November 13, 2025 • 31 mins
Nick Mills wraps the week with legendary broadcaster Mark Sainsbury and former minister Peter Dunne.
They give their thoughts on the McSkimming IPCA report, Andrew Coster's involvement and how police culture is looking in New Zealand at the moment.
Dunne and Sainsbury also discussed the other hot topics from the week like the new drug driving testing, Police Commissioner Chamber’s speeding ticket admission, the new $30 million in funding to help deal with the meth crisis, the Te Pati Māori MP expulsion.
Also are state-owned asset sales a good idea? Plus, Dunne and Sainsbury give their hots and nots for the week.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from news Talk said B Wellington's official week interview. It's
Friday Beta with Cordovic Property Management a better rental experience
for all.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Visit Counovic dot cod on In's head.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
On Thursday starts it.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Certainly it is Friday and I certainly got the beat.
Mark Sainsbury, former broadcaster, general, good guy and Valentinian. Good
morning and welcome Hey you Nick, how you feeling good?
Top of your game?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Well, I tell you what. I don't want to spoil
my my what's hot? But the weather doesn't it change
our attitude when we get some sunshine one hundred percent?
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Does Friday still I mean, you guys are both doing
your own thing and not. Peter Dunn, former minister obviously welcome, Peter,
good to be back. I just wanted to have a
chat about whether you Fridays are as relevant to people
who I don't want to call you retired because you're
neither of you will retired but semi retired. Does Friday
still feel like a Friday or does it just feel
like any other day of the week.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Now it still feels even though you don't have the
structure that was Friday's used to be huge, and especially
in Parliament because it was when we're working there, It's Friday,
everyone's bagging off. Friday used to be let's all go
out for lunch day. It was also the day governments
were dump anything.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
Four o'clock Friday afternoon.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
And it's funny, you still get it even now, even
though you're not working in that structured environment anymore, Friday
still has that same It's still the end of the week.
You're still sort of thinking.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Oh, okay, I still in terms of the working week
and the weekend and things you do on the weekend
and things you do. My wife just gets so frustrated.
So you can do that anytime. Why are you living
till Saturday?
Speaker 3 (01:52):
The Lord's the Lord's.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
I know exactly what you're talking about.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
You see, I've never been in that luxury or whatever
you want to call it. So I just that's why
I said this morning when I started the show, I
wonder if people that are working from home still think
Friday Day is Friday, because you know, nothing's really any different,
is it. Anyway, Let's move on. There's been been some
very big news this week, and we have to discuss it.
As we know, disgraced Deputy Police Commissioner Jevin and Skimmings
(02:20):
is facing allegations of sexual harassment and the IPCA report
found that top cops covered up and then the commissioner
Costa was front and center. Mark Sainsbury, I'm going to
start with this with you. Do you think the public
and yourself still have faith in the police.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Yes, but it's sorely tried. I mean what this seems
to seems to be is and which is most concerning.
It's not your poor guy gave you a ticket neck.
You know, next time he pulls you up, because you're
going to go, oh, why don't you look after your
own and your dirty, filthy commissioners and all that sort
of stuff. The other ones are going to get in
the neck. And I still have faith in the in
the average cop, he or she wherever they're working. I
(03:00):
do not have much faith in the in the executive
certain the way it's been operating. I think the new
missioner has certainly saying all the right thing. And you
can see he's angry. This guy, isn't he very Chambers.
He's angry with what happened, and he keeps talking about,
you know, laying the blame where it's at. Look it's
a body blow to the police. It's really is the
last thing. He needed to be. Thought we'd gone through
(03:21):
all this room, after the Louise Nicholas years and the
inquiries and Margaret Baisley and everyone looking at you know,
you thought, surely we've moved on. And I guess the
biggest shock was for me was with Costa, who always
thought this is the last person to expect to be
involved in doing that, because he was criticized being too woke,
(03:41):
you know, that was all it was the thing, and
yet here he is. Whether it's misguided loyalty or which
I hope for it, that's the best it could be.
They've just ignored the thing. And it's all to do
I think, Peter, you're saying it's the biggest who is
the culture? There isn't it?
Speaker 4 (03:57):
To me? The parallel and you've got to go back
nearly half a century is the year in New Zealand
cover up in Shenanigan's after Erebus, where who went from
pilot area to this whole big orchestrated littley of lies
that Petermann talked about. This is much bigger because it's
the public sector and it's the police. And to your question,
(04:18):
I've got confidence in the guys who are out there
doing the job on the beat. As you start to
move up the management, though, my confidence diminishes. And right
at the topic, with the exception of the current commissioner,
it's pretty much gone because it is the culture they've
operated under, these people, where they uphold the law externally,
but they seem to apply a different standard when it
(04:40):
comes to their own. And this whole situation just goes
from bad to worse. You know, we've got so many
people implicated, so many people who knew bits and didn't
do anything. A couple of people identified in the IPCA
report who did do stuff and did try to make points,
who were pushed to one side. Is this in competence
or a massive cover up? I suspect it's a combination
(05:01):
of both.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Now we're all of the age that would remember when
there was all talk that police look after their own.
They are like this almost Colt, you know, the biggest
gang in New Zealand and they wear blue. I mean,
you have had connection with all that stuff. With the
years in parliament. We thought it was gone, but it
obviously isn't gone. They are still protective, insular on for themselves.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
There have been incidents over the years where you've thought, oh,
the culture is dominating, but nothing to this extent. You know,
there have been things that have popped up and have
been able to be dealt with, but there's clearly something
ingrained and it probably goes back I just saw the
film last night of the new intake throwing their hats
in the air. I think it goes back to a
lot of the training.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Now.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
The police have an important role. They are there to
uphold the law, but they're not above the law. But
I think sometimes they're given that sense that you know,
when upholding the law, you've got to stand apart from it. Well,
it actually applies to you as well. And I just
think this is the whole thing coming crashing down around them.
They've got to look to their basic culture now in
their training right the way through, and also in the
(06:07):
selection of people at senior officers level.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Can you ever break that camaraderie sort of you know,
insill a bond thing though, I mean, you know you've
worked in workplaces television New Zealand would have had that
where you a reporter said that did something wrong and
everyone tried to cover up. We'd probably do the same
thing in the situation I'm worked and you've done and
in parliament with your members. So can you ever break that?
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Mark? I think you can. I mean, look, it's very
nature that you're going to have a you know, a
police force will look to themselves phone because no one
else can understand what they're doing. And it's a bit
like you know, you might say, no one understands what
it's like working in a newsroom or that environment unless
you've been in there. So there's always going to be
a bit of that, and I think some of that
(06:50):
is necessary, people going to have each other's backs. But
in some ways it may have I still can't. I
just still can't get my head around this. Know, it
started off with the pawn and the beast, reality and stuff.
It just gets worse, but those stories, it gets worse worse.
But in some ways maybe this is going to be cathartic.
(07:11):
It's forced such a rethink right at the very till
you don't I don't don't ignore it, Sorry, Mark, I
don't buy there, No, Well, Louise Nicholas, Yeah, but I
mean that's fifteen eighteen years ago.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
We said it was never going to happen again. I mean,
what's the difference.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
But I think it's another fact. I was just saying
to Mark before we came on the story in the
media yesterday about the lawyer in Auckland who was viewing
porn on his work computer all day and just turned
it off when staff came in to see him because
if they found it offensive. I think there's a deeper
sort of issue here about people in senior positions feeling
they can get away with stuff. I don't care.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
It was told him the desk ground the other way,
So people don't see this past. I mean this went
on for ages.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
It's almost sort of a a there's not so much tolerance,
but there's an indifference to behavior that we might otherwise
find unacceptable. A generation ago. It was probably the guys
that went out and had a few beers at lunchtime.
He came back to wek drunk in the afternoon, and
we tolerated that. I can remember, you know, jokes about
don't talk to so and so after to it. I
(08:13):
think that's the whole culture here that you know, we
don't confront it. We just sort of push it away,
and this hide it and hide it the same thing.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
But miss Mitchell's considering an investigation. I mean, Peter dunn't,
I don't want to an investigation? Do you want an investigation?
I mean, this is your bread and butter. Do you
think we need it an investigation?
Speaker 4 (08:34):
Look, I think the IPCA report's been pretty categoric and
I don't see what more there is to investigate unless
there are doubts about the scope of that report, and
I haven't seen any air. I think what's important now
is how we move on the idea of when I
first heard it, thought, what's the point of having an
independent commission to overlook the police when you've got the IPCA.
(08:54):
But I think the advantage of having someone almost there
on the spot who's a constant monitor while cultural and
behavioral change occurs might be a good thing. I think
that's where we need to focus, is what do we
do from here? Not you know, investigator. Yet again, that's
been a pretty shocking set of circumstances.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And just ask you that IPCA. Yeah right, Once again,
a lot of people have never trusted them and said
it's an old boys network and it's old cops working
in there. It's an old boy's neck. Have they come
out as a bit of a shining light over this?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
I think so. I think, I mean the big worry
because I'd got wind of this report a few days
before it came out. There's lots of talk around this
thing was dynamite, and the questioning was are they going
to publish it? You know, because and that was the first,
the first positive step, which yes, here it is warts
and all. Here is this, all of this stuff. We're
not reacting anything. So yeah, I think they've they've at
(09:47):
a time and people are suspicious, there's always the cops
investigating the cops, or people are going to vest it
interest and all that sort of stuff. I think they
did a stalar job on this, and I think, so
what more are you going to do? I mean, if
they identified any criminality that has to be that has
to be followed up. But they've done this is what
I agree with, Peter. It's been pretty comprehensive. Let's just
see some action. Now, Let's see what are you going
(10:07):
to do about what this report is uncovered?
Speaker 3 (10:11):
And what about the woman involved? Should she should those
charges be dropped? I've got to go to an air break.
Should they should they be dropped? And should they just
get on with what they're going to do. There's going
to be some sort of form of compensation, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Oh, looking, I have to do something. I mean until
we see the full level of what the composite seems
that the impression you got to get from it was
they tried to sort of bat this off by taking
legal action against her, and the impression you got to
see behavior as it went through got more and more extreme,
which it may imagine if you've been caught in this,
(10:44):
So what do you do? Does that excuse anything that
you do down the track as a result of this.
I don't see what the benefit is in prosecuting them. Mean,
they cause the problem, but.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
It depends what the nature of the charges. Yeah, if
it's just vengeance stuff, then drop it. But if if
there are potential offenses that she's created along the way,
they should be pursued separately.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Yeah, and they've got a casey looking at and doing
it independently, which I think is great. IDEA Friday face
off for Peter Dunn and Mark Sainsbury talking about police
behaving badly or kind of but he didn't really behave
bad He's got a speeding ticket. Police Commissioner Richar Chambers
admitt of getting a speeding ticket one hundred and twelve
or one hundred and eleven. It's been debated in our newsroom.
Grace says one hundred and twelve and the news guys
(11:28):
say one hundred and eleven. Is he much in one colometer? Know,
there isn't Peter down. Is this an overreaction or what's
what's your take on?
Speaker 4 (11:35):
Look, if he was caught speeding, whatever the circumstances, he's
paid the fine, fronted up. Good on them. I think
that that couldn't have occurred at a better time for him.
In a way, this shows that he's on the ball.
He's not going to be using his position to try
and talk his way out of things. You know, he
fronted up and paid and got on him Mark.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Was this a met Was this his media team working
overtime or do you reckon? Do you reckon it was
because if it was him, I'm for it.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
I'll tell you the synec And you think this is
passing the best PM move that could have possibly done,
because nothing exemplifies the difference in the old regime the
new regime in there. This guy cops a ticket, and
don't forget getting a ticket as a commissioner can be perilous.
Remember Peter Doone, he was he was the police commissioner.
He got stopped as his girlfriend or wife or partner
was driving. He hopped out of the car, you know,
(12:22):
to see what was happening, and that then led into
a whole other things that eventually led to him going
so but.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Whereas nothing, it's a little bit different.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
This was driving. This is the reverse. This is the
reverse that that. Here's this guy going right. I'm the
same as everyone else. I expect no special treatment and
that's the way the comp should be opreading.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Okay, all right, let's move on from the pop police
while we're going straight into drug driving now, Mark Sainsbury,
we've been talking about this for years now. It's coming
in and guess what the test case here and Wanton
So you know you you want to be but careful
when you go.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
I tell you one thing, and look, you know, I'm
been around a long long time, and as Bill Clinton,
I've did more than just pretend to inhale, you know.
But I tell you one thing I've never done I've
always been I don't like driving in an impaired state.
I just don't. So what did you give up driving?
If I'm driving? I wouldn't you know if someone see
(13:21):
better party and someone if you're driving, someone said he
I have a toke on this audio. No, and aren't
saying that has some great moral principle. I just don't.
Same with drinking and driving. You know, when we were young,
we did some stupid things. You do it once and
you get a real fright, you know, just in terms
of how on earth could I have done that? You know?
And so I think that the drug driving is a
real is a real worry because people are impaired, But
(13:43):
don't they still think they are right? Next the biggest worry,
I mean.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
The thing that gets to me out of the story,
and it's Friday face off, so I can be a
little bit more lenient on my opinion here. The thing
that gets to me is that everyone was ringing up
and saying, well, I actually drive better when I'm stone,
and I say, yeah, I make love better when I'm
stone too, and I eat food better when I'm stone too,
because the food tastes the hell of a lot better too,
does you do everything better when you're start.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
Yeah. I've heard poets and writers say I write my
best stuff in an un drunk or stone, and when
they've looked at it afterwards, they've said it's giberis.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Yeah. Look I've got friends you go, you go on trip,
they say, oh, they love going on a trip, and
they'll have a big dooby first and data. I just
it's just it's it's risk. That's the thing. I'm not
making any judgment on people's habits are over recreational drugs,
but don't do it and dry well.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
The thing about it is, I remember when we looked
at this when I was Associate Health minister. This is
you know, this issue started to arise and I remember
being advised I can't remember by which group of experts,
but they said the difference between drinking and taking drugs
is if you ingest alcohol, it goes through relatively quickly,
so you might be impaired for a few hours, but
the drugs, the effects stay on for several days. So
(14:55):
you might have you know, had a Saturday night, but
you could still be impaired Monday morning.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
And that's that's the big risk here. And of course
the difficulty then is detecting that level of impairments. Yeah,
and getting the right equipment so that you can in
fact take these people off.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
And especially with mariana, which it stays in the system,
and you're saying a long time, which is why people
a lot of people saying all the use p because
it goes through it gets frust through the system a
lot quicker.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Oh im with cocaine.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
I don't want to get into this because I'm I'll
get get in trouble testing your work. Okay, we use
meth and fetamine instead. Just crazy.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
So you're happy both happy that we're going to start
where you know, it's nice to be first and something
in we're not.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
If you're the first one things, then it be there.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
You favors.
Speaker 4 (15:40):
Would you just hope it's not a policeman. Let's hope
it's not.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Marke say no way, Jose, So you're right with it? Yeah,
I think it's scared And starting here, how soon do
they spread it out?
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Not till early in the not into the early in
the new year. No, it's starting here and then it's
rolled out around the country after after Christmas. So we're
okay with it. Let's talk about myths and you brought
it up. It's a great segue to meth. Thirty million
dollars invested for meth support, demand and supply targeted. But
meth has doubled, absolutely doubled in one year. Peter Dunne,
(16:19):
this is a bad drug, very bad drug, and we've
got a bad issue in you zee.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Yeah, we have. And I think the change has been
that Up until relatively recently, the meth industry was controlled locally,
basically through the gangs. One did supply, one did distribution.
I think what's happened now is that actually offshore interests
have taken much greater charge. There's more. It's not being
grown domestically, produced domestically so much, but a lot of
(16:46):
the stuff is being important, which raises real questions about
border control. You're seeing these big seizures occurring, but clearly
they are a bit of a tip of an iceberg
because a whole lot more is getting through, and the
risk and the dangers we've known those for years, but
it's just becoming far more pronounced because of the sheer
volume of the stuff.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
And this is what frustrates me. And you just said
it straight. Put the nail on the head there, Peter.
It frustrates me when I talk to people and they
say they it can't be much of it around because
they've just got one hundred and forty kilos. But if
they've just got one hundred and forty kilos, you know
that there's a thousand kilos that have got through.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
I mean, that's such an amazing increase in usage. Is
that purely driven by supply side demand side economics? Neck?
You know? Is it just because they're pushing more stuff
in here? And apparently so I've never bought meth or
seen how they say it's the most expensive. This is
one of the most expensive countries in the world.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
You're right, not that I've ever bought.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
But that's that's so it's a discuss. I mean, I've
just seen over the years so many lives destroyed by
that thing.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
It is a very bad drug, isn't it. I Mean,
there are a.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Number of serious crimes you hear of and you see
the defense and quarters they were they were on drugs
at the time. What was the drug methamphetamine? It it's
not And the stories that some are anecdotal, but know
that's the constant about how personalities and physical capabilities changed
that people do extraordinary things they wouldn't be capable of otherwise.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
You know.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
Thus they can rip things apart, ripped people apart. This
is awful. This is just you know, it's I.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
Was reading somewhere that it's that the Americans used to
use it a bit in the Second World War, didn't
they to make their soldiery, Yeah, get a bit more
powerful and just before battle.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
Yeah, And of course the Hitler was on myth for years.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
There's the recommendation for you.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
You can always tell someone who's on myth because their
teeth are falling out, they're rotten, and they gittery. It's horrible,
horrible drug done so much damage to so many people.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Wich is why one thing I'm pleased about in terms
of that what they're looking at doing is putting a
lot more money into addiction services. It's like this waste
land of people.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Yes, and trying to prevent it getting in here. Because
I think you're, Peter, You're right onto this. The cartel
stuff is now seeing us as an easy target and
an easy jail time to do if you got caught.
Speaker 4 (19:11):
Yeah, I mean we've laughed at and sort of been
shocked by Trump and blasting boats out of the water
in the Caribbean. Yeah, that's happening there. But it's the
same sort of things going on here. Not all those
necessarily small craft, but smuggling. You know, our isolated coastline
is providing all sorts of opportunities for landing stuff. It's
a never ending battle.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Never ending battle. Oh, eight hundred, I was going to
say eight hundred and eighty, ten eighty and asks for callers.
We're not taking callers. We've got Peter Dunn and we've
got Mark Sainsbury in the studio and it's Friday face off.
Max is just telling us about the banking situation. The
government has accepted recommendations from a bank inquiry and they're
saying that there's nineteen things that they're going to do.
(19:55):
They agree with most all of them, and they're going
to implement all of them, either partially or fully. Mark Sainsbury,
will this be enough of a difference.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Oh, you hope. So, I mean, look, you wonder, but
the problem with the banks is, you know, if you're
a shareholder in A and Z wrecked, you know seeing
all these sort of big increases in profit, But for
you and I, you see our mortgages go up and
out the costs of lending. And I suppose what gets
us that the numbers are just so high, aren't they been?
You're talking about billions of dollars in profit? Was sitting
going billions of dollars in profit?
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Two point five to be exact.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Yeah, so I'd go through this. It's interesting. I see
that the only thing that they basically ticked off everything
the committee recommended, except one of the partial ones. You
may know more about this, Peter, was over making climate
lending rules clear and consistent. And there was also cease
capital increases for banks. What does that mean?
Speaker 4 (20:52):
I'm not sure what.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
I think.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
That was the amount of money they had to.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Hold keep it Reserve reserve and they only partially agreed
to that.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
Yeah, because the Reserve Bank made that made that ruling,
I believe, Peter.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Is that right?
Speaker 4 (21:01):
I think so? But you know, and that's the point.
The Reserve Bank is supposed to exercise pridential supervision over
the trading banks in New Zealand. The problem is the conglomeration,
if you like, of Australian owned banks and the transfer
of profit. Someone told me some years ago, about three
or four years ago, that one of the reasons why
(21:22):
they argued that New Zealand didn't need to borrow as
much externally was because the banks here were holding so
much capital and that if we were able to use
more of that capital domestically, then we would lessen our
requirement on overseas borrowing, which lessens pressure on interest rates
and all of those things long term. So I think
that that's an area that could be explored, and that
(21:42):
would come down to the Reserve Bank juggling around its
requirements with regard to what the capital holdings in New
Zealand should be. But you know, at Mark's point is valid.
The average customer looks at this in terms of what's
due to my mortgage rate? Am I getting a decent
interest rate on my savings? You know, I seem to
be paying far more on my mortgage than I'm getting
back on my savings. And as the service being provided
(22:04):
up to the scratch, up to the you know, if
you if you rely on using your credit card for instance,
of those transactions smooth and unfettered, and also just just
those basic things about how they operate.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
And Nick, I think our relationship with banks has changed.
I mean, I remember you used to know your bank manager.
You know, you going to the bank. I mean there
was always a famous story of Mike Moore going into
the local bank. There the cash a check, Mike, how
are you?
Speaker 4 (22:31):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Good things? Can we see some id But anyway, Yeah,
we used to have a relationship with our banks. Now
it's so it's almost an algorithm. You know, if you're
going and apply for a loan, you've got to fill
in all this sort of stuff and they sort of
tickle these boxes. We have a different relationship, so we don't.
I think we see them different. We see them as
these sort of corporate sort of you know, giants are key.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
We bank the answer to break, to bring in real competition,
to try and open it up and make things.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
For someone's going to be the Unless you get competition,
that's the one thing that's going to drive change.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
I think they're part of the answer, and I think
they've survived. I've remarkably well over the last twenty years,
given that they've probably been under capitalized. But I think
the other thing that the banks here don't do enough
of is promote service. I've had some experiences recently of
dealing with Australian banks. They are back in the dark
ages where you fill in forms and you've got to
do them an original. You can't send copies. You've got
(23:26):
to be you know, this is sort of nineteen eighty
stuff over there. We've moved beyond that. We've got a
much slicker system. But the impression we're left with is
that our banking system is still inefficient and not serving
the needs of customers. And I think the banks have
got a big pr job ahead of them.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Yeah, I agree, especially when you're taking a billion dollars
in profit and a half. Yeah yeah, but I mean
they've given the governor' zelling government one billion dollars in
taxes and they've paid a billion dollars in wages, So
you've got to remember that as well. That's huge in
our community. Right, let's talk to party Mary. What the
hell's going on there? Pete had done? Two members have
been kicked out, they've been now been seen having meetings
(24:04):
with the other two members that aren't and the leaders.
The leaders are not around or are around, and the
other members are around or not around. I mean, what's
what's happening?
Speaker 4 (24:13):
Who knows? This shifts all the time. You know, you've
got Takotah Ferris saying today that he considers he hasn't
left the party even though he has been expelled, that
his electorate still considers him to be a Party Mari member.
I look this, Mari Mari politics have always got a
slightly byzant and feel about them. This is this is
classic my cynical theory. Is that John Tammahiry, who's someone
(24:36):
I quite like and got on well with over the years.
John's governed by a strong sense of ushu ushu against
the Labor Party because of the way he was treated
when he was a Labor member. So I just wonder
whether this whole thing is a bit way of saying, well,
let's make ourselves totally unelectable in terms of the next
government so that ensures that Labor loses, which will be
the ultimate form of revenge. Now that's just a wacky theory,
(24:57):
but who knows, you know, in the absence of any
clearer explanations, it might be the best one.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
It's just such a mess. And the thing that is,
do they in vote the walker jumping legislation And if
they do, are they going to win the seats back? Again? No?
You know, no way.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
Well, this is that. You see after the by election,
you'd have said, when Labour said or we're going to
win the Maray seats, back of it that solution, you'd
laughed at them and said, not a hope. You're going
to be fighting to hold a karating. Now they're in
the box seat, but that won't be enough for them.
They've still got to then get those party votes that
went to Party Maray to come to Labor. And what
(25:35):
if the MPs that leave form a splinter party and
splinter the vote.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
You know who? This makes even more pivotal next year's election.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
Winston Exactly, you take the.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Maray Party out of the equation or whatever. No one
knows what's going to happen there. There is one person
left who's going to be again in the king maker position.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
Well that's a great segue because the next question is
going to be Luckson says he's considering Christopher Luckxon's considering
a sales allah, his buddy John Key. Winston Peter's is
starically against it. Seymour loves it.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Peter Dunn.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
If I mean and Winston Peter's walked out, well got
kicked out of it, you would have been there and
then all that went down.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
So it was your fault, wasn't it, Peter, No, No,
I was not.
Speaker 4 (26:27):
It was one of the few things I'm not responsible. Look,
I'm not opposed to asset sales, but I think the
public strongly is. And I'm stunned really that Luxon is
even suggesting the idea. You know, it's a bit like, yeah,
it's more than red rag to a bull. I mean,
how do you lose votes very quickly? Now, if there's
a case for assets sales, they should be made at
(26:49):
the time. But to go out and say we're going
to campaign on it and then have your resolution partners say,
oh no, you can forget that. I just think this
is very dumb politics all around.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
And to be fair, the Treasury advice was that they
were talking about assets that are not required or of
limited value. You know, Okay, that's one thing you could say, well,
why on earth do we own this? I mean, one
of the classic examples I think has to be is
you can't sell It's probably TV and Z because I mean,
you know, I've got a great affection for TV and Z.
(27:20):
It's been most of my working life there. But you
got to think what is its purpose? As a government asset.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
But the biggest problem is what is its value and
then how then how to.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Get rid of it? But I totally with Peter. It's
the public. Public do not like asset sales. And look
back at the history of asset sales in this country,
which were either seen to enrich you know, whatever party
was in power, their sort of friends sort of appeared
to be sort of taking advantage of it. People look
at these things and say, oh, we once own that,
and now someone else is making sort of billions of
(27:49):
dollars of profits out of it. Look at the B
and Z. So whether it was the right decision not
at the time, the public do not.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Why I had a referendum next year on asset sales.
The last one we had was sixty seven percent against it.
If we did again next election, what do you think
the numbers would be.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
I think they would be at least the same.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Yeah, seventy five eighty.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
But there's one little bit to this, so that and
it hasn't been raised. When the Key government sold minority
shareholdings and the power companies and a couple of other assets,
people leapt in to buy them. So there's still the
possibility of that sort of you know, minority share issue
being floated. But I don't think any of the assets
that we've got at the moment lend themselves to that
(28:31):
sort of a solution.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
And of course it's really helped keep the power prices
down there.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
Well that's the other side of them too. You know
what people have collected their Yeah, they've spent them on
paying their power bills.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Yeah, but again that's because you're not really you still
have control, if you're retained majority control over it, you know,
you're still in fairy have control over those assets. The
worry is is that the flogging off air sets and
people do not like it. I think it's a serious
political risk for Christopher.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Well, it's almost like you're selling two bedrooms in your
family home. Yeah, I mean it doesn't and the family
home is not getting any bigger.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
No, yeah, that can be coming to stay here.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
Put there, we'll just move into the living room and
the next year it might be just the kitchen.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
Exactly. Take a short break and be back with hots
and knots. Peter Done and Mark Sainsbury. I'm very interested
to see what the hots and knots are with.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
The week that we have just had.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
The Friday.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Hot not.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
Oh, I just heard an incredible story from Mark Sainsby.
I'll tell you about it next week. I won't have
time about nine and a half hours and a busy
because he couldn't get on a flight. Oh my gosh,
hots and knots. Okay, Peter done, let's.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Go well, I've got a hot Andrew Little's performances mayor
over the last few weeks since he's taken off us,
I think he's been a breath of fresh air, no nonsense,
getting on with the job. And I'm told, unlike his predecessor,
turning up for work every day. So that's really good.
Good luck Andrew, you know, keep.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
It up here here. Okay, you got a not, I
got aknot and.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
It's ready to go. Back to what we were talking
about earlier. I think that the cultural issues that we've
been talking about with the police cut much deeper and
potentially right across the public sector in New Zealand, and
I think that this is going to be a big
job for the State Services Commission in trying to sort.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Out Wow wow, Mark Sainsbury behind a bit more personal.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I think what is hot Nick as those Sunshine Wellington
is just a different place where all different people in
the sunshines. You feel summer coming on. I just feel
it feels like a great Friday.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Hopefully you're not. It's my story that I have to
tell next week.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
If you know it, it relates to that story. But
it was just the fact as next set, I ended
up through some those terrible weather and Wellington having to
get a nine to a half hour bus ride. But
my knot was it was the businesses who had us
by the throat. I had to get the Parmesan North to.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Get get up to walk to the flight for Wellington
to Parmeston.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
No I didn't. I'd rented a car. Oh you drove
a cab eight one hundred dollars one way, Nick, eight
hundred dollars. You tell me that a car from Europe
Car rentals at Wellington Airport knew they had me by that.
You know what one way? Driven you up? Well I tried,
you wouldn't answer your phone.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
I would have driven you up there, sit straight out
to show them.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
That six hundred.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
So that's my that's mine not I'm sure I would
have anything about it.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
I would have done it for a free lunch. A
chat with Mark Sainsbury on the way up there. We
wouldn't have done anything else on the way up there
because we might.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Have got tested.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
But we would have we still, we still would have
had a good time. Peter don Bark Sainsbury. Thank you
for joining us this morning on Friday. Face off. I
have a great weekend. Peter's off turn for cargo. Hopefully
he does the plane doesn't get canceled. Yes, to get
a bus all the way down there like Mark then
nine hours on a bus nine and a half. I
couldn't have done it. I would have given the conference away.
(31:46):
I to see you, but you would have been probably
charging ten grand and appearance fee, so you needed to
be there.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills. Listen live
to news Talks It'd be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from news Talk said B Wellington's official week interview. It's
Friday Beta with Cordovic Property Management a better rental experience
for all.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Visit Counovic dot cod on In's head.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
On Thursday starts it.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Certainly it is Friday and I certainly got the beat.
Mark Sainsbury, former broadcaster, general, good guy and Valentinian. Good
morning and welcome Hey you Nick, how you feeling good?
Top of your game?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Well, I tell you what. I don't want to spoil
my my what's hot? But the weather doesn't it change
our attitude when we get some sunshine one hundred percent?
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Does Friday still I mean, you guys are both doing
your own thing and not. Peter Dunn, former minister obviously welcome, Peter,
good to be back. I just wanted to have a
chat about whether you Fridays are as relevant to people
who I don't want to call you retired because you're
neither of you will retired but semi retired. Does Friday
still feel like a Friday or does it just feel
like any other day of the week.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Now it still feels even though you don't have the
structure that was Friday's used to be huge, and especially
in Parliament because it was when we're working there, It's Friday,
everyone's bagging off. Friday used to be let's all go
out for lunch day. It was also the day governments
were dump anything.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
Four o'clock Friday afternoon.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
And it's funny, you still get it even now, even
though you're not working in that structured environment anymore, Friday
still has that same It's still the end of the week.
You're still sort of thinking.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Oh, okay, I still in terms of the working week
and the weekend and things you do on the weekend
and things you do. My wife just gets so frustrated.
So you can do that anytime. Why are you living
till Saturday?
Speaker 3 (01:52):
The Lord's the Lord's.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
I know exactly what you're talking about.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
You see, I've never been in that luxury or whatever
you want to call it. So I just that's why
I said this morning when I started the show, I
wonder if people that are working from home still think
Friday Day is Friday, because you know, nothing's really any different,
is it. Anyway, Let's move on. There's been been some
very big news this week, and we have to discuss it.
As we know, disgraced Deputy Police Commissioner Jevin and Skimmings
(02:20):
is facing allegations of sexual harassment and the IPCA report
found that top cops covered up and then the commissioner
Costa was front and center. Mark Sainsbury, I'm going to
start with this with you. Do you think the public
and yourself still have faith in the police.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Yes, but it's sorely tried. I mean what this seems
to seems to be is and which is most concerning.
It's not your poor guy gave you a ticket neck.
You know, next time he pulls you up, because you're
going to go, oh, why don't you look after your
own and your dirty, filthy commissioners and all that sort
of stuff. The other ones are going to get in
the neck. And I still have faith in the in
the average cop, he or she wherever they're working. I
(03:00):
do not have much faith in the in the executive
certain the way it's been operating. I think the new
missioner has certainly saying all the right thing. And you
can see he's angry. This guy, isn't he very Chambers.
He's angry with what happened, and he keeps talking about,
you know, laying the blame where it's at. Look it's
a body blow to the police. It's really is the
last thing. He needed to be. Thought we'd gone through
(03:21):
all this room, after the Louise Nicholas years and the
inquiries and Margaret Baisley and everyone looking at you know,
you thought, surely we've moved on. And I guess the
biggest shock was for me was with Costa, who always
thought this is the last person to expect to be
involved in doing that, because he was criticized being too woke,
(03:41):
you know, that was all it was the thing, and
yet here he is. Whether it's misguided loyalty or which
I hope for it, that's the best it could be.
They've just ignored the thing. And it's all to do
I think, Peter, you're saying it's the biggest who is
the culture? There isn't it?
Speaker 4 (03:57):
To me? The parallel and you've got to go back
nearly half a century is the year in New Zealand
cover up in Shenanigan's after Erebus, where who went from
pilot area to this whole big orchestrated littley of lies
that Petermann talked about. This is much bigger because it's
the public sector and it's the police. And to your question,
(04:18):
I've got confidence in the guys who are out there
doing the job on the beat. As you start to
move up the management, though, my confidence diminishes. And right
at the topic, with the exception of the current commissioner,
it's pretty much gone because it is the culture they've
operated under, these people, where they uphold the law externally,
but they seem to apply a different standard when it
(04:40):
comes to their own. And this whole situation just goes
from bad to worse. You know, we've got so many
people implicated, so many people who knew bits and didn't
do anything. A couple of people identified in the IPCA
report who did do stuff and did try to make points,
who were pushed to one side. Is this in competence
or a massive cover up? I suspect it's a combination
(05:01):
of both.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Now we're all of the age that would remember when
there was all talk that police look after their own.
They are like this almost Colt, you know, the biggest
gang in New Zealand and they wear blue. I mean,
you have had connection with all that stuff. With the
years in parliament. We thought it was gone, but it
obviously isn't gone. They are still protective, insular on for themselves.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
There have been incidents over the years where you've thought, oh,
the culture is dominating, but nothing to this extent. You know,
there have been things that have popped up and have
been able to be dealt with, but there's clearly something
ingrained and it probably goes back I just saw the
film last night of the new intake throwing their hats
in the air. I think it goes back to a
lot of the training.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Now.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
The police have an important role. They are there to
uphold the law, but they're not above the law. But
I think sometimes they're given that sense that you know,
when upholding the law, you've got to stand apart from it. Well,
it actually applies to you as well. And I just
think this is the whole thing coming crashing down around them.
They've got to look to their basic culture now in
their training right the way through, and also in the
(06:07):
selection of people at senior officers level.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Can you ever break that camaraderie sort of you know,
insill a bond thing though, I mean, you know you've
worked in workplaces television New Zealand would have had that
where you a reporter said that did something wrong and
everyone tried to cover up. We'd probably do the same
thing in the situation I'm worked and you've done and
in parliament with your members. So can you ever break that?
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Mark? I think you can. I mean, look, it's very
nature that you're going to have a you know, a
police force will look to themselves phone because no one
else can understand what they're doing. And it's a bit
like you know, you might say, no one understands what
it's like working in a newsroom or that environment unless
you've been in there. So there's always going to be
a bit of that, and I think some of that
(06:50):
is necessary, people going to have each other's backs. But
in some ways it may have I still can't. I
just still can't get my head around this. Know, it
started off with the pawn and the beast, reality and stuff.
It just gets worse, but those stories, it gets worse worse.
But in some ways maybe this is going to be cathartic.
(07:11):
It's forced such a rethink right at the very till
you don't I don't don't ignore it, Sorry, Mark, I
don't buy there, No, Well, Louise Nicholas, Yeah, but I
mean that's fifteen eighteen years ago.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
We said it was never going to happen again. I mean,
what's the difference.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
But I think it's another fact. I was just saying
to Mark before we came on the story in the
media yesterday about the lawyer in Auckland who was viewing
porn on his work computer all day and just turned
it off when staff came in to see him because
if they found it offensive. I think there's a deeper
sort of issue here about people in senior positions feeling
they can get away with stuff. I don't care.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
It was told him the desk ground the other way,
So people don't see this past. I mean this went
on for ages.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
It's almost sort of a a there's not so much tolerance,
but there's an indifference to behavior that we might otherwise
find unacceptable. A generation ago. It was probably the guys
that went out and had a few beers at lunchtime.
He came back to wek drunk in the afternoon, and
we tolerated that. I can remember, you know, jokes about
don't talk to so and so after to it. I
(08:13):
think that's the whole culture here that you know, we
don't confront it. We just sort of push it away,
and this hide it and hide it the same thing.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
But miss Mitchell's considering an investigation. I mean, Peter dunn't,
I don't want to an investigation? Do you want an investigation?
I mean, this is your bread and butter. Do you
think we need it an investigation?
Speaker 4 (08:34):
Look, I think the IPCA report's been pretty categoric and
I don't see what more there is to investigate unless
there are doubts about the scope of that report, and
I haven't seen any air. I think what's important now
is how we move on the idea of when I
first heard it, thought, what's the point of having an
independent commission to overlook the police when you've got the IPCA.
(08:54):
But I think the advantage of having someone almost there
on the spot who's a constant monitor while cultural and
behavioral change occurs might be a good thing. I think
that's where we need to focus, is what do we
do from here? Not you know, investigator. Yet again, that's
been a pretty shocking set of circumstances.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And just ask you that IPCA. Yeah right, Once again,
a lot of people have never trusted them and said
it's an old boys network and it's old cops working
in there. It's an old boy's neck. Have they come
out as a bit of a shining light over this?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
I think so. I think, I mean the big worry
because I'd got wind of this report a few days
before it came out. There's lots of talk around this
thing was dynamite, and the questioning was are they going
to publish it? You know, because and that was the first,
the first positive step, which yes, here it is warts
and all. Here is this, all of this stuff. We're
not reacting anything. So yeah, I think they've they've at
(09:47):
a time and people are suspicious, there's always the cops
investigating the cops, or people are going to vest it
interest and all that sort of stuff. I think they
did a stalar job on this, and I think, so
what more are you going to do? I mean, if
they identified any criminality that has to be that has
to be followed up. But they've done this is what
I agree with, Peter. It's been pretty comprehensive. Let's just
see some action. Now, Let's see what are you going
(10:07):
to do about what this report is uncovered?
Speaker 3 (10:11):
And what about the woman involved? Should she should those
charges be dropped? I've got to go to an air break.
Should they should they be dropped? And should they just
get on with what they're going to do. There's going
to be some sort of form of compensation, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Oh, looking, I have to do something. I mean until
we see the full level of what the composite seems
that the impression you got to get from it was
they tried to sort of bat this off by taking
legal action against her, and the impression you got to
see behavior as it went through got more and more extreme,
which it may imagine if you've been caught in this,
(10:44):
So what do you do? Does that excuse anything that
you do down the track as a result of this.
I don't see what the benefit is in prosecuting them. Mean,
they cause the problem, but.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
It depends what the nature of the charges. Yeah, if
it's just vengeance stuff, then drop it. But if if
there are potential offenses that she's created along the way,
they should be pursued separately.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Yeah, and they've got a casey looking at and doing
it independently, which I think is great. IDEA Friday face
off for Peter Dunn and Mark Sainsbury talking about police
behaving badly or kind of but he didn't really behave
bad He's got a speeding ticket. Police Commissioner Richar Chambers
admitt of getting a speeding ticket one hundred and twelve
or one hundred and eleven. It's been debated in our newsroom.
Grace says one hundred and twelve and the news guys
(11:28):
say one hundred and eleven. Is he much in one colometer? Know,
there isn't Peter down. Is this an overreaction or what's
what's your take on?
Speaker 4 (11:35):
Look, if he was caught speeding, whatever the circumstances, he's
paid the fine, fronted up. Good on them. I think
that that couldn't have occurred at a better time for him.
In a way, this shows that he's on the ball.
He's not going to be using his position to try
and talk his way out of things. You know, he
fronted up and paid and got on him Mark.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Was this a met Was this his media team working
overtime or do you reckon? Do you reckon it was
because if it was him, I'm for it.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
I'll tell you the synec And you think this is
passing the best PM move that could have possibly done,
because nothing exemplifies the difference in the old regime the
new regime in there. This guy cops a ticket, and
don't forget getting a ticket as a commissioner can be perilous.
Remember Peter Doone, he was he was the police commissioner.
He got stopped as his girlfriend or wife or partner
was driving. He hopped out of the car, you know,
(12:22):
to see what was happening, and that then led into
a whole other things that eventually led to him going
so but.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Whereas nothing, it's a little bit different.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
This was driving. This is the reverse. This is the
reverse that that. Here's this guy going right. I'm the
same as everyone else. I expect no special treatment and
that's the way the comp should be opreading.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Okay, all right, let's move on from the pop police
while we're going straight into drug driving now, Mark Sainsbury,
we've been talking about this for years now. It's coming
in and guess what the test case here and Wanton
So you know you you want to be but careful
when you go.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
I tell you one thing, and look, you know, I'm
been around a long long time, and as Bill Clinton,
I've did more than just pretend to inhale, you know.
But I tell you one thing I've never done I've
always been I don't like driving in an impaired state.
I just don't. So what did you give up driving?
If I'm driving? I wouldn't you know if someone see
(13:21):
better party and someone if you're driving, someone said he
I have a toke on this audio. No, and aren't
saying that has some great moral principle. I just don't.
Same with drinking and driving. You know, when we were young,
we did some stupid things. You do it once and
you get a real fright, you know, just in terms
of how on earth could I have done that? You know?
And so I think that the drug driving is a
real is a real worry because people are impaired, But
(13:43):
don't they still think they are right? Next the biggest worry,
I mean.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
The thing that gets to me out of the story,
and it's Friday face off, so I can be a
little bit more lenient on my opinion here. The thing
that gets to me is that everyone was ringing up
and saying, well, I actually drive better when I'm stone,
and I say, yeah, I make love better when I'm
stone too, and I eat food better when I'm stone too,
because the food tastes the hell of a lot better too,
does you do everything better when you're start.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
Yeah. I've heard poets and writers say I write my
best stuff in an un drunk or stone, and when
they've looked at it afterwards, they've said it's giberis.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Yeah. Look I've got friends you go, you go on trip,
they say, oh, they love going on a trip, and
they'll have a big dooby first and data. I just
it's just it's it's risk. That's the thing. I'm not
making any judgment on people's habits are over recreational drugs,
but don't do it and dry well.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
The thing about it is, I remember when we looked
at this when I was Associate Health minister. This is
you know, this issue started to arise and I remember
being advised I can't remember by which group of experts,
but they said the difference between drinking and taking drugs
is if you ingest alcohol, it goes through relatively quickly,
so you might be impaired for a few hours, but
the drugs, the effects stay on for several days. So
(14:55):
you might have you know, had a Saturday night, but
you could still be impaired Monday morning.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
And that's that's the big risk here. And of course
the difficulty then is detecting that level of impairments. Yeah,
and getting the right equipment so that you can in
fact take these people off.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
And especially with mariana, which it stays in the system,
and you're saying a long time, which is why people
a lot of people saying all the use p because
it goes through it gets frust through the system a
lot quicker.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Oh im with cocaine.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
I don't want to get into this because I'm I'll
get get in trouble testing your work. Okay, we use
meth and fetamine instead. Just crazy.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
So you're happy both happy that we're going to start
where you know, it's nice to be first and something
in we're not.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
If you're the first one things, then it be there.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
You favors.
Speaker 4 (15:40):
Would you just hope it's not a policeman. Let's hope
it's not.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Marke say no way, Jose, So you're right with it? Yeah,
I think it's scared And starting here, how soon do
they spread it out?
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Not till early in the not into the early in
the new year. No, it's starting here and then it's
rolled out around the country after after Christmas. So we're
okay with it. Let's talk about myths and you brought
it up. It's a great segue to meth. Thirty million
dollars invested for meth support, demand and supply targeted. But
meth has doubled, absolutely doubled in one year. Peter Dunne,
(16:19):
this is a bad drug, very bad drug, and we've
got a bad issue in you zee.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Yeah, we have. And I think the change has been
that Up until relatively recently, the meth industry was controlled locally,
basically through the gangs. One did supply, one did distribution.
I think what's happened now is that actually offshore interests
have taken much greater charge. There's more. It's not being
grown domestically, produced domestically so much, but a lot of
(16:46):
the stuff is being important, which raises real questions about
border control. You're seeing these big seizures occurring, but clearly
they are a bit of a tip of an iceberg
because a whole lot more is getting through, and the
risk and the dangers we've known those for years, but
it's just becoming far more pronounced because of the sheer
volume of the stuff.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
And this is what frustrates me. And you just said
it straight. Put the nail on the head there, Peter.
It frustrates me when I talk to people and they
say they it can't be much of it around because
they've just got one hundred and forty kilos. But if
they've just got one hundred and forty kilos, you know
that there's a thousand kilos that have got through.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
I mean, that's such an amazing increase in usage. Is
that purely driven by supply side demand side economics? Neck?
You know? Is it just because they're pushing more stuff
in here? And apparently so I've never bought meth or
seen how they say it's the most expensive. This is
one of the most expensive countries in the world.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
You're right, not that I've ever bought.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
But that's that's so it's a discuss. I mean, I've
just seen over the years so many lives destroyed by
that thing.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
It is a very bad drug, isn't it. I Mean,
there are a.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Number of serious crimes you hear of and you see
the defense and quarters they were they were on drugs
at the time. What was the drug methamphetamine? It it's
not And the stories that some are anecdotal, but know
that's the constant about how personalities and physical capabilities changed
that people do extraordinary things they wouldn't be capable of otherwise.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
You know.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
Thus they can rip things apart, ripped people apart. This
is awful. This is just you know, it's I.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
Was reading somewhere that it's that the Americans used to
use it a bit in the Second World War, didn't
they to make their soldiery, Yeah, get a bit more
powerful and just before battle.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
Yeah, And of course the Hitler was on myth for years.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
There's the recommendation for you.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
You can always tell someone who's on myth because their
teeth are falling out, they're rotten, and they gittery. It's horrible,
horrible drug done so much damage to so many people.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Wich is why one thing I'm pleased about in terms
of that what they're looking at doing is putting a
lot more money into addiction services. It's like this waste
land of people.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Yes, and trying to prevent it getting in here. Because
I think you're, Peter, You're right onto this. The cartel
stuff is now seeing us as an easy target and
an easy jail time to do if you got caught.
Speaker 4 (19:11):
Yeah, I mean we've laughed at and sort of been
shocked by Trump and blasting boats out of the water
in the Caribbean. Yeah, that's happening there. But it's the
same sort of things going on here. Not all those
necessarily small craft, but smuggling. You know, our isolated coastline
is providing all sorts of opportunities for landing stuff. It's
a never ending battle.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Never ending battle. Oh, eight hundred, I was going to
say eight hundred and eighty, ten eighty and asks for callers.
We're not taking callers. We've got Peter Dunn and we've
got Mark Sainsbury in the studio and it's Friday face off.
Max is just telling us about the banking situation. The
government has accepted recommendations from a bank inquiry and they're
saying that there's nineteen things that they're going to do.
(19:55):
They agree with most all of them, and they're going
to implement all of them, either partially or fully. Mark Sainsbury,
will this be enough of a difference.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Oh, you hope. So, I mean, look, you wonder, but
the problem with the banks is, you know, if you're
a shareholder in A and Z wrecked, you know seeing
all these sort of big increases in profit, But for
you and I, you see our mortgages go up and
out the costs of lending. And I suppose what gets
us that the numbers are just so high, aren't they been?
You're talking about billions of dollars in profit? Was sitting
going billions of dollars in profit?
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Two point five to be exact.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Yeah, so I'd go through this. It's interesting. I see
that the only thing that they basically ticked off everything
the committee recommended, except one of the partial ones. You
may know more about this, Peter, was over making climate
lending rules clear and consistent. And there was also cease
capital increases for banks. What does that mean?
Speaker 4 (20:52):
I'm not sure what.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
I think.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
That was the amount of money they had to.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Hold keep it Reserve reserve and they only partially agreed
to that.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
Yeah, because the Reserve Bank made that made that ruling,
I believe, Peter.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Is that right?
Speaker 4 (21:01):
I think so? But you know, and that's the point.
The Reserve Bank is supposed to exercise pridential supervision over
the trading banks in New Zealand. The problem is the conglomeration,
if you like, of Australian owned banks and the transfer
of profit. Someone told me some years ago, about three
or four years ago, that one of the reasons why
(21:22):
they argued that New Zealand didn't need to borrow as
much externally was because the banks here were holding so
much capital and that if we were able to use
more of that capital domestically, then we would lessen our
requirement on overseas borrowing, which lessens pressure on interest rates
and all of those things long term. So I think
that that's an area that could be explored, and that
(21:42):
would come down to the Reserve Bank juggling around its
requirements with regard to what the capital holdings in New
Zealand should be. But you know, at Mark's point is valid.
The average customer looks at this in terms of what's
due to my mortgage rate? Am I getting a decent
interest rate on my savings? You know, I seem to
be paying far more on my mortgage than I'm getting
back on my savings. And as the service being provided
(22:04):
up to the scratch, up to the you know, if
you if you rely on using your credit card for instance,
of those transactions smooth and unfettered, and also just just
those basic things about how they operate.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
And Nick, I think our relationship with banks has changed.
I mean, I remember you used to know your bank manager.
You know, you going to the bank. I mean there
was always a famous story of Mike Moore going into
the local bank. There the cash a check, Mike, how
are you?
Speaker 4 (22:31):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Good things? Can we see some id But anyway, Yeah,
we used to have a relationship with our banks. Now
it's so it's almost an algorithm. You know, if you're
going and apply for a loan, you've got to fill
in all this sort of stuff and they sort of
tickle these boxes. We have a different relationship, so we don't.
I think we see them different. We see them as
these sort of corporate sort of you know, giants are key.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
We bank the answer to break, to bring in real competition,
to try and open it up and make things.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
For someone's going to be the Unless you get competition,
that's the one thing that's going to drive change.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
I think they're part of the answer, and I think
they've survived. I've remarkably well over the last twenty years,
given that they've probably been under capitalized. But I think
the other thing that the banks here don't do enough
of is promote service. I've had some experiences recently of
dealing with Australian banks. They are back in the dark
ages where you fill in forms and you've got to
do them an original. You can't send copies. You've got
(23:26):
to be you know, this is sort of nineteen eighty
stuff over there. We've moved beyond that. We've got a
much slicker system. But the impression we're left with is
that our banking system is still inefficient and not serving
the needs of customers. And I think the banks have
got a big pr job ahead of them.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Yeah, I agree, especially when you're taking a billion dollars
in profit and a half. Yeah yeah, but I mean
they've given the governor' zelling government one billion dollars in
taxes and they've paid a billion dollars in wages, So
you've got to remember that as well. That's huge in
our community. Right, let's talk to party Mary. What the
hell's going on there? Pete had done? Two members have
been kicked out, they've been now been seen having meetings
(24:04):
with the other two members that aren't and the leaders.
The leaders are not around or are around, and the
other members are around or not around. I mean, what's
what's happening?
Speaker 4 (24:13):
Who knows? This shifts all the time. You know, you've
got Takotah Ferris saying today that he considers he hasn't
left the party even though he has been expelled, that
his electorate still considers him to be a Party Mari member.
I look this, Mari Mari politics have always got a
slightly byzant and feel about them. This is this is
classic my cynical theory. Is that John Tammahiry, who's someone
(24:36):
I quite like and got on well with over the years.
John's governed by a strong sense of ushu ushu against
the Labor Party because of the way he was treated
when he was a Labor member. So I just wonder
whether this whole thing is a bit way of saying, well,
let's make ourselves totally unelectable in terms of the next
government so that ensures that Labor loses, which will be
the ultimate form of revenge. Now that's just a wacky theory,
(24:57):
but who knows, you know, in the absence of any
clearer explanations, it might be the best one.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
It's just such a mess. And the thing that is,
do they in vote the walker jumping legislation And if
they do, are they going to win the seats back? Again? No?
You know, no way.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
Well, this is that. You see after the by election,
you'd have said, when Labour said or we're going to
win the Maray seats, back of it that solution, you'd
laughed at them and said, not a hope. You're going
to be fighting to hold a karating. Now they're in
the box seat, but that won't be enough for them.
They've still got to then get those party votes that
went to Party Maray to come to Labor. And what
(25:35):
if the MPs that leave form a splinter party and
splinter the vote.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
You know who? This makes even more pivotal next year's election.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
Winston Exactly, you take the.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Maray Party out of the equation or whatever. No one
knows what's going to happen there. There is one person
left who's going to be again in the king maker position.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
Well that's a great segue because the next question is
going to be Luckson says he's considering Christopher Luckxon's considering
a sales allah, his buddy John Key. Winston Peter's is
starically against it. Seymour loves it.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Peter Dunn.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
If I mean and Winston Peter's walked out, well got
kicked out of it, you would have been there and
then all that went down.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
So it was your fault, wasn't it, Peter, No, No,
I was not.
Speaker 4 (26:27):
It was one of the few things I'm not responsible. Look,
I'm not opposed to asset sales, but I think the
public strongly is. And I'm stunned really that Luxon is
even suggesting the idea. You know, it's a bit like, yeah,
it's more than red rag to a bull. I mean,
how do you lose votes very quickly? Now, if there's
a case for assets sales, they should be made at
(26:49):
the time. But to go out and say we're going
to campaign on it and then have your resolution partners say,
oh no, you can forget that. I just think this
is very dumb politics all around.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
And to be fair, the Treasury advice was that they
were talking about assets that are not required or of
limited value. You know, Okay, that's one thing you could say, well,
why on earth do we own this? I mean, one
of the classic examples I think has to be is
you can't sell It's probably TV and Z because I mean,
you know, I've got a great affection for TV and Z.
(27:20):
It's been most of my working life there. But you
got to think what is its purpose? As a government asset.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
But the biggest problem is what is its value and
then how then how to.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Get rid of it? But I totally with Peter. It's
the public. Public do not like asset sales. And look
back at the history of asset sales in this country,
which were either seen to enrich you know, whatever party
was in power, their sort of friends sort of appeared
to be sort of taking advantage of it. People look
at these things and say, oh, we once own that,
and now someone else is making sort of billions of
(27:49):
dollars of profits out of it. Look at the B
and Z. So whether it was the right decision not
at the time, the public do not.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Why I had a referendum next year on asset sales.
The last one we had was sixty seven percent against it.
If we did again next election, what do you think
the numbers would be.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
I think they would be at least the same.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Yeah, seventy five eighty.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
But there's one little bit to this, so that and
it hasn't been raised. When the Key government sold minority
shareholdings and the power companies and a couple of other assets,
people leapt in to buy them. So there's still the
possibility of that sort of you know, minority share issue
being floated. But I don't think any of the assets
that we've got at the moment lend themselves to that
(28:31):
sort of a solution.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
And of course it's really helped keep the power prices
down there.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
Well that's the other side of them too. You know
what people have collected their Yeah, they've spent them on
paying their power bills.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Yeah, but again that's because you're not really you still
have control, if you're retained majority control over it, you know,
you're still in fairy have control over those assets. The
worry is is that the flogging off air sets and
people do not like it. I think it's a serious
political risk for Christopher.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Well, it's almost like you're selling two bedrooms in your
family home. Yeah, I mean it doesn't and the family
home is not getting any bigger.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
No, yeah, that can be coming to stay here.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
Put there, we'll just move into the living room and
the next year it might be just the kitchen.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
Exactly. Take a short break and be back with hots
and knots. Peter Done and Mark Sainsbury. I'm very interested
to see what the hots and knots are with.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
The week that we have just had.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
The Friday.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Hot not.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
Oh, I just heard an incredible story from Mark Sainsby.
I'll tell you about it next week. I won't have
time about nine and a half hours and a busy
because he couldn't get on a flight. Oh my gosh,
hots and knots. Okay, Peter done, let's.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Go well, I've got a hot Andrew Little's performances mayor
over the last few weeks since he's taken off us,
I think he's been a breath of fresh air, no nonsense,
getting on with the job. And I'm told, unlike his predecessor,
turning up for work every day. So that's really good.
Good luck Andrew, you know, keep.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
It up here here. Okay, you got a not, I
got aknot and.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
It's ready to go. Back to what we were talking
about earlier. I think that the cultural issues that we've
been talking about with the police cut much deeper and
potentially right across the public sector in New Zealand, and
I think that this is going to be a big
job for the State Services Commission in trying to sort.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Out Wow wow, Mark Sainsbury behind a bit more personal.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I think what is hot Nick as those Sunshine Wellington
is just a different place where all different people in
the sunshines. You feel summer coming on. I just feel
it feels like a great Friday.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Hopefully you're not. It's my story that I have to
tell next week.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
If you know it, it relates to that story. But
it was just the fact as next set, I ended
up through some those terrible weather and Wellington having to
get a nine to a half hour bus ride. But
my knot was it was the businesses who had us
by the throat. I had to get the Parmesan North to.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Get get up to walk to the flight for Wellington
to Parmeston.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
No I didn't. I'd rented a car. Oh you drove
a cab eight one hundred dollars one way, Nick, eight
hundred dollars. You tell me that a car from Europe
Car rentals at Wellington Airport knew they had me by that.
You know what one way? Driven you up? Well I tried,
you wouldn't answer your phone.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
I would have driven you up there, sit straight out
to show them.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
That six hundred.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
So that's my that's mine not I'm sure I would
have anything about it.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
I would have done it for a free lunch. A
chat with Mark Sainsbury on the way up there. We
wouldn't have done anything else on the way up there
because we might.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Have got tested.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
But we would have we still, we still would have
had a good time. Peter don Bark Sainsbury. Thank you
for joining us this morning on Friday. Face off. I
have a great weekend. Peter's off turn for cargo. Hopefully
he does the plane doesn't get canceled. Yes, to get
a bus all the way down there like Mark then
nine hours on a bus nine and a half. I
couldn't have done it. I would have given the conference away.
(31:46):
I to see you, but you would have been probably
charging ten grand and appearance fee, so you needed to
be there.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills. Listen live
to news Talks It'd be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.