressing in the way that
the bank would expect me to dress. Now, I know
that doesn't seem fear on paper. It should all be
(06:41):
done on papers on the basis of the fundamentals of
the interests. But when you are going to the United
States to ask the United States for money, you have
a president who's got four years left in this term,
who's already skeptical of you. You just have to grin
and bear it, lie back and think of England a
little bit.
Speaker 5 (06:56):
But I think, well, actually, you know, Liam, I don't
think there would have gone any other way with Trump.
I think this was always how he was going to
play it, and I I genuinely think he is just
attempting to reframe the entire story with Zelenskys as you know,
an enemy to the state and putin as an ally
to America. And I would say, I you just think
(07:21):
who will be able to forget all of recent history
and believe that that is how things are.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
I mean, Lim, You've got a very You're right, Trump
knows what he wants to get out of it, and
he is that his concern is the position of the
United States. And I do tend to agree with you
in the approach that Trump has taken, if that's what
he wanted to achieve. But I think what we're all
looking for is a resolution at the end of the day.
And I'm just not entirely sure that the show that
(07:50):
was put on this morning, the face.
Speaker 5 (07:53):
From it, it just it feels like it's in no
one's interests.
Speaker 6 (07:56):
Well, put it this way, do you think after arguing
with them on camera it's more or less likely that
they're going to want to extend to Ukraine more or
less well the same.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
So so they Sorry, So you were saying that he
should have just sat there and let them have a
go at a not.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I don't think Trump's going to change his mind. I
think his attitude would be exactly the same in the
next meeting they have.
Speaker 6 (08:20):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
I don't.
Speaker 6 (08:21):
So then now you make it easier for him when
he's dealing with his own internal administration, with the Marco
Rubio's with Republicans in Congress, and yeah, I know, to
an extent, he's he's he's he's the boss. He's got
a lot of influence. But you don't have to make
it easy for him. For God's sake, Kim Jong one
was able to win him round.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
I don't know whether Zeninsky going was a good idea.
I think he should have lifted up to Macronsk.
Speaker 6 (08:51):
Campaigned with Democrats in Pennsylvania and places and last year
in the election, and that's and that looks very unwise
in retrospect. Maybe if she thought that they were going
to win, it might have seemed a smart thing to do.
But like I said, you don't have to make it
easy for Trump.
Speaker 5 (09:07):
I don't think anything is gained by acquiescing to a
dictator aggression.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
I don't.
Speaker 6 (09:14):
But that's not the question. That's not what the debate.
The question isn't whether or not you know Puden's and
the right or the wrong, or what the piece deal
looks like. The question is is you're going to represent
your country. You're going to go and ask for hundreds
of millions of dollars from someone who doesn't want to
give it to you. If I'm going to the bank
asking the bank for an extension of the overdraft, the
(09:34):
bank thinks I should turn up there in a suit.
I'm wearing a suit.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
Yeah, you know, I do see the point you're making, Limb.
I just I feel like there's a bigger picture here,
and you know, I think it's make America embarrassed again. Frankly,
it's just the whole thing. I just cannot believe what
we are seeing happening on the world stage.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
But I am loving this fiery start to the panel.
It's always good to get worked up first thing on
a Saturday afternoon, Limb. I love the energy you're bringing.
Speaker 6 (10:02):
I'll try and keep the contention up.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
Over it.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
I want to know, Liam, would you engage in a
citizen's arrest if you felt the need.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
Something would do?
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (10:16):
Look at it's entirely dependent on circumstance completely, you know,
Like I said, I know a little bit about the
law in this area actually, and so you know, like
I know when it's loud and when it's not. And
there's a real the current law is an absolute complete mess, right,
So you know, if it's after before or after nine o'clock,
it depends on the severity of the offense. If it's
(10:39):
after nine o'clock, then the offense has to be punished
for into the Crimes Act for at least three years.
If it's before nine o'clock, it night, it can be
so if it's after nine o'clock, it might it can
be an the offense at all.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Agreeing it's confusing, Yeah.
Speaker 6 (10:52):
Yeah, if it's at my house, I've got or premises that.
I lease, I've got a bunch of other rights to
arrest people, depending on what the offense is, including if
they're peeping in including al and I've got a right
to perform a citizens arrest if there's a breach of
the peace. But I'm a lawyer, right, and I had
the time this week to go and study it up
(11:13):
and look at the textbooks and things like that. At
the moment, the laws are real tangle in a mess,
and actually the citizens are rights, citizens rest rights. People
just don't know what they are. So, you know, I
would say to anybody, if you're going to make a
citizens the rest, don't unless you can avoid it, unless
it's save life or limb, because actually the chances are
you probably don't know what you're doing.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
I'm too scared these days to honkt somebody from my
car because of the abuse that I seek to get from.
I mean, people are angry out there, you know, Like
I'm very conscious of kind of you know, not upsetting
and confrontation of people I don't know, So I probably
wouldn't launch into one of these. But then it's not
about me, is it. It's about tackling retail crime. Oh,
and that's why this is all that we've had these
(11:54):
new rules around citizens' arrest announced.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
But ray was a struggle to find anyone who didn't
really greatly dislike the visible increase in crime and particularly
the really visible retail that we are seeing. You know,
But I just think so, Liam. Your point that the
existing laws are in absolute shambles one hundred percent agreement
from me. But it doesn't mean that this is any better.
I mean, words fail me at the stupidity of this proposal.
(12:18):
I think it will. You know, it has been condemned
by the Police Association, It's been condemned by.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
The Retail Association.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
I think it is a law that will lead to
packs of virgilantes, and they will be intimidating people they
won't like. And my hot take is that may just
perhaps disproportionately.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Be exercised against people from.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
Vulnerable and marginalized communities.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
My concern is, if this has been put in place
to tackle retail crime, then you're asking people to do
really a different job. Your current security officers and things
like that who are not will need to be trained
to do this. They're going to be taking on more responsibility.
They're going to have to be able to judge risk, probably,
(13:01):
aren't they, Liam, And they're going to be putting themselves
in more riskier situations. Some of them have to pay
for all this, and someone's probably gonna have to pay
them more. So I suppose, Well, the question is, is
it a good solution when you're just talking about retail crime.
Speaker 6 (13:13):
No, so two or three points sort of arising out
of that. So, first of all, I don't think anybody
has suggested that it's going to be a mandatory to
perform a citizens arrest, even if you are a security guard, right,
and in fact, the idea that you would have a
duty to arrest would be absurd, And the viewer the
fact that we had house and safety laws. Right, So
(13:33):
if I, as an employer, told my employee that they
had to try and arrest a shoplifter, well I would
be you know, maybe that maybe what they would have
some sort of legal immunity under the Crimes Act. But
as work safe, we have my gats for garters if
they would properly appropriately train.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
So it's a kind of pointless no.
Speaker 6 (13:50):
Not at all. Look, the next thing is to say,
you know, I actually don't think that the citizens arrest
sort of mechanism is the right one. But like, we
have this horrible problem in New Zealanders. We always think
we're inventing everything. But you know Canada. Canada has a
thing called shopkeepers privilege, where you know, shop shopkeepers are
(14:11):
allowed to and employees are are to detain for a
period of time a suspected shoplifter. Have it in the UK,
and they have it almost all states in America and
not just you might think, you know, that's you know,
Texas and in Florida, but no Massachusetts or the liberal
states have it. You know, those those places haven't become
(14:32):
like episodes of dog are down to yonder. What I
would say was.
Speaker 5 (14:35):
That thing proposedly, I mean, it's that anyone could detain anyone.
There's not even a protection for miners, you know, And
so I mean, well, you're saying it's a different a
different version of some sort of move against retail crime,
which you know, yeah, we do want to move against
retail crime.
Speaker 6 (14:52):
Oh no, So at the moment, if I if I
was to put something in my bag and just walk
out the shop right at the moment, and the security
guard was to reach out and grab the bag right
while I was wearing it. Now, if it was before
nine pm, he would have been committing an offense and
civil liability would have thatched to what he did as well.
(15:13):
If it was after nine it probably wouldn't. So that's
the absurdity there. If you go and you stand in
front of somebody who's trying to leave, because then they've
put something in your bag and say you say here,
you can't leave till the cops get here. That's false
imprisonment under the current law. So you know, I actually
agree with you. I don't think the citizens of the
rest is the right way to do it, because anyone
(15:34):
can do a citizens the rest right. So you're inviting
bystanders to take it upon themselves. But I think that
over the top hysterical reaction which he's just accompanied this,
which is you know, and I criticized Retail New Zealand
and the EMA for this. I called both those organizations
had a good chat to the retail in New Zealand.
No we thought had been given to the fact of
(15:55):
the precedent's overseas, where shopkeepers are allowed to detain suspected
choletis for a time, no duty to do it. They
don't have to do it, but they've.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
Got the to do it.
Speaker 5 (16:05):
I've been calling it a hysterical life reaction when we
have seen retail workers die already when inter intervening with theft.
I when we saw the dairy worker in Sandingham, that
was what was at twenty twenty two, there was a
police security guard and at countdown that was a few
years before.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
And so but why do you think they'll be forced
to do it?
Speaker 5 (16:23):
Do you think forward, Well, it's more that they are
putting themselves in harm's way, and they might write but
but hang on, hang on, So retail saying that we
want the ability to be able to detain and arrest people.
Speaker 6 (16:35):
Some are some.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Are so as you say, it's not compulsory. The ones
who are losing millions and millions of dollars who want
to step up and use this, then surely they are
going to expect. They're going to talk to their staff
and go, we would like you to.
Speaker 6 (16:48):
Stay what was again, look at what happens overseas. Look
at what happens overseas. Don't assume that we're creating something
from scratch. Look overseas. What happens is they hire appropriate
security staff who are trained, who know the law, who
know what they can they can't do, and know what
situations are unsafe to intervene in, which aren't. And you know,
I said, look overseas, and.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
That comes back to my point that it's going to cost,
there's going to be a there's going to be a
cost involved in this and not always you say, retailers
and want to get on board with.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
It, right, And if you're a retailer who's losing money
hand over fist to retail crime, you might think it's
a worthwhile investment, all right. And you know, and and
if you're appropriately trained, if you staff are appropriately trained,
you are taking on that rescue, are taking care of
their health and safety by not putting untrained staff into that.
I don't see, actually what the big problem in principle is.
(17:38):
I guess, you know, people making out there's going to
be a free for all, but that's not. The law
currently allows cizens the rest for any crime after nine pm,
and we don't have a dog the Bounty hundred type
retails environment after nine pm.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
Maybe that's because, like you sayum, nobody knows what rights
they actually have under there. I would say, in this
particularly tight labor market, you're right, no one will be
forced to do it, but there are definitely ways you
can bring pressure to bear. I think people might feel
like it's what's expected of them in this job market.
I think that's a realistic expectation.
Speaker 6 (18:09):
Well, I used to work in retail, and you know,
I remember once there was a coworker of mind tackled
someone who was shoplifting, just a human reaction, right like
sawn Leaving, grabbed him, tackled him out until the cops
got there, and of course he was you know, upbraided
and reprimanded because but you know, apart from the fact
(18:30):
that the legalities of it right, he put the workplace
at huge risk, risk of liability under the civil law,
apart from the fact that he may have committed in
an offense himself. And so I think you know, retailers
will continue to have policies where they say, don't intervene
because we don't want you to take on the risk
of getting it wrong or hurting yourself, and that would
(18:51):
expose us to liability from work safe. And again I
say again, look, overseas, we're not inventing something new here. Overseas,
you still have retailers saying, look, don't intervene. Don't intervene
unless you're properly We don't want to regular staff and devening.
They're not trained for it. You observe your report. But
some will hire security guards who are appropriately trained and
(19:13):
they will intervene in the right circumstances. So I just
think everyone needs to take a deep breath. I think
there's that we can take a construct We can either
we can either flip out at the suggestion as if
it's some sort of bizarre thing, or we can constructively engage.
And you know, I'll submit on that. Nine can to
submit on the law to criticizing it for being too broad.
(19:34):
But the principle I think is there's something to it.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
Thank you so much for your thoughts. And my guest
is our Joe mccarell and Liam here. You're with the
panel here on we can Collective. We're gonna take a
quick break. It is twenty six past three.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Bonny Mary, Bonny smoke, get on firms. I've been breaking
my bad just keeping the choses. Y'all no, I mean,
and y'all no, how we go.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
So you're the weekend Collective. Francesca Rudkin with you until
six to night. This as the panel. My guests are
Liam here and Joe McCarroll. And workplace drug testing has
revealed three point nine to nine percent of samples taken
in the last quarter of twenty twenty four tested positive
for the presence of drugs. I know, I didn't think
that was a huge amount, Joe. It has dropped. It's
(20:25):
dropped down from four point five to five percent in
the previous quarter.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
I actually I was slightly surprised too, Francisca. I was
surprised it wasn't higher, given how prevalent drugs can be
across New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
So what we're looking at here is cannabis is the
most prevalent. It accounts to about fifty nine point one
percent of cases. I don't think any of us would
be surprised by that. Water testing has revealed though, that
some rural communities have high drug use and amphetamine type substances,
(20:56):
which detected at twenty four point four percent. But really interestingly,
the chief executive of the Drug Detection Agency was most
concerned about the use of opioids, and that's twelve point
one percent from eleven point nine percent. So we're sort
of talking about and this apparently is a bit of
a growing trend and can cause workplace accidents lead to
of course, long term addiction. We're talking about things like
(21:19):
tramadolum and you know, a lot of time people are
taking these in order to carry on working, which is
a really big issue. Have you ever been drug tested
at work?
Speaker 5 (21:29):
No, I haven't. I would have always passed.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Just to be clear, have you ever been drug tested?
Speaker 6 (21:36):
Not once? And I'm not going to say anything further
to avoid self incrimination.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
But I suppose we have to take We have to
remember that there's there's certain industries which get drug tested,
and a lot of us who go and sit in
an office during the day probably don't get drug tested.
Speaker 6 (21:49):
Yeah, that's right. Look, I mean the rural stuff is
quite concerning. I'm with you, guys. I was sort of
surprised at how low it was, and I think that
might be in part the benefit of being an island nation,
where you know, we don't have a porous border where
things can easily get over to us. But when you're
looking at the rural sector in particular, you know, you've
got the fact that it's hard physical work. You know,
(22:12):
you will, you do suffer injuries, you do get you know,
sort of worn down and get a lot of pain.
But at the same time as you're often working with
tavy machinery and equipment and it's extremely dangerous anyway. And
I just wonder if you know, one of the things
that we have in this country is that we do
tend to take a ready, compliance oriented approach to drugs
(22:33):
in the workplace. And it's good to have compliances, good
to have policies in your workplace and allow you to
do that where safeties are concerned. But this is like,
not to sound too much like a liberal, but this
is one of those things where the root causes are
really the issue, right, And you know that the reason
why people have this dependence on these drugs is, you know,
(22:54):
perhaps because you know, we don't take good, good enough
care of our workers. We don't necessarily, you know, we
don't manage some of the downsides of rural life in
particular terms of the loneliness and some farmers they work,
their work is pretty pretty hard, you know. And so
I just wonder whether or not, you know, parts of
(23:15):
how we've traditionally done farming in New Zealand are going
to come back to buy this.
Speaker 5 (23:19):
I actually completely agree with you, Liam. I think it's
all absolutely true, and I think we also have to
be aware of how prevalent these drugs are in New Zealand.
I think there was some research out of the School
of Pharmacy at the University of Auckland last year that
talked about the quite sharp increase in the prescription of
opioid medications, and obviously those tend towards that kind of
lower lower range. I suppose, you know, codeine and tramadol,
(23:43):
but they still come with risks of dependency and risks
of you know, negative long term consequences. And I think
the US has actually mentioned that New Zealand is utterly,
you know, at high risk of a problem with drugs
in that opioid space because we are so naive about them.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
And I think you're right. I think there's sort of
a sense of duty of care there too, isn't he
If you're an employer and you've got someone I mean,
I know that I've spoken to a lot of people
on talkback when we've talked about drugs, and they've brought
up the opioids and then said, look, I got an injury,
but I've got to keep working otherwise I can't get paid.
So I got to drive my truck and I've got
to do this, and I've got to do that. And yet,
and it's good to hear that there is this call
(24:23):
for you know, businesses to just be a little bit
more aware of the signs and and and you know,
maybe kind of looking after their stuff a little bit
in these situations.
Speaker 6 (24:35):
What else to do. I'm continuing to speak otting it's
my own tribe a little bit. But I just think
in the rural sector and the agricultural sector, there there
is a there's just there has to be more modernization
of approaches to people management. And you know, we're still
a country where a lot of the farmers that we have,
they grew up working for themselves, they grew up working
(24:55):
through it. They grew up, you know, just thinking well,
it was good enough for me, it's good enough for
you guys. And it's just you can't keep we can't
just keep doing that right, and we can't expect our
workers to continue to work through pain. And we just
have to white the baller on that.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
I would agree with you one hundred percent about the
rural sector, Lam, but I would extend that because I
think you would see that in long distance driving. I
think you would see it in trades. I think across
a lot of different spaces where that idea of pushing
through or working through pain, or the fact that you
are not paid if you do not work, yes, puts
you at risk.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Liam, I'd like to know what you would say to
somebody who maybe came to see you and needed some
legal advice because they've gotten too a bit of a pickle,
but then told you that actually they're sovereign citizen and
none of the laws of New Zealand applying to them.
So could you just make that problem go away? Thanks,
it doesn't relate to me. Well, what would be your answer?
Speaker 6 (25:48):
So interestingly, I have come across sovereign citizens before, not
never defending them, but I've given advice to agencies and
organizations that have had to deal with them, and my
advice has always been the same, which is that you
might not recognize a sovereign of the crown, but that
doesn't matter. The crown recognizes the sovereignty of the crown,
(26:09):
and you're quite free to continue to have your views
from a jail cell. Basically, you know, I like it's
you know, we we have a top down monarchical government.
I know it's a democracy, but but but power flows
down from the crown. Thank god, it comes through Parliament.
But at the end of the day, being part of
(26:30):
a governed society is not a voluntary act.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
There are some subject and there are some benefits to it,
aren't there.
Speaker 5 (26:37):
Well, yea, you take the benefits, then you have your
shoulder the responsibilities. You know, you can't drive on the
roads and go to the hospital and you know, use
our public services and actually opt out.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
Do you think this is a huge time wasted though, Joe, I.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Can imagine how much time is wasted, and I cannot
imagine how frustrated it is for people in those frontline services.
I've actually got a friend who's a lawyer in the
public service, and she she can really tell you some.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
Of the.
Speaker 5 (27:09):
Vexed vexed dish. What's the word that I'm looking for there,
m there's a legal term for it, with vexatiousious you're
a vexatious litigant. But my favorite suggestion for this I
actually saw in the comments on a subreddit, which was
someone saying, you know, if you you don't want to
be involved in the society, take all of the soft sets,
put them on a deserted island and they've got no healthcare,
they've got no education, there's no food there. They can
(27:30):
just make it work and then the last one standing
gets a chance to come back as a participating member
and you call it the Munta games.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
I mean, the thing is so is that you know,
if you you don't have to recognize, if you don't
recognize the government, right, then you don't give consent to Okay,
And it's all very well and good, but you know
who's going to who are you calling on to liberate
yourself from prison or from the court processes? You know what?
You know, you've got to heck it up by overthrowing
the government or you've just got to submit to it.
(27:58):
And you know, I've always thought, look, we the public,
public sector, the police, the courts need to take them
most short shrift approach possible, but not entertaining it.
Speaker 5 (28:09):
We are seeing a real rise in it though, and
you do think, you know, it must be taking out
more and more time.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
When is it to be rare?
Speaker 3 (28:14):
And look at it was noted that it will. Yeah,
it was noted that we're not at the point where
it's having a material impact on the courts, but it is.
These arguments are becoming more.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
Common and potential escalations, you know, and so you think,
you know, do we need to invest more in mental health?
Speaker 6 (28:31):
Up for contempt? Loo up for contempt? That's sort of
you know, that you don't. You're denying the legitimacy of
the court. That's you know, called you in front of it.
That's fine, you're contempt. Have a few nights in the
cells until you are willing to accept the court's legitimate
I just think little tolerance as possible. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
I wonder if we should, like I say, investment mental
health services. Maybe this is going to be a bit
triggering for someone says, more controls around homeschooling, a little.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
More outside.
Speaker 5 (29:00):
And perhaps some basic civics lessons at high school might
be useful.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
Some solution, lock him up, various different solutions here for you.
On the panel today. It is a twenty to four.
My guests are Liam here and Joe McCarroll. Will be
back in just a moment. I think guy left him
somewhere are no long ago.
Speaker 6 (29:20):
And I want you're away now.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
From all the lovely.
Speaker 6 (29:25):
Things we had?
Speaker 4 (29:26):
Now where did we go?
Speaker 3 (29:29):
This is the week the Weekend Collective. It is the panel.
Liam Hare and Joe McCarroll my guests this hour, and
let's have a quick chat about the Andrew Bailey situation
which unfolded on Monday. Then kind of was no longer
about him by Tuesday, when the Prime Minister did an
interview with Mike Coskin here on breakfast on News Talk ZEDB,
(29:54):
and the story kind of kind of moved on a little.
But I'm going to be honest, the whole thing was
is a little bit odd in its lack of detail,
and I kind of get the f that maybe and
I'm just reading between the lines here Andrew Bailey, there
was another incident. He said, I've gone too far, a
little overbearing and appropriate, but I don't want to have
(30:16):
to go through I've had a couple of these now
I'm kind of done. I'm just going to resign as
a minister and all move on.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
That would show a self awareness that Andrew Bailey has
failed to demonstrate at any stage. Carrying this to me, Francisca,
but maybe I don't it just it all feels fairly orchestrated.
You know his statement, what the wording was, you know,
I took the discussion too far. I placed a hand
on the upper arm. I mean that that passive voice
(30:45):
is pretty suggestive, isn't it. It's very managed and having
the weekend to tell his family. I don't think that
timeline was appropriate I think.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
People should be allowed to have a bit of time
to assess things and work out what they want to
do and go forward and I don't knowly and work
out whether they you know, how things would pan out
if there was an investigation and things I didn't. I
didn't necessary mind the time that was involved. I just
it was just more than lack of detailing him that
was made it a little bit odd and a bit curious.
Speaker 6 (31:13):
It was so weird, so weird, like look full disclosure here,
by the way, I'm an I should say, I'm I
think I'm still anitiuady member. And but but you know,
Andrew Badley admit a few times like not really overly
surprised because he like and I don't think he Joe's right.
I don't think he has a great deal of self awareness,
not saying he's necessarily a bad guy or anything, but
(31:36):
like he's always come across to me as someone who
is just something of the Alan Partridge about him, if
if you sort of know the reference. But I think
he resigned on Friday and it was announce on Monday,
so it's not so much that he was thinking about
as future. It's just that there was a gap between
when it was decided and when the public was told
(31:56):
about it. And that's weird, you know, and father, you know,
I mean, government's very, very really messed the opportunity to
drop bad news on a Friday on Monday.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Right, Look, six o'clock on a Friday, and like they're
going to be lucky, it's going to be news on Monday.
That it's a great stage in the news cycle.
Speaker 6 (32:13):
And then you've got the interview with Hosking and you know,
my own miss is Mike Mosking, and he really put
lacks on through his paces and lax and just wouldn't
give him the easy answer that would get him off.
And I just couldn't. Nobody knows why. It's so weird.
And I've sort of tried to pump, you know, people
form of knowledge and can't get anything out of it.
I mean, I can only wonder whether or not there
(32:34):
was some sort of agreement that Bailey said he'd made
it easy to go. I'll go easily, but you can't
throw me under the beast too much.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
But it's simple, the really quick, simple answer when asked,
would have you fired him if he didn't resign? Was
I would have done an investigation and absolutely there you go.
We don't accept that.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
We don't accept behavior in the workplace that is, yeah,
und I am. But I don't think it said he
wouldn't give him. You're Hosking wouldn't give Hosking Laxon wouldn't
give Hosking an easy answer him. I just think you
wouln't give him any answer. I mean, it's just coming across.
Speaker 6 (33:04):
That's what's weird.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
That's what I mean.
Speaker 6 (33:05):
It's weird. And I just I just wonder if this
there was some sort of deal, you know, Bailey agreed
to go quietly. If Luxon wouldn't throw him under the
bus by saying he was going to get he would
find them. You know, you've got to play along with
it if there was a genuine resignation or you know,
you have to. You can't undermine the idea that it
was a genuine, genuine resignation rather than play along with it.
(33:26):
But you know, and then Luxeon was sort of painted
into a corner where he had a grit.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
I don't know, Bailey player there, you know, I mean,
Luxon should have said we're going to investigate and if
this is founding, you know, you'll you'll be dismissed and
then he could have resigned then, but the threat to dismissal.
I mean, Luxeon had the opportunity there to look like
a strong leader and I don't think he does.
Speaker 6 (33:46):
Yeah, but Bailey resigned first. So that's the thing, right,
so cool, it's weird, Like it's just the whole thing
is weird.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Wo to resign and resigned from his ports.
Speaker 6 (33:57):
For slavery is legal, you can't.
Speaker 5 (34:00):
I'm not saying you should be. I'm not saying he
should be detained against as well, but it's more that
he should have been. There should have been the threat
of dismissal immediately.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
It has proved to be as unaccepted.
Speaker 6 (34:14):
But I fairly got out there in front of it
in the minute became an issue. He resigned before anything
could be done. It's just weak. Like I said, there's
just something weird about it, and like, for the life
of me, I can't work out.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
I think we're all agreed that there's something else at
play here. Look, I just want to touch very quickly
before we get onto the break about these Chinese warships
off the coast of Australia. And you know in the
Testaman sea and of concern to New Zealand. This really
does feel like just testing the waters, sending a message
to Australia. The Chinese are just implying that they have
you know, their navy now has greater reach. They can
(34:46):
disrupt supply chains if need be the here there's a
bit of posture and going on, you know. And I
it's been very interesting to watch the response from both
Australia and New Zealand, and I think that they are
really waiting for a response from the US.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
Oh, I couldn't agree more. I think this is just
this is all posture, and I think it's absolutely something
where everyone needs to take a breath and calm down
and react, react in a calm way through diplomacy. I
think if it's just a sort of escalating cyber rattling
that just goes in no direction anyone wants to.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
Go, we're going to see more of this. But my
greatest concern is the Auckland to Sydney and Melbourne and
Brisbane kind of flights. It's like a harbor bridge between
our and that's what concerns me. I do not want
airlines picking up a message going oh, just a bit
of live fire down here, you might want to reut.
(35:43):
I'd quite like that to be a little bit more
formalized place.
Speaker 6 (35:46):
That's one There is one very good reason for some anxiety. Look,
I've got concerns about it. And the reason is that
we have been walking a tightrope between the USA and
China for a long time and we have actually we've
always tried to manage to balance the fact that at
the end of the day, we were Western democracy, but
(36:07):
we trade a lot with China and we've walked that line.
But there's a line that we can't walk, and that's
the we can't walk between China and Australia, right, and
so you know, we are tied to Australia in a
way that we're not for the rest of the Western Alliance.
You know, there's no there's hostility in Australia in China
(36:28):
or diplomatic problems. We just have to take the side
of the Australians. And it's a type rep that we
can't walk. And that's what gives me the more anxiety
about in the long term. It's not that contact with
the USA in China. It's between Australia and China. That's
where our interest really lies.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
I tend to agree with you. Thank you for your thoughts.
It's ten to four news talks B.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
So you can see.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
The big we can for the Warriors. They are in
course in Vegas tomorrow at one pm they play the
Canberra Raiders. This is the first game of the season
and it's going to be a big one. Apparently it's
going to be staged in front of one of the
biggest television audiences in the club's history. Four games taking
place over the weekend in Vegas, and the whole idea,
I think is to try and grow the sport in
(37:21):
the US. But Joe, I'm not entirely sure. A lot
has gone on to this. You should look at the schedule.
They're doing meet and greets, they're signing things, there's Polonish
music cappenings, all go for about three or four days
leading up to this. A lot's gone into it. Festival
of League in America. But I do wonder whether actually
(37:42):
it's going to increase the interest in League in America
at all.
Speaker 5 (37:45):
I think it's a hard nut to crack trying to
get trying to get your your sports across with the
American audience. But best luck to worries. I've got to say,
what a great time for the game to screen in
New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Though yeah, no, it's good.
Speaker 5 (37:56):
It's great. Like you know, so often we're just in
the wrong time zone. But yeah, one pm, sign me up.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Li, I mean you more empty. I don't even know
if you're a League fan. Are you a League fan?
Are you amped about watching them Vegas?
Speaker 6 (38:05):
Oh? Yeah, I'm a passing interest, you know, a rugby guy.
You know, Like I said, I'm not from Auckland and
league has got very concentrated regional support or even one
loves Warriors of course. And you know, I think that,
you know, American sports market is pretty enormous. I mean
it is, it's just huge. The Americans love sport like
nobody else. But even that has limits, right, And you
(38:29):
think about the fact that the league is really you know,
it's the north of England, it's Australia, and it's it's
the north of New Zealand, and you know, I mean
it's really I mean, how much of a sellable product
do they have there? But but good luck to them,
you know, and if nothing else, it's awesome for you know,
KI is in Australians overseas. Yes, the games.
Speaker 3 (38:49):
They're flocking and I hear it. If someone said to me, Hey,
Franchisco this week, would you like to go to Vegas
and watch the Warriors?
Speaker 4 (38:55):
Like?
Speaker 3 (38:55):
Yeah, Like I go, Oh, it feels a bit of
a hassle. I mean, I'd be there. I'd be I'd
be there in a flash. Apparently, apparently there's sort of
a great vibe on the street and everything. But I'm
not entirely sure that taking four teams over there and
putting on a weekend and things is going to mean
that the game is able to kind of break. I'm
not sure either. I don't think it's the second time
they've done this.
Speaker 5 (39:16):
I don't think it's necessarily going to break America.
Speaker 3 (39:19):
But maybe it's.
Speaker 5 (39:20):
Maybe it will, I don't. I mean it's possible. It
certainly won't happen if they just keep playing games here.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
You got to give it a go. Don't you roll
the dice on that one, I'd say, Joe McCall, Liam here,
thank you for a wonderfully robust panel here on the
Weekend Collective. Lovely to have you both with us. Coming
up next hour, we have the One Roof Radio Show,
and I'm joined by Nicole Lewis, who is a property investor,
and we're going to be talking about what's stopping women
(39:48):
from buying investment property and apparently investors our back, So
is this the time where you step up and invest
in property? That's coming up next here on Newstalk ZIBB.
If you're Sandy me breaking the Harbady, listen.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
For more from the Weekend Collective. Listen live to news
talks it'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk SAEDB,
debating all the issues and more. It's the panel on
the Weekend Collective on News Talk saed B.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Sometime I feel love God too, run away godzoo, get.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Away, run the pain you.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
Drive, and to love me.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Good afternoon and welcome to the Weekend Collective. I'm Francisca
rad Can filling in for Tim. He's going to be
back with you tomorrow. Today on the show after four pm,
we have the one roof radio show and I'm joined
by property investor Nicole Lewis. Now apparently investors are back
borrowing almost twice as much as a year ago, so
we're going to discuss whether this is a good time
to invest and also why women don't invest in property
(00:58):
as much as men. After five, John Cowen joins me
on the Parent Squad. And at this time of the year,
any parents are dealing with teenagers leaving home, some for
the first time, either to university or maybe on an oe,
and it can be a bit rocky for both parent
and teen And I'm sure that John is going to
have some sage advice as to how we deal with
this stage of life. It's great to have you with us.
(01:20):
It is seven past three.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Coming up now with you your weekend, Your Way for
the weekend collective with Francesca Rudkin. News Talk said, be.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
We have the panel, and I am thrilled to welcome
to the panel today our commentator and editor at New
Zealand Gardener Joe McCarroll. Good afternoon, let's get that mic on.
Thank you very much, and also welcoming Liam here, who
is a commentator and partner at Freebahn and Heir Lawyers.
Good afternoon, Liam, Good hell over you both. Good to
(01:52):
have you both with us.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Now.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Look, I am no diplomat, but after watching Trump and
Zelenski and a Dvance have a rather heated exchange in
the Oval offices, I don't think that there was anything
diplomatic about what took place, even though Advance kept calling
for diplomatic measures.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
Show Oh, I've seen a higher standard of diplomatic language,
and you know, Matt time at the primers, it felt
like an absolutely, it felt like an ambush to me.
I think Trump set that up to reframe Zelenski as
a villain and reframe Putin as an ally. And I
am shocked to think that he might succeed in doing that.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
Did you see it, Liam, Yeah, I have watched it,
and your thoughts, well, Look, I think these types of meetings,
these types of robust six straight changes, they.
Speaker 6 (02:48):
Do happen in the planacy, but normally behind closed doors,
and the most we might see of it or hear
of it is the leaked discussions afterwards, you know, where
sources say that you know they had this kind of
confrontation or argument, and it was quite astonishing to see
it play out in public. I have to say. It
(03:09):
might be your opinion, but I really think it was
a mistake for Zelensky to If you think it was
a provocation of by Trump advance, it was a mistake
for him to rise to it. No matter the rights
and the wrongs of it. He's the one going there
as a supplicant. He's the one who needs them more
than they need him. And you know, when you're going
there as a supplicant, you have to there's a certain
(03:31):
amount of humiliation you just have to endure. And the
question I would have would be, after that argument and
all that that display, is it more or less likely
that money and material will continue flowing from the United
States to Ukraine, and the answer has got to be
less likely, right, And maybe that's what Trump and Advance intended.
(03:53):
But you know, it's not that hard to take. It's
not that hard to get on Trump's good side as
a foreign leader. Kim Jong un figured it out.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
I just really have to say, I really would challenge
that point of view.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Liam.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
I mean, I think an independent Ukraine is in the
interests of the Western world. I think, you know the
fact that Vance and Trump are, you know, pushing against
the idea that that this is in their own best interest,
and that is aside from the deal on minerals, which
is absolutely in the US best interest. I think the
(04:27):
idea that that Zelenski is a supplicants, I think that
is the narrative Trump is pushing, but I don't think
it is anyway true.
Speaker 6 (04:37):
He definitely is a supplicant. Who who needs more? Who
needs more, who's they're going there, who's paying money to, who,
Who's who's needing aid from home? Ukraine's giving? Do you need.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
To disrespect people and sort of throw that in their faces?
I mean, the guy has been his country's being torn apart,
people are dying there at war, and Trump is sort
of taunting him, going, we've got all the cards, We've
got all the cards, and then they're speaking to him
like I would have spoken to my kids when they
were smaller, like where's your toitude say thank you? I
don't know. I'm not entirely surely and that actually, and
(05:10):
I get your point. We're all we're all trying to
take that step towards peace and find a resolution.
Speaker 6 (05:14):
I'm not saying that at all.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
I'm not entirely sure we are going to get there.
Speaker 6 (05:18):
That's you know, you misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that
Trump will.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
You're saying they're going to get what they want out
of it.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
Yeah. What I'm saying is that if you're You're Lensky,
You've got one job. It's not to maintain your personal dignity.
It's to continue to get the flow of aid funds
and material from the United States. You've got it in
the migration. They wants to cut it off. When you
rise to the provocation, you make it easier for them
to do that. And that's why it's a mistake.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
I'm not talking about around that much. Though I'm not
sure he did much. I felt like he sat there
and took it and then realized that he wasn't going
to get a word, and that he was going to
and and you know, I.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
Think this is the dreams that people see different colors.
I saw Zelensky attempting to engage in and explain and
agent diplomacy, and then I saw I would have to say,
I agree with you, Francesca. I thought Trump advance behaved
like bullies at a level that would not be tolerated
amongst teenagers at school.
Speaker 6 (06:19):
I don't go into the bank, and I'm on to
the bank and give me an exction of an overdraft.
It doesn't matter how the bank officers act, you know,
to an extent leads you know, I'm not going to
go there, and I'm not going to annoy the bank.
Why even things like not dressing in the way that
the bank would expect me to dress. Now, I know
that doesn't seem fear on paper. It should all be
(06:41):
done on papers on the basis of the fundamentals of
the interests. But when you are going to the United
States to ask the United States for money, you have
a president who's got four years left in this term,
who's already skeptical of you. You just have to grin
and bear it, lie back and think of England a
little bit.
Speaker 5 (06:56):
But I think, well, actually, you know, Liam, I don't
think there would have gone any other way with Trump.
I think this was always how he was going to
play it, and I I genuinely think he is just
attempting to reframe the entire story with Zelenskys as you know,
an enemy to the state and putin as an ally
to America. And I would say, I you just think
(07:21):
who will be able to forget all of recent history
and believe that that is how things are.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
I mean, Lim, You've got a very You're right, Trump
knows what he wants to get out of it, and
he is that his concern is the position of the
United States. And I do tend to agree with you
in the approach that Trump has taken, if that's what
he wanted to achieve. But I think what we're all
looking for is a resolution at the end of the day.
And I'm just not entirely sure that the show that
(07:50):
was put on this morning, the face.
Speaker 5 (07:53):
From it, it just it feels like it's in no
one's interests.
Speaker 6 (07:56):
Well, put it this way, do you think after arguing
with them on camera it's more or less likely that
they're going to want to extend to Ukraine more or
less well the same.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
So so they Sorry, So you were saying that he
should have just sat there and let them have a
go at a not.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I don't think Trump's going to change his mind. I
think his attitude would be exactly the same in the
next meeting they have.
Speaker 6 (08:20):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
I don't.
Speaker 6 (08:21):
So then now you make it easier for him when
he's dealing with his own internal administration, with the Marco
Rubio's with Republicans in Congress, and yeah, I know, to
an extent, he's he's he's he's the boss. He's got
a lot of influence. But you don't have to make
it easy for him. For God's sake, Kim Jong one
was able to win him round.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
I don't know whether Zeninsky going was a good idea.
I think he should have lifted up to Macronsk.
Speaker 6 (08:51):
Campaigned with Democrats in Pennsylvania and places and last year
in the election, and that's and that looks very unwise
in retrospect. Maybe if she thought that they were going
to win, it might have seemed a smart thing to do.
But like I said, you don't have to make it
easy for Trump.
Speaker 5 (09:07):
I don't think anything is gained by acquiescing to a
dictator aggression.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
I don't.
Speaker 6 (09:14):
But that's not the question. That's not what the debate.
The question isn't whether or not you know Puden's and
the right or the wrong, or what the piece deal
looks like. The question is is you're going to represent
your country. You're going to go and ask for hundreds
of millions of dollars from someone who doesn't want to
give it to you. If I'm going to the bank
asking the bank for an extension of the overdraft, the
(09:34):
bank thinks I should turn up there in a suit.
I'm wearing a suit.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
Yeah, you know, I do see the point you're making, Limb.
I just I feel like there's a bigger picture here,
and you know, I think it's make America embarrassed again. Frankly,
it's just the whole thing. I just cannot believe what
we are seeing happening on the world stage.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
But I am loving this fiery start to the panel.
It's always good to get worked up first thing on
a Saturday afternoon, Limb. I love the energy you're bringing.
Speaker 6 (10:02):
I'll try and keep the contention up.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
Over it.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
I want to know, Liam, would you engage in a
citizen's arrest if you felt the need.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
Something would do?
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (10:16):
Look at it's entirely dependent on circumstance completely, you know,
Like I said, I know a little bit about the
law in this area actually, and so you know, like
I know when it's loud and when it's not. And
there's a real the current law is an absolute complete mess, right,
So you know, if it's after before or after nine o'clock,
it depends on the severity of the offense. If it's
(10:39):
after nine o'clock, then the offense has to be punished
for into the Crimes Act for at least three years.
If it's before nine o'clock, it night, it can be
so if it's after nine o'clock, it might it can
be an the offense at all.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Agreeing it's confusing, Yeah.
Speaker 6 (10:52):
Yeah, if it's at my house, I've got or premises that.
I lease, I've got a bunch of other rights to
arrest people, depending on what the offense is, including if
they're peeping in including al and I've got a right
to perform a citizens arrest if there's a breach of
the peace. But I'm a lawyer, right, and I had
the time this week to go and study it up
(11:13):
and look at the textbooks and things like that. At
the moment, the laws are real tangle in a mess,
and actually the citizens are rights, citizens rest rights. People
just don't know what they are. So, you know, I
would say to anybody, if you're going to make a
citizens the rest, don't unless you can avoid it, unless
it's save life or limb, because actually the chances are
you probably don't know what you're doing.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
I'm too scared these days to honkt somebody from my
car because of the abuse that I seek to get from.
I mean, people are angry out there, you know, Like
I'm very conscious of kind of you know, not upsetting
and confrontation of people I don't know, So I probably
wouldn't launch into one of these. But then it's not
about me, is it. It's about tackling retail crime. Oh,
and that's why this is all that we've had these
(11:54):
new rules around citizens' arrest announced.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
But ray was a struggle to find anyone who didn't
really greatly dislike the visible increase in crime and particularly
the really visible retail that we are seeing. You know,
But I just think so, Liam. Your point that the
existing laws are in absolute shambles one hundred percent agreement
from me. But it doesn't mean that this is any better.
I mean, words fail me at the stupidity of this proposal.
(12:18):
I think it will. You know, it has been condemned
by the Police Association, It's been condemned by.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
The Retail Association.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
I think it is a law that will lead to
packs of virgilantes, and they will be intimidating people they
won't like. And my hot take is that may just
perhaps disproportionately.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Be exercised against people from.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
Vulnerable and marginalized communities.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
My concern is, if this has been put in place
to tackle retail crime, then you're asking people to do
really a different job. Your current security officers and things
like that who are not will need to be trained
to do this. They're going to be taking on more responsibility.
They're going to have to be able to judge risk, probably,
(13:01):
aren't they, Liam, And they're going to be putting themselves
in more riskier situations. Some of them have to pay
for all this, and someone's probably gonna have to pay
them more. So I suppose, Well, the question is, is
it a good solution when you're just talking about retail crime.
Speaker 6 (13:13):
No, so two or three points sort of arising out
of that. So, first of all, I don't think anybody
has suggested that it's going to be a mandatory to
perform a citizens arrest, even if you are a security guard, right,
and in fact, the idea that you would have a
duty to arrest would be absurd, And the viewer the
fact that we had house and safety laws. Right, So
(13:33):
if I, as an employer, told my employee that they
had to try and arrest a shoplifter, well I would
be you know, maybe that maybe what they would have
some sort of legal immunity under the Crimes Act. But
as work safe, we have my gats for garters if
they would properly appropriately train.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
So it's a kind of pointless no.
Speaker 6 (13:50):
Not at all. Look, the next thing is to say,
you know, I actually don't think that the citizens arrest
sort of mechanism is the right one. But like, we
have this horrible problem in New Zealanders. We always think
we're inventing everything. But you know Canada. Canada has a
thing called shopkeepers privilege, where you know, shop shopkeepers are
(14:11):
allowed to and employees are are to detain for a
period of time a suspected shoplifter. Have it in the UK,
and they have it almost all states in America and
not just you might think, you know, that's you know,
Texas and in Florida, but no Massachusetts or the liberal
states have it. You know, those those places haven't become
(14:32):
like episodes of dog are down to yonder. What I
would say was.
Speaker 5 (14:35):
That thing proposedly, I mean, it's that anyone could detain anyone.
There's not even a protection for miners, you know, And
so I mean, well, you're saying it's a different a
different version of some sort of move against retail crime,
which you know, yeah, we do want to move against
retail crime.
Speaker 6 (14:52):
Oh no, So at the moment, if I if I
was to put something in my bag and just walk
out the shop right at the moment, and the security
guard was to reach out and grab the bag right
while I was wearing it. Now, if it was before
nine pm, he would have been committing an offense and
civil liability would have thatched to what he did as well.
(15:13):
If it was after nine it probably wouldn't. So that's
the absurdity there. If you go and you stand in
front of somebody who's trying to leave, because then they've
put something in your bag and say you say here,
you can't leave till the cops get here. That's false
imprisonment under the current law. So you know, I actually
agree with you. I don't think the citizens of the
rest is the right way to do it, because anyone
(15:34):
can do a citizens the rest right. So you're inviting
bystanders to take it upon themselves. But I think that
over the top hysterical reaction which he's just accompanied this,
which is you know, and I criticized Retail New Zealand
and the EMA for this. I called both those organizations
had a good chat to the retail in New Zealand.
No we thought had been given to the fact of
(15:55):
the precedent's overseas, where shopkeepers are allowed to detain suspected
choletis for a time, no duty to do it. They
don't have to do it, but they've.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
Got the to do it.
Speaker 5 (16:05):
I've been calling it a hysterical life reaction when we
have seen retail workers die already when inter intervening with theft.
I when we saw the dairy worker in Sandingham, that
was what was at twenty twenty two, there was a
police security guard and at countdown that was a few
years before.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
And so but why do you think they'll be forced
to do it?
Speaker 5 (16:23):
Do you think forward, Well, it's more that they are
putting themselves in harm's way, and they might write but
but hang on, hang on, So retail saying that we
want the ability to be able to detain and arrest people.
Speaker 6 (16:35):
Some are some.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Are so as you say, it's not compulsory. The ones
who are losing millions and millions of dollars who want
to step up and use this, then surely they are
going to expect. They're going to talk to their staff
and go, we would like you to.
Speaker 6 (16:48):
Stay what was again, look at what happens overseas. Look
at what happens overseas. Don't assume that we're creating something
from scratch. Look overseas. What happens is they hire appropriate
security staff who are trained, who know the law, who
know what they can they can't do, and know what
situations are unsafe to intervene in, which aren't. And you know,
I said, look overseas, and.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
That comes back to my point that it's going to cost,
there's going to be a there's going to be a
cost involved in this and not always you say, retailers
and want to get on board with.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
It, right, And if you're a retailer who's losing money
hand over fist to retail crime, you might think it's
a worthwhile investment, all right. And you know, and and
if you're appropriately trained, if you staff are appropriately trained,
you are taking on that rescue, are taking care of
their health and safety by not putting untrained staff into that.
I don't see, actually what the big problem in principle is.
(17:38):
I guess, you know, people making out there's going to
be a free for all, but that's not. The law
currently allows cizens the rest for any crime after nine pm,
and we don't have a dog the Bounty hundred type
retails environment after nine pm.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
Maybe that's because, like you sayum, nobody knows what rights
they actually have under there. I would say, in this
particularly tight labor market, you're right, no one will be
forced to do it, but there are definitely ways you
can bring pressure to bear. I think people might feel
like it's what's expected of them in this job market.
I think that's a realistic expectation.
Speaker 6 (18:09):
Well, I used to work in retail, and you know,
I remember once there was a coworker of mind tackled
someone who was shoplifting, just a human reaction, right like
sawn Leaving, grabbed him, tackled him out until the cops
got there, and of course he was you know, upbraided
and reprimanded because but you know, apart from the fact
(18:30):
that the legalities of it right, he put the workplace
at huge risk, risk of liability under the civil law,
apart from the fact that he may have committed in
an offense himself. And so I think you know, retailers
will continue to have policies where they say, don't intervene
because we don't want you to take on the risk
of getting it wrong or hurting yourself, and that would
(18:51):
expose us to liability from work safe. And again I
say again, look, overseas, we're not inventing something new here. Overseas,
you still have retailers saying, look, don't intervene. Don't intervene
unless you're properly We don't want to regular staff and devening.
They're not trained for it. You observe your report. But
some will hire security guards who are appropriately trained and
(19:13):
they will intervene in the right circumstances. So I just
think everyone needs to take a deep breath. I think
there's that we can take a construct We can either
we can either flip out at the suggestion as if
it's some sort of bizarre thing, or we can constructively engage.
And you know, I'll submit on that. Nine can to
submit on the law to criticizing it for being too broad.
(19:34):
But the principle I think is there's something to it.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
Thank you so much for your thoughts. And my guest
is our Joe mccarell and Liam here. You're with the
panel here on we can Collective. We're gonna take a
quick break. It is twenty six past three.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Bonny Mary, Bonny smoke, get on firms. I've been breaking
my bad just keeping the choses. Y'all no, I mean,
and y'all no, how we go.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
So you're the weekend Collective. Francesca Rudkin with you until
six to night. This as the panel. My guests are
Liam here and Joe McCarroll. And workplace drug testing has
revealed three point nine to nine percent of samples taken
in the last quarter of twenty twenty four tested positive
for the presence of drugs. I know, I didn't think
that was a huge amount, Joe. It has dropped. It's
(20:25):
dropped down from four point five to five percent in
the previous quarter.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
I actually I was slightly surprised too, Francisca. I was
surprised it wasn't higher, given how prevalent drugs can be
across New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
So what we're looking at here is cannabis is the
most prevalent. It accounts to about fifty nine point one
percent of cases. I don't think any of us would
be surprised by that. Water testing has revealed though, that
some rural communities have high drug use and amphetamine type substances,
(20:56):
which detected at twenty four point four percent. But really interestingly,
the chief executive of the Drug Detection Agency was most
concerned about the use of opioids, and that's twelve point
one percent from eleven point nine percent. So we're sort
of talking about and this apparently is a bit of
a growing trend and can cause workplace accidents lead to
of course, long term addiction. We're talking about things like
(21:19):
tramadolum and you know, a lot of time people are
taking these in order to carry on working, which is
a really big issue. Have you ever been drug tested
at work?
Speaker 5 (21:29):
No, I haven't. I would have always passed.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Just to be clear, have you ever been drug tested?
Speaker 6 (21:36):
Not once? And I'm not going to say anything further
to avoid self incrimination.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
But I suppose we have to take We have to
remember that there's there's certain industries which get drug tested,
and a lot of us who go and sit in
an office during the day probably don't get drug tested.
Speaker 6 (21:49):
Yeah, that's right. Look, I mean the rural stuff is
quite concerning. I'm with you, guys. I was sort of
surprised at how low it was, and I think that
might be in part the benefit of being an island nation,
where you know, we don't have a porous border where
things can easily get over to us. But when you're
looking at the rural sector in particular, you know, you've
got the fact that it's hard physical work. You know,
(22:12):
you will, you do suffer injuries, you do get you know,
sort of worn down and get a lot of pain.
But at the same time as you're often working with
tavy machinery and equipment and it's extremely dangerous anyway. And
I just wonder if you know, one of the things
that we have in this country is that we do
tend to take a ready, compliance oriented approach to drugs
(22:33):
in the workplace. And it's good to have compliances, good
to have policies in your workplace and allow you to
do that where safeties are concerned. But this is like,
not to sound too much like a liberal, but this
is one of those things where the root causes are
really the issue, right, And you know that the reason
why people have this dependence on these drugs is, you know,
(22:54):
perhaps because you know, we don't take good, good enough
care of our workers. We don't necessarily, you know, we
don't manage some of the downsides of rural life in
particular terms of the loneliness and some farmers they work,
their work is pretty pretty hard, you know. And so
I just wonder whether or not, you know, parts of
(23:15):
how we've traditionally done farming in New Zealand are going
to come back to buy this.
Speaker 5 (23:19):
I actually completely agree with you, Liam. I think it's
all absolutely true, and I think we also have to
be aware of how prevalent these drugs are in New Zealand.
I think there was some research out of the School
of Pharmacy at the University of Auckland last year that
talked about the quite sharp increase in the prescription of
opioid medications, and obviously those tend towards that kind of
lower lower range. I suppose, you know, codeine and tramadol,
(23:43):
but they still come with risks of dependency and risks
of you know, negative long term consequences. And I think
the US has actually mentioned that New Zealand is utterly,
you know, at high risk of a problem with drugs
in that opioid space because we are so naive about them.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
And I think you're right. I think there's sort of
a sense of duty of care there too, isn't he
If you're an employer and you've got someone I mean,
I know that I've spoken to a lot of people
on talkback when we've talked about drugs, and they've brought
up the opioids and then said, look, I got an injury,
but I've got to keep working otherwise I can't get paid.
So I got to drive my truck and I've got
to do this, and I've got to do that. And yet,
and it's good to hear that there is this call
(24:23):
for you know, businesses to just be a little bit
more aware of the signs and and and you know,
maybe kind of looking after their stuff a little bit
in these situations.
Speaker 6 (24:35):
What else to do. I'm continuing to speak otting it's
my own tribe a little bit. But I just think
in the rural sector and the agricultural sector, there there
is a there's just there has to be more modernization
of approaches to people management. And you know, we're still
a country where a lot of the farmers that we have,
they grew up working for themselves, they grew up working
(24:55):
through it. They grew up, you know, just thinking well,
it was good enough for me, it's good enough for
you guys. And it's just you can't keep we can't
just keep doing that right, and we can't expect our
workers to continue to work through pain. And we just
have to white the baller on that.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
I would agree with you one hundred percent about the
rural sector, Lam, but I would extend that because I
think you would see that in long distance driving. I
think you would see it in trades. I think across
a lot of different spaces where that idea of pushing
through or working through pain, or the fact that you
are not paid if you do not work, yes, puts
you at risk.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Liam, I'd like to know what you would say to
somebody who maybe came to see you and needed some
legal advice because they've gotten too a bit of a pickle,
but then told you that actually they're sovereign citizen and
none of the laws of New Zealand applying to them.
So could you just make that problem go away? Thanks,
it doesn't relate to me. Well, what would be your answer?
Speaker 6 (25:48):
So interestingly, I have come across sovereign citizens before, not
never defending them, but I've given advice to agencies and
organizations that have had to deal with them, and my
advice has always been the same, which is that you
might not recognize a sovereign of the crown, but that
doesn't matter. The crown recognizes the sovereignty of the crown,
(26:09):
and you're quite free to continue to have your views
from a jail cell. Basically, you know, I like it's
you know, we we have a top down monarchical government.
I know it's a democracy, but but but power flows
down from the crown. Thank god, it comes through Parliament.
But at the end of the day, being part of
(26:30):
a governed society is not a voluntary act.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
There are some subject and there are some benefits to it,
aren't there.
Speaker 5 (26:37):
Well, yea, you take the benefits, then you have your
shoulder the responsibilities. You know, you can't drive on the
roads and go to the hospital and you know, use
our public services and actually opt out.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
Do you think this is a huge time wasted though, Joe, I.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Can imagine how much time is wasted, and I cannot
imagine how frustrated it is for people in those frontline services.
I've actually got a friend who's a lawyer in the
public service, and she she can really tell you some.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
Of the.
Speaker 5 (27:09):
Vexed vexed dish. What's the word that I'm looking for there,
m there's a legal term for it, with vexatiousious you're
a vexatious litigant. But my favorite suggestion for this I
actually saw in the comments on a subreddit, which was
someone saying, you know, if you you don't want to
be involved in the society, take all of the soft sets,
put them on a deserted island and they've got no healthcare,
they've got no education, there's no food there. They can
(27:30):
just make it work and then the last one standing
gets a chance to come back as a participating member
and you call it the Munta games.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
I mean, the thing is so is that you know,
if you you don't have to recognize, if you don't
recognize the government, right, then you don't give consent to Okay,
And it's all very well and good, but you know
who's going to who are you calling on to liberate
yourself from prison or from the court processes? You know what?
You know, you've got to heck it up by overthrowing
the government or you've just got to submit to it.
(27:58):
And you know, I've always thought, look, we the public,
public sector, the police, the courts need to take them
most short shrift approach possible, but not entertaining it.
Speaker 5 (28:09):
We are seeing a real rise in it though, and
you do think, you know, it must be taking out
more and more time.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
When is it to be rare?
Speaker 3 (28:14):
And look at it was noted that it will. Yeah,
it was noted that we're not at the point where
it's having a material impact on the courts, but it is.
These arguments are becoming more.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
Common and potential escalations, you know, and so you think,
you know, do we need to invest more in mental health?
Speaker 6 (28:31):
Up for contempt? Loo up for contempt? That's sort of
you know, that you don't. You're denying the legitimacy of
the court. That's you know, called you in front of it.
That's fine, you're contempt. Have a few nights in the
cells until you are willing to accept the court's legitimate
I just think little tolerance as possible. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (28:49):
I wonder if we should, like I say, investment mental
health services. Maybe this is going to be a bit
triggering for someone says, more controls around homeschooling, a little.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
More outside.
Speaker 5 (29:00):
And perhaps some basic civics lessons at high school might
be useful.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
Some solution, lock him up, various different solutions here for you.
On the panel today. It is a twenty to four.
My guests are Liam here and Joe McCarroll. Will be
back in just a moment. I think guy left him
somewhere are no long ago.
Speaker 6 (29:20):
And I want you're away now.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
From all the lovely.
Speaker 6 (29:25):
Things we had?
Speaker 4 (29:26):
Now where did we go?
Speaker 3 (29:29):
This is the week the Weekend Collective. It is the panel.
Liam Hare and Joe McCarroll my guests this hour, and
let's have a quick chat about the Andrew Bailey situation
which unfolded on Monday. Then kind of was no longer
about him by Tuesday, when the Prime Minister did an
interview with Mike Coskin here on breakfast on News Talk ZEDB,
(29:54):
and the story kind of kind of moved on a little.
But I'm going to be honest, the whole thing was
is a little bit odd in its lack of detail,
and I kind of get the f that maybe and
I'm just reading between the lines here Andrew Bailey, there
was another incident. He said, I've gone too far, a
little overbearing and appropriate, but I don't want to have
(30:16):
to go through I've had a couple of these now
I'm kind of done. I'm just going to resign as
a minister and all move on.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
That would show a self awareness that Andrew Bailey has
failed to demonstrate at any stage. Carrying this to me, Francisca,
but maybe I don't it just it all feels fairly orchestrated.
You know his statement, what the wording was, you know,
I took the discussion too far. I placed a hand
on the upper arm. I mean that that passive voice
(30:45):
is pretty suggestive, isn't it. It's very managed and having
the weekend to tell his family. I don't think that
timeline was appropriate I think.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
People should be allowed to have a bit of time
to assess things and work out what they want to
do and go forward and I don't knowly and work
out whether they you know, how things would pan out
if there was an investigation and things I didn't. I
didn't necessary mind the time that was involved. I just
it was just more than lack of detailing him that
was made it a little bit odd and a bit curious.
Speaker 6 (31:13):
It was so weird, so weird, like look full disclosure here,
by the way, I'm an I should say, I'm I
think I'm still anitiuady member. And but but you know,
Andrew Badley admit a few times like not really overly
surprised because he like and I don't think he Joe's right.
I don't think he has a great deal of self awareness,
not saying he's necessarily a bad guy or anything, but
(31:36):
like he's always come across to me as someone who
is just something of the Alan Partridge about him, if
if you sort of know the reference. But I think
he resigned on Friday and it was announce on Monday,
so it's not so much that he was thinking about
as future. It's just that there was a gap between
when it was decided and when the public was told
(31:56):
about it. And that's weird, you know, and father, you know,
I mean, government's very, very really messed the opportunity to
drop bad news on a Friday on Monday.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Right, Look, six o'clock on a Friday, and like they're
going to be lucky, it's going to be news on Monday.
That it's a great stage in the news cycle.
Speaker 6 (32:13):
And then you've got the interview with Hosking and you know,
my own miss is Mike Mosking, and he really put
lacks on through his paces and lax and just wouldn't
give him the easy answer that would get him off.
And I just couldn't. Nobody knows why. It's so weird.
And I've sort of tried to pump, you know, people
form of knowledge and can't get anything out of it.
I mean, I can only wonder whether or not there
(32:34):
was some sort of agreement that Bailey said he'd made
it easy to go. I'll go easily, but you can't
throw me under the beast too much.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
But it's simple, the really quick, simple answer when asked,
would have you fired him if he didn't resign? Was
I would have done an investigation and absolutely there you go.
We don't accept that.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
We don't accept behavior in the workplace that is, yeah,
und I am. But I don't think it said he
wouldn't give him. You're Hosking wouldn't give Hosking Laxon wouldn't
give Hosking an easy answer him. I just think you
wouln't give him any answer. I mean, it's just coming across.
Speaker 6 (33:04):
That's what's weird.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
That's what I mean.
Speaker 6 (33:05):
It's weird. And I just I just wonder if this
there was some sort of deal, you know, Bailey agreed
to go quietly. If Luxon wouldn't throw him under the
bus by saying he was going to get he would
find them. You know, you've got to play along with
it if there was a genuine resignation or you know,
you have to. You can't undermine the idea that it
was a genuine, genuine resignation rather than play along with it.
(33:26):
But you know, and then Luxeon was sort of painted
into a corner where he had a grit.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
I don't know, Bailey player there, you know, I mean,
Luxon should have said we're going to investigate and if
this is founding, you know, you'll you'll be dismissed and
then he could have resigned then, but the threat to dismissal.
I mean, Luxeon had the opportunity there to look like
a strong leader and I don't think he does.
Speaker 6 (33:46):
Yeah, but Bailey resigned first. So that's the thing, right,
so cool, it's weird, Like it's just the whole thing
is weird.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Wo to resign and resigned from his ports.
Speaker 6 (33:57):
For slavery is legal, you can't.
Speaker 5 (34:00):
I'm not saying you should be. I'm not saying he
should be detained against as well, but it's more that
he should have been. There should have been the threat
of dismissal immediately.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
It has proved to be as unaccepted.
Speaker 6 (34:14):
But I fairly got out there in front of it
in the minute became an issue. He resigned before anything
could be done. It's just weak. Like I said, there's
just something weird about it, and like, for the life
of me, I can't work out.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
I think we're all agreed that there's something else at
play here. Look, I just want to touch very quickly
before we get onto the break about these Chinese warships
off the coast of Australia. And you know in the
Testaman sea and of concern to New Zealand. This really
does feel like just testing the waters, sending a message
to Australia. The Chinese are just implying that they have
you know, their navy now has greater reach. They can
(34:46):
disrupt supply chains if need be the here there's a
bit of posture and going on, you know. And I
it's been very interesting to watch the response from both
Australia and New Zealand, and I think that they are
really waiting for a response from the US.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
Oh, I couldn't agree more. I think this is just
this is all posture, and I think it's absolutely something
where everyone needs to take a breath and calm down
and react, react in a calm way through diplomacy. I
think if it's just a sort of escalating cyber rattling
that just goes in no direction anyone wants to.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
Go, we're going to see more of this. But my
greatest concern is the Auckland to Sydney and Melbourne and
Brisbane kind of flights. It's like a harbor bridge between
our and that's what concerns me. I do not want
airlines picking up a message going oh, just a bit
of live fire down here, you might want to reut.
(35:43):
I'd quite like that to be a little bit more
formalized place.
Speaker 6 (35:46):
That's one There is one very good reason for some anxiety. Look,
I've got concerns about it. And the reason is that
we have been walking a tightrope between the USA and
China for a long time and we have actually we've
always tried to manage to balance the fact that at
the end of the day, we were Western democracy, but
(36:07):
we trade a lot with China and we've walked that line.
But there's a line that we can't walk, and that's
the we can't walk between China and Australia, right, and
so you know, we are tied to Australia in a
way that we're not for the rest of the Western Alliance.
You know, there's no there's hostility in Australia in China
(36:28):
or diplomatic problems. We just have to take the side
of the Australians. And it's a type rep that we
can't walk. And that's what gives me the more anxiety
about in the long term. It's not that contact with
the USA in China. It's between Australia and China. That's
where our interest really lies.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
I tend to agree with you. Thank you for your thoughts.
It's ten to four news talks B.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
So you can see.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
The big we can for the Warriors. They are in
course in Vegas tomorrow at one pm they play the
Canberra Raiders. This is the first game of the season
and it's going to be a big one. Apparently it's
going to be staged in front of one of the
biggest television audiences in the club's history. Four games taking
place over the weekend in Vegas, and the whole idea,
I think is to try and grow the sport in
(37:21):
the US. But Joe, I'm not entirely sure. A lot
has gone on to this. You should look at the schedule.
They're doing meet and greets, they're signing things, there's Polonish
music cappenings, all go for about three or four days
leading up to this. A lot's gone into it. Festival
of League in America. But I do wonder whether actually
(37:42):
it's going to increase the interest in League in America
at all.
Speaker 5 (37:45):
I think it's a hard nut to crack trying to
get trying to get your your sports across with the
American audience. But best luck to worries. I've got to say,
what a great time for the game to screen in
New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Though yeah, no, it's good.
Speaker 5 (37:56):
It's great. Like you know, so often we're just in
the wrong time zone. But yeah, one pm, sign me up.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Li, I mean you more empty. I don't even know
if you're a League fan. Are you a League fan?
Are you amped about watching them Vegas?
Speaker 6 (38:05):
Oh? Yeah, I'm a passing interest, you know, a rugby guy.
You know, Like I said, I'm not from Auckland and
league has got very concentrated regional support or even one
loves Warriors of course. And you know, I think that,
you know, American sports market is pretty enormous. I mean
it is, it's just huge. The Americans love sport like
nobody else. But even that has limits, right, And you
(38:29):
think about the fact that the league is really you know,
it's the north of England, it's Australia, and it's it's
the north of New Zealand, and you know, I mean
it's really I mean, how much of a sellable product
do they have there? But but good luck to them,
you know, and if nothing else, it's awesome for you know,
KI is in Australians overseas. Yes, the games.
Speaker 3 (38:49):
They're flocking and I hear it. If someone said to me, Hey,
Franchisco this week, would you like to go to Vegas
and watch the Warriors?
Speaker 4 (38:55):
Like?
Speaker 3 (38:55):
Yeah, Like I go, Oh, it feels a bit of
a hassle. I mean, I'd be there. I'd be I'd
be there in a flash. Apparently, apparently there's sort of
a great vibe on the street and everything. But I'm
not entirely sure that taking four teams over there and
putting on a weekend and things is going to mean
that the game is able to kind of break. I'm
not sure either. I don't think it's the second time
they've done this.
Speaker 5 (39:16):
I don't think it's necessarily going to break America.
Speaker 3 (39:19):
But maybe it's.
Speaker 5 (39:20):
Maybe it will, I don't. I mean it's possible. It
certainly won't happen if they just keep playing games here.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
You got to give it a go. Don't you roll
the dice on that one, I'd say, Joe McCall, Liam here,
thank you for a wonderfully robust panel here on the
Weekend Collective. Lovely to have you both with us. Coming
up next hour, we have the One Roof Radio Show,
and I'm joined by Nicole Lewis, who is a property investor,
and we're going to be talking about what's stopping women
(39:48):
from buying investment property and apparently investors our back, So
is this the time where you step up and invest
in property? That's coming up next here on Newstalk ZIBB.
If you're Sandy me breaking the Harbady, listen.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
For more from the Weekend Collective. Listen live to news
talks it'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
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
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.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.