November 8, 2024 • 40 mins
Today on The Panel, Tim Beveridge is joined by Pete Wolfkamp and Brad Olsen to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.
Donald Trump's landslide win, Treaty Principles Bill introduced to Parliament, medical school affirmative action programmes fall short, calls for a jet ski ban, and more!
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 SEDB,
debating all the issues and more. It's the panel on
the Weekend Collective on News Talk Saed Bayverday.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
So if you want to see am I yes, there
we are. Sorry a bit of a technical issue there.
(00:50):
I wasn't sure if I was coming across. Very good
afternoon to you. I'm Tim Beveridge. Welcome to the Weekend
Collective for the Saturday of the ninth of November. Goodness
made the year is just sprinting past. I think I
say that every week, don't know anyway, looking forward to
your company from three till right through it six o'clock
looking a little further. Ahare before I introduced my esteemed
panelists at four o'clock the One Roof Property, One Roof
(01:10):
Radio Show, should I say? Ed McKnight joins us. We're
gonna have a chat about Kiwibank's State of Ownership report.
There's some interesting stuff there and whether Kiwis have some
keys have given up on the owning a family home
at some stage, the old own your own home Kiwi dream.
You can have a chat about that, amongst other things.
That's the One Roof radio show to be taking your
calls in your text on eight hundred and eighty ten
to eighty and five o'clock Parents Squad, John Cowen, it's
(01:33):
exam season also in our house, and it's funny. It's
when the rubber hits the road and you, you know,
when you're sitting from a distance as a parent, but
all of a sudden, your kids are in the exam season.
We're gonna have a chat about controlling anxiety and actually,
how do you help your kids keep some sort of
perspective with all the pressure that seems to mount when
it comes to exam time. But right now it is
(01:54):
time for the panel and my panelists, well, the first one,
he needs no introduction. He is the I won't say
the elder Statesman, be course, it would seemed like it
was an insult, but of building. He's a resident builder,
all around good guy. He's got and he's Pete wolf
(02:14):
Camp getting nice older statesman. Not quite too young for that.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Yeah, well i'd like to think so.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
In the middling stated because I was going to say
middle age, but that I thought middling was better than
as it came out I thought.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
And actually.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
That's no good And anyway, look, I'm going to do
better this one. Okay, here we go. My next guest.
He is the max Brand of economics, the Maximus Sappen
of economics. I think that's quite good. And his name
is Brad Olsen. He's the CEO of in Metrics. Brad, Hello,
killed it good?
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Can I say? That was a much better intro than
Pete Swans? So thank you for that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
And of course you're coming to us from Wellington. How
you do? How you do? How's things in Wellington? Then Wellington?
Speaker 4 (03:04):
Well Ken's a bit windy today, so pretty par for
the course for the capital at the moment. But similar
to to you, Tom, just trying to get through to
the end of the year at the moment.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Hey, just before we crack onto our sort of scheduled
topics for the panel. I loved the All Blacks game today.
I just thought it was great to see us chalk
up a win against Arland. Did you manage to take
in the game there, people.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
I was listening to it on the radio while I was,
of all things, using the power back to mop the floors.
There you go, So I'm a multitasking I was, and
it was it was it was quite good fun.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
It was a good game. It was good to see,
wasn't it. And I'm back into the Harker. I think
I like the fact that they've got a more slightly
organic looking Hakker. They're slightly breaking the protocol and anyone's
walking towards each other. It's a bit of an intent.
What do you what do you think they're brad?
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Oh? No, it was it was it was. Look, it
was good to see the result, I think, most importantly
a win over Ireland at a time when you know,
we were a bit nervous I think going into the game.
But I tell you what, I saw the stitches that
said Kine's got in his head afterwards that looked pretty brutal.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
I haven't seen the stitches. I just saw the amount
of blood after I thought, man, that looks like a
significant win. But anyway, great when for the abs and
what do we got France? I think anyway, we'll talk
about that possibly in our sports rap. At the end
of the show. Speaking of big wins. Segueing to US politics,
Pete old Trump, he had a big win. Did you
(04:28):
see it coming?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Look, I think personally it was one of those things
that I hoped wouldn't happen, and then watching the inevitability
on the day and actually watching the process and the
voting results come through, I guess you just got to
accept it. And then did you watch the acceptance speech
so to speak?
Speaker 2 (04:49):
I heard it on my way and I was listening
to Marcus as show and played it and after five
minutes I was like, oh, no, it's going to start
to ramble now, and I sort of churned out, But
what did you what do you make?
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Well, it was exactly that. It was the sort of
when he talks about, you know, the genius that he
has being able to sort of go from topic to
topic to topic to topic and then come back to
the right place in the end. But you know, I
just stood there watching it with sort of random people
being introduced in the head of the UFC and then
a long rambling piece about Elon Musk's you know, rocket
(05:20):
ship coming back to Earth and being cradled like you
cradle a baby in the middle of the night. And
then I actually was in the car listening to Kamala
Harris's sort of speech as well, and just the contrast
between the two was remarkable in what way, Oh just
you know, concise, well delivered informed.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah, Brad your response.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Look, I mean, Wellington I don't think got a lot
of work done on a US election day. We were
all glued to the television or you know, the live
feed coming in. It was interesting. I was out at
the US Embassy's party. They have an election party down
here in Wellington that goes from I think one till five,
but they decided to sort of it. It ends at
five before most of the results had come in, So
(06:05):
I think it was probably around four o'clock that people
were starting to get a bit of a lean towards
where things were going. And it was a little bit
I guess probably for me, it was a bit more
of a shock of just how big the win was.
You know, at one point it was nearly impossible quite
quickly for Harris to win. Trump had taken all of
the swing states. You saw the Senate that had flipped
the House as likely to stay Republican. I mean, it
(06:28):
sort of just paves the way for him to do
quite a lot quite quickly. But and I think that
the challenge I've sort of had is, you know, I
think a lot of people have, funnily enough, got pretty
big views on this, but some of the responses from
the Democrats saying, you know, oh well we lost because
of you know, the media or whatever it was, just
did seem to lack a little bit of that understanding
of you lost, you lost big time, You maybe lost
(06:49):
the popular vote for the first time in quite a while,
and you're blaming sort of anyone but yourselves. Is you've
got to sort of look into yourselves and go, why
was it such a big shift?
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Yeah, I mean it was an astonishing win. Really, in
the comeback, I'll be honest, I'm not that thrilled about it.
I was dreading doing overnight Talk of the Night that
it all sort of had broken, and I thought it's
going to be five hours of toxicity. But I started
the show with the opening sort of scene when Bill
Murray wakes up on Groundhog Day. I played the audio
from that, and I thought, because it's groundhog Day and
(07:22):
sort of to try and inject a sort of bit
of humor into it. And actually, funnily enough, it was
interesting to have talk back about it and just sort
of talk it through, and everyone was actually quite reasonable
because eight years ago it was pretty toxic stuff and
at the end of it I sort of thought, oh, well,
you know, they've voted for what they've got. I mean,
if they get RFK as the head of health and
they take the Florida out of the water and you know,
(07:42):
make it difficult for scientists to do their job, then
that's what they voted for. So good on them.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yes, but it does have bigger implications. I think that's
the challenge writers that we've all been thinking this this week.
And I remember I said to some friends, you know,
New Zealand, when we vote, we're only thinking about what's
good for us. We don't necessarily think about the wider ramifications.
It's just that those wider ramifications of a New Zealand
election are not nearly as massive as the world's largest economy. So,
(08:08):
you know, I must say, the last couple of days,
the questions we've had around tariffs, around interest rates, around
global inflation, like there's a good chance now that the
US Federal Reserve doesn't need to drop interest rates as
much next year. So the wider implications for financial markets,
for people's Keiwi savers, all of that's quite large, So
a lot of digestioned, I think to go through. But
(08:29):
you're right, Look if we are getting, let's call it
slightly more sensible conversations than last time round, long mate, continue,
because that was a very challenging, very unpredictable, very poor
taste time, I think for a lot of people last
time round.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Ah, And I guess the Peter the thing is it
all hinges a little bit on his selections for his cabinet.
Who's the head of treasury, whose Secretary of Defense is
going to be because I do have the sense that,
I mean, he's going to be older than Biden when
he finishes, but he does give the sense in terms
of doing the hard work and the nitty gritty and
being for the detail. He leaves that to others. So
(09:08):
perhaps the most important decisions he makes who he puts
into some of those keys decisions. And by the way,
we missed out on the first women woman in the
role of president, but he has announced the first ever
female chief chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, which made me
think that's interesting, that's a nod fit. But of course
we're thinking of a different Susie whilse, aren't we, Petter.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Ferent spelling, Yeah, yeah, I guess the other thing too,
is that you know it is eight years after he
first took the presidency and the world didn't end right,
and so we're here to talk about it. So there's
a slightly more measured approach to it. But yeah, if
you think about someone like Robert F. Kennedy taking a
role and making us all healthy again.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
How he's an idiot. I mean, Robert F. Kennedy is
a conspiracy driven nutbag. Sorry. Oh yes, ra he thought
a worm at eating part of his brain, didn't he
That's right, Well, never make a lot of sense, It's right,
it's true.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Also the person that dumped the carcass in the deer carcass.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Or something that he's a strange dude. Yeah, he's an
interesting character. Hopefully he won't be the sort of person
that defines the Trump presidency.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
But I think this is the challenge. Right last time around,
Trump did put in a number of sort of let's
call them more sensible or at least more mainstream people
into his cabinet positions, into his sort of staff, and
that who you know. Invariably they got fired pretty quickly
when they got off side with him. But at least they,
I think, sort of tried to keep the train a
bit more on the tracks. There's a lot of people
saying this time, if you're going to have someone like
(10:40):
Elon Musk, you're gonna have someone like RFK that gets
in there, then do you immediately sort of just have
this completely unconstrained presidency. He knows that Trump knows you
can't go for it again. So you know, either you
go this sort of massive dictatorial route, or you just
sort of have everyone that's that's doing their own sort
of fun thing for the next four years, which sort
(11:01):
of ruins it for the rest of us. I mean,
I think this could get very vindictive. I wouldn't be
surprised if Trump comes in twentieth of January starts to
sort of draw up sort of a revengelist of here's
all the people that have slighted me the last four years,
and here's how I'm going to, you know, publicly run
them out to dry.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Although you know, maybe naively I'm trying to put my
optimistic hat on here, is that he does love it
when he wins, and so he was very bitter when
he lost, and he constantly denied it, and he drove
that narrative for four years that the election had been stolen.
And yet here he has, He's had this amazing comeback.
He's won by five million votes. I wonder if that
(11:39):
sort of victory actually mollifies him in terms of the
grievances that he has held as a defeated president or
Bolden now that well, so I don't know. I do
wonder whether that does mollify him a bit. It's a
bit like you know, giving the dog the bone that
they've sort of been seeking for a while and they
sort of go off and happily devour it for a while.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
I think you might be being a ted optimistic. I mean, look,
let's come back in a few months and see. But
I feel like all of the likely outcomes that I
can see from this that one is as narrow as
it currently is for Harris to somehow win on a
count back of votes. Or similarly, realistically, it's just going
to go it's going to go wild. I mean, the
man wants to bring in twenty percent tariffs on stuff,
(12:21):
and you know, some of these ideas are just sort
of I'm not going to say looney, but close.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Well, actually, now, can you give us just before we
get back to your Peter, you can on the economist
side of things, what do we know about what the
United States can actually do and who they're likely to
do it to when it comes to tariffs, because I
think a lot of the rhetoric's being directed at China.
But does it mean we get caught in the crossfire
or what?
Speaker 4 (12:43):
At to a degree? I mean, the idea seems to
be that Trump would put tariffs on sort of everything
now in a sense that means that New Zealand won't
get hit any more than we sort of currently are
for we currently get x percent of exports to the US,
will continue to get that. It's just in a year
or two time. Because of how tariffs work, it's US
consumers who are going to pay the additional cost. So overtime,
(13:04):
US consumers pay more of that, they've got less more
money overall, Therefore they can buy few of our exports.
The big question I think is one does he actually
do it in the first place? But two, if you
look at a lot of those tariff policies that he's
done in the past, he then gave out a bunch
of carveouts. You might remember, I think last time he
said that steel was a national security issue and so
(13:25):
put some tariffs on that. But gave Australia an exemption.
New Zealand didn't get one, So there's possibly a question
of one, what the impact of tariffs are too what's
the impact if you do or don't get an exemption.
But then also, I mean you look through some of
those figures. He wants to have all this deregulation, he
wants to have all of these tax cuts and similar
people have said that this could add a whole percentage
(13:46):
point onto inflation, and so again you know the risk
of higher interest rates than we all thought. That has
pretty big implications for mortgages, for kiwis over, for everything.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Blimey, what, Peter, what? Actually, I'll tell you what.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
I'm very much a big believer in there is no
such thing as a dumb question. So a question for you, Brad,
the tariffs. I was listening to one of the representatives
for the beef exporters from New Zealand, right, so they
sell a lot of beef that's kind of that commercial
grade stuff. It goes into patties and so on, but
it's highly regarded. So if for example, the Americans decide
(14:19):
right there's going to be a ten percent tariff on
New Zealand, beef who pays that.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
The economic theory suggests that generally it's your and consumers
that pay it, that the costs will be passed on
the other thing. And I mean just because you use
beef as an example that I think is an interesting
one where in some areas we're also seeing like quite
needed demand from New Zealand. The US beef stock is
I think it's lowest in like seventy years, So if
they want ground beef in that, they can't have as
(14:45):
much of it from the US as they might have previously.
And again, they're not all of a sudden going to
just breed heaps of cows in the next sort of
couple of months, so there'll still be that demand for it.
But it's that over time if everyone's paying ten to
twenty percent more on those tariffs, and eventually they've got
less money to spend on you know, just cumulatively. So
that's where it's going to hit us. It's sort of
that second order of And look, if the US isn't
(15:07):
buying as much because they've got tariffs in place, the
rest of the world isn't producing as much. If you've
got those Chinese manufacturing sites in that not producing as much,
there's probably not as many jobs. Not as many jobs
means not as much spending from Chinese consumers, and that
means our exports to China also don't do as well,
so global economic growth could be worse. And so again,
(15:27):
just some real concerns around that sort of economic tone
for the next couple of years.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Now are a few other issues to dig into before
we move on from this one and the other. I
guess the reason that perhaps I think out of all
New Zealand is twenty percent would vote for Trump, whereas
we've seen obviously more than fifty percent voted fro him.
But of course I think we are considered, we are
more mindful of geopolitical issues when it comes to think
of a guy at Trump, because really, who cares if
they put to take the fluoride out of the water
(15:51):
in America or not? That doesn't fit you, all right.
And if Vladimir Putin feels emboldened or if he doesn't,
he doesn't he doesn't want wars, and I guess the
questions that want what cost as well? What do you
make of that all, Peter?
Speaker 3 (16:03):
I mean, you know, if there's way of ending the
war in Ukraine is simply saying to putin will have it?
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Yeah you win? Yeah, then that's not good. No, I don't, yeah,
Brad Yeah.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Similarly worried about the geopolitical issues. I mean, I think
Trump has said a number of times that he wants to,
you know, end the war in Ukraine sort of almost
by Christmas or by inauguration. So you know, some pretty
big commitments that he's made. How you do that is
not clear? And you know, in one sense, you go,
he could just cut off military spending to Ukraine pretty quickly,
(16:35):
and that could you know, sort of seal the deal
pretty quickly. But at the same time, apparently the Ukrainian
leader and Trump have had a phone call so far,
and that indication of it all being cut off immediately
doesn't seem to be as quick. But I mean the
question around, you know, last time, when he was giving
so much airtime to the North Korean leader and what
have you go, is is that really how we play geopolitics?
(16:57):
You go and sort of meet with the big bad
men of before and try implicate them.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Hasn't really worked all that well. No, what is the
name Nevill Chamberlain? I have in mind hand a letter
from mister Hitler's sort of thing and the pacifying side
of things. Actually, by the way, I'm just going to
address a few of the texts that you usually roll in,
who think that this panel is made up of a
bunch of lefties. And here's the quandary i'd just like
to throw to you if you're listening, who you think
(17:21):
that right now you're listening to three lefties? Is that
I dread a Trump presidency almost as much as I
dread a Labour Greens government. So if you just like
to get your head around that one, that might help
you with a context of where we're coming from. Yeah, anyway, look,
fingers crossed, I think you know what it is. This
(17:43):
is my motto for the Trump presidency. Fingers cross day, brad.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Wishful thinking. But look, you know what, I'll take the
optimism for the moment because we're getting close to Christmas
and it's important to be in a charitable spirit.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Actually, just before you go to the break, there is
that one other thing. See, Matthew Houghton wrote a piece
which was very pessimistic. He said America is entering its
most dangerous period since eighteen sixty one, being the Civil War,
but he talks among his comments, he talks about the
level of debt that the United States is likely to
get into, that they're increasing their deficit by some incredible number.
(18:17):
I can't find it. It was a couple of trillion per
a couple of trillion a year or something, Brad, just
from the economics point of view, what did you see that?
But what do you understand about the US debt situation?
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Oh? I mean, the US situation just in normal terms
is always I think bizarre for everyone. You just can't
They just seem to build up such a huge whack
of debt over time. But that's why, I mean, this
comes back to my inflationary worry, where those tax cuts
that are going to be paid through more debt and
sort of more spending in certain areas, it would blow
out debt. It would blow out the deficit massively in
(18:50):
the US, and they just sort of seem to cope
with it if Trump has got the Senate and the
House and he doesn't really care because he can just
push it through. But and this goes back to you
your point before in terms of you know, people that
are possibly thinking we're all left wing and similar. I mean,
it is I still find it quite odd that the
Republican Party, the party of apparent fiscal discipline, is happy
to blow out the deficit to a few more trillion
(19:12):
or whatever it might be. Like, They've got to get
their house in order, and they seem to continue to
be happy to let it burn further and further to
the ground.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Right, We're going to take a quick moment come back
with some more topics on the panel. We probably shifted
away or there's some pretty grim stuff on a rack
lowing and the marriage age to know. We'll touch on that,
even though probably doesn't need much discussion because we'll probably
all condemn it universally and just talk about how crazy
they are. But anyway, this is the panel News Talks.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
There bit's twenty six past three.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Yes, welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This is the
panel and my guests are Brad Olsen and Pete wolf Camp. Actually,
as I said, I pre sold this story. I should
probably skip it really because it's more of a news
story than something that courts for any opinion. Because there's
only one opinion. We're going to have lowering its marriage
age to nine, slashing the age of legal age of consent,
from eighteen to nine and allowing men to marry young children.
(20:13):
I guess the only point I make is that when
you get a government in that is driven by religious dogma,
this is always the danger, isn't it. But this is
just dreadful, dreadful news. Really hasn't it her.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Religion in this instance?
Speaker 2 (20:26):
You know?
Speaker 3 (20:28):
And I suppose just the you kind of you really
do have to wonder what is it that drives them
to say that somehow that's acceptable.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
It is, yeah, actually on the on the on that
side of things that I don't know if you saw
the protest of the woman, yes, in Iran, I don't
know what happened has happened to her, But if you
haven't caught up with this news as a woman, and
you do wonder, actually, given where you do wonder, given
the consequences for something like that. But she's stripped down
to her bra and underwear as a protest and a
(20:56):
square in the middle of in the middle of a
city in Iran. And I haven't heard what happened to her.
But if it is, if it was something that was
where she was completely say and I don't mean that,
I don't mean that as a judgment on her. I
just mean, it's so so dangerous that she's been detained.
This cause for her to be released. But you know,
I wouldn't want I wouldn't want to be living on that
side of the world, would you, Brad No.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
But I think this goes to both your points, and
this is where a look, we all are an agreement,
but that also was probably the sensible point, right Church
and state should remain separate. And you've seen that, you know,
time and time again. It's interesting that this particular proposal
has been shot down twice before, I think twenty fourteen
and twenty seventeen, so it was already trying to get
there and they've now been able to you know, or
(21:40):
previously been able to pull it back. But even you know,
before that, the fact that you know, UNISEPH reports that
twenty eight percent of Iraqi women at are married by
age eighteen. You know, that's that's a very high high number. Which, yeah,
like I say, just church and state, keep them separate.
There's a reason that we do it here, and I
think we should, you know, hold on to that desperately
(22:00):
because it's not a good mix to put them together.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
I saw a meme on Twitter where somebody had posted
all the traditional costumes from women from a lot of
these countries which are now dominated by Islam, and they
were these colorful, vibrant, amazing national sort of costumes. And
then it flashes forward to today and it's a pretty
grim contrast, really, isn't it. But anyway, hey, moving on
to other things slight. This is still a contentious issue,
(22:25):
but completely completely a domestic issue. The Treaty's Principal's Bill
has been introduced to Parliament. I see that the Human
Rights Commission has spoken out against it. I wish we
could have this debate, Pete without it getting so well.
It's almost there's almost a religious fervor to the arguments
around the treaty. And I don't mind the fact that
(22:46):
we're going to have a discussion in about the principles.
Does it bother you?
Speaker 3 (22:53):
The discussion doesn't bother me, not at all. And I mean,
ideally we'd all get to a space where contentious issues
can be discussed and left, as you know, philosophical rather
than personal right, so that if you and I choose
to disagree on a particular issue underlying that is, if
we've already got a broad acceptance that this is what
(23:14):
has worked for us, this is part of our identity.
Do we need to then come and debate it? And
the reality, you know, the fact that it's been well signaled,
that no other party is going to support it and
it's probably going to be dead in the water makes
it kind of irrelevant.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
What do you reckon, Brad?
Speaker 4 (23:32):
I think it's going to be a pretty nasty conversation
for the next couple of weeks on all sides. I mean,
I saw a great piece of analysis from TVNZ that
said the Hekuo from hell John Key once feared is
now reality, you know, because it is starting to stir
up you know, some pretty strong views and I very
much understand it, and I think, look, I very much
(23:52):
take the point that we do need to be able
to have, you know, some of these conversations. I'm not
at all convinced that the current bill as it's drafted
is anywhere near the sensibilities that I personally hold, but hey,
maybe we need to have that conversation because Parliament is supreme.
But I say that with the very strong caveat that
Parliament also gets to make the final call. And we've
heard pretty strongly from every party bar act that it's
(24:15):
not going forward any further than first reading. So I
sort of go and I get everyone saying, well, you know,
we shouldn't even be having the conversation in the first place.
We do this a number of times. We put stuff
up for a first bill reading, we have a look
through it, and then we sort of decide that it's
not at all anywhere we want to go. I do
think that's a healthy enough way. I don't think we
should say that we absolutely cannot talk about these sort
(24:37):
of topics, but equally, Parliament's absolutely fine to go. You
know what, We've had a look at it, we don't
at all agree with it, and therefore it's going no further.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Although when you rule it out saying we're going to
read it but then we're ruling it out, it's slightly
I'm not even sure if that's an honest discussion on it,
is it? Peter, I haven't even seen it, you know.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Yeah, I mean it was interesting too. David Seymour was
on I think with Husking during the week and talking
about the fact that some twenty odd years ago legislation
around sister dying or you NASA was introduced and shot
down and it's now in place. So I think David
Semol is taking a long term view as well, going, look,
we've got to start this discussion, or he wants to
(25:14):
start the discussion, we'll start it now. Who knows what
we might be discussing in ten years time.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
I think that you don't often hear a discussion of
what the text is either. And so the principal one
is the government has full power to govern. Essentially. Secondly,
the crown recognizes and will respect and protect the rights
that happened and e WE had under the Treaty of
Waitani at the time they signed it, and they're going
to protect the process that has been engaged with with
e WE. And the third one is the doozy is
(25:40):
everyone is equal before the law, which does tie into
this is my way of cleverly segueing into another topic,
which is around med school inequality and how despite trying
to have affirmative action, people from genuinely disadvantaged backgrounds are
long and no more, no better off under the positive
(26:03):
affirmation affirmative action sort of thing. Whereas you, if you
can tick the right box in terms of race, though,
you're the standard that is required for you to get
into med school is about thirty percent lower than it
is for anyone else. And to me, that's something that
I think we do need to have a look at.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
What do you think, Peter, Yeah, although I think that
it's slightly more nuanced than that as well. So you know, potentially,
if we're looking to redress imbalances in the representation of
doctors and so on, then you need to have pathways
that allow people who would typically not get access to
gain access. But then that also stops, as I understand it,
(26:41):
after the first year. Thereafter you have to achieve the
same as everybody else. That discount, let's say, for entry
doesn't extend right through. We're not going to get people
qualifying as medical professionals who perhaps were not quite as
good as others. And that was in an interview again
that I heard with Kerry this week, and the other
thing that maybe we've start and I was at university
(27:04):
quite a number of years ago, and the whole discussion
was around equal opportunity or equity of outcome, and they
are two quite distinct goals and the way to achieve
them is quite different. So this whole idea that somehow
everyone has an equal opportunity, you're not going to achieve
an equitable outcome. If that's what you believe, what.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Do you reckon, Brad?
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah, I mean we'll look at that again. Look on
the numbers person right, And some of those were I
found quite quite shocking. Over the last thirty years, no
shift and the number of students coming from low decol
skills eight point five percent of enrollments are coming from
low decol schools and those areas with the highest deprivation
just one point eight percent of enrollments coming from there.
And I think that goes that the opportunities, there's outcomes
(27:48):
piece there where you know, even if you do have
even if you change, is right to sort of say
we're going to guarantee ten percent of slots for those
coming from the last decole skills or those you know,
coming from high deprivation areas. If they don't have the
starting support and the support throughout to keep them in
the program, to give them the knowledge to know how
the wrap around supporting that to get there, then we're
(28:10):
also setting them up for failure or the wider system
up for failure. So I think with a lot of
these it does make me question always what how do
we sort of go back from the symptom to the
actual sort of root cause, root problem here and solve it,
because I do worry that sometimes we try and address
the symptom without actually getting to the number the issue.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Well, I think the reason that this policy has failed
is that if they are trying to target people from
disadvantaged communities, it hasn't made a difference. And yet the
number of Pacific Island and MARI students out of three
hundred admissions is about eighty, which is sort of like
twenty closing in on a third. And that's just done
(28:48):
on the basis of race. So say, for instance, let's
say you're at the top school in the country. You're
one of the top schools. Let's just go with King's
College if you are. If you don't tick that box
race wise, you will get an easier path into med
school than the person sitting next to you. Sorry, you
get a harder path into med school than the person
(29:09):
sitting next to you, who's simply by virtue of ethnicity,
has a different standard required of them. And I'll be honest,
I find that absolutely perverse. So Willie Jackson's kids or
grandkids who could be at the top school in the country,
they will have a different standard applied to them simply
because of their race, not because they're disadvantage, not because
they're going to a poorer school. But that's the stuff
(29:29):
I think that we need to get a top on
top of. Does any of you guys disagree with that?
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Well, that's where for me it comes back to going
and figure out what's the root cause. If we're not
getting enough Marty and Pacifica into the health sector, and
it's clear that we have it, we're still no.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
We are.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
Well, the number we're getting, we're getting better, but they're
still not to the sort of the position you might want.
But again that sort of says to me is are
we targeting the right things? Are we sort of just
reserving a number of seats of different people helpful? Or again,
are we better to go back to that root cause
and say how do we provide the right sort of support.
I mean I came from a provincial or more provincial
background and came to you an economic school down here
(30:06):
in Wellington. If someone had just sort of said, well,
we're going to give you an economic seat and sort
of all the best to you, it might have been
a bit different, but instead there was that support of like,
here's how you cope in the big city. And although
at the time I remember thinking Jesus is a bit
sort of you know, overarching and a bit on the nose,
it was probably useful to me, but that got to
the root cause how do you sort of do well
in the system rather than just getting dumped in and
(30:26):
being like, well, there's your bits. So it's the nuance
of it and how you get around it that's important
to me.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Are you from the stacks?
Speaker 4 (30:35):
I'm from Fueing today, And I'll tell you what when
I got I got an economic scholarship at the time,
and I got denied the full dollar value of the
scholarship because they said, look, normally we give this to
people that come from general it's Auckland. And they said, actually,
we think we're going to be better serve by giving
you very slightly less on the money side and using
that money to go and get you some work, experience
and mentorship, some other support to come down to the
(30:57):
big smoke. Now, like I say, at the time, I
found that quite wild, but actually it's done me pretty
well so far.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Hey were you what age did you get the scholarship
because I don't that's very early on that you focused
on economics of eighteen. Wow, good stuff. Good on your
brad mine you are. I think you're only about twenty
three now, aren't you.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
So I'm a little bit older than that, but I'm
not quite at the thirty that everyone seems to think
to stop us ageous non Just to.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Your point around, you know, how we assist people to
who would typically be excluded from tertiary education whatever field,
to do well. There that the notion that you just
open the door and say, right, we're just going to
make sure it's this number of people who are coming in.
I've had some involvement recently with Keystone Trust Right, which
(31:42):
are established there to ensure that that people who wouldn't
have opportunities for tertiary study in the construction sector have
those opportunities. But the tremendous amount of wrap around support
that they provide in terms of mentorship, in terms of yes,
there is some financial assistance, but it's also this it's
a long term view of encouraging and supporting people who
(32:04):
would typically be excluded because of income or circumstance from
tertiary training get the support that they need. But it's
not just a here's some money and good.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Well, there's not a private interest group.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Rather, yeah, it's a trust that supports them and they
do fantastic work. And I've had the opportunity to interview
some of the people who have had the opportunity to
go through the program. Outstanding, fantastic, excellent.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Right, we better take a moment. We'll be back in
just a minute. The jet ski ban that people are proposing,
we're going to get these guys take on that. I'm
about fifty to fifty. By the way, I'm going to
make up my mind during the break seventeen and a
half minutes to tell you to think.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
New Orleans. We're back up in the wood among the
ever Bereans. Let's done alone, haven't made of earth?
Speaker 2 (32:50):
And what we're in the country barding.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
Johnny be Bood, who'd never ever learned.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
To read a write so well. But you can please yes,
news stalks, there'd be on Tim Beverage, Welcome back to
the Weekend Collective. My guests the Pete wolf Campau a
resident builder, and Brad Olsen, he's the CEO Informetrics. Now, guys,
there's been a call it's been a discussion that's happened
for the last sort of over the last few days
about calls for a jet ski band just there's always
stories about bad behavior and some of the dangerous things
(33:16):
and some of the horrendous accidents that happen, and it
seems that I don't know anyone. You've got to get
a license for a car and motorbike, but when it
comes to a jet ski, just buy the thing. I
think you don't have to be about thirteen to drive
one of them, and away you go. Pete. I actually
do wonder where you need to have slightly some sort
of bar of entry, like I don't know, some watercraft
(33:36):
course you've got to do, even if it's just a check.
But I don't know what what do you think?
Speaker 3 (33:39):
But that's not going to address the issue of jet
skis just being damn annoying. No, I don't care whether
the person is riding it has done some sort of
you know, skipper's course, there's still bloody annoying.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Yeah, do you like it? Have you got a jet ski?
Speaker 5 (33:53):
No?
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Funnily enough, I don't.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
I do have a kayak, which is nice and quiet.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
That probably zero emissions. What do you think of jet skis.
I mean, I don't want to ban them.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
No, I don't want to ban them either, but you know,
every now and then, we've probably all had that experience
when we're sitting on the beach or at the estuary
or something like that and it's nice and peaceful, and
then you know, I mean, what the what the hell like? Seriously,
what are you doing just going up and down?
Speaker 2 (34:21):
I must get it, don't get next to it. And
it was just on I ply feel different.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
But wow, right now, I just go.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Brad, have you where are you with the jet skiers?
Speaker 4 (34:32):
So I don't have a jet ski and I've never
been on a jet ski, but my goodness, if I
could have a hone on one, I one hundred percent would.
But look, I'd like to think that I'm a sensible
enough person as well that I wouldn't be a twenty
four to seven on them. And to be fair, in
this particular case that we're talking about, we're, you know,
our Eastern bab anyway where all of these conversations about
(34:53):
the need for a jet ski band has come from.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
It was aware Harbor, wasn't it.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
Yeah? Yeah, out on the Portocky Way. I mean like
they used to, or they currently have an exclusion zone
that says no jet skis. The new by law would
bring in a five knot zone. So I think the
issue is more like you're still not going to be
hooning across at five knots on a jet ski in
those areas. You're going to be going slow as anything.
It's just do people conform to that? And so maybe
(35:18):
over some of they need to go and put you know,
a harbor master boat out there with one of those
you know, radar guns and ping anyone so the minute
you do go over five knots and being a zoom
zoom twip that you get, you know, good fine.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Actually, probably that's where the answer to these things is
where communities can, maybe through the councils, have some sort
of decision on where these things can be used, because
if it's not really in an area where there's a
lot of houses and residential areas or in a quiet harbor,
I don't know. I'm not a huge jet ski fan,
but I just think maybe there's got to be a
way of just setting boundaries and areas and like the five.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Not rule, yeah, yeah, and that would apply in lots
of harbors up and down the country. So yeah, enforce
it would be a good place.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
To start anyway. Talking about banning things Australia, I love this.
I actually do wonder whether I'm not really into big
government and government telling you can't do this. But Australia
is trying to wants to ban the under sixteens from
social media, a bit like the banning of the phones
and schools that our government's done. I'm all for it, Pete,
(36:20):
what do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (36:20):
Have you found a parent yet who's gone? I think
banning's the phones at school has been a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
Nah, No, everyone loves it, Eric stan I think Heather
said it, Eric Stanford. If she doesn't do anything, she'll
be one of the most consequential ministers ever. She's doing
the phones from schools. What do you think, Brad?
Speaker 4 (36:36):
See Look, I'm just not that big of a fan
of this idea of blanket bans on sort of anything.
I mean, b it jet skis, be at the likes
of fireworks after this last week, be at social media. Like,
I'm not sure that you teach anyone anything good by
saying a blanket absolute, don't touch it. It's you know,
absolute poison and don't go near it. I'd rather we
sort of taught people how to use it responsibly.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
That's sat Look, you know, remember you said that to
me that I was being overly optimistic and there was
more chance of what the back, giving the election to Karma.
I think you're being way too optimistic on this one.
Because we do stop kids. We don't let them drive
until there are certain age they've got a license. We
don't let them drink alcohol until they are unless their
parents allow them to, which is crazy. But the effect
(37:22):
of social media and peer pressure and mental health and
all that sort of things. Social media is a really
brutal It can be really brutal for young brains, can't it.
Peat can be.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
But then you know, if it was that bad right
to the point where everyone that encountered it had a
negative experience of it, which is not the case. And
I know it's not the case because we're right in
the middle of that situation now, right. So yes, there
are there needs to be some controls, but maybe they
just need to be parental controls.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
So what I think parents would like to be able
to say, sorry, honey, you can't have it, because guess
what it's against the law. Brain.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
Well, I mean that's just very I'm sorry, that's just
very easy for parents to cop out and say it's
not my responsibility. How well has that worked over time?
I mean, look, my thing here is that if and
I take the point to around, you know that that's
of some of these points. But I guess i'd say,
why stop at sixteen? I mean that's still you've got
possibly two years worth of high school. You can't tell
me that, you know, when you're fifteen and three hundred
(38:26):
and sixty four days you're you know, unable to cope
with social media and the day you turn after it's okay.
I know that's always the case with hard boundaries, but
given how many of my friends remind me that the
males of the species seems to you know, only develop
their brain properly by twenty five, twenty seven or so,
sixteen seems a bit young sometimes if we're expecting everyone
to use it properly. So I'd rather we educated people.
Speaker 2 (38:48):
Can't wait till you are the father of teenagers, Brad,
I cannot wait.
Speaker 4 (38:53):
Oh old Bed, I'd old bet everything right, you know,
I'll completely turn on my head there.
Speaker 2 (38:57):
Let's save this audio for about twenty years, fifteen years whatever.
I'm not sure what Brad's plans are and that was,
but it's none of my business. Eight minutes to four
news Talks the'd be Yes, Welcome back to the Weekend Collective.
I'm Tim Beverage, my guest Brad Olsen and Pete wolf Camp.
Just a very quick question. I've been going for a
regular walks around down my neighborhood in Saint Halias and
(39:17):
somewhere up Cliff Road, hanging off the side of a cliff,
there's a giant perd of kawa, under which there is
this rooster and it is crowing all the time. Now
it doesn't bother me because I'm just walking past. It's
in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country.
That part not where I live. I walked to it. Yeah,
to feel flashed for ten minutes. I think if I
was one of the I'd get someone around with a shotgun.
(39:38):
But Pete, what would you do if you were the
We're the residents of that neighborhood. We got about a
minute to solve this question.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
Yeah, I mean looking to be annoying, and if it's not,
if it's wild as such. Then yeah, these Christmas lunch sorted.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
I don't think the roosters make good lunch. Brad, what
would you do?
Speaker 4 (39:57):
Well? I was just gonna sat. Don't know if i'd
want to eat one that's been sort of hanging out
random by the side of the road for a while,
and I'd rather get like properly rare. But look, proper chuck,
that's laying some eggs in that that you could find
would be useful. I'm not sure this is anything.
Speaker 2 (40:09):
I think at the moment it's not laying.
Speaker 4 (40:13):
In eggs, So sorry, but you have seen it moved him?
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Is that right? No, I've just heard the blimming thing,
So there we go. Anyway, Unfortunately we can't solve that problem.
I just had to have a quick winge about it. Anyway,
we'll be back with the one reef Radio showed. McKnight
is with US News Talk seed B.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
For more from the weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk SEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk SEDB,
debating all the issues and more. It's the panel on
the Weekend Collective on News Talk Saed Bayverday.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
So if you want to see am I yes, there
we are. Sorry a bit of a technical issue there.
(00:50):
I wasn't sure if I was coming across. Very good
afternoon to you. I'm Tim Beveridge. Welcome to the Weekend
Collective for the Saturday of the ninth of November. Goodness
made the year is just sprinting past. I think I
say that every week, don't know anyway, looking forward to
your company from three till right through it six o'clock
looking a little further. Ahare before I introduced my esteemed
panelists at four o'clock the One Roof Property, One Roof
(01:10):
Radio Show, should I say? Ed McKnight joins us. We're
gonna have a chat about Kiwibank's State of Ownership report.
There's some interesting stuff there and whether Kiwis have some
keys have given up on the owning a family home
at some stage, the old own your own home Kiwi dream.
You can have a chat about that, amongst other things.
That's the One Roof radio show to be taking your
calls in your text on eight hundred and eighty ten
to eighty and five o'clock Parents Squad, John Cowen, it's
(01:33):
exam season also in our house, and it's funny. It's
when the rubber hits the road and you, you know,
when you're sitting from a distance as a parent, but
all of a sudden, your kids are in the exam season.
We're gonna have a chat about controlling anxiety and actually,
how do you help your kids keep some sort of
perspective with all the pressure that seems to mount when
it comes to exam time. But right now it is
(01:54):
time for the panel and my panelists, well, the first one,
he needs no introduction. He is the I won't say
the elder Statesman, be course, it would seemed like it
was an insult, but of building. He's a resident builder,
all around good guy. He's got and he's Pete wolf
(02:14):
Camp getting nice older statesman. Not quite too young for that.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Yeah, well i'd like to think so.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
In the middling stated because I was going to say
middle age, but that I thought middling was better than
as it came out I thought.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
And actually.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
That's no good And anyway, look, I'm going to do
better this one. Okay, here we go. My next guest.
He is the max Brand of economics, the Maximus Sappen
of economics. I think that's quite good. And his name
is Brad Olsen. He's the CEO of in Metrics. Brad, Hello,
killed it good?
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Can I say? That was a much better intro than
Pete Swans? So thank you for that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
And of course you're coming to us from Wellington. How
you do? How you do? How's things in Wellington? Then Wellington?
Speaker 4 (03:04):
Well Ken's a bit windy today, so pretty par for
the course for the capital at the moment. But similar
to to you, Tom, just trying to get through to
the end of the year at the moment.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Hey, just before we crack onto our sort of scheduled
topics for the panel. I loved the All Blacks game today.
I just thought it was great to see us chalk
up a win against Arland. Did you manage to take
in the game there, people.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
I was listening to it on the radio while I was,
of all things, using the power back to mop the floors.
There you go, So I'm a multitasking I was, and
it was it was it was quite good fun.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
It was a good game. It was good to see,
wasn't it. And I'm back into the Harker. I think
I like the fact that they've got a more slightly
organic looking Hakker. They're slightly breaking the protocol and anyone's
walking towards each other. It's a bit of an intent.
What do you what do you think they're brad?
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Oh? No, it was it was it was. Look, it
was good to see the result, I think, most importantly
a win over Ireland at a time when you know,
we were a bit nervous I think going into the game.
But I tell you what, I saw the stitches that
said Kine's got in his head afterwards that looked pretty brutal.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
I haven't seen the stitches. I just saw the amount
of blood after I thought, man, that looks like a
significant win. But anyway, great when for the abs and
what do we got France? I think anyway, we'll talk
about that possibly in our sports rap. At the end
of the show. Speaking of big wins. Segueing to US politics,
Pete old Trump, he had a big win. Did you
(04:28):
see it coming?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Look, I think personally it was one of those things
that I hoped wouldn't happen, and then watching the inevitability
on the day and actually watching the process and the
voting results come through, I guess you just got to
accept it. And then did you watch the acceptance speech
so to speak?
Speaker 2 (04:49):
I heard it on my way and I was listening
to Marcus as show and played it and after five
minutes I was like, oh, no, it's going to start
to ramble now, and I sort of churned out, But
what did you what do you make?
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Well, it was exactly that. It was the sort of
when he talks about, you know, the genius that he
has being able to sort of go from topic to
topic to topic to topic and then come back to
the right place in the end. But you know, I
just stood there watching it with sort of random people
being introduced in the head of the UFC and then
a long rambling piece about Elon Musk's you know, rocket
(05:20):
ship coming back to Earth and being cradled like you
cradle a baby in the middle of the night. And
then I actually was in the car listening to Kamala
Harris's sort of speech as well, and just the contrast
between the two was remarkable in what way, Oh just
you know, concise, well delivered informed.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah, Brad your response.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Look, I mean, Wellington I don't think got a lot
of work done on a US election day. We were
all glued to the television or you know, the live
feed coming in. It was interesting. I was out at
the US Embassy's party. They have an election party down
here in Wellington that goes from I think one till five,
but they decided to sort of it. It ends at
five before most of the results had come in, So
(06:05):
I think it was probably around four o'clock that people
were starting to get a bit of a lean towards
where things were going. And it was a little bit
I guess probably for me, it was a bit more
of a shock of just how big the win was.
You know, at one point it was nearly impossible quite
quickly for Harris to win. Trump had taken all of
the swing states. You saw the Senate that had flipped
the House as likely to stay Republican. I mean, it
(06:28):
sort of just paves the way for him to do
quite a lot quite quickly. But and I think that
the challenge I've sort of had is, you know, I
think a lot of people have, funnily enough, got pretty
big views on this, but some of the responses from
the Democrats saying, you know, oh well we lost because
of you know, the media or whatever it was, just
did seem to lack a little bit of that understanding
of you lost, you lost big time, You maybe lost
(06:49):
the popular vote for the first time in quite a while,
and you're blaming sort of anyone but yourselves. Is you've
got to sort of look into yourselves and go, why
was it such a big shift?
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Yeah, I mean it was an astonishing win. Really, in
the comeback, I'll be honest, I'm not that thrilled about it.
I was dreading doing overnight Talk of the Night that
it all sort of had broken, and I thought it's
going to be five hours of toxicity. But I started
the show with the opening sort of scene when Bill
Murray wakes up on Groundhog Day. I played the audio
from that, and I thought, because it's groundhog Day and
(07:22):
sort of to try and inject a sort of bit
of humor into it. And actually, funnily enough, it was
interesting to have talk back about it and just sort
of talk it through, and everyone was actually quite reasonable
because eight years ago it was pretty toxic stuff and
at the end of it I sort of thought, oh, well,
you know, they've voted for what they've got. I mean,
if they get RFK as the head of health and
they take the Florida out of the water and you know,
(07:42):
make it difficult for scientists to do their job, then
that's what they voted for. So good on them.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yes, but it does have bigger implications. I think that's
the challenge writers that we've all been thinking this this week.
And I remember I said to some friends, you know,
New Zealand, when we vote, we're only thinking about what's
good for us. We don't necessarily think about the wider ramifications.
It's just that those wider ramifications of a New Zealand
election are not nearly as massive as the world's largest economy. So,
(08:08):
you know, I must say, the last couple of days,
the questions we've had around tariffs, around interest rates, around
global inflation, like there's a good chance now that the
US Federal Reserve doesn't need to drop interest rates as
much next year. So the wider implications for financial markets,
for people's Keiwi savers, all of that's quite large, So
a lot of digestioned, I think to go through. But
(08:29):
you're right, Look if we are getting, let's call it
slightly more sensible conversations than last time round, long mate, continue,
because that was a very challenging, very unpredictable, very poor
taste time, I think for a lot of people last
time round.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Ah, And I guess the Peter the thing is it
all hinges a little bit on his selections for his cabinet.
Who's the head of treasury, whose Secretary of Defense is
going to be because I do have the sense that,
I mean, he's going to be older than Biden when
he finishes, but he does give the sense in terms
of doing the hard work and the nitty gritty and
being for the detail. He leaves that to others. So
(09:08):
perhaps the most important decisions he makes who he puts
into some of those keys decisions. And by the way,
we missed out on the first women woman in the
role of president, but he has announced the first ever
female chief chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, which made me
think that's interesting, that's a nod fit. But of course
we're thinking of a different Susie whilse, aren't we, Petter.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Ferent spelling, Yeah, yeah, I guess the other thing too,
is that you know it is eight years after he
first took the presidency and the world didn't end right,
and so we're here to talk about it. So there's
a slightly more measured approach to it. But yeah, if
you think about someone like Robert F. Kennedy taking a
role and making us all healthy again.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
How he's an idiot. I mean, Robert F. Kennedy is
a conspiracy driven nutbag. Sorry. Oh yes, ra he thought
a worm at eating part of his brain, didn't he
That's right, Well, never make a lot of sense, It's right,
it's true.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Also the person that dumped the carcass in the deer carcass.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Or something that he's a strange dude. Yeah, he's an
interesting character. Hopefully he won't be the sort of person
that defines the Trump presidency.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
But I think this is the challenge. Right last time around,
Trump did put in a number of sort of let's
call them more sensible or at least more mainstream people
into his cabinet positions, into his sort of staff, and
that who you know. Invariably they got fired pretty quickly
when they got off side with him. But at least they,
I think, sort of tried to keep the train a
bit more on the tracks. There's a lot of people
saying this time, if you're going to have someone like
(10:40):
Elon Musk, you're gonna have someone like RFK that gets
in there, then do you immediately sort of just have
this completely unconstrained presidency. He knows that Trump knows you
can't go for it again. So you know, either you
go this sort of massive dictatorial route, or you just
sort of have everyone that's that's doing their own sort
of fun thing for the next four years, which sort
(11:01):
of ruins it for the rest of us. I mean,
I think this could get very vindictive. I wouldn't be
surprised if Trump comes in twentieth of January starts to
sort of draw up sort of a revengelist of here's
all the people that have slighted me the last four years,
and here's how I'm going to, you know, publicly run
them out to dry.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Although you know, maybe naively I'm trying to put my
optimistic hat on here, is that he does love it
when he wins, and so he was very bitter when
he lost, and he constantly denied it, and he drove
that narrative for four years that the election had been stolen.
And yet here he has, He's had this amazing comeback.
He's won by five million votes. I wonder if that
(11:39):
sort of victory actually mollifies him in terms of the
grievances that he has held as a defeated president or
Bolden now that well, so I don't know. I do
wonder whether that does mollify him a bit. It's a
bit like you know, giving the dog the bone that
they've sort of been seeking for a while and they
sort of go off and happily devour it for a while.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
I think you might be being a ted optimistic. I mean, look,
let's come back in a few months and see. But
I feel like all of the likely outcomes that I
can see from this that one is as narrow as
it currently is for Harris to somehow win on a
count back of votes. Or similarly, realistically, it's just going
to go it's going to go wild. I mean, the
man wants to bring in twenty percent tariffs on stuff,
(12:21):
and you know, some of these ideas are just sort
of I'm not going to say looney, but close.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Well, actually, now, can you give us just before we
get back to your Peter, you can on the economist
side of things, what do we know about what the
United States can actually do and who they're likely to
do it to when it comes to tariffs, because I
think a lot of the rhetoric's being directed at China.
But does it mean we get caught in the crossfire
or what?
Speaker 4 (12:43):
At to a degree? I mean, the idea seems to
be that Trump would put tariffs on sort of everything
now in a sense that means that New Zealand won't
get hit any more than we sort of currently are
for we currently get x percent of exports to the US,
will continue to get that. It's just in a year
or two time. Because of how tariffs work, it's US
consumers who are going to pay the additional cost. So overtime,
(13:04):
US consumers pay more of that, they've got less more
money overall, Therefore they can buy few of our exports.
The big question I think is one does he actually
do it in the first place? But two, if you
look at a lot of those tariff policies that he's
done in the past, he then gave out a bunch
of carveouts. You might remember, I think last time he
said that steel was a national security issue and so
(13:25):
put some tariffs on that. But gave Australia an exemption.
New Zealand didn't get one, So there's possibly a question
of one, what the impact of tariffs are too what's
the impact if you do or don't get an exemption.
But then also, I mean you look through some of
those figures. He wants to have all this deregulation, he
wants to have all of these tax cuts and similar
people have said that this could add a whole percentage
(13:46):
point onto inflation, and so again you know the risk
of higher interest rates than we all thought. That has
pretty big implications for mortgages, for kiwis over, for everything.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Blimey, what, Peter, what? Actually, I'll tell you what.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
I'm very much a big believer in there is no
such thing as a dumb question. So a question for you, Brad,
the tariffs. I was listening to one of the representatives
for the beef exporters from New Zealand, right, so they
sell a lot of beef that's kind of that commercial
grade stuff. It goes into patties and so on, but
it's highly regarded. So if for example, the Americans decide
(14:19):
right there's going to be a ten percent tariff on
New Zealand, beef who pays that.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
The economic theory suggests that generally it's your and consumers
that pay it, that the costs will be passed on
the other thing. And I mean just because you use
beef as an example that I think is an interesting
one where in some areas we're also seeing like quite
needed demand from New Zealand. The US beef stock is
I think it's lowest in like seventy years, So if
they want ground beef in that, they can't have as
(14:45):
much of it from the US as they might have previously.
And again, they're not all of a sudden going to
just breed heaps of cows in the next sort of
couple of months, so there'll still be that demand for it.
But it's that over time if everyone's paying ten to
twenty percent more on those tariffs, and eventually they've got
less money to spend on you know, just cumulatively. So
that's where it's going to hit us. It's sort of
that second order of And look, if the US isn't
(15:07):
buying as much because they've got tariffs in place, the
rest of the world isn't producing as much. If you've
got those Chinese manufacturing sites in that not producing as much,
there's probably not as many jobs. Not as many jobs
means not as much spending from Chinese consumers, and that
means our exports to China also don't do as well,
so global economic growth could be worse. And so again,
(15:27):
just some real concerns around that sort of economic tone
for the next couple of years.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Now are a few other issues to dig into before
we move on from this one and the other. I
guess the reason that perhaps I think out of all
New Zealand is twenty percent would vote for Trump, whereas
we've seen obviously more than fifty percent voted fro him.
But of course I think we are considered, we are
more mindful of geopolitical issues when it comes to think
of a guy at Trump, because really, who cares if
they put to take the fluoride out of the water
(15:51):
in America or not? That doesn't fit you, all right.
And if Vladimir Putin feels emboldened or if he doesn't,
he doesn't he doesn't want wars, and I guess the
questions that want what cost as well? What do you
make of that all, Peter?
Speaker 3 (16:03):
I mean, you know, if there's way of ending the
war in Ukraine is simply saying to putin will have it?
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Yeah you win? Yeah, then that's not good. No, I don't, yeah,
Brad Yeah.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Similarly worried about the geopolitical issues. I mean, I think
Trump has said a number of times that he wants to,
you know, end the war in Ukraine sort of almost
by Christmas or by inauguration. So you know, some pretty
big commitments that he's made. How you do that is
not clear? And you know, in one sense, you go,
he could just cut off military spending to Ukraine pretty quickly,
(16:35):
and that could you know, sort of seal the deal
pretty quickly. But at the same time, apparently the Ukrainian
leader and Trump have had a phone call so far,
and that indication of it all being cut off immediately
doesn't seem to be as quick. But I mean the
question around, you know, last time, when he was giving
so much airtime to the North Korean leader and what
have you go, is is that really how we play geopolitics?
(16:57):
You go and sort of meet with the big bad
men of before and try implicate them.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Hasn't really worked all that well. No, what is the
name Nevill Chamberlain? I have in mind hand a letter
from mister Hitler's sort of thing and the pacifying side
of things. Actually, by the way, I'm just going to
address a few of the texts that you usually roll in,
who think that this panel is made up of a
bunch of lefties. And here's the quandary i'd just like
to throw to you if you're listening, who you think
(17:21):
that right now you're listening to three lefties? Is that
I dread a Trump presidency almost as much as I
dread a Labour Greens government. So if you just like
to get your head around that one, that might help
you with a context of where we're coming from. Yeah, anyway, look,
fingers crossed, I think you know what it is. This
(17:43):
is my motto for the Trump presidency. Fingers cross day, brad.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Wishful thinking. But look, you know what, I'll take the
optimism for the moment because we're getting close to Christmas
and it's important to be in a charitable spirit.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Actually, just before you go to the break, there is
that one other thing. See, Matthew Houghton wrote a piece
which was very pessimistic. He said America is entering its
most dangerous period since eighteen sixty one, being the Civil War,
but he talks among his comments, he talks about the
level of debt that the United States is likely to
get into, that they're increasing their deficit by some incredible number.
(18:17):
I can't find it. It was a couple of trillion per
a couple of trillion a year or something, Brad, just
from the economics point of view, what did you see that?
But what do you understand about the US debt situation?
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Oh? I mean, the US situation just in normal terms
is always I think bizarre for everyone. You just can't
They just seem to build up such a huge whack
of debt over time. But that's why, I mean, this
comes back to my inflationary worry, where those tax cuts
that are going to be paid through more debt and
sort of more spending in certain areas, it would blow
out debt. It would blow out the deficit massively in
(18:50):
the US, and they just sort of seem to cope
with it if Trump has got the Senate and the
House and he doesn't really care because he can just
push it through. But and this goes back to you
your point before in terms of you know, people that
are possibly thinking we're all left wing and similar. I mean,
it is I still find it quite odd that the
Republican Party, the party of apparent fiscal discipline, is happy
to blow out the deficit to a few more trillion
(19:12):
or whatever it might be. Like, They've got to get
their house in order, and they seem to continue to
be happy to let it burn further and further to
the ground.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Right, We're going to take a quick moment come back
with some more topics on the panel. We probably shifted
away or there's some pretty grim stuff on a rack
lowing and the marriage age to know. We'll touch on that,
even though probably doesn't need much discussion because we'll probably
all condemn it universally and just talk about how crazy
they are. But anyway, this is the panel News Talks.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
There bit's twenty six past three.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Yes, welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This is the
panel and my guests are Brad Olsen and Pete wolf Camp. Actually,
as I said, I pre sold this story. I should
probably skip it really because it's more of a news
story than something that courts for any opinion. Because there's
only one opinion. We're going to have lowering its marriage
age to nine, slashing the age of legal age of consent,
from eighteen to nine and allowing men to marry young children.
(20:13):
I guess the only point I make is that when
you get a government in that is driven by religious dogma,
this is always the danger, isn't it. But this is
just dreadful, dreadful news. Really hasn't it her.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Religion in this instance?
Speaker 2 (20:26):
You know?
Speaker 3 (20:28):
And I suppose just the you kind of you really
do have to wonder what is it that drives them
to say that somehow that's acceptable.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
It is, yeah, actually on the on the on that
side of things that I don't know if you saw
the protest of the woman, yes, in Iran, I don't
know what happened has happened to her, But if you
haven't caught up with this news as a woman, and
you do wonder, actually, given where you do wonder, given
the consequences for something like that. But she's stripped down
to her bra and underwear as a protest and a
(20:56):
square in the middle of in the middle of a
city in Iran. And I haven't heard what happened to her.
But if it is, if it was something that was
where she was completely say and I don't mean that,
I don't mean that as a judgment on her. I
just mean, it's so so dangerous that she's been detained.
This cause for her to be released. But you know,
I wouldn't want I wouldn't want to be living on that
side of the world, would you, Brad No.
Speaker 4 (21:19):
But I think this goes to both your points, and
this is where a look, we all are an agreement,
but that also was probably the sensible point, right Church
and state should remain separate. And you've seen that, you know,
time and time again. It's interesting that this particular proposal
has been shot down twice before, I think twenty fourteen
and twenty seventeen, so it was already trying to get
there and they've now been able to you know, or
(21:40):
previously been able to pull it back. But even you know,
before that, the fact that you know, UNISEPH reports that
twenty eight percent of Iraqi women at are married by
age eighteen. You know, that's that's a very high high number. Which, yeah,
like I say, just church and state, keep them separate.
There's a reason that we do it here, and I
think we should, you know, hold on to that desperately
(22:00):
because it's not a good mix to put them together.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
I saw a meme on Twitter where somebody had posted
all the traditional costumes from women from a lot of
these countries which are now dominated by Islam, and they
were these colorful, vibrant, amazing national sort of costumes. And
then it flashes forward to today and it's a pretty
grim contrast, really, isn't it. But anyway, hey, moving on
to other things slight. This is still a contentious issue,
(22:25):
but completely completely a domestic issue. The Treaty's Principal's Bill
has been introduced to Parliament. I see that the Human
Rights Commission has spoken out against it. I wish we
could have this debate, Pete without it getting so well.
It's almost there's almost a religious fervor to the arguments
around the treaty. And I don't mind the fact that
(22:46):
we're going to have a discussion in about the principles.
Does it bother you?
Speaker 3 (22:53):
The discussion doesn't bother me, not at all. And I mean,
ideally we'd all get to a space where contentious issues
can be discussed and left, as you know, philosophical rather
than personal right, so that if you and I choose
to disagree on a particular issue underlying that is, if
we've already got a broad acceptance that this is what
(23:14):
has worked for us, this is part of our identity.
Do we need to then come and debate it? And
the reality, you know, the fact that it's been well signaled,
that no other party is going to support it and
it's probably going to be dead in the water makes
it kind of irrelevant.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
What do you reckon, Brad?
Speaker 4 (23:32):
I think it's going to be a pretty nasty conversation
for the next couple of weeks on all sides. I mean,
I saw a great piece of analysis from TVNZ that
said the Hekuo from hell John Key once feared is
now reality, you know, because it is starting to stir
up you know, some pretty strong views and I very
much understand it, and I think, look, I very much
(23:52):
take the point that we do need to be able
to have, you know, some of these conversations. I'm not
at all convinced that the current bill as it's drafted
is anywhere near the sensibilities that I personally hold, but hey,
maybe we need to have that conversation because Parliament is supreme.
But I say that with the very strong caveat that
Parliament also gets to make the final call. And we've
heard pretty strongly from every party bar act that it's
(24:15):
not going forward any further than first reading. So I
sort of go and I get everyone saying, well, you know,
we shouldn't even be having the conversation in the first place.
We do this a number of times. We put stuff
up for a first bill reading, we have a look
through it, and then we sort of decide that it's
not at all anywhere we want to go. I do
think that's a healthy enough way. I don't think we
should say that we absolutely cannot talk about these sort
(24:37):
of topics, but equally, Parliament's absolutely fine to go. You
know what, We've had a look at it, we don't
at all agree with it, and therefore it's going no further.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Although when you rule it out saying we're going to
read it but then we're ruling it out, it's slightly
I'm not even sure if that's an honest discussion on it,
is it? Peter, I haven't even seen it, you know.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Yeah, I mean it was interesting too. David Seymour was
on I think with Husking during the week and talking
about the fact that some twenty odd years ago legislation
around sister dying or you NASA was introduced and shot
down and it's now in place. So I think David
Semol is taking a long term view as well, going, look,
we've got to start this discussion, or he wants to
(25:14):
start the discussion, we'll start it now. Who knows what
we might be discussing in ten years time.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
I think that you don't often hear a discussion of
what the text is either. And so the principal one
is the government has full power to govern. Essentially. Secondly,
the crown recognizes and will respect and protect the rights
that happened and e WE had under the Treaty of
Waitani at the time they signed it, and they're going
to protect the process that has been engaged with with
e WE. And the third one is the doozy is
(25:40):
everyone is equal before the law, which does tie into
this is my way of cleverly segueing into another topic,
which is around med school inequality and how despite trying
to have affirmative action, people from genuinely disadvantaged backgrounds are
long and no more, no better off under the positive
(26:03):
affirmation affirmative action sort of thing. Whereas you, if you
can tick the right box in terms of race, though,
you're the standard that is required for you to get
into med school is about thirty percent lower than it
is for anyone else. And to me, that's something that
I think we do need to have a look at.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
What do you think, Peter, Yeah, although I think that
it's slightly more nuanced than that as well. So you know, potentially,
if we're looking to redress imbalances in the representation of
doctors and so on, then you need to have pathways
that allow people who would typically not get access to
gain access. But then that also stops, as I understand it,
(26:41):
after the first year. Thereafter you have to achieve the
same as everybody else. That discount, let's say, for entry
doesn't extend right through. We're not going to get people
qualifying as medical professionals who perhaps were not quite as
good as others. And that was in an interview again
that I heard with Kerry this week, and the other
thing that maybe we've start and I was at university
(27:04):
quite a number of years ago, and the whole discussion
was around equal opportunity or equity of outcome, and they
are two quite distinct goals and the way to achieve
them is quite different. So this whole idea that somehow
everyone has an equal opportunity, you're not going to achieve
an equitable outcome. If that's what you believe, what.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Do you reckon, Brad?
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah, I mean we'll look at that again. Look on
the numbers person right, And some of those were I
found quite quite shocking. Over the last thirty years, no
shift and the number of students coming from low decol
skills eight point five percent of enrollments are coming from
low decol schools and those areas with the highest deprivation
just one point eight percent of enrollments coming from there.
And I think that goes that the opportunities, there's outcomes
(27:48):
piece there where you know, even if you do have
even if you change, is right to sort of say
we're going to guarantee ten percent of slots for those
coming from the last decole skills or those you know,
coming from high deprivation areas. If they don't have the
starting support and the support throughout to keep them in
the program, to give them the knowledge to know how
the wrap around supporting that to get there, then we're
(28:10):
also setting them up for failure or the wider system
up for failure. So I think with a lot of
these it does make me question always what how do
we sort of go back from the symptom to the
actual sort of root cause, root problem here and solve it,
because I do worry that sometimes we try and address
the symptom without actually getting to the number the issue.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Well, I think the reason that this policy has failed
is that if they are trying to target people from
disadvantaged communities, it hasn't made a difference. And yet the
number of Pacific Island and MARI students out of three
hundred admissions is about eighty, which is sort of like
twenty closing in on a third. And that's just done
(28:48):
on the basis of race. So say, for instance, let's
say you're at the top school in the country. You're
one of the top schools. Let's just go with King's
College if you are. If you don't tick that box
race wise, you will get an easier path into med
school than the person sitting next to you. Sorry, you
get a harder path into med school than the person
(29:09):
sitting next to you, who's simply by virtue of ethnicity,
has a different standard required of them. And I'll be honest,
I find that absolutely perverse. So Willie Jackson's kids or
grandkids who could be at the top school in the country,
they will have a different standard applied to them simply
because of their race, not because they're disadvantage, not because
they're going to a poorer school. But that's the stuff
(29:29):
I think that we need to get a top on
top of. Does any of you guys disagree with that?
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Well, that's where for me it comes back to going
and figure out what's the root cause. If we're not
getting enough Marty and Pacifica into the health sector, and
it's clear that we have it, we're still no.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
We are.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
Well, the number we're getting, we're getting better, but they're
still not to the sort of the position you might want.
But again that sort of says to me is are
we targeting the right things? Are we sort of just
reserving a number of seats of different people helpful? Or again,
are we better to go back to that root cause
and say how do we provide the right sort of support.
I mean I came from a provincial or more provincial
background and came to you an economic school down here
(30:06):
in Wellington. If someone had just sort of said, well,
we're going to give you an economic seat and sort
of all the best to you, it might have been
a bit different, but instead there was that support of like,
here's how you cope in the big city. And although
at the time I remember thinking Jesus is a bit
sort of you know, overarching and a bit on the nose,
it was probably useful to me, but that got to
the root cause how do you sort of do well
in the system rather than just getting dumped in and
(30:26):
being like, well, there's your bits. So it's the nuance
of it and how you get around it that's important
to me.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Are you from the stacks?
Speaker 4 (30:35):
I'm from Fueing today, And I'll tell you what when
I got I got an economic scholarship at the time,
and I got denied the full dollar value of the
scholarship because they said, look, normally we give this to
people that come from general it's Auckland. And they said, actually,
we think we're going to be better serve by giving
you very slightly less on the money side and using
that money to go and get you some work, experience
and mentorship, some other support to come down to the
(30:57):
big smoke. Now, like I say, at the time, I
found that quite wild, but actually it's done me pretty
well so far.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Hey were you what age did you get the scholarship
because I don't that's very early on that you focused
on economics of eighteen. Wow, good stuff. Good on your
brad mine you are. I think you're only about twenty
three now, aren't you.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
So I'm a little bit older than that, but I'm
not quite at the thirty that everyone seems to think
to stop us ageous non Just to.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Your point around, you know, how we assist people to
who would typically be excluded from tertiary education whatever field,
to do well. There that the notion that you just
open the door and say, right, we're just going to
make sure it's this number of people who are coming in.
I've had some involvement recently with Keystone Trust Right, which
(31:42):
are established there to ensure that that people who wouldn't
have opportunities for tertiary study in the construction sector have
those opportunities. But the tremendous amount of wrap around support
that they provide in terms of mentorship, in terms of yes,
there is some financial assistance, but it's also this it's
a long term view of encouraging and supporting people who
(32:04):
would typically be excluded because of income or circumstance from
tertiary training get the support that they need. But it's
not just a here's some money and good.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Well, there's not a private interest group.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Rather, yeah, it's a trust that supports them and they
do fantastic work. And I've had the opportunity to interview
some of the people who have had the opportunity to
go through the program. Outstanding, fantastic, excellent.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Right, we better take a moment. We'll be back in
just a minute. The jet ski ban that people are proposing,
we're going to get these guys take on that. I'm
about fifty to fifty. By the way, I'm going to
make up my mind during the break seventeen and a
half minutes to tell you to think.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
New Orleans. We're back up in the wood among the
ever Bereans. Let's done alone, haven't made of earth?
Speaker 2 (32:50):
And what we're in the country barding.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
Johnny be Bood, who'd never ever learned.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
To read a write so well. But you can please yes,
news stalks, there'd be on Tim Beverage, Welcome back to
the Weekend Collective. My guests the Pete wolf Campau a
resident builder, and Brad Olsen, he's the CEO Informetrics. Now, guys,
there's been a call it's been a discussion that's happened
for the last sort of over the last few days
about calls for a jet ski band just there's always
stories about bad behavior and some of the dangerous things
(33:16):
and some of the horrendous accidents that happen, and it
seems that I don't know anyone. You've got to get
a license for a car and motorbike, but when it
comes to a jet ski, just buy the thing. I
think you don't have to be about thirteen to drive
one of them, and away you go. Pete. I actually
do wonder where you need to have slightly some sort
of bar of entry, like I don't know, some watercraft
(33:36):
course you've got to do, even if it's just a check.
But I don't know what what do you think?
Speaker 3 (33:39):
But that's not going to address the issue of jet
skis just being damn annoying. No, I don't care whether
the person is riding it has done some sort of
you know, skipper's course, there's still bloody annoying.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Yeah, do you like it? Have you got a jet ski?
Speaker 5 (33:53):
No?
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Funnily enough, I don't.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
I do have a kayak, which is nice and quiet.
Speaker 2 (33:57):
That probably zero emissions. What do you think of jet skis.
I mean, I don't want to ban them.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
No, I don't want to ban them either, but you know,
every now and then, we've probably all had that experience
when we're sitting on the beach or at the estuary
or something like that and it's nice and peaceful, and
then you know, I mean, what the what the hell like? Seriously,
what are you doing just going up and down?
Speaker 2 (34:21):
I must get it, don't get next to it. And
it was just on I ply feel different.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
But wow, right now, I just go.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Brad, have you where are you with the jet skiers?
Speaker 4 (34:32):
So I don't have a jet ski and I've never
been on a jet ski, but my goodness, if I
could have a hone on one, I one hundred percent would.
But look, I'd like to think that I'm a sensible
enough person as well that I wouldn't be a twenty
four to seven on them. And to be fair, in
this particular case that we're talking about, we're, you know,
our Eastern bab anyway where all of these conversations about
(34:53):
the need for a jet ski band has come from.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
It was aware Harbor, wasn't it.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
Yeah? Yeah, out on the Portocky Way. I mean like
they used to, or they currently have an exclusion zone
that says no jet skis. The new by law would
bring in a five knot zone. So I think the
issue is more like you're still not going to be
hooning across at five knots on a jet ski in
those areas. You're going to be going slow as anything.
It's just do people conform to that? And so maybe
(35:18):
over some of they need to go and put you know,
a harbor master boat out there with one of those
you know, radar guns and ping anyone so the minute
you do go over five knots and being a zoom
zoom twip that you get, you know, good fine.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Actually, probably that's where the answer to these things is
where communities can, maybe through the councils, have some sort
of decision on where these things can be used, because
if it's not really in an area where there's a
lot of houses and residential areas or in a quiet harbor,
I don't know. I'm not a huge jet ski fan,
but I just think maybe there's got to be a
way of just setting boundaries and areas and like the five.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Not rule, yeah, yeah, and that would apply in lots
of harbors up and down the country. So yeah, enforce
it would be a good place.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
To start anyway. Talking about banning things Australia, I love this.
I actually do wonder whether I'm not really into big
government and government telling you can't do this. But Australia
is trying to wants to ban the under sixteens from
social media, a bit like the banning of the phones
and schools that our government's done. I'm all for it, Pete,
(36:20):
what do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (36:20):
Have you found a parent yet who's gone? I think
banning's the phones at school has been a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
Nah, No, everyone loves it, Eric stan I think Heather
said it, Eric Stanford. If she doesn't do anything, she'll
be one of the most consequential ministers ever. She's doing
the phones from schools. What do you think, Brad?
Speaker 4 (36:36):
See Look, I'm just not that big of a fan
of this idea of blanket bans on sort of anything.
I mean, b it jet skis, be at the likes
of fireworks after this last week, be at social media. Like,
I'm not sure that you teach anyone anything good by
saying a blanket absolute, don't touch it. It's you know,
absolute poison and don't go near it. I'd rather we
sort of taught people how to use it responsibly.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
That's sat Look, you know, remember you said that to
me that I was being overly optimistic and there was
more chance of what the back, giving the election to Karma.
I think you're being way too optimistic on this one.
Because we do stop kids. We don't let them drive
until there are certain age they've got a license. We
don't let them drink alcohol until they are unless their
parents allow them to, which is crazy. But the effect
(37:22):
of social media and peer pressure and mental health and
all that sort of things. Social media is a really
brutal It can be really brutal for young brains, can't it.
Peat can be.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
But then you know, if it was that bad right
to the point where everyone that encountered it had a
negative experience of it, which is not the case. And
I know it's not the case because we're right in
the middle of that situation now, right. So yes, there
are there needs to be some controls, but maybe they
just need to be parental controls.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
So what I think parents would like to be able
to say, sorry, honey, you can't have it, because guess
what it's against the law. Brain.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
Well, I mean that's just very I'm sorry, that's just
very easy for parents to cop out and say it's
not my responsibility. How well has that worked over time?
I mean, look, my thing here is that if and
I take the point to around, you know that that's
of some of these points. But I guess i'd say,
why stop at sixteen? I mean that's still you've got
possibly two years worth of high school. You can't tell
me that, you know, when you're fifteen and three hundred
(38:26):
and sixty four days you're you know, unable to cope
with social media and the day you turn after it's okay.
I know that's always the case with hard boundaries, but
given how many of my friends remind me that the
males of the species seems to you know, only develop
their brain properly by twenty five, twenty seven or so,
sixteen seems a bit young sometimes if we're expecting everyone
to use it properly. So I'd rather we educated people.
Speaker 2 (38:48):
Can't wait till you are the father of teenagers, Brad,
I cannot wait.
Speaker 4 (38:53):
Oh old Bed, I'd old bet everything right, you know,
I'll completely turn on my head there.
Speaker 2 (38:57):
Let's save this audio for about twenty years, fifteen years whatever.
I'm not sure what Brad's plans are and that was,
but it's none of my business. Eight minutes to four
news Talks the'd be Yes, Welcome back to the Weekend Collective.
I'm Tim Beverage, my guest Brad Olsen and Pete wolf Camp.
Just a very quick question. I've been going for a
regular walks around down my neighborhood in Saint Halias and
(39:17):
somewhere up Cliff Road, hanging off the side of a cliff,
there's a giant perd of kawa, under which there is
this rooster and it is crowing all the time. Now
it doesn't bother me because I'm just walking past. It's
in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country.
That part not where I live. I walked to it. Yeah,
to feel flashed for ten minutes. I think if I
was one of the I'd get someone around with a shotgun.
(39:38):
But Pete, what would you do if you were the
We're the residents of that neighborhood. We got about a
minute to solve this question.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
Yeah, I mean looking to be annoying, and if it's not,
if it's wild as such. Then yeah, these Christmas lunch sorted.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
I don't think the roosters make good lunch. Brad, what
would you do?
Speaker 4 (39:57):
Well? I was just gonna sat. Don't know if i'd
want to eat one that's been sort of hanging out
random by the side of the road for a while,
and I'd rather get like properly rare. But look, proper chuck,
that's laying some eggs in that that you could find
would be useful. I'm not sure this is anything.
Speaker 2 (40:09):
I think at the moment it's not laying.
Speaker 4 (40:13):
In eggs, So sorry, but you have seen it moved him?
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Is that right? No, I've just heard the blimming thing,
So there we go. Anyway, Unfortunately we can't solve that problem.
I just had to have a quick winge about it. Anyway,
we'll be back with the one reef Radio showed. McKnight
is with US News Talk seed B.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
For more from the weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk SEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
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