October 31, 2024 • 31 mins
Mental health campaigner Mike King is under fire for saying alcohol can be the answer to mental health struggles - but did he have a point he just made badly?
Also, the United States is in the final days of the 2024 presidential campaign, who will come out on top?
Upper Hutt mayor Wayne Guppy and Capital director Neale Jones 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 dissecting the week sublime and ridiculous.
Friday face off with Quinovic Property Management a better rental
experience for all. Call on eight hundred. Quinnovic on Thursday.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Starts right, joining us for Friday face off this week
is Upper Hut Mayor in general. Good guy, Wayne Guppy,
Good morning GUVs. I'll turn your mic on. How's that working?
Good morning Neck, Good to have you in the studio again.
Good to see you again. And Director of Capital Neil Jones.
And you'll take it easy on me today. I know
that you you love coming in here because you know
(00:48):
I'm a political novice and you can just put the
gloves on and knock me all over with the women's studio.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Your words, not mine, Neck.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Well, yeah, that's all.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
It's always good to be on.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Right. Let's start with Mike King. I'll start with you,
Neil Jones. Mental health campaigner Mike King obviously is under
for saying alcohol can be a solution to mental health
and reject studies linking alcohol to suicide. As opinion, are
these sort of comments acceptable or as the coverage of
(01:19):
them just being over blind because it's just a media beater.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
I think it's pretty unhelpful and I think it's pretty
unhelpful and actually potentially dangerous for someone like Mike King, who's,
you know, very well respected by a lot of people.
He's a well known spokesperson on mental health issues. For
him to be saying that, I think could send the
wrong signals. I actually think the government needs to needs
to cut what they've done with them.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Oh you think they should cut the funding?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Absolutely. I think that. You know, I've done a lot
of work for mental health charities and there is a
process you go through in this country where politicians don't
make the decision. You know, you put up your funding bid,
you show that you're delivering value, you show that what
you're doing is working in the system decides who gets
the money. The problem we got here is in the
coalition agreement, New zeal On first ass for twenty four
(02:03):
million dollars for Mike King his charity. Christopher Luxon gave
once and everything he wanted in that agreement, so he
gave him that as well. And now what you got
is this Matt Doocy, who's you know, the mental health
minister by all accounts a very good guy. He believes
in mental health. His fund has been as ten million dollars.
He'd like to give more to other charities, but he
can't gut twenty four million dollars gone to Mike King.
(02:25):
And so I'm aware of a number of mental health
charities that some of whom I'm working with, who are
some in Wellington, including well who operated on him as well,
who are really struggling. Some are close to going to
the wall, and they're looking at Mike King getting twenty
four million while there's all scrapping over ten million. I mean,
it's just rubbish. And so I thought before the FIESCO
that Mike King shouldn't have got that money. I think
(02:46):
it brings our whole system to disrepute and I think
this is just another example of what happens, you know,
when you shortcut the process and make political decisions.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
One and Gabie, I love to get your thoughts on
this because from a medical background, which you have, mental
health is a problem that we don't talk about, don't
do enough about, and is growing as importance as growing.
So you know, to cut someone like mat King, who's
made mental health just just an awareness of mental health.
Huge would be a big decision, wouldn't it.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Absolutely? And look, I know that the loose comments that
that that it Mike made and and I'm sure he
regrets it now, the fact that we all know that
there's a there's a there's a link between alcohol and suicide.
But I don't I don't agree about cutting his funding.
He's ass it's a successful organization. He does the work
that people that that people are looking out for, you know,
(03:36):
for for support, so for me and we do in
this country. Sometimes overplay things. I mean, as I said,
I'm sure I heard him say this morning, well the
other yesday morning that you know that it was out
of context, it was wrong. But the fact of the
matter is his organization does good work and.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
One hundred percent no chance and it has gone through.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
I just thought, you get in line with everyone else.
I mean, not saying he shignificant any money. Yes, he
should be in line with everyone else.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Do you think that. I mean, it's the old you know,
you're in PR so you know it's the old adage. Afterwards,
and I don't know Mike King, but I respect him
to say, oh, well it was not in context. Well
you can listen to that interview ten times and what
context do you want to take in it?
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Yeah, look, I mean the reality is you're responsible for
the context and which in which your words are taken.
You've got to be very careful in your public figures
like mental health, what you say, And he wasn't careful.
And look, I do respect Mike King. He obviously cares
about the issue, but I think he's been very loose
and I think is the way he's gone about getting
political funding I think has been harmful to the whole sector.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
So what happens now? What do you think happens now?
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Well, I'm sure there's still there'll be a continual debate.
I see that the opposition of climbed into it. So
that won't go away in the next twenty four hours.
It will continue to be debated, and I guess is
and exactly what Neil saying, I mean, there'll be about
as do we need to readdress the funding situation.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
There with him.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
I think the issue was Winston got it in his
coalition agreement with Luxen. For Luxeen to drop it, he
has to get Winston's permission and Luxon hasn't shown any
any backbone and standing. It was Colish and partners so far.
So I don't think anything's going to change.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
I didn't think. I don't think anything should change. But
I think everything should be reviewed. I think that's you know,
really what that's what we're asking for, just to have
a look at it, aren't we.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
I mean, yeah, look, I I would personally, I think
Luxon should just say we're not going to honor that commitment.
We're gonna we're gonna re look at this and we're
going to make Mike Kingston alone.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Why because he made one one comment that you and
I don't agree with that.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
No, I think I think before that comment was made,
I think, you know, when I look at when I
talk to me to health charities who are months months
away from going to the wall, and they're scrapping for
a fraction what Mike king got for free, I just
think that's totally wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Okay, Wayne, you got any further thing.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
It's important to think about what the outcomes too, isn't it.
I mean, whether they go into the whether they go
into the wall or not. The reality of it is
is are they achieving what what what's required? But the
fact of the matter is, again the cold heart effects
are whether it was a coalition agreement and that's what
we voted for in this country, and those are the
There's always going to be pros and cons about, you know,
(06:08):
deals that are done in a coalition government, and this
is one and it's come to the surface.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
And it's going to be food companies that go to
the war because they don't have the child, the kid
lunches at schools because they've got a better deal. There's
going to be decisions made that none of us like.
But that's reality, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
The new government and the coalition environment.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, I wonder whether we should go on to the
next topic. Let's go on to the next topic. We're
just days away. This is quite a big topic, so
I want to take a bit of time with this
one because we're only days away from one of the
biggest elections in the world, if not the biggest elections
in the world. And of course I'm talking about the USA.
Wayne Guppy, I mean, do you follow the American politics?
(06:47):
Are you a politic? I know Neil Jones will have
his feet right into this, but do you follow it?
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Absolutely? I was lucky enough to be at university there
back in the early early in the early eighties and
witness to see it and then to watch it since
I've come home and what the university did you go to?
Was it the University of Nebraska?
Speaker 2 (07:06):
And well, that's a big university.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
It was great. They were very good. There are very
very good football players in those days, the corn Huskers.
But yeah, no, American politics is fascinating.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Okay, what's going to happen?
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Well, he's making a late run Trump, but I my
gut tells me that just when they go into that
polling boost, the consequences are huge, not only for America,
for the world. I actually think she's going to come through.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
What do you think is better for New Zealand?
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Well, there's consequences for both, but certainly from a pre
economic point of view, if Trump becomes a president again,
there's there's huge implications. There's huge implications on what we do.
I mean, I think we've got to double our spending
immediately if we want to be in cohorts with them
on defense. Some of those requirements are huge.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
I think even bigger than that with Trump, as if
he gets in, he's looking at across the board tariffs
of you know, maybe twenty percent so there's going to
be immediate tax on our exporterers every time they try
and get into the US markets. That's gonna be huge
for US.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
So that has a big impact on the American economy too,
because all that gets passed on to the American consumer.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
And this is the bit I've been surprised about. Is
Kamala Harris, quite rightly, I think, has been pointing out
the danger to democracy with Trump. The problem is from
a purely political perspective, Joe Biden was running that argument
and it wasn't working for him. And actually the reason
people are going to Trump is because they're concerned about
the economy. And I would have thought Kamlala Harris should
be putting a lot more attention on the fact that,
(08:32):
you know, economists say the tariff policy of Trump's going
to cost about four thousand US dollars per household. You know,
it's huge amounts of money. It's going to cost every
imput is going to have a tax on it. I'd
be talking a lot a lot more about that if
I was her.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
But look, what do you make of the campaign that's
this is your bread and butter. You don't this is
your this is your get up in the morning and
look at every website and you get a feel of
what's going on. This is what drives you. What do
you What have you made of the campaign so far?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Yes, Like I said, I have been surprised Harris has
fallen back into Biden's messaging. I think she should have
focused a lot more on the economy. That's that's why
people who don't like necessarily like Trump are considering voting
for him, because they think he's good on the economy.
I also thought it was odd that, you know, one
of the things they got quite early on was that
they did well was framing Trump and Jada Vance as
(09:17):
weird and her running mate to wolves. She chose when
he did a big thing in the meter about how
they're weird, and that kind of disempowered them. They weren't
built up as these big baddies. They were disempowered. It
was they hang on, these guys are weird. They weren't
all this weird racist stuff. They say weird things about
women and you know, you know, needing to you know,
have ten children, and this is weird stuff. And I
thought that diminished Trump, and it sort of took some
(09:38):
of his mystique away and they just seem to drop
all that and fall back into the previous messaging. So
if they do lose, I think there's gonna be a
lot of questions about how Kamala Harris what she chose
to prioritize in the campaign. Trump's campaign I can't begin
to explain to you, because in New Zealand or any
other Western democracy, if a candidate behaved the way Trump did,
(09:59):
said the things he did, made the promises and threats
he did that had been disqualified from office a thousand times,
what happens is.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
What happened to America? Or what happens if Trump doesn't win?
Will he accept it? Will you just walk away? Or what?
What's the ratifications of him not getting in?
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Look? I think I think he will. I think it's
unlikely he'll accept the result. He's already you know, a
lot of his daily messaging is around the allegations of
voter fraud, about how it's all rigged. I suspect, unless
it's a thumping win from Harris, which looks unlikely from
the polls, he's going to try and litigate it. He's
already made comments about how he might try and use
(10:37):
tricky maneuverings in Congress to try and to try and
block the electors from the States and bringing new electors
into the electoral College, which could mean that he could
try and get himself into the position of president without
winning a majority of electoral votes. There's all kinds of
tricky things he might try and do, and I think
you couldn't You couldn't rule out of violence. It's it's
a really sad, worrying situation. If he wins, it's a
(10:59):
disaster for the US and for the globe. I think
if he wins, it's a huge thing for Putin, for
Jesi ping for for all of the authoritarian nasties out there.
They'll be banking on it. They'll be really wanting a
Trump victory. And if he loses, I think you're going
to see some potential violence in the US. It's a
very worrying, sad time in global politics.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
One Gabby, you've lived there, You've been there when an
election was on. Do you think this could be come
to Fruisiana that could get violent?
Speaker 4 (11:24):
I agree with you. I mean you've got to remember
he will be unpredictable in victory, and he will be
unpredictable in defeat and we've seen that, and that's the
scary thing. And I think more importantly for us all
as on a global point of views, he has now
dismissed anyone who had any sort of control over him
in the old administration. So no one's going to actually
(11:46):
put the reins on him, any of US's advisers. So
there's the yes people around him, and he's going to
rule supreme by the bye.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
As far as I say, as former chief of staff
and former senior military people who worked under him has said,
this guy is a fascist and we were there to
stop him last time. And this time he's not constrained
by the people he was last time. He's got his
own movement. He's got thousands of people ready to go
into these positions he'll be yes men. So it's deeply worrying.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
By to Bay, I'm just curious now, Wayne, who was
running when you were the election that you were living
in America?
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Well, when I was there, Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan got shot.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
So I remember that day very clearly. So yeah, it
was part again that was a historic and how the
American people reacted to that.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Wow. Wayne, I've got to ask you because it wouldn't
be right for me to have you in the studio
and not ask you. The council now has the lowest
credit rating out of any councils in the country. Standard
in Mores says it's the largest deficit percentage of any
sub national government in the globe. It's pretty it's pretty bad.
So Wayne, obviously this is pretty disturbing news for you guys.
(12:52):
How did Apperhut get into this point?
Speaker 4 (12:54):
And that's quite an emotional language, but what we're dealing
with it's not quite as disasterous. It sounds that, I
mean that Standard and paused to a couple of hundred
councils around the world, and Moodies to do do a number,
but certainly in New Zealand, I think they do about
thirty odd. The fact of the matter is, if you
look at what our the whole local government sector has
(13:14):
being downgraded credit rating. We've been downgraded, but certainly I
outlook stable. Many are still negative. And if you look
at that report, it says that the actions that have
been taken in the long term plan will rectify the situation.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
So we don't have to get concerned or worry. I mean,
how did it get to this well, I.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Mean the previous decisions and advice, but certainly from the
point of view of moving forward, it's about the decisions
in that long term plan will rectify and standard and
polls make that very clear in their report.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Okay, let's move on to the dreaded capital gains. We
have time to do capital gains? Yeah, do we have
time before the news? Let's go capital gains. The latest
IPOs poll has found sixty five Ipsos poll has found
sixty five percent of key we support a form of
capital gains tax, including many national voter voters. Neil, I'll
start with you on this topic because I know that
(14:09):
you're going to have a lot. You have been doing
a lot of studying, thinking and working on capital gains tax.
It's going to happen sooner or later. Tell us what's
going on. What's the latest talk. I mean, when you've
got national people talking about capital gains tax, is that
just all hype or is it something that's going to
become a reality.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
I think the conversation shifted. I mean, I was working
for Labor when they tried a couple of times to
get a capital gains tax up, and it was really
hard because it's an easier tax to scare monger about
the National Party around lots of ads about how everything's
going to be taxed, what was going to be in
the world. It's actually a really simple idea, which is
that you know, a cleaner on minimum wage pays tax
(14:46):
and every dollar they earn every wage and salary. And
it does. But if you make money from selling an
investment property or selling shares, for example, you don't pay
a cent and tax in that. And no one's ever
explained to me how that's fear incomers income. In my view,
the challenge with it is first of all, making people
understand that their family home is not going to be taxed,
because that's the bit everyone's scared about.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
What about the family batch.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Well, that's an investment property, I mean it's.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Not a family batch. Yeah, But if an investment property
is where you put.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
Ten, if you make a capital gain on it like
you've made you've made a profit like miles to pay
some tax on it.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
What's the difference between me owning or way no owning,
Because it would be more likely to a three million
dollar home in Upper Heart and a five hundred thousand
dollars batch at Foxton Beach probably you couldn't get one
on Fox and and then And the opposite to that
is he's got a one million dollar home, and you
know what's the difference.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
There's always going to be like there's always a been
messy sort of examples you can give, and part of
the challenge of design attacks is fighting out how you
deal with these different things. Like if someone's got a
home with fifty million dollars to twenty million dollars, you
deal with that. That can all be dealt with in
the detail. But my point, what is the.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Detail for that? What do you think they thinking? What's
the rationale? The rationale for the capital games? What do
you think that? How do you think labor? I mean,
it's all going to come from labor. Are working on
it in the world.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
What's working on it right now? They'll probably make an
announcement next year because Chrissipkins City wants to have lots
of time to have the debate before the election, so
it's not so easy to scaremonger about. So they'll probably
announce something next year. I would say, and take it
to the public and say to the public of where elected,
we'll put in a CGT. The challenge Labour is going
to have is the other challenge always look couple of
games taxes, what's it for? So if you if you
(16:29):
see in the APSOS poll, people weren't ken on it
just being used to increase tax revenue because they worry
it gets wasted. So I think a government or a
political party promising a CGT has to either say it's
going to be used for tax cuts elsewhere or be
very clear about what it's going to. And I think
there is an argument right now to say we've got
a massive structure crisis in our country. One of the
(16:50):
reasons you know wagn Guppy and every other council in
the country having challenges is infrastructure.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
And we've got money.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
We've got you know, look at the furies and the
mess that's in Look at the state of our rail system.
We've got roads in that building. We've got the need
in hospital which needs to be built. The government's pulled funding.
There are a lot there are schools that need upgrading.
So I think there's an argument to say put that
money into infrastructure and actually build our country.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Wayet Guppy, when you hear national and even talking about
it or rumbling about it. I mean, is it something
that's just going to be inediable?
Speaker 4 (17:18):
Well, I mean we're going to have to look for
other sources of revenue, there's no question about that as
the population ages. But I think and Neil is involved
in it, but I actually think it's one of those
things in the polling where it might be topicalle to
talk about it, but the issue comes, the issue comes.
I think it's not a bad idea as long as
it doesn't affect me and felilogy that's where the issue
(17:40):
the real debate or heat up. Oh, it's going to
affect the guy next door or some that I think
owns more than I do, but not me, And I'm
not quite sure the polls will show that sixty five
percent people being a favor of capal gains tax if
it's going to actually affect.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
No, I agree with that. It's very easy to say
yes in a poll. It's much harder to actually support
it when you think it's going to impeact you.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
But like amalgamation with the councils, isn't it we all
want it except when it actually happens. I'll start with
you on this one way. MP Christopher Luxe Prime Minister
Christopher Luxe and said he's open to conversation about banning
Nazi symbols after a large scale tongue in lahat this
week's or attendance is yelling out seekl repeatedly, what do
(18:23):
you think? Do you think we need to have a
ban on Nazi symbols? Does that make sense any kind
of sense to you?
Speaker 4 (18:28):
Well, I think we need to have the conversation. I
mean it's certainly Australia have done it. Australia did I
think about twelve months ago where they banned that and
any other symbols and patches that can do with terrorism.
So yeah, I think we need to have that conversation.
That's certainly intimidating behavior for communities, and you know communities
(18:49):
don't need that. I actually do have some sympathy though
with David Seymour's comments, where actually do we really need
to ban them? Because they actually the people that do
it show who the idiots are in society.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
But he wants to ban the patches of gang members
and doesn't that some have some sort of parallel because
we didn't know who they are and who you're not.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
I mean I thought Siymour was a little bit incoherent.
He said, Oh, we shouldn't ban swastikers, but we should
ban gang patches because they're intimidating. I feel like this
swasta is a little bit intimidating. That's what I thins
read much wilble too history. But they went very nice.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
No, I mean, and what I didn't understand is he
tried to have it completely separate parallel to the same thing.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
I think the problem the government's got from a coherence
point of view is they canceled the hate speech legislation,
they canceled the online content regulation. They said, it's all
about free speech. But when it comes to gangs, and look,
I'm not too worried about gangs myself in terms of
cracking down on them, go for your life. But they
when it comes to gangs, they we're banning gang patches,
we're banning Nazi symbols. When gangs wear them, you're either
(19:47):
for free speech or you're not. And on these things,
and they seem to have the view that we're only
going to ban it if gangs are wearing it. Yeah,
and I think it doesn't make all of sense.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
No, it doesn't make a lot of sue.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
I just say that I'm all a favorite banning Nazi symbols,
Nazi speech. I'm generally a free speech kind of guy.
But I feel like we had that debate. It was
called World War two. The good guys won, and we're
kind of I know what Nazism leads to. There's no
debate to be had, just to crack down on it.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Yeah, I totally agree. I want to ask you both
about sky Stadium. The region Stadium doesn't have a single
concert book for this year or next year. I mean that,
despite fears when it opened that it was good, the
consent was for six each year. That wouldn't be enough
when you're going to have concerts all the time, they're
confined to six. Why Neil Jones can't Wellington or why
(20:31):
can't sky Stadium attract the big concerts to Wellington anymore?
Is it our reputation is preceding it.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
I don't think it's that. I understand a lot of
it's to do with just you know, venue sizes, population sizes,
the fact that it's lacking a cover. I remember going
to David Bowie Got nearly twenty years ago now and
it was absolutely pouring with rain. So that's probably a factor.
One of the things we do need the city is
a sort of a medium sized venue about twelve thousand people.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
But that's not the point. The point is that we've
got a big stadium and we should be having you know,
we've got consent for six concerts even two or three
a year. I mean it's for the region as well, Wayne,
isn't it. I mean we need those big concerts. They
bring big dollars into the city, give us worldwide recognition
of the big artists to hear. Why are we not
getting them?
Speaker 4 (21:13):
Well, I mean that's a question we need to ask
because the fact of the matter is what we're doing
is not working, and that the issue is going to
get worse because if you look, Christich is about to
open a stadium with a roof. The need and you
know that much smaller stadium of they've had concerts that
we haven't got. They've got a roof. And if you
look at the fast track that went through the fastech legislation,
(21:36):
and we went through one of the fast tracks on
those one hundred and forty nine was a was the
funding well not the funding but for roof of Eden Park.
And so whatever we're doing is not right. I personally
think that the negativity around Wellington and the negativity that
we've had through the media doesn't help.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
I think so too. I totally agree. I think people
are saying, you know, we're all talking about people getting
laid off, we've got no jobs with this, With that,
I think Neil Jones, it's really hurting.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
Us, you know, I think it is. But I mean
it does reflect to reality. I mean I was had
lunch with five friends the other day and three of
them have been laid off, you know, so there is
a real there is a reason for the negativity. But
you're right, negativity can be get negativity. So we've got
to be positive. We've got to try and try and
do things to take the city forward. I mean, I
think that. I think the medium sized venue is actually
one of the answers.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
You know, we can't build. We don't have the money
to build another. You know, it's tweaking.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
I realized that it's a challenging it's a challenging time
to be asking for councils to spend money. But there
was a plan. Wayne might know what happened to it,
but there was a big plan. The whole region was
behind it before COVID for a twelve thousand strong venue
in the water.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Well, I think it was a dream rather than a plan, Wayne.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
It was a lot of work had been done on it. Absolutely,
there'd been a lot of work and of course what
happens in local government, we had changes of personalities and
changes of councils and then the enthusiasm Wayne. But you
certainly that we need to make the stadium work because
if you think about it, we even don't get lots
of big sporting events. You know, this year I'll say
(23:02):
it's been that was going to happen anyhow. Yeah, and
so it's about those other events. I mean, I'm sure
we're going to have a great crowd there tomorrow with
the with the Phoenix and Auckland. But you know, it's
about ongoing events and you know, whether we're tracking AFL,
whether we're tracting the league from Australia, those are the
(23:24):
things that we need to be in the market.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
For the things though whitin City Council is not going
in the state defund it, so it has to be
Region White.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
I want to talk quickly about some amalgamation because now
we talked off here before and a lot of the
problems with Wellington. We we've got lots of problems in Washington.
A lot of them would go away if we had
an amalgamation of lower heart, upper heart potider in Wetington.
Forget about the big grandiose of Capiti and the wire rapper,
forget about all that. Just have amalgamation. Now, I love
(23:51):
the idea.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
What do you think, Yeah, I think it's really silly
that we have all these little councils. Due respect to
Upperhud and the other councils there are, they're too small.
Auckland's got a super city that's actually worked really well.
Look at whe Auckland was ten years ago, Look what
it is now. We ed feel sorry for Auckland. Wellington.
We used to laugh about how it was but rubb
and what a great city we were. Now it's the
other way around. Christ Church City Council is twice the
right payers we do. And this is the thing. You've
(24:13):
got these major projects. The stadium is just one example
where you actually need to pull the resources of the
whole region and actually be more coherent. You look at transport,
you look at water, you look at a whole range
of things with scale comes cost efficiencies, comes better planning,
comes a better business environment. It just makes sense and
I think it's well over due.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
One guppy. We had Stephen Franks on last week or
the week before, and he hated the idea of a malgamates.
It's the worst thing that we could possibly do. And
he thought our councilors were quite big worldwide. You know,
if you look around the world, normally councilors are actually
smaller than ours. I didn't that was news to me.
What are your thoughts are you what's your gut telling you?
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Well? I mean I think that that the people have
moved from where it was ten years ago. And I
think there's no question that there will be a discussion
in the future because in the near future, because just
as Neil talked about with the stadium and other regional
process and this particular government has made it very clear
to us in local government that they want the councils
(25:12):
to be working together and and that's that's really important
and and there will be I think that will generate
the discussion.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Now you can take the Fifth Amendment on this one,
but I am going to ask you anyway. Sime and
Brown met with Anita Baker and camill Berry. Were you
in that meeting? No, okay, all right, have you met
with him? I've met with him about the malgamation.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
I'm not about malgamation.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
That's weird. Why wouldn't you involve you in that discussion
if that was going on. You're looking at me with
a straight face. So you're looking at me with a
straight face. That I trust you, So I know you.
I know that you. I can I've look at you
straight the eye. Listeners, he's not he's not. He's not.
He's not flogging us, ay earl, He's he's been straight.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
I've never been loaded about one guppy.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Right, let's go one little topic before we go to
hots and knots of that's all right. I'm looking at
my producer. The Haka is once again in the headlines
with England prop Joe Marla calling it ridiculous and say
it's bidding. I'm going to start with you on this one,
Neil Jones, because you'll have no idea or no clue
because you're not even into rugby. Do you think that
the hawk is outdated and needs to be binned.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
No, I think it's a source of national pride. And
you know at the time when I think, you know,
the Maori aspect of his young culture is increasingly sort
of contested, and there are people trying to have a
crack at it. I think it's really good that in
a national sport people can get together and appreciate it
as something unites us. I also think, you know, you
hear this wins from the English a lot. Well, when
we play the movie, do you pretty common? It's probably
(26:37):
related to the fact they lose so much. And I
just think, you know, I noticed one thing Marla said
was he said, oh, well, it only really works if
the other side has a response of some sort. Well,
have a Morris stance, then do something like that. I mean,
you know, be our guest.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Way guppy. I know what your views have been there,
but I'll let you say it anyway. You'll be pro
pro pro and more pro.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
Look, we're only dealing with a comment from a prop.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Well, you're a hooker, so you're probably.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
But hookers have got far more intelligence than props. And
we're doing with a comment from a prop. And let's
not get precious. They'll make a noise, they'll make a
noise on it, twicking them. On Sunday morning, the British crowd.
But guess what the Orbex will be talking about that already,
and Marla will be the motivating thing.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Well, I can't have you on the show you're happy
without asking you who's going to win that game?
Speaker 4 (27:27):
We will buy twenty wow?
Speaker 2 (27:30):
Wow? What about the Phoenix orcan go?
Speaker 4 (27:32):
That'll be a beauty and I reckon we can look,
I've looked, I went, I was at the Phoenix last
the last game, and I actually think, and I've seen
them train, we can beat the Aucklanders by two, put
them on the plane and send them back to Auckland.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Okay, the rich boys. We'll send the rich boys home.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
The Friday Hot.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Okay, let's get into it. Neil Jones, what's your hots
and notts this week?
Speaker 3 (27:56):
So my hot is the trick of treaters. Actually, I've
moved into a new house of the last couple of
days in Island Bay and just seeing we got rid
of two hundred chocolates about half an hour, kids and
amazing costumes. I never liked Halloween. I never had it
when I was a keen either. It was American import.
I was really anti it with you, but actually it's
really it's really good. It's a lovely it's a lovely
event and I'm very pleased with it.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
How how big has it got? I mean it was massive.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Bay was just just there were just kids were then.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Yeah, I was going to a school college prize giving
and we're driving past the wallace for the state and
there were kids and mums and dads.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
You've fantastic. Well, how good? Sorry that my hot?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Do I not?
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (28:34):
Please, I'm not as that ugly hand thing Quasi. Yeah, yeah,
it was haunting us on top of the City Gallery's
finally leaving and I guess that's a hot in the way,
but I want to go by, not to Quasi, which
is I thought it was a ghastly thing that haunted
our city. And if you look back to when Willington
started declining, it's about eighteen nineteen that the hand, the
hand was put on the city.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Wayne designed that head and I think, you know, it's
based on his head.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
I think it's haunted us and I'm glad to see
the back of.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
It to me and you both right overway, Guppy beat
that one. Who's what's your hot? So what's you're not?
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Milk?
Speaker 4 (29:06):
Let Melbourne know, because I think that's Ritidian.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
No, it's some suburb out the back of nowhere.
Speaker 4 (29:10):
The only beings coming to the exactly exactly. Well, my
my heart is actually Minister maclay signing that trade deal
overnight and with the Golf Corporative Council six states. It's
worth what three billion dollars now to us and that's
huge And do we need trade deals? Do we need
to generate incomings? That's good, he's good though, very good.
(29:31):
I heard him this morning song. I think he's been
up there about six times and he's off back to
India again before Christmas. So for the New Zealand's point
of view, I think that's great. And let me just
quickly say and also the Lion's MPC win last huge
hug and my not is the and it has got
a big impact on this country for years to come.
The chronic Absoitianism was it sixty thousand people young men
(29:56):
and women not going to school. That's got a huge
impact long term for us as a as a community
and as a country, and that needs to be sorted
quickly other wise, guys, we're going to have that's going
to be a real issue for this country.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Do you know I had Warrington College headmaster Glenn Denham,
who I have a lot of respect because of his
basketball background and him as a person. He said the
greatest crisis in education of New Zealand was, without doubt,
it's getting kids to school when he said that two
years ago when he first got the job, And how
right is he? You know, if you got no chance
if you can't get them to school. So I agree
with that one quickly before you go, and we wrapped
(30:31):
the show. Neil Jones. Who's going to win on Tuesday? Wednesday,
Thursday next week?
Speaker 3 (30:35):
How long it's going to take My heads is Carmala Harris.
The singing feeling of my guts is Donald Trump?
Speaker 2 (30:41):
So you can't go for both of them. There's only two
in the race. So who are you going for?
Speaker 3 (30:44):
I'm going to say Harris because I can't even be
a thing of the alternative, and I'm going to go.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
I think the American people will come in Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Thank you both so much. I agree with you. I mean,
I've said Kamala Harris right from the outset. I think
I thought I got it wrong, but I'm hoping I've
still got it right because I think the result will
be better if we have her as the President of America.
Thank you both, Neil Jones and Wayne Guppy, thank you
very much for coming and I know you're both very
very busy, man gaps, keep up the good work on
Upper Hut. She's a city, flying and going places all
(31:15):
the time. So good luck and good luck with amalgamation talks,
if there is such a thing.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
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 dissecting the week sublime and ridiculous.
Friday face off with Quinovic Property Management a better rental
experience for all. Call on eight hundred. Quinnovic on Thursday.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Starts right, joining us for Friday face off this week
is Upper Hut Mayor in general. Good guy, Wayne Guppy,
Good morning GUVs. I'll turn your mic on. How's that working?
Good morning Neck, Good to have you in the studio again.
Good to see you again. And Director of Capital Neil Jones.
And you'll take it easy on me today. I know
that you you love coming in here because you know
(00:48):
I'm a political novice and you can just put the
gloves on and knock me all over with the women's studio.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Your words, not mine, Neck.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Well, yeah, that's all.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
It's always good to be on.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Right. Let's start with Mike King. I'll start with you,
Neil Jones. Mental health campaigner Mike King obviously is under
for saying alcohol can be a solution to mental health
and reject studies linking alcohol to suicide. As opinion, are
these sort of comments acceptable or as the coverage of
(01:19):
them just being over blind because it's just a media beater.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
I think it's pretty unhelpful and I think it's pretty
unhelpful and actually potentially dangerous for someone like Mike King, who's,
you know, very well respected by a lot of people.
He's a well known spokesperson on mental health issues. For
him to be saying that, I think could send the
wrong signals. I actually think the government needs to needs
to cut what they've done with them.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Oh you think they should cut the funding?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Absolutely. I think that. You know, I've done a lot
of work for mental health charities and there is a
process you go through in this country where politicians don't
make the decision. You know, you put up your funding bid,
you show that you're delivering value, you show that what
you're doing is working in the system decides who gets
the money. The problem we got here is in the
coalition agreement, New zeal On first ass for twenty four
(02:03):
million dollars for Mike King his charity. Christopher Luxon gave
once and everything he wanted in that agreement, so he
gave him that as well. And now what you got
is this Matt Doocy, who's you know, the mental health
minister by all accounts a very good guy. He believes
in mental health. His fund has been as ten million dollars.
He'd like to give more to other charities, but he
can't gut twenty four million dollars gone to Mike King.
(02:25):
And so I'm aware of a number of mental health
charities that some of whom I'm working with, who are
some in Wellington, including well who operated on him as well,
who are really struggling. Some are close to going to
the wall, and they're looking at Mike King getting twenty
four million while there's all scrapping over ten million. I mean,
it's just rubbish. And so I thought before the FIESCO
that Mike King shouldn't have got that money. I think
(02:46):
it brings our whole system to disrepute and I think
this is just another example of what happens, you know,
when you shortcut the process and make political decisions.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
One and Gabie, I love to get your thoughts on
this because from a medical background, which you have, mental
health is a problem that we don't talk about, don't
do enough about, and is growing as importance as growing.
So you know, to cut someone like mat King, who's
made mental health just just an awareness of mental health.
Huge would be a big decision, wouldn't it.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Absolutely? And look, I know that the loose comments that
that that it Mike made and and I'm sure he
regrets it now, the fact that we all know that
there's a there's a there's a link between alcohol and suicide.
But I don't I don't agree about cutting his funding.
He's ass it's a successful organization. He does the work
that people that that people are looking out for, you know,
(03:36):
for for support, so for me and we do in
this country. Sometimes overplay things. I mean, as I said,
I'm sure I heard him say this morning, well the
other yesday morning that you know that it was out
of context, it was wrong. But the fact of the
matter is his organization does good work and.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
One hundred percent no chance and it has gone through.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
I just thought, you get in line with everyone else.
I mean, not saying he shignificant any money. Yes, he
should be in line with everyone else.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Do you think that. I mean, it's the old you know,
you're in PR so you know it's the old adage. Afterwards,
and I don't know Mike King, but I respect him
to say, oh, well it was not in context. Well
you can listen to that interview ten times and what
context do you want to take in it?
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Yeah, look, I mean the reality is you're responsible for
the context and which in which your words are taken.
You've got to be very careful in your public figures
like mental health, what you say, And he wasn't careful.
And look, I do respect Mike King. He obviously cares
about the issue, but I think he's been very loose
and I think is the way he's gone about getting
political funding I think has been harmful to the whole sector.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
So what happens now? What do you think happens now?
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Well, I'm sure there's still there'll be a continual debate.
I see that the opposition of climbed into it. So
that won't go away in the next twenty four hours.
It will continue to be debated, and I guess is
and exactly what Neil saying, I mean, there'll be about
as do we need to readdress the funding situation.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
There with him.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
I think the issue was Winston got it in his
coalition agreement with Luxen. For Luxeen to drop it, he
has to get Winston's permission and Luxon hasn't shown any
any backbone and standing. It was Colish and partners so far.
So I don't think anything's going to change.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
I didn't think. I don't think anything should change. But
I think everything should be reviewed. I think that's you know,
really what that's what we're asking for, just to have
a look at it, aren't we.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
I mean, yeah, look, I I would personally, I think
Luxon should just say we're not going to honor that commitment.
We're gonna we're gonna re look at this and we're
going to make Mike Kingston alone.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Why because he made one one comment that you and
I don't agree with that.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
No, I think I think before that comment was made,
I think, you know, when I look at when I
talk to me to health charities who are months months
away from going to the wall, and they're scrapping for
a fraction what Mike king got for free, I just
think that's totally wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Okay, Wayne, you got any further thing.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
It's important to think about what the outcomes too, isn't it.
I mean, whether they go into the whether they go
into the wall or not. The reality of it is
is are they achieving what what what's required? But the
fact of the matter is, again the cold heart effects
are whether it was a coalition agreement and that's what
we voted for in this country, and those are the
There's always going to be pros and cons about, you know,
(06:08):
deals that are done in a coalition government, and this
is one and it's come to the surface.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
And it's going to be food companies that go to
the war because they don't have the child, the kid
lunches at schools because they've got a better deal. There's
going to be decisions made that none of us like.
But that's reality, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
The new government and the coalition environment.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, I wonder whether we should go on to the
next topic. Let's go on to the next topic. We're
just days away. This is quite a big topic, so
I want to take a bit of time with this
one because we're only days away from one of the
biggest elections in the world, if not the biggest elections
in the world. And of course I'm talking about the USA.
Wayne Guppy, I mean, do you follow the American politics?
(06:47):
Are you a politic? I know Neil Jones will have
his feet right into this, but do you follow it?
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Absolutely? I was lucky enough to be at university there
back in the early early in the early eighties and
witness to see it and then to watch it since
I've come home and what the university did you go to?
Was it the University of Nebraska?
Speaker 2 (07:06):
And well, that's a big university.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
It was great. They were very good. There are very
very good football players in those days, the corn Huskers.
But yeah, no, American politics is fascinating.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Okay, what's going to happen?
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Well, he's making a late run Trump, but I my
gut tells me that just when they go into that
polling boost, the consequences are huge, not only for America,
for the world. I actually think she's going to come through.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
What do you think is better for New Zealand?
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Well, there's consequences for both, but certainly from a pre
economic point of view, if Trump becomes a president again,
there's there's huge implications. There's huge implications on what we do.
I mean, I think we've got to double our spending
immediately if we want to be in cohorts with them
on defense. Some of those requirements are huge.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
I think even bigger than that with Trump, as if
he gets in, he's looking at across the board tariffs
of you know, maybe twenty percent so there's going to
be immediate tax on our exporterers every time they try
and get into the US markets. That's gonna be huge
for US.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
So that has a big impact on the American economy too,
because all that gets passed on to the American consumer.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
And this is the bit I've been surprised about. Is
Kamala Harris, quite rightly, I think, has been pointing out
the danger to democracy with Trump. The problem is from
a purely political perspective, Joe Biden was running that argument
and it wasn't working for him. And actually the reason
people are going to Trump is because they're concerned about
the economy. And I would have thought Kamlala Harris should
be putting a lot more attention on the fact that,
(08:32):
you know, economists say the tariff policy of Trump's going
to cost about four thousand US dollars per household. You know,
it's huge amounts of money. It's going to cost every
imput is going to have a tax on it. I'd
be talking a lot a lot more about that if
I was her.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
But look, what do you make of the campaign that's
this is your bread and butter. You don't this is
your this is your get up in the morning and
look at every website and you get a feel of
what's going on. This is what drives you. What do
you What have you made of the campaign so far?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Yes, Like I said, I have been surprised Harris has
fallen back into Biden's messaging. I think she should have
focused a lot more on the economy. That's that's why
people who don't like necessarily like Trump are considering voting
for him, because they think he's good on the economy.
I also thought it was odd that, you know, one
of the things they got quite early on was that
they did well was framing Trump and Jada Vance as
(09:17):
weird and her running mate to wolves. She chose when
he did a big thing in the meter about how
they're weird, and that kind of disempowered them. They weren't
built up as these big baddies. They were disempowered. It
was they hang on, these guys are weird. They weren't
all this weird racist stuff. They say weird things about
women and you know, you know, needing to you know,
have ten children, and this is weird stuff. And I
thought that diminished Trump, and it sort of took some
(09:38):
of his mystique away and they just seem to drop
all that and fall back into the previous messaging. So
if they do lose, I think there's gonna be a
lot of questions about how Kamala Harris what she chose
to prioritize in the campaign. Trump's campaign I can't begin
to explain to you, because in New Zealand or any
other Western democracy, if a candidate behaved the way Trump did,
(09:59):
said the things he did, made the promises and threats
he did that had been disqualified from office a thousand times,
what happens is.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
What happened to America? Or what happens if Trump doesn't win?
Will he accept it? Will you just walk away? Or what?
What's the ratifications of him not getting in?
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Look? I think I think he will. I think it's
unlikely he'll accept the result. He's already you know, a
lot of his daily messaging is around the allegations of
voter fraud, about how it's all rigged. I suspect, unless
it's a thumping win from Harris, which looks unlikely from
the polls, he's going to try and litigate it. He's
already made comments about how he might try and use
(10:37):
tricky maneuverings in Congress to try and to try and
block the electors from the States and bringing new electors
into the electoral College, which could mean that he could
try and get himself into the position of president without
winning a majority of electoral votes. There's all kinds of
tricky things he might try and do, and I think
you couldn't You couldn't rule out of violence. It's it's
a really sad, worrying situation. If he wins, it's a
(10:59):
disaster for the US and for the globe. I think
if he wins, it's a huge thing for Putin, for
Jesi ping for for all of the authoritarian nasties out there.
They'll be banking on it. They'll be really wanting a
Trump victory. And if he loses, I think you're going
to see some potential violence in the US. It's a
very worrying, sad time in global politics.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
One Gabby, you've lived there, You've been there when an
election was on. Do you think this could be come
to Fruisiana that could get violent?
Speaker 4 (11:24):
I agree with you. I mean you've got to remember
he will be unpredictable in victory, and he will be
unpredictable in defeat and we've seen that, and that's the
scary thing. And I think more importantly for us all
as on a global point of views, he has now
dismissed anyone who had any sort of control over him
in the old administration. So no one's going to actually
(11:46):
put the reins on him, any of US's advisers. So
there's the yes people around him, and he's going to
rule supreme by the bye.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
As far as I say, as former chief of staff
and former senior military people who worked under him has said,
this guy is a fascist and we were there to
stop him last time. And this time he's not constrained
by the people he was last time. He's got his
own movement. He's got thousands of people ready to go
into these positions he'll be yes men. So it's deeply worrying.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
By to Bay, I'm just curious now, Wayne, who was
running when you were the election that you were living
in America?
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Well, when I was there, Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan got shot.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
So I remember that day very clearly. So yeah, it
was part again that was a historic and how the
American people reacted to that.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Wow. Wayne, I've got to ask you because it wouldn't
be right for me to have you in the studio
and not ask you. The council now has the lowest
credit rating out of any councils in the country. Standard
in Mores says it's the largest deficit percentage of any
sub national government in the globe. It's pretty it's pretty bad.
So Wayne, obviously this is pretty disturbing news for you guys.
(12:52):
How did Apperhut get into this point?
Speaker 4 (12:54):
And that's quite an emotional language, but what we're dealing
with it's not quite as disasterous. It sounds that, I
mean that Standard and paused to a couple of hundred
councils around the world, and Moodies to do do a number,
but certainly in New Zealand, I think they do about
thirty odd. The fact of the matter is, if you
look at what our the whole local government sector has
(13:14):
being downgraded credit rating. We've been downgraded, but certainly I
outlook stable. Many are still negative. And if you look
at that report, it says that the actions that have
been taken in the long term plan will rectify the situation.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
So we don't have to get concerned or worry. I mean,
how did it get to this well, I.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Mean the previous decisions and advice, but certainly from the
point of view of moving forward, it's about the decisions
in that long term plan will rectify and standard and
polls make that very clear in their report.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Okay, let's move on to the dreaded capital gains. We
have time to do capital gains? Yeah, do we have
time before the news? Let's go capital gains. The latest
IPOs poll has found sixty five Ipsos poll has found
sixty five percent of key we support a form of
capital gains tax, including many national voter voters. Neil, I'll
start with you on this topic because I know that
(14:09):
you're going to have a lot. You have been doing
a lot of studying, thinking and working on capital gains tax.
It's going to happen sooner or later. Tell us what's
going on. What's the latest talk. I mean, when you've
got national people talking about capital gains tax, is that
just all hype or is it something that's going to
become a reality.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
I think the conversation shifted. I mean, I was working
for Labor when they tried a couple of times to
get a capital gains tax up, and it was really
hard because it's an easier tax to scare monger about
the National Party around lots of ads about how everything's
going to be taxed, what was going to be in
the world. It's actually a really simple idea, which is
that you know, a cleaner on minimum wage pays tax
(14:46):
and every dollar they earn every wage and salary. And
it does. But if you make money from selling an
investment property or selling shares, for example, you don't pay
a cent and tax in that. And no one's ever
explained to me how that's fear incomers income. In my view,
the challenge with it is first of all, making people
understand that their family home is not going to be taxed,
because that's the bit everyone's scared about.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
What about the family batch.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
Well, that's an investment property, I mean it's.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Not a family batch. Yeah, But if an investment property
is where you put.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
Ten, if you make a capital gain on it like
you've made you've made a profit like miles to pay
some tax on it.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
What's the difference between me owning or way no owning,
Because it would be more likely to a three million
dollar home in Upper Heart and a five hundred thousand
dollars batch at Foxton Beach probably you couldn't get one
on Fox and and then And the opposite to that
is he's got a one million dollar home, and you
know what's the difference.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
There's always going to be like there's always a been
messy sort of examples you can give, and part of
the challenge of design attacks is fighting out how you
deal with these different things. Like if someone's got a
home with fifty million dollars to twenty million dollars, you
deal with that. That can all be dealt with in
the detail. But my point, what is the.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Detail for that? What do you think they thinking? What's
the rationale? The rationale for the capital games? What do
you think that? How do you think labor? I mean,
it's all going to come from labor. Are working on
it in the world.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
What's working on it right now? They'll probably make an
announcement next year because Chrissipkins City wants to have lots
of time to have the debate before the election, so
it's not so easy to scaremonger about. So they'll probably
announce something next year. I would say, and take it
to the public and say to the public of where elected,
we'll put in a CGT. The challenge Labour is going
to have is the other challenge always look couple of
games taxes, what's it for? So if you if you
(16:29):
see in the APSOS poll, people weren't ken on it
just being used to increase tax revenue because they worry
it gets wasted. So I think a government or a
political party promising a CGT has to either say it's
going to be used for tax cuts elsewhere or be
very clear about what it's going to. And I think
there is an argument right now to say we've got
a massive structure crisis in our country. One of the
(16:50):
reasons you know wagn Guppy and every other council in
the country having challenges is infrastructure.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
And we've got money.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
We've got you know, look at the furies and the
mess that's in Look at the state of our rail system.
We've got roads in that building. We've got the need
in hospital which needs to be built. The government's pulled funding.
There are a lot there are schools that need upgrading.
So I think there's an argument to say put that
money into infrastructure and actually build our country.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Wayet Guppy, when you hear national and even talking about
it or rumbling about it. I mean, is it something
that's just going to be inediable?
Speaker 4 (17:18):
Well, I mean we're going to have to look for
other sources of revenue, there's no question about that as
the population ages. But I think and Neil is involved
in it, but I actually think it's one of those
things in the polling where it might be topicalle to
talk about it, but the issue comes, the issue comes.
I think it's not a bad idea as long as
it doesn't affect me and felilogy that's where the issue
(17:40):
the real debate or heat up. Oh, it's going to
affect the guy next door or some that I think
owns more than I do, but not me, And I'm
not quite sure the polls will show that sixty five
percent people being a favor of capal gains tax if
it's going to actually affect.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
No, I agree with that. It's very easy to say
yes in a poll. It's much harder to actually support
it when you think it's going to impeact you.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
But like amalgamation with the councils, isn't it we all
want it except when it actually happens. I'll start with
you on this one way. MP Christopher Luxe Prime Minister
Christopher Luxe and said he's open to conversation about banning
Nazi symbols after a large scale tongue in lahat this
week's or attendance is yelling out seekl repeatedly, what do
(18:23):
you think? Do you think we need to have a
ban on Nazi symbols? Does that make sense any kind
of sense to you?
Speaker 4 (18:28):
Well, I think we need to have the conversation. I
mean it's certainly Australia have done it. Australia did I
think about twelve months ago where they banned that and
any other symbols and patches that can do with terrorism.
So yeah, I think we need to have that conversation.
That's certainly intimidating behavior for communities, and you know communities
(18:49):
don't need that. I actually do have some sympathy though
with David Seymour's comments, where actually do we really need
to ban them? Because they actually the people that do
it show who the idiots are in society.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
But he wants to ban the patches of gang members
and doesn't that some have some sort of parallel because
we didn't know who they are and who you're not.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
I mean I thought Siymour was a little bit incoherent.
He said, Oh, we shouldn't ban swastikers, but we should
ban gang patches because they're intimidating. I feel like this
swasta is a little bit intimidating. That's what I thins
read much wilble too history. But they went very nice.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
No, I mean, and what I didn't understand is he
tried to have it completely separate parallel to the same thing.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
I think the problem the government's got from a coherence
point of view is they canceled the hate speech legislation,
they canceled the online content regulation. They said, it's all
about free speech. But when it comes to gangs, and look,
I'm not too worried about gangs myself in terms of
cracking down on them, go for your life. But they
when it comes to gangs, they we're banning gang patches,
we're banning Nazi symbols. When gangs wear them, you're either
(19:47):
for free speech or you're not. And on these things,
and they seem to have the view that we're only
going to ban it if gangs are wearing it. Yeah,
and I think it doesn't make all of sense.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
No, it doesn't make a lot of sue.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
I just say that I'm all a favorite banning Nazi symbols,
Nazi speech. I'm generally a free speech kind of guy.
But I feel like we had that debate. It was
called World War two. The good guys won, and we're
kind of I know what Nazism leads to. There's no
debate to be had, just to crack down on it.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Yeah, I totally agree. I want to ask you both
about sky Stadium. The region Stadium doesn't have a single
concert book for this year or next year. I mean that,
despite fears when it opened that it was good, the
consent was for six each year. That wouldn't be enough
when you're going to have concerts all the time, they're
confined to six. Why Neil Jones can't Wellington or why
(20:31):
can't sky Stadium attract the big concerts to Wellington anymore?
Is it our reputation is preceding it.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
I don't think it's that. I understand a lot of
it's to do with just you know, venue sizes, population sizes,
the fact that it's lacking a cover. I remember going
to David Bowie Got nearly twenty years ago now and
it was absolutely pouring with rain. So that's probably a factor.
One of the things we do need the city is
a sort of a medium sized venue about twelve thousand people.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
But that's not the point. The point is that we've
got a big stadium and we should be having you know,
we've got consent for six concerts even two or three
a year. I mean it's for the region as well, Wayne,
isn't it. I mean we need those big concerts. They
bring big dollars into the city, give us worldwide recognition
of the big artists to hear. Why are we not
getting them?
Speaker 4 (21:13):
Well, I mean that's a question we need to ask
because the fact of the matter is what we're doing
is not working, and that the issue is going to
get worse because if you look, Christich is about to
open a stadium with a roof. The need and you
know that much smaller stadium of they've had concerts that
we haven't got. They've got a roof. And if you
look at the fast track that went through the fastech legislation,
(21:36):
and we went through one of the fast tracks on
those one hundred and forty nine was a was the
funding well not the funding but for roof of Eden Park.
And so whatever we're doing is not right. I personally
think that the negativity around Wellington and the negativity that
we've had through the media doesn't help.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
I think so too. I totally agree. I think people
are saying, you know, we're all talking about people getting
laid off, we've got no jobs with this, With that,
I think Neil Jones, it's really hurting.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
Us, you know, I think it is. But I mean
it does reflect to reality. I mean I was had
lunch with five friends the other day and three of
them have been laid off, you know, so there is
a real there is a reason for the negativity. But
you're right, negativity can be get negativity. So we've got
to be positive. We've got to try and try and
do things to take the city forward. I mean, I
think that. I think the medium sized venue is actually
one of the answers.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
You know, we can't build. We don't have the money
to build another. You know, it's tweaking.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
I realized that it's a challenging it's a challenging time
to be asking for councils to spend money. But there
was a plan. Wayne might know what happened to it,
but there was a big plan. The whole region was
behind it before COVID for a twelve thousand strong venue
in the water.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Well, I think it was a dream rather than a plan, Wayne.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
It was a lot of work had been done on it. Absolutely,
there'd been a lot of work and of course what
happens in local government, we had changes of personalities and
changes of councils and then the enthusiasm Wayne. But you
certainly that we need to make the stadium work because
if you think about it, we even don't get lots
of big sporting events. You know, this year I'll say
(23:02):
it's been that was going to happen anyhow. Yeah, and
so it's about those other events. I mean, I'm sure
we're going to have a great crowd there tomorrow with
the with the Phoenix and Auckland. But you know, it's
about ongoing events and you know, whether we're tracking AFL,
whether we're tracting the league from Australia, those are the
(23:24):
things that we need to be in the market.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
For the things though whitin City Council is not going
in the state defund it, so it has to be
Region White.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
I want to talk quickly about some amalgamation because now
we talked off here before and a lot of the
problems with Wellington. We we've got lots of problems in Washington.
A lot of them would go away if we had
an amalgamation of lower heart, upper heart potider in Wetington.
Forget about the big grandiose of Capiti and the wire rapper,
forget about all that. Just have amalgamation. Now, I love
(23:51):
the idea.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
What do you think, Yeah, I think it's really silly
that we have all these little councils. Due respect to
Upperhud and the other councils there are, they're too small.
Auckland's got a super city that's actually worked really well.
Look at whe Auckland was ten years ago, Look what
it is now. We ed feel sorry for Auckland. Wellington.
We used to laugh about how it was but rubb
and what a great city we were. Now it's the
other way around. Christ Church City Council is twice the
right payers we do. And this is the thing. You've
(24:13):
got these major projects. The stadium is just one example
where you actually need to pull the resources of the
whole region and actually be more coherent. You look at transport,
you look at water, you look at a whole range
of things with scale comes cost efficiencies, comes better planning,
comes a better business environment. It just makes sense and
I think it's well over due.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
One guppy. We had Stephen Franks on last week or
the week before, and he hated the idea of a malgamates.
It's the worst thing that we could possibly do. And
he thought our councilors were quite big worldwide. You know,
if you look around the world, normally councilors are actually
smaller than ours. I didn't that was news to me.
What are your thoughts are you what's your gut telling you?
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Well? I mean I think that that the people have
moved from where it was ten years ago. And I
think there's no question that there will be a discussion
in the future because in the near future, because just
as Neil talked about with the stadium and other regional
process and this particular government has made it very clear
to us in local government that they want the councils
(25:12):
to be working together and and that's that's really important
and and there will be I think that will generate
the discussion.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Now you can take the Fifth Amendment on this one,
but I am going to ask you anyway. Sime and
Brown met with Anita Baker and camill Berry. Were you
in that meeting? No, okay, all right, have you met
with him? I've met with him about the malgamation.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
I'm not about malgamation.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
That's weird. Why wouldn't you involve you in that discussion
if that was going on. You're looking at me with
a straight face. So you're looking at me with a
straight face. That I trust you, So I know you.
I know that you. I can I've look at you
straight the eye. Listeners, he's not he's not. He's not.
He's not flogging us, ay earl, He's he's been straight.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
I've never been loaded about one guppy.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Right, let's go one little topic before we go to
hots and knots of that's all right. I'm looking at
my producer. The Haka is once again in the headlines
with England prop Joe Marla calling it ridiculous and say
it's bidding. I'm going to start with you on this one,
Neil Jones, because you'll have no idea or no clue
because you're not even into rugby. Do you think that
the hawk is outdated and needs to be binned.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
No, I think it's a source of national pride. And
you know at the time when I think, you know,
the Maori aspect of his young culture is increasingly sort
of contested, and there are people trying to have a
crack at it. I think it's really good that in
a national sport people can get together and appreciate it
as something unites us. I also think, you know, you
hear this wins from the English a lot. Well, when
we play the movie, do you pretty common? It's probably
(26:37):
related to the fact they lose so much. And I
just think, you know, I noticed one thing Marla said
was he said, oh, well, it only really works if
the other side has a response of some sort. Well,
have a Morris stance, then do something like that. I mean,
you know, be our guest.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Way guppy. I know what your views have been there,
but I'll let you say it anyway. You'll be pro
pro pro and more pro.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
Look, we're only dealing with a comment from a prop.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Well, you're a hooker, so you're probably.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
But hookers have got far more intelligence than props. And
we're doing with a comment from a prop. And let's
not get precious. They'll make a noise, they'll make a
noise on it, twicking them. On Sunday morning, the British crowd.
But guess what the Orbex will be talking about that already,
and Marla will be the motivating thing.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Well, I can't have you on the show you're happy
without asking you who's going to win that game?
Speaker 4 (27:27):
We will buy twenty wow?
Speaker 2 (27:30):
Wow? What about the Phoenix orcan go?
Speaker 4 (27:32):
That'll be a beauty and I reckon we can look,
I've looked, I went, I was at the Phoenix last
the last game, and I actually think, and I've seen
them train, we can beat the Aucklanders by two, put
them on the plane and send them back to Auckland.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Okay, the rich boys. We'll send the rich boys home.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
The Friday Hot.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Okay, let's get into it. Neil Jones, what's your hots
and notts this week?
Speaker 3 (27:56):
So my hot is the trick of treaters. Actually, I've
moved into a new house of the last couple of
days in Island Bay and just seeing we got rid
of two hundred chocolates about half an hour, kids and
amazing costumes. I never liked Halloween. I never had it
when I was a keen either. It was American import.
I was really anti it with you, but actually it's
really it's really good. It's a lovely it's a lovely
event and I'm very pleased with it.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
How how big has it got? I mean it was massive.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Bay was just just there were just kids were then.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Yeah, I was going to a school college prize giving
and we're driving past the wallace for the state and
there were kids and mums and dads.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
You've fantastic. Well, how good? Sorry that my hot?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Do I not?
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (28:34):
Please, I'm not as that ugly hand thing Quasi. Yeah, yeah,
it was haunting us on top of the City Gallery's
finally leaving and I guess that's a hot in the way,
but I want to go by, not to Quasi, which
is I thought it was a ghastly thing that haunted
our city. And if you look back to when Willington
started declining, it's about eighteen nineteen that the hand, the
hand was put on the city.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Wayne designed that head and I think, you know, it's
based on his head.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
I think it's haunted us and I'm glad to see
the back of.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
It to me and you both right overway, Guppy beat
that one. Who's what's your hot? So what's you're not?
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Milk?
Speaker 4 (29:06):
Let Melbourne know, because I think that's Ritidian.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
No, it's some suburb out the back of nowhere.
Speaker 4 (29:10):
The only beings coming to the exactly exactly. Well, my
my heart is actually Minister maclay signing that trade deal
overnight and with the Golf Corporative Council six states. It's
worth what three billion dollars now to us and that's
huge And do we need trade deals? Do we need
to generate incomings? That's good, he's good though, very good.
(29:31):
I heard him this morning song. I think he's been
up there about six times and he's off back to
India again before Christmas. So for the New Zealand's point
of view, I think that's great. And let me just
quickly say and also the Lion's MPC win last huge
hug and my not is the and it has got
a big impact on this country for years to come.
The chronic Absoitianism was it sixty thousand people young men
(29:56):
and women not going to school. That's got a huge
impact long term for us as a as a community
and as a country, and that needs to be sorted
quickly other wise, guys, we're going to have that's going
to be a real issue for this country.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Do you know I had Warrington College headmaster Glenn Denham,
who I have a lot of respect because of his
basketball background and him as a person. He said the
greatest crisis in education of New Zealand was, without doubt,
it's getting kids to school when he said that two
years ago when he first got the job, And how
right is he? You know, if you got no chance
if you can't get them to school. So I agree
with that one quickly before you go, and we wrapped
(30:31):
the show. Neil Jones. Who's going to win on Tuesday? Wednesday,
Thursday next week?
Speaker 3 (30:35):
How long it's going to take My heads is Carmala Harris.
The singing feeling of my guts is Donald Trump?
Speaker 2 (30:41):
So you can't go for both of them. There's only two
in the race. So who are you going for?
Speaker 3 (30:44):
I'm going to say Harris because I can't even be
a thing of the alternative, and I'm going to go.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
I think the American people will come in Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Thank you both so much. I agree with you. I mean,
I've said Kamala Harris right from the outset. I think
I thought I got it wrong, but I'm hoping I've
still got it right because I think the result will
be better if we have her as the President of America.
Thank you both, Neil Jones and Wayne Guppy, thank you
very much for coming and I know you're both very
very busy, man gaps, keep up the good work on
Upper Hut. She's a city, flying and going places all
(31:15):
the time. So good luck and good luck with amalgamation talks,
if there is such a thing.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.