July 31, 2025 • 32 mins
US President Donald Trump has inked an executive order raising tariffs on Kiwi goods from 10% to 15%. What impact will this have on our exporters - and how did Australia get away with staying at 10%?
Also, FBI director Kash Patel was in Wellington this week opening a brand new permanent office. Should Kiwis be concerned about having the FBI in town?
To answer those questions, former Minister and Ohariu MP Peter Dunne and political commentator and Capital director Ben Thomas joined Nick Mills for Friday Faceoff.
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 facearf with Kudovic Property Management, a better rental experience
for all. Visit Kovic dot co dot ins head.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Thursday start joining us for Friday face office. Former minister
and Wellingtonian. A great guy. He actually comes from Canterbury,
but he's been on Wellington most of his adult life.
Peter Dune, Good morning, Peter Morning. Haven't moved back to
christ yet.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Know I've been back, but I haven't.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
Yeah, we keep.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Talking about it. And political commentator Ben Thomas, Good morning, Ben?
How you doing? How are you feeling?
Speaker 5 (00:51):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Look, it's been a busy life.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
T g af Oh yeah, I get you. I get you.
We all love Fridays. The FBI have now a permanent
presence and office in Wennington would direct the Pattel Landing
in New Zealand to open the new attashe Attashi, which
he says is partly to counter the influence of China,
but the government is certainly trying to sell it in
(01:17):
a different way. Peter Done, what is your initial response
to this announcement?
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Most people would say, well, I'm not too sure about this,
but actually it makes sense. You know, the FBI has
offices I've heard this morning in a variety of places
around the world, including Beijing and possibly Moscow. I think
it's good that they're explicit about it. You know, it's
going to be part of the embassy. We know there's
going to be an FBI office. Far better that than
the suspicion that accords other embassies over the years. Is
(01:45):
this guy really a diplomat or are they an undercover
police agent?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Can I just interrupt you second there, because we discussed
it this morning. Is it not a separate office, it's
just part of the actual embassy.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Well, it's going to be located in the Embassy of
Artist so maybe a separate office. But I think the
transparency is good. I think people will worry a little
bit about what the geopolitical implications are, but from a
point of view of international crime, crime cooperation, et cetera,
et cetera, I think it makes sense. Ben.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
What do you think it's going to do about to
do with our relationship with China? I mean everyone's trying
to push that under the mat. You know, Judith Collins,
you know, Whinston Peters are all saying, Oh, it's got
nothing to do and it's not going to make any difference. Well,
we're realists here, aren't we.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
Well, look, you look at what the FBI does, and
the FBI is, in addition to being sort of America's
police within its borders, it's their sort of internal security
function as well, in the same sense that the SIS
is in New Zealand within our borders.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
So it's a link police.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
It's essentially well, it's you know, I think what they're
likely to be concerned about here, you know, in terms
of this relationship is national security terrorism, you know, those
kinds of threats that we've seen as sort of you know,
upsurgeon and Western democracies over the last you know, it's
sort of what you know, well, the post nine to
eleven world really, but also in the last probably ten
(03:14):
years or so. Uh And and it's you know, it's
about information sharing, it's about technique sharing, that kind of thing.
So it's it's not about you know, you know, getting
getting into the airwave.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
I just interrupt you a second. You're trying to tell
me that you don't think it's got anything to do
with a certain couple of ships floating around between Australia
and New Zealand. You don't think it's got anything to
do with any the fact that the Chinese are getting
a presence in that the islands, you don't think it's
got anything to do.
Speaker 4 (03:40):
That's not what the FBI does. You know there there,
they're a sort of within borders kind of security outfit.
So you know, in terms of signals intelligence, which is
where we're sort of keeping an eye on what people
are doing outside New Zealand. That's you know, in the
Five Eyes relationship, that's you know, the GCSB here and
(04:01):
I think any s a over in America and they
already share a lot of intelligens about that kind of thing.
So I think you know, a few a few ships
coming near the coast that just sort of accidentally got
missed until you know that that's an issue, but that's
not I think what this relationship is.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
My issue with Ben's thoughts on this, Peter done is
that Cash Patel himself said that's one of the reasons why.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
They're setting up that was a bad mistake on his part.
I think that that, I mean, I think that that
did raise a whole lot of unnecessary fears. It was
struck me as a bit of American bravado, which was
sort of quite But he did say He did say it,
and I think it was a very unfortunate remark because
the nature of the work they're going to be involved
in is going to be much more focused on crime prevention,
(04:52):
either either individual criminals with cross border relationships or corporate crime,
those sorts of things. It's not going to be a
political security agency. But I think that he sort of
seemed to be He was sort of staying his stuff
a bit.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Why would the head of the FBI say it, I've
got I've got to just listen up, because I've got
it on tape him. I'm going to play it for
our listeners so we can be perfectly clear.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
Some of the most important global issues of our times
are the ones that New Zealand and America work on together.
Countering the CCP in the Indo pay camp theater, I mean,
it's pretty damn no.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Look, I think it was a foolish thing for him
to take in the wider context and.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Tell me, I don't want to get an argument with
my guest him. No, you can't tell me that he
didn't actually.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
But I think I think what gives concern to New
Zealanders will be that this is some sort of international
spy game being played here, whereas the actual likely import
of the role is at a much lower level and
probably to our mutual benefit in terms of crime prevention
and teaching.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
No question, no question, I have no question that it's
going to help us with some of the worldwide cartels
that are going on. Ben, is this a good thing? Oh?
Speaker 4 (06:08):
Look, I think cooperation with our Five Ey's partners on
security issues is absolutely a good thing in terms of
cash Betel's remarks. Look, it wouldn't be the first time
that a political appointee in the Trump administration has said
something that was not entirely reflective of what's actually happening.
(06:28):
And you could say that across a number of domains.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
What are your thoughts been, have I said to you?
I mean, the Greens are really pushing hard that we
get out of Five Eyes. Do you think that Five
Eyes is a good thing for New Zealand to be involved?
Speaker 4 (06:38):
H of course it is. I mean where our reach
is very limited in terms of the information that we
can gather about a world in which we are all connected,
and we're you know, we're both very connected and very exposed.
As a small country, we need to be aware of
what's happening in the geopolitical situation. We do play an
(06:59):
important role in Five Eyes, a small but important role,
and I think numerous ministers have said in the past
what we get out of it in terms of the
intelligence that comes through to us in the intray is
much much more than we send out in the outtray,
and so of course it's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
What are your thoughts on it, Peter, I mean, is
it a good thing for us to be involved? And
I think having an FBI office here will also make
our involvement but more closely watched.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
I think our contribution to Five Eyes, as I understand it,
from our geographic position, we're quite well placed to collect intelligence,
our intelligence gathering people, you know, satellite traffic, all that
sort of stuff. We're quite good at that. So that's
the contribution we make to Five Eyes. The trade off
we get is obviously the broader one in terms of
wider security protection, et cetera. Should we be part of it?
(07:50):
In one sense we were a passive contributor, but in
another sense, because we are that we're of value to
the other four members, so you know, on balance, it's
probably to our advantage.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
And bear in mind that you know, since the nineteen
eighties we only have a formal military alliance with Australia.
We don't really pull our weight in terms of defense
budget and interoperability, although there are steps to address that.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Yeah, we are trying to fix it.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
And so you know, to be able to make this
contribution is important for us, both you know, in a
defense sense, in a national security sense, and in a
diplomatic sense. You know, it's a nice popular notion that
everybody in the world loves New Zealand because we punch
above our weight on moral issues and David Long and
all this sort of stuff. But you know, most countries
(08:42):
are more interested in what we actually contribute and what
we can actually do rather than how, you know, how
pure our souls.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Are and how much we're spending, and we haven't been
spending much. Tsunamis, tsunamis, let's talk. Tsunamis. A lot of
our country was woken up at six thirty am yesterday morning.
Some were given a warning the day before in the afternoon,
but the biggest tsunami to hit New Zealand was a
(09:09):
forty centimeter wave. Let's start with you, Peter Dunn. Do
you think NIMA I really need to send a second
emergency alert out at six thirty in the morning. Are
they overdoing it? And are week becoming complacent?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
I think the answer to all of those questions is no.
I don't think they're overdoing it. I think that I
was up at the time, so it didn't worry me
getting an alarm at six thirty in the morning. I'd
far even though I live on the top of the
hill that if there is a major tsunami there won't
be much of New Zealand left. I'd still far prefer
to be getting regular warnings of these events than not.
(09:45):
And I think that NIMA, you know, I think they
did a good job in the circumstances. I think that
what where we were deficient in the tsunami was I
found it much easier to get information about what was
going on from the BBC and CNN than I did
from New Zealand media outlets.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Wow, you weren't listening to this show we're keeping you?
Speaker 3 (10:03):
I wasn't. I was listening to the You were.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Listening to that other old men station state.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Broadcaster that says it is our national emergency broadcaster. It
seemed to be getting its information ours after those other
international networks were, and I think that's the bigger issues.
Neiman did its job in my view. It may have
irritated people, but as Mark Mitchell said this morning, just
imagine if they hadn't sent out warnings and people had
been killed.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
You know, I get all that, but I kind of feel,
like I said yesterday on the show, I sat there
in a meeting, didn't even look at it, so I
thought it's another test. And the next morning I was
in the studio working, so I didn't even look at them.
Are we becoming complacent?
Speaker 4 (10:41):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (10:41):
I think there was a risk of getting too much information,
so you think, oh, yeah, that's not all that serious
and I don't need to take account of it. But
as I come back to that other point, if you
don't get the information, it's a bit late after the
event to complain.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Come on, Ben, tell me where you were when your
alarm went off and did you look at it and you.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Get of course I was in bed.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Well one went off the day before in the afternoon.
Were you in bed at three thirty as well.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
I know there was one in the evening, though I
was dry when that happens. Okay, you know, I thought,
I thought there was a system failure in my car
and I was going to crash or something.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Yeah, that's complacency because you didn't automatically look at your phone.
You didn't automatically, Rea, No.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
I did.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
I did. I did hear it blaring, and so I
resolved to look at it when I come to a
safe stop by the side of the road. But I
think there is a risk of complacency setting in and
not so much complacency, but yeah, people just sort of
hearing the alarm, hitting it like your snooze button and
(11:41):
trying just dismissing it as soon as that is complacent
or if you're better informed than me, Apparently there's controls on.
Apparently you can turn off the alarms, which I didn't
know about, but we'll be investigating, and.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Well, that's that's that's really bad, because those alarms are
there to save your life, while would you turn them off?
Speaker 4 (11:59):
Well, look, I don't want to impugne at all the
owners of Newstalk ZB, but we can look to a
bit of a historical press in that when when say
the New Zealand Herald and other media organizations first got
their apps, you would get you know, you'd say sign
up for breaking news alerts. And originally it was you know,
the Prime minister is resigning or a war has started.
(12:22):
And now it's like you know, someone's left Shortland Street
and so and and and after a while you just stop. Stop.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
You're confusing me because you just said it's not complacency
and everything you've just cat it carried on and said
to me, you said, you know the story is up,
but enough so you're not looking. You know, the lab
goes off, you're not looking. That is complacency and that's
what scares me.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
Yeah, I think there is certainly a risk that if
people feel that it's being overdone or that it's providing
information that isn't it's not it's not really actionable. I
mean the update yesterday morning said you know, stay on alert,
but if you're paddleboarding, that's ogay to continue. So I mean,
I I don't think we were crazy. When I heard
(13:05):
it go off at six thirty, I thought the water
must be lapping at my door. I need to get
you know, I need to stand on my bed right now.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Did either of you know that it only sent an
appeal out a warning out to those people that were
living in an area that resembled a coastline area. Did
you know that if you were an upper hut or
the wire app and you didn't get the warning? Did
you know that it's pretty clever?
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Which would how did they know you're not taking a
beach side holiday?
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Lucky you asked that question because my producer gave me
that information because of cell towers.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
There you go. This is a chilling warning about the
big brother state that they can annoy you whenever they want.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
And that's the excuse that NIMA gave for people getting
multiple messages. A shift in cell towers. I had this
cell towse sort of wandering all around the countryside sending
out messages.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Oh, let's talk about something that we had a bit
of a discussion, well hell of a discussion on this
week in thirty six thousand nurses and healthcare workers were
on strike this week seeking more staff, better conditions, and
great pay. Peter Dune, I want to start with you
because I believe that this strike the narrative changed. The
narrative changed when all the media came out that says
(14:14):
an average nurse after three or four years was on
one hundred and twenty six thousand a year, and people
were starting to go against them, thinking hey, they're getting
a bit greedy, and then it went to work conditions
and staffing.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Look, I think there were some figures this morning with
the settlement with the midwives that midwives salaries will range
between I think eighty eight and one hundred and twelve
thousand dollars, So those sums might be taking people a
little bit by surprise. But to me, the bigger issue
here is we've got this chronic problem. We seem to
be training all these nurses and then we seem to
struggle to find jobs for them. Far Rather, the emphasis
(14:49):
went on finding jobs for the nurses that we're training,
rather than helping export them to Australia. I think that's
a bigger priority then, And I say, I know this
is it may sound hard, but I think that's a
bigger priority than funding the nurses that are existing in place.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
And why do we keep been hearing the stories and
watching them on TV of nurses that can't find a
job when we're trying to import them by the dozen
because we don't have them.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Well, I think the answer to that is that we
managed to attract a lot of nurses in the wake
of those sort of stories about the shortage. And you know,
if you remember earlier in the year, what Health New
Zealand and less Levy were talking about was that they
were actually almost overstaffed and Health and Zed was going
(15:37):
to miss its budget targets because it had spent much
much more money than anticipated on recruiting nurses. So you know,
it is one of these things where you know you
can overcorrect, and that happened. I think then twenty twenty
three that that sort of happened. And then you get
this situation where you've got new grads coming off the
(15:58):
recruitment line and that there aren't jobs open for them.
And unfortunately, all of these things are totally intertwined. So
for you, obviously you want to find jobs for the
graduates so that we can retain that part of the workforce.
At the same time, pay is an issue that you
know we are we will lose people to Australia because
(16:18):
of pay, and we'll lose experienced people to us.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Sam and Brown told us that now nurses in New
Zealand are an equivalent of what nurses are in New
South Wales, So why would we lose them unless they
want to go to the big smoke.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
Well, you know, if they live in Wellington, there's always
the weather. But we're all wellented. But yeah, look, I
think that is an issue. I would disagree a little
bit with what you said. I don't think that the
nurses have shifted the goalposts. I think that in every
nurse's claim over the years, including under the previous government,
they've talked about pay and conditions, and the conditions have
(16:55):
always been a very important part for them.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
I don't think I'm questioning that. I just said the
narrative change. It wasn't we're not getting paid enough, We're
not getting enough mates around us to work.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
I think that's right. And you can look at the
work that nurses do and say it is tough work,
it is very important work. Our nurses do a fantastic job.
Question are they underpaid? I mean, there's no objective measure
of a lot of these things, because you know, compared
to people in the private sector, people who are working
(17:26):
in the factories, you know, and then you get into
these arguments about how do you compare which job to
which job. You know, they're not poorly paid. On the
other hand, they are paid much worse than you know,
policy analysts or communications advisors and government where rates absolutely
skyrocketed over the life you know, over the four or
(17:46):
five years coming into the last election.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
So I think one of the difficulties in addressing this
issue though, is exactly that feeling of public sentiment in
favor of nurses. Nurses are fantastic, people are doing a
terrific job. We all know that, we argu we depend
on them, which makes it very difficult to have a
dare I say, rational discussion about like paying conditions and
how you retain the workforce that you're training, all of
(18:11):
those sorts of things, because it just comes down in
the public mind to our nurses are fantastic. They've got
to be supported. Now there's a limited pot. It needs
to be rationed, and it's very difficult to have a
clear headed discussion when the sentiment is so overwhelm me
in favor of the work that they do because they
are so good and it's a never ending cycle.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
And they are there. Look, as a pr person myself,
it would be a dream to be on the nurses
side of these disputes, because they are sober of so sympathetic,
and interestingly enough, I think this shows up as part
of the issue. You know, earlier this year we saw
the discon continuation of the pay equity scheme. You've got
(18:50):
all these caregivers all around the country who you know,
don't have the same sort of public cash as nurses.
They don't tend to come from the same sort of
social you know, sort of class. I guess they don't.
They don't tend to be university educated. That they are
very underpaid. And now with the pay equity scheme disestablished,
(19:13):
we heard the finance mins are saying that part of
the reason that pay equity was, you know, the pequity
scheme was being rejegged, was that a lot of claims
that would normally be addressed in collective bargaining had sort
of come into the pay equity space, which I don't
know if she meant to signal that they would be
addressing those pay issues and collective bargaining, but if they do,
that's another competing claim. Compared to the Misses.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Friday face off of Ben Thomas and Peter had Dunn,
we've just heard the news, so I know you only
had a hell of a long time to digest it
and think about it. We all and Ben you looked
a bit surprised when you heard the number. We all
thought we were going to stay at ten percent. Peter
doesn't go with you first, does fifteen percent? Does that
extra five percent make any difference at all?
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Well, for a number of our key export industries, it will.
It'll make their products that much more expensive on the
American market five percent more, And it depends how that
works out in practice and what they're sort of petitive
arrangements are as to what the bigger market impact on
their share will be. I think that there were signals
so in recent days that the ten percent figure may
(20:15):
not survive, that the President was looking at a revised
package internationally, so that I suspect that some of those
industries would have been not entirely taken by surprise by
today's announcement.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Then you're in the trade, I mean, your job is
just to get good news stories out and get things
up and persuade people things. I mean, you looked surprised.
You looked generally surprised when you heard fifteen percent. You
thought it was going to stick. I'm not putting words
in your mouth, but you know.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
Now I have to admit that I haven't been keeping
up with this this week. So is that the has
the general baseline been raised to fifteen percent or is
it just eazy? Okay? Yeah, So actually that's less of
an issue because what's probably comparedment for US is our
position relative to other countries. So we still probably get
(21:03):
an advantage compared to some other countries that might be
competing on exports with US. So you know that that's
probably not such bad news yet.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Sorry a little yeah, I know, I just I just thought,
you know, you you got gave me that feeling that
you didn't expect it to go up. I didn't either.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
I don't know why.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Stupid, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
It's pretty It's Donald Trump we're dealing with, and there's
there's a certain preciousness in this. I mean, Canada is
now facing the threat of increased tariffs because it said
it's going to recognize a Palestinian state. You know, New
Zealand could decide to not let the FBI come here
and therefore we face a penal teriff.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Gave them an office, you know, but that's.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
That's the sort of nonsen this in this environment, which
makes it very difficult for a lot of businesses planning
their strategies to long term because things change quickly as
we've seen.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Yeah, I mean I thought that too. I thought the
office might have swayed them a little bit. You know,
Oh my FBI buses in the New Zealand, I will
look after them. Right, let's talk gangs. Prime Minister came
out and said that they were smashing the gangs, and
Mark Mitchell gave us the commodos, commodeerism, what they call
common the christ Church one, a couple of other gangs
(22:20):
that actually got rid of. But the numbers aren't lying.
Now there has been ten thousand gang members. That's up
seven hundred since the coalition and government took over. Big
number increase.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
And these these are estimates.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Well it's numbers from the police.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
Well, yeah, that's right, but it is harder to count
now that we're in patches and public as much. Yeah,
look at and that reflects a lot of things. That reflects,
you know, the growth in the drug industry. It reflects
the fact that the gangs are sort of and have
been in a real recruitment mode to kind of beef
(23:03):
up their numbers, you know, to keep again theitional advantage
compared to other gangs. You know, they've been really really recruiting,
they're very good at social media and you know, interesting
peace in the Financial Times this week about which I
saw the Ministry of Housing christ Bishop put On LinkedIn
(23:24):
about the severing of the social contract between young people
and you know, their societies that young people have. Part
of the reason that maybe young people are more adrift
than ever is that there used to be this kind
of pathway to success through hard work that's been kind
of severed by astronomical house prices, by you know, the
(23:46):
employment market. And if you're looking at the people who
joined gangs, these are people who were already generally on
the margins, who already had poor prospects. And when unemployment is,
when unemployment's high, when you don't have, when you don't
have prospects, you become a prospect. And you know, we
have we've we've been in a bit of a Malaysian
(24:08):
New Zealand. And you know, if you can't if you
can't imagine working hard and having a family and buying
a house, you know, you think, well, how am I
going to get my big payoff, like all these people
earn million doll houses that they bought, you know, with
their summer job wages in the nineteen seventies, and you
think crime Peter.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Obviously, the gang patch banning hasn't made the significant change
that they thought of seven hundred more.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
I think it has, but I think the reason that
it has is not the reason that they've proclaimed. The
Prime Minister says this is cracking down on the gangs
and this is making life tough for them. I think
the real reason for the gang patch bands was to
take the gangs off the front pages of media stories.
So they've become anonymous now because they can't wear their patches.
So the public is reassured that the gang problem is
(25:00):
under control. What it is is now underground. The criminality
is still there to the same extent it was. It's
probably growing. It's just because I'm not seeing the patches
and the bikes and all that.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
Sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
It's sort of out of sight, out of mind, and
I think the real challenge now for police and government
is how you deal with that to protect public safety.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Percent It's just got through in my ear that Australia
is tariff staying at ten percent, We're gone to fifteen
percent really quickly. Been that changes stuff up.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
Yeah, I'm not too sure what we compete with Australia
in terms of imports, in terms of national pride obviously, yeah,
I mean, obviously Australia are very close our way of
America's and so you probably could have assumed that we
would be in a less of a position.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
But that's the only apart from the Falkland Islands, that's
the only person that's gone lower than us could have done?
Speaker 4 (25:51):
Is that straight?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
The Australian one's a wee bit strange. I think it
opens up new opportunities for New Zealand exporters in terms
of going through Australia to the United States.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Now, oh never thought of that. That makes very interesting.
Let's talk immigration. Winston Peters, our old mate Winston Peters
has come out and said there's too much immigration into
New Zealand, with one hundred and forty thousand arrivals in
the year to May this year. He reckons it has
the potential to become a hot political issue. Peter Dunn,
(26:23):
are you worried about the level of immigration into New Zealand?
Speaker 3 (26:27):
No, I'm not because we're losing record numbers of people
at the moment. We're quality people, but we're in a
fluid international environment where people can move around much more
freely than there has ever been the case beforehand. So
you'll win some, you lose some. I guess the question
is the quality of the immigrants that are coming here,
and we've got pretty rigorous tests both in terms of health,
(26:49):
occupations and related standards to let quality people in here.
But look, I think what Peter's is doing, he's just
over a year out from yet another election. Farage is
making great plays us and then in the UK rather
on the immigration front, Peter says he's a great friend.
I think it's just about getting out the same song
(27:09):
book and trying to beat it up in New Zealand
and the lead up to the election.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
Ben Thomas, Yes, Peter gave me a great segue there.
I mean it could this become like a major political
issue like we've seen in UK Nigel Farage in the
reform they're actually leading, they're actually now leading the.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
Poles extraordinary and it just shows that something that's happening
really across the West is the sort of disillusionment with
the sort of you know, the status quo kind of
two major parties in America. Of course because of the
avenues there, you really Trump is really the third party.
He sort of displaced the Republicans, and you know, you
(27:51):
see it here, you know, National and Labors combined vote
very low, you know, in the in the sort of
mid sixties and New Zealand first. Obviously, this is something
Peter's is very familiar about. He can greatly claim that
he's been talking about immigration probably longer than anyone else,
longer than some other MP's have been alive, probably.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Nineteen ninety three he started, and it's been a vote
winner for him, is it. Every time he's down on
the polls and he's got a problem, you will bring
out an immigration story and bang, he's back in the
in the hot seat.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
And David Seymour has just started talking about you know,
maybe there should be a statement of values that new
immigrants or new migrants adhere to sign up to. That's
an old Australian one.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Can I quickly ask you both, because I've got a
couple more topics I want to get to really quickly
quickly ask you what, in one sentence, what does New
Zealand look like in ten years, because that's what concerns me.
Peter Done.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Oh look, I think we're on track to become one
of the best multicultural nations in the world. I think
if we manage it properly, where you know, we're going
to be a little bit European, a little bit Pacific,
a little bit Maor and a little bit Asian. I
think that's a fantastic possibility moving forward.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Bent well, demographically in New Zealand's getting browner. You know,
the proportion of young Mahdi will be will be higher.
We will have we will have more migrants. That's just
the nature of things, you know. My hope is that
what New Zealand doesn't look like is poorer, with more
(29:21):
old people than young people, and with no future for
the young people who are the here.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Really really quickly and really quickly, because I want to
go to hots and knots. Bev Priestmans, the former Canadian
coach that spired on the football Ferns with the Drones
and Paris, been appointed to the Phoenix Woman. I've come
out and pioneers come out, everyone's come out and said
it's a great idea. Quickly, what do you make of
this appointment, Peter Dunnet.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
This is just further proof of the internationalization of sport.
This is a job for her. She's a highly skilled professional.
What happened in the past, I think happens in the past.
I'm sure she'll make a great contribution, and I suspect
if the Phoenix start to do well, she'll suddenly be
perceived by the rest of us as being a great
New Zealander and on the world stage. You'll get another job,
Ben Thomas really quickly.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
Well, that's a right. We often have criticism of these
sort of fly and fly out set of international people
taking jobs here, but she's obviously taken a keen interest
in New Zealand soccer in the past.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
On that note, we'll take it. I think it's a
great apployment. I'm supporting it all the way.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
The Friday fact.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Come on, Peter Dunn, get excited. Tell me what you're
hot about.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
Voluntary emergency workers who would have been on standby during
all those alerts, just in case there was a major emergency.
So I just want a shout out to them for
their commitment and dedication, dedication, and my not three words
Gaza ongoing situation.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Yeah, hard not to argue with that, Ben Thomas, give
us your hots and not hots.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
Look another buquet for Chris Bishop. I see that the
demolition of the Gordon Wilson Flats is now being scheduled.
I think have a citywide demolition party. Open it up,
hand out sledgejammers at the door and take it from there.
That can be the summer events program for the Wellington
City Council.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
And you're not hot.
Speaker 4 (31:15):
Look, I don't know if anyone else has noticed this.
I don't think Wellingtonians know how roundabouts work. You meant
to give way to your right and I just I've
almost been sort of speared so many times by Wellington
monarists that don't seem to understand this, and I, yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
You know how I fix it. I give way to
everyone because I never I can never.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
Remember that doesn't work.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Get rid of the unnecessary.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
And by the way, Bed Thomas, if you've got want
to read a book or want to read a bit
about want into history because you won't even remember this name.
But if you want a demolition hammer put on every door,
there was a mayor here in wanting to be called
Sir Michael Fowlers and Peter Dunn smiles because he was
the guy that said let's get rid of the old
crap and put it into new modern stuff.
Speaker 4 (32:02):
That's right, the building of the future that Michael Fowlers into.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Thank you both so much for joining us this morning.
Peter had done and Ben Thomas good to remember those
old people like you know, Sir Michael Fowler. He was
a great man.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
I ran into him just before he died in an
art shop in Blenham where he was he was selling
his pictures.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Did he still look amazing?
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Was he still addressed that he was ninety something?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
He was such a step of man. Gosh, great man,
Sir Michael Fowler.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
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 facearf with Kudovic Property Management, a better rental experience
for all. Visit Kovic dot co dot ins head.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Thursday start joining us for Friday face office. Former minister
and Wellingtonian. A great guy. He actually comes from Canterbury,
but he's been on Wellington most of his adult life.
Peter Dune, Good morning, Peter Morning. Haven't moved back to
christ yet.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Know I've been back, but I haven't.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
Yeah, we keep.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Talking about it. And political commentator Ben Thomas, Good morning, Ben?
How you doing? How are you feeling?
Speaker 5 (00:51):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Look, it's been a busy life.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
T g af Oh yeah, I get you. I get you.
We all love Fridays. The FBI have now a permanent
presence and office in Wennington would direct the Pattel Landing
in New Zealand to open the new attashe Attashi, which
he says is partly to counter the influence of China,
but the government is certainly trying to sell it in
(01:17):
a different way. Peter Done, what is your initial response
to this announcement?
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Most people would say, well, I'm not too sure about this,
but actually it makes sense. You know, the FBI has
offices I've heard this morning in a variety of places
around the world, including Beijing and possibly Moscow. I think
it's good that they're explicit about it. You know, it's
going to be part of the embassy. We know there's
going to be an FBI office. Far better that than
the suspicion that accords other embassies over the years. Is
(01:45):
this guy really a diplomat or are they an undercover
police agent?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Can I just interrupt you second there, because we discussed
it this morning. Is it not a separate office, it's
just part of the actual embassy.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Well, it's going to be located in the Embassy of
Artist so maybe a separate office. But I think the
transparency is good. I think people will worry a little
bit about what the geopolitical implications are, but from a
point of view of international crime, crime cooperation, et cetera,
et cetera, I think it makes sense. Ben.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
What do you think it's going to do about to
do with our relationship with China? I mean everyone's trying
to push that under the mat. You know, Judith Collins,
you know, Whinston Peters are all saying, Oh, it's got
nothing to do and it's not going to make any difference. Well,
we're realists here, aren't we.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
Well, look, you look at what the FBI does, and
the FBI is, in addition to being sort of America's
police within its borders, it's their sort of internal security
function as well, in the same sense that the SIS
is in New Zealand within our borders.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
So it's a link police.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
It's essentially well, it's you know, I think what they're
likely to be concerned about here, you know, in terms
of this relationship is national security terrorism, you know, those
kinds of threats that we've seen as sort of you know,
upsurgeon and Western democracies over the last you know, it's
sort of what you know, well, the post nine to
eleven world really, but also in the last probably ten
(03:14):
years or so. Uh And and it's you know, it's
about information sharing, it's about technique sharing, that kind of thing.
So it's it's not about you know, you know, getting
getting into the airwave.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
I just interrupt you a second. You're trying to tell
me that you don't think it's got anything to do
with a certain couple of ships floating around between Australia
and New Zealand. You don't think it's got anything to
do with any the fact that the Chinese are getting
a presence in that the islands, you don't think it's
got anything to do.
Speaker 4 (03:40):
That's not what the FBI does. You know there there,
they're a sort of within borders kind of security outfit.
So you know, in terms of signals intelligence, which is
where we're sort of keeping an eye on what people
are doing outside New Zealand. That's you know, in the
Five Eyes relationship, that's you know, the GCSB here and
(04:01):
I think any s a over in America and they
already share a lot of intelligens about that kind of thing.
So I think you know, a few a few ships
coming near the coast that just sort of accidentally got
missed until you know that that's an issue, but that's
not I think what this relationship is.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
My issue with Ben's thoughts on this, Peter done is
that Cash Patel himself said that's one of the reasons why.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
They're setting up that was a bad mistake on his part.
I think that that, I mean, I think that that
did raise a whole lot of unnecessary fears. It was
struck me as a bit of American bravado, which was
sort of quite But he did say He did say it,
and I think it was a very unfortunate remark because
the nature of the work they're going to be involved
in is going to be much more focused on crime prevention,
(04:52):
either either individual criminals with cross border relationships or corporate crime,
those sorts of things. It's not going to be a
political security agency. But I think that he sort of
seemed to be He was sort of staying his stuff
a bit.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Why would the head of the FBI say it, I've
got I've got to just listen up, because I've got
it on tape him. I'm going to play it for
our listeners so we can be perfectly clear.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
Some of the most important global issues of our times
are the ones that New Zealand and America work on together.
Countering the CCP in the Indo pay camp theater, I mean,
it's pretty damn no.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Look, I think it was a foolish thing for him
to take in the wider context and.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Tell me, I don't want to get an argument with
my guest him. No, you can't tell me that he
didn't actually.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
But I think I think what gives concern to New
Zealanders will be that this is some sort of international
spy game being played here, whereas the actual likely import
of the role is at a much lower level and
probably to our mutual benefit in terms of crime prevention
and teaching.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
No question, no question, I have no question that it's
going to help us with some of the worldwide cartels
that are going on. Ben, is this a good thing? Oh?
Speaker 4 (06:08):
Look, I think cooperation with our Five Ey's partners on
security issues is absolutely a good thing in terms of
cash Betel's remarks. Look, it wouldn't be the first time
that a political appointee in the Trump administration has said
something that was not entirely reflective of what's actually happening.
(06:28):
And you could say that across a number of domains.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
What are your thoughts been, have I said to you?
I mean, the Greens are really pushing hard that we
get out of Five Eyes. Do you think that Five
Eyes is a good thing for New Zealand to be involved?
Speaker 4 (06:38):
H of course it is. I mean where our reach
is very limited in terms of the information that we
can gather about a world in which we are all connected,
and we're you know, we're both very connected and very exposed.
As a small country, we need to be aware of
what's happening in the geopolitical situation. We do play an
(06:59):
important role in Five Eyes, a small but important role,
and I think numerous ministers have said in the past
what we get out of it in terms of the
intelligence that comes through to us in the intray is
much much more than we send out in the outtray,
and so of course it's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
What are your thoughts on it, Peter, I mean, is
it a good thing for us to be involved? And
I think having an FBI office here will also make
our involvement but more closely watched.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
I think our contribution to Five Eyes, as I understand it,
from our geographic position, we're quite well placed to collect intelligence,
our intelligence gathering people, you know, satellite traffic, all that
sort of stuff. We're quite good at that. So that's
the contribution we make to Five Eyes. The trade off
we get is obviously the broader one in terms of
wider security protection, et cetera. Should we be part of it?
(07:50):
In one sense we were a passive contributor, but in
another sense, because we are that we're of value to
the other four members, so you know, on balance, it's
probably to our advantage.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
And bear in mind that you know, since the nineteen
eighties we only have a formal military alliance with Australia.
We don't really pull our weight in terms of defense
budget and interoperability, although there are steps to address that.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Yeah, we are trying to fix it.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
And so you know, to be able to make this
contribution is important for us, both you know, in a
defense sense, in a national security sense, and in a
diplomatic sense. You know, it's a nice popular notion that
everybody in the world loves New Zealand because we punch
above our weight on moral issues and David Long and
all this sort of stuff. But you know, most countries
(08:42):
are more interested in what we actually contribute and what
we can actually do rather than how, you know, how
pure our souls.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Are and how much we're spending, and we haven't been
spending much. Tsunamis, tsunamis, let's talk. Tsunamis. A lot of
our country was woken up at six thirty am yesterday morning.
Some were given a warning the day before in the afternoon,
but the biggest tsunami to hit New Zealand was a
(09:09):
forty centimeter wave. Let's start with you, Peter Dunn. Do
you think NIMA I really need to send a second
emergency alert out at six thirty in the morning. Are
they overdoing it? And are week becoming complacent?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
I think the answer to all of those questions is no.
I don't think they're overdoing it. I think that I
was up at the time, so it didn't worry me
getting an alarm at six thirty in the morning. I'd
far even though I live on the top of the
hill that if there is a major tsunami there won't
be much of New Zealand left. I'd still far prefer
to be getting regular warnings of these events than not.
(09:45):
And I think that NIMA, you know, I think they
did a good job in the circumstances. I think that
what where we were deficient in the tsunami was I
found it much easier to get information about what was
going on from the BBC and CNN than I did
from New Zealand media outlets.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Wow, you weren't listening to this show we're keeping you?
Speaker 3 (10:03):
I wasn't. I was listening to the You were.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Listening to that other old men station state.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Broadcaster that says it is our national emergency broadcaster. It
seemed to be getting its information ours after those other
international networks were, and I think that's the bigger issues.
Neiman did its job in my view. It may have
irritated people, but as Mark Mitchell said this morning, just
imagine if they hadn't sent out warnings and people had
been killed.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
You know, I get all that, but I kind of feel,
like I said yesterday on the show, I sat there
in a meeting, didn't even look at it, so I
thought it's another test. And the next morning I was
in the studio working, so I didn't even look at them.
Are we becoming complacent?
Speaker 4 (10:41):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (10:41):
I think there was a risk of getting too much information,
so you think, oh, yeah, that's not all that serious
and I don't need to take account of it. But
as I come back to that other point, if you
don't get the information, it's a bit late after the
event to complain.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Come on, Ben, tell me where you were when your
alarm went off and did you look at it and you.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Get of course I was in bed.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Well one went off the day before in the afternoon.
Were you in bed at three thirty as well.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
I know there was one in the evening, though I
was dry when that happens. Okay, you know, I thought,
I thought there was a system failure in my car
and I was going to crash or something.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Yeah, that's complacency because you didn't automatically look at your phone.
You didn't automatically, Rea, No.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
I did.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
I did. I did hear it blaring, and so I
resolved to look at it when I come to a
safe stop by the side of the road. But I
think there is a risk of complacency setting in and
not so much complacency, but yeah, people just sort of
hearing the alarm, hitting it like your snooze button and
(11:41):
trying just dismissing it as soon as that is complacent
or if you're better informed than me, Apparently there's controls on.
Apparently you can turn off the alarms, which I didn't
know about, but we'll be investigating, and.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Well, that's that's that's really bad, because those alarms are
there to save your life, while would you turn them off?
Speaker 4 (11:59):
Well, look, I don't want to impugne at all the
owners of Newstalk ZB, but we can look to a
bit of a historical press in that when when say
the New Zealand Herald and other media organizations first got
their apps, you would get you know, you'd say sign
up for breaking news alerts. And originally it was you know,
the Prime minister is resigning or a war has started.
(12:22):
And now it's like you know, someone's left Shortland Street
and so and and and after a while you just stop. Stop.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
You're confusing me because you just said it's not complacency
and everything you've just cat it carried on and said
to me, you said, you know the story is up,
but enough so you're not looking. You know, the lab
goes off, you're not looking. That is complacency and that's
what scares me.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
Yeah, I think there is certainly a risk that if
people feel that it's being overdone or that it's providing
information that isn't it's not it's not really actionable. I
mean the update yesterday morning said you know, stay on alert,
but if you're paddleboarding, that's ogay to continue. So I mean,
I I don't think we were crazy. When I heard
(13:05):
it go off at six thirty, I thought the water
must be lapping at my door. I need to get
you know, I need to stand on my bed right now.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Did either of you know that it only sent an
appeal out a warning out to those people that were
living in an area that resembled a coastline area. Did
you know that if you were an upper hut or
the wire app and you didn't get the warning? Did
you know that it's pretty clever?
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Which would how did they know you're not taking a
beach side holiday?
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Lucky you asked that question because my producer gave me
that information because of cell towers.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
There you go. This is a chilling warning about the
big brother state that they can annoy you whenever they want.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
And that's the excuse that NIMA gave for people getting
multiple messages. A shift in cell towers. I had this
cell towse sort of wandering all around the countryside sending
out messages.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Oh, let's talk about something that we had a bit
of a discussion, well hell of a discussion on this
week in thirty six thousand nurses and healthcare workers were
on strike this week seeking more staff, better conditions, and
great pay. Peter Dune, I want to start with you
because I believe that this strike the narrative changed. The
narrative changed when all the media came out that says
(14:14):
an average nurse after three or four years was on
one hundred and twenty six thousand a year, and people
were starting to go against them, thinking hey, they're getting
a bit greedy, and then it went to work conditions
and staffing.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
Look, I think there were some figures this morning with
the settlement with the midwives that midwives salaries will range
between I think eighty eight and one hundred and twelve
thousand dollars, So those sums might be taking people a
little bit by surprise. But to me, the bigger issue
here is we've got this chronic problem. We seem to
be training all these nurses and then we seem to
struggle to find jobs for them. Far Rather, the emphasis
(14:49):
went on finding jobs for the nurses that we're training,
rather than helping export them to Australia. I think that's
a bigger priority then, And I say, I know this
is it may sound hard, but I think that's a
bigger priority than funding the nurses that are existing in place.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
And why do we keep been hearing the stories and
watching them on TV of nurses that can't find a
job when we're trying to import them by the dozen
because we don't have them.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Well, I think the answer to that is that we
managed to attract a lot of nurses in the wake
of those sort of stories about the shortage. And you know,
if you remember earlier in the year, what Health New
Zealand and less Levy were talking about was that they
were actually almost overstaffed and Health and Zed was going
(15:37):
to miss its budget targets because it had spent much
much more money than anticipated on recruiting nurses. So you know,
it is one of these things where you know you
can overcorrect, and that happened. I think then twenty twenty
three that that sort of happened. And then you get
this situation where you've got new grads coming off the
(15:58):
recruitment line and that there aren't jobs open for them.
And unfortunately, all of these things are totally intertwined. So
for you, obviously you want to find jobs for the
graduates so that we can retain that part of the workforce.
At the same time, pay is an issue that you
know we are we will lose people to Australia because
(16:18):
of pay, and we'll lose experienced people to us.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Sam and Brown told us that now nurses in New
Zealand are an equivalent of what nurses are in New
South Wales, So why would we lose them unless they
want to go to the big smoke.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
Well, you know, if they live in Wellington, there's always
the weather. But we're all wellented. But yeah, look, I
think that is an issue. I would disagree a little
bit with what you said. I don't think that the
nurses have shifted the goalposts. I think that in every
nurse's claim over the years, including under the previous government,
they've talked about pay and conditions, and the conditions have
(16:55):
always been a very important part for them.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
I don't think I'm questioning that. I just said the
narrative change. It wasn't we're not getting paid enough, We're
not getting enough mates around us to work.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
I think that's right. And you can look at the
work that nurses do and say it is tough work,
it is very important work. Our nurses do a fantastic job.
Question are they underpaid? I mean, there's no objective measure
of a lot of these things, because you know, compared
to people in the private sector, people who are working
(17:26):
in the factories, you know, and then you get into
these arguments about how do you compare which job to
which job. You know, they're not poorly paid. On the
other hand, they are paid much worse than you know,
policy analysts or communications advisors and government where rates absolutely
skyrocketed over the life you know, over the four or
(17:46):
five years coming into the last election.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
So I think one of the difficulties in addressing this
issue though, is exactly that feeling of public sentiment in
favor of nurses. Nurses are fantastic, people are doing a
terrific job. We all know that, we argu we depend
on them, which makes it very difficult to have a
dare I say, rational discussion about like paying conditions and
how you retain the workforce that you're training, all of
(18:11):
those sorts of things, because it just comes down in
the public mind to our nurses are fantastic. They've got
to be supported. Now there's a limited pot. It needs
to be rationed, and it's very difficult to have a
clear headed discussion when the sentiment is so overwhelm me
in favor of the work that they do because they
are so good and it's a never ending cycle.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
And they are there. Look, as a pr person myself,
it would be a dream to be on the nurses
side of these disputes, because they are sober of so sympathetic,
and interestingly enough, I think this shows up as part
of the issue. You know, earlier this year we saw
the discon continuation of the pay equity scheme. You've got
(18:50):
all these caregivers all around the country who you know,
don't have the same sort of public cash as nurses.
They don't tend to come from the same sort of
social you know, sort of class. I guess they don't.
They don't tend to be university educated. That they are
very underpaid. And now with the pay equity scheme disestablished,
(19:13):
we heard the finance mins are saying that part of
the reason that pay equity was, you know, the pequity
scheme was being rejegged, was that a lot of claims
that would normally be addressed in collective bargaining had sort
of come into the pay equity space, which I don't
know if she meant to signal that they would be
addressing those pay issues and collective bargaining, but if they do,
that's another competing claim. Compared to the Misses.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Friday face off of Ben Thomas and Peter had Dunn,
we've just heard the news, so I know you only
had a hell of a long time to digest it
and think about it. We all and Ben you looked
a bit surprised when you heard the number. We all
thought we were going to stay at ten percent. Peter
doesn't go with you first, does fifteen percent? Does that
extra five percent make any difference at all?
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Well, for a number of our key export industries, it will.
It'll make their products that much more expensive on the
American market five percent more, And it depends how that
works out in practice and what they're sort of petitive
arrangements are as to what the bigger market impact on
their share will be. I think that there were signals
so in recent days that the ten percent figure may
(20:15):
not survive, that the President was looking at a revised
package internationally, so that I suspect that some of those
industries would have been not entirely taken by surprise by
today's announcement.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Then you're in the trade, I mean, your job is
just to get good news stories out and get things
up and persuade people things. I mean, you looked surprised.
You looked generally surprised when you heard fifteen percent. You
thought it was going to stick. I'm not putting words
in your mouth, but you know.
Speaker 4 (20:42):
Now I have to admit that I haven't been keeping
up with this this week. So is that the has
the general baseline been raised to fifteen percent or is
it just eazy? Okay? Yeah, So actually that's less of
an issue because what's probably comparedment for US is our
position relative to other countries. So we still probably get
(21:03):
an advantage compared to some other countries that might be
competing on exports with US. So you know that that's
probably not such bad news yet.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Sorry a little yeah, I know, I just I just thought,
you know, you you got gave me that feeling that
you didn't expect it to go up. I didn't either.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
I don't know why.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Stupid, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
It's pretty It's Donald Trump we're dealing with, and there's
there's a certain preciousness in this. I mean, Canada is
now facing the threat of increased tariffs because it said
it's going to recognize a Palestinian state. You know, New
Zealand could decide to not let the FBI come here
and therefore we face a penal teriff.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Gave them an office, you know, but that's.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
That's the sort of nonsen this in this environment, which
makes it very difficult for a lot of businesses planning
their strategies to long term because things change quickly as
we've seen.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Yeah, I mean I thought that too. I thought the
office might have swayed them a little bit. You know,
Oh my FBI buses in the New Zealand, I will
look after them. Right, let's talk gangs. Prime Minister came
out and said that they were smashing the gangs, and
Mark Mitchell gave us the commodos, commodeerism, what they call
common the christ Church one, a couple of other gangs
(22:20):
that actually got rid of. But the numbers aren't lying.
Now there has been ten thousand gang members. That's up
seven hundred since the coalition and government took over. Big
number increase.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
And these these are estimates.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Well it's numbers from the police.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
Well, yeah, that's right, but it is harder to count
now that we're in patches and public as much. Yeah,
look at and that reflects a lot of things. That reflects,
you know, the growth in the drug industry. It reflects
the fact that the gangs are sort of and have
been in a real recruitment mode to kind of beef
(23:03):
up their numbers, you know, to keep again theitional advantage
compared to other gangs. You know, they've been really really recruiting,
they're very good at social media and you know, interesting
peace in the Financial Times this week about which I
saw the Ministry of Housing christ Bishop put On LinkedIn
(23:24):
about the severing of the social contract between young people
and you know, their societies that young people have. Part
of the reason that maybe young people are more adrift
than ever is that there used to be this kind
of pathway to success through hard work that's been kind
of severed by astronomical house prices, by you know, the
(23:46):
employment market. And if you're looking at the people who
joined gangs, these are people who were already generally on
the margins, who already had poor prospects. And when unemployment is,
when unemployment's high, when you don't have, when you don't
have prospects, you become a prospect. And you know, we
have we've we've been in a bit of a Malaysian
(24:08):
New Zealand. And you know, if you can't if you
can't imagine working hard and having a family and buying
a house, you know, you think, well, how am I
going to get my big payoff, like all these people
earn million doll houses that they bought, you know, with
their summer job wages in the nineteen seventies, and you
think crime Peter.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Obviously, the gang patch banning hasn't made the significant change
that they thought of seven hundred more.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
I think it has, but I think the reason that
it has is not the reason that they've proclaimed. The
Prime Minister says this is cracking down on the gangs
and this is making life tough for them. I think
the real reason for the gang patch bands was to
take the gangs off the front pages of media stories.
So they've become anonymous now because they can't wear their patches.
So the public is reassured that the gang problem is
(25:00):
under control. What it is is now underground. The criminality
is still there to the same extent it was. It's
probably growing. It's just because I'm not seeing the patches
and the bikes and all that.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
Sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
It's sort of out of sight, out of mind, and
I think the real challenge now for police and government
is how you deal with that to protect public safety.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Percent It's just got through in my ear that Australia
is tariff staying at ten percent, We're gone to fifteen
percent really quickly. Been that changes stuff up.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
Yeah, I'm not too sure what we compete with Australia
in terms of imports, in terms of national pride obviously, yeah,
I mean, obviously Australia are very close our way of
America's and so you probably could have assumed that we
would be in a less of a position.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
But that's the only apart from the Falkland Islands, that's
the only person that's gone lower than us could have done?
Speaker 4 (25:51):
Is that straight?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
The Australian one's a wee bit strange. I think it
opens up new opportunities for New Zealand exporters in terms
of going through Australia to the United States.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Now, oh never thought of that. That makes very interesting.
Let's talk immigration. Winston Peters, our old mate Winston Peters
has come out and said there's too much immigration into
New Zealand, with one hundred and forty thousand arrivals in
the year to May this year. He reckons it has
the potential to become a hot political issue. Peter Dunn,
(26:23):
are you worried about the level of immigration into New Zealand?
Speaker 3 (26:27):
No, I'm not because we're losing record numbers of people
at the moment. We're quality people, but we're in a
fluid international environment where people can move around much more
freely than there has ever been the case beforehand. So
you'll win some, you lose some. I guess the question
is the quality of the immigrants that are coming here,
and we've got pretty rigorous tests both in terms of health,
(26:49):
occupations and related standards to let quality people in here.
But look, I think what Peter's is doing, he's just
over a year out from yet another election. Farage is
making great plays us and then in the UK rather
on the immigration front, Peter says he's a great friend.
I think it's just about getting out the same song
(27:09):
book and trying to beat it up in New Zealand
and the lead up to the election.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
Ben Thomas, Yes, Peter gave me a great segue there.
I mean it could this become like a major political
issue like we've seen in UK Nigel Farage in the
reform they're actually leading, they're actually now leading the.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
Poles extraordinary and it just shows that something that's happening
really across the West is the sort of disillusionment with
the sort of you know, the status quo kind of
two major parties in America. Of course because of the
avenues there, you really Trump is really the third party.
He sort of displaced the Republicans, and you know, you
(27:51):
see it here, you know, National and Labors combined vote
very low, you know, in the in the sort of
mid sixties and New Zealand first. Obviously, this is something
Peter's is very familiar about. He can greatly claim that
he's been talking about immigration probably longer than anyone else,
longer than some other MP's have been alive, probably.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Nineteen ninety three he started, and it's been a vote
winner for him, is it. Every time he's down on
the polls and he's got a problem, you will bring
out an immigration story and bang, he's back in the
in the hot seat.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
And David Seymour has just started talking about you know,
maybe there should be a statement of values that new
immigrants or new migrants adhere to sign up to. That's
an old Australian one.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Can I quickly ask you both, because I've got a
couple more topics I want to get to really quickly
quickly ask you what, in one sentence, what does New
Zealand look like in ten years, because that's what concerns me.
Peter Done.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Oh look, I think we're on track to become one
of the best multicultural nations in the world. I think
if we manage it properly, where you know, we're going
to be a little bit European, a little bit Pacific,
a little bit Maor and a little bit Asian. I
think that's a fantastic possibility moving forward.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Bent well, demographically in New Zealand's getting browner. You know,
the proportion of young Mahdi will be will be higher.
We will have we will have more migrants. That's just
the nature of things, you know. My hope is that
what New Zealand doesn't look like is poorer, with more
(29:21):
old people than young people, and with no future for
the young people who are the here.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Really really quickly and really quickly, because I want to
go to hots and knots. Bev Priestmans, the former Canadian
coach that spired on the football Ferns with the Drones
and Paris, been appointed to the Phoenix Woman. I've come
out and pioneers come out, everyone's come out and said
it's a great idea. Quickly, what do you make of
this appointment, Peter Dunnet.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
This is just further proof of the internationalization of sport.
This is a job for her. She's a highly skilled professional.
What happened in the past, I think happens in the past.
I'm sure she'll make a great contribution, and I suspect
if the Phoenix start to do well, she'll suddenly be
perceived by the rest of us as being a great
New Zealander and on the world stage. You'll get another job,
Ben Thomas really quickly.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
Well, that's a right. We often have criticism of these
sort of fly and fly out set of international people
taking jobs here, but she's obviously taken a keen interest
in New Zealand soccer in the past.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
On that note, we'll take it. I think it's a
great apployment. I'm supporting it all the way.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
The Friday fact.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Come on, Peter Dunn, get excited. Tell me what you're
hot about.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
Voluntary emergency workers who would have been on standby during
all those alerts, just in case there was a major emergency.
So I just want a shout out to them for
their commitment and dedication, dedication, and my not three words
Gaza ongoing situation.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Yeah, hard not to argue with that, Ben Thomas, give
us your hots and not hots.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
Look another buquet for Chris Bishop. I see that the
demolition of the Gordon Wilson Flats is now being scheduled.
I think have a citywide demolition party. Open it up,
hand out sledgejammers at the door and take it from there.
That can be the summer events program for the Wellington
City Council.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
And you're not hot.
Speaker 4 (31:15):
Look, I don't know if anyone else has noticed this.
I don't think Wellingtonians know how roundabouts work. You meant
to give way to your right and I just I've
almost been sort of speared so many times by Wellington
monarists that don't seem to understand this, and I, yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
You know how I fix it. I give way to
everyone because I never I can never.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
Remember that doesn't work.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Get rid of the unnecessary.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
And by the way, Bed Thomas, if you've got want
to read a book or want to read a bit
about want into history because you won't even remember this name.
But if you want a demolition hammer put on every door,
there was a mayor here in wanting to be called
Sir Michael Fowlers and Peter Dunn smiles because he was
the guy that said let's get rid of the old
crap and put it into new modern stuff.
Speaker 4 (32:02):
That's right, the building of the future that Michael Fowlers into.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Thank you both so much for joining us this morning.
Peter had done and Ben Thomas good to remember those
old people like you know, Sir Michael Fowler. He was
a great man.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
I ran into him just before he died in an
art shop in Blenham where he was he was selling
his pictures.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Did he still look amazing?
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Was he still addressed that he was ninety something?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
He was such a step of man. Gosh, great man,
Sir Michael Fowler.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
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
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.