May 7, 2026 • 33 mins
Its Friday Faceoff, this week Nick is joined in the studio by Director of NZ Infrastructure Commission and former Wellington City Councillor Tim Brown and Raygun co-founder and CEO JD Trask to discuss the hot topics of the week.
Starting with Super. The OECD has released a report that yet again tells NZ we need to make changes to the pension. Brown and Trask talk the age of super annuation, means testing, KiwiSaver. The panel dive into the argument to have the super indexed by life expectancy.
Them onto amalgamation - have the councils had their priorities wrong the whole time? Would be able to compete with Auckland and Christchurch is we became more efficient and banded together? The panel look at the pros and struggles of bringing four Wellington basin cities together in three months.
Next up - who is running the Wellington City Council - is it the officials or the council? The panel discuss the news of the personal grievance payout allowance - where the senior management made a decision behind the back of elected officials.
They look at the leadership system and the CEO - is it actually democratic? Who is in charge?
Then water meter charges - Brown says it should only cost around $80 million, not the $590 million estimated by Tiaki Wai.
The panel discuss the charges, how it would work and how they think it should be done. And reminisce over the past cost blow outs that have hit the city.
And onto our panel's thoughts on Dr Eziekel Emanuel's comments on the lack of funding and updated technology compared to other countries.
They look into the gradual increase of AI and robotics in our health system.
Plus Brown and Trask give their hots and nots.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
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 sed B.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Friday Faith Office, Tim Brown, director of New Zealand Infrastructure
Commission and former Wellington City councilor. Good mornington, Good body, Nick,
how are you? I'm very well?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Thank you?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Is that going loud enough? Is Tim loud enough? I
think you could probably come up a bit, come a
bit closer to that microphone, please, sure, there you go.
And j D Trusk Ray Gunn co founder and CEO
and mister Ai himself. Good morning, Jd. Good to see you, Neck,
Good to see you too. Congratulations Austin, Yes, Austin so great.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Yeah, yeah, no, we're really stoved with it. He's been great,
he's sleeping well. He's one month old in two days time.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
How did you come up with, Austin? Is it something
to do with the place.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
A little bit, A little bit with the place. My
wife and I and our son, Henry, who's seven, we've
been there a couple of times and we liked like
the area, so it just felt unique, a little bit
different rather than you know, another Steve.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Ste Oh, gosh, I didn't say that right. Let's get
into it. OECD has released a report stating that our
super could should be indexed by life expectancy and means testing. Now, Tim,
you're closer to retirement than JD. So I'll start you
(01:36):
on this. I mean, what do we have to do.
We can't afford it, can we.
Speaker 5 (01:39):
We can't afford it, so we have to do something.
But unfortunately, the politicians are elected by the public, and
the public don't want to do anything. So it's a
classic problem where I think you could talk to almost
any every reasonable politician and they would say this is
a major, major problem. But unfortunately the electorate do not
want us to do anything with it.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So is it just a scared that they didn't know
that it'll be election killer? If they brought something in
put it up to sixty seven, would that be enough
to lose an election?
Speaker 5 (02:10):
Well, I guess they're the ones who've got all the polling,
so they must think so. I Mean, what I've never
understood is why they couldn't have At the very least,
it started with a level of flexibility, so that if
somebody wishes to, you know, you could retire at sixty
if you'd only get a certain percentage of the pension,
you could retire at seventy and you'd obviously get a
greater percentage. So you would think that the model should
be that will introduce flexibility as a first stage towards
(02:35):
trying to actually targeted solutions, because some people do want
to retire with they're sixty and some other people don't
want to retire until they're in their seventies.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
So did you have a kiwi say it?
Speaker 3 (02:45):
No, I didn't have one.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
No. Yeah, I'm just curious, you know, being I'm not
saying you're old or anything. I'm just saying I just
wondered whether you did because of the positions that you held. Jade,
what are your thoughts? I mean, you've got a long
way before you're in anywhere near retirement, but you're a
successful businessman. Do you ever keep say it?
Speaker 4 (03:02):
I don't, But that was really off the advice at
the time that being self employed it didn't make as
much economic sense, and I highly encourage everybody else to
actually be part of it. You know, I have a
passion as well for investing in things, so I'm pretty
comfortable with my decision. But that was the reason. You know,
when my employer tops it up, that's just going from
my left pocket to my right pocket. So it doesn't really, but.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
It's kind of an idea of that you've got a plan,
I mean, yes, I mean I'm a classic example of
the plan was me, yep, you know what I mean.
My plan was I don't need any of these insurance
superannuation because I've got businesses, I got homes. I'm all right.
But if something happens like it did with COVID in
the world.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean, you've got to diversify your investment.
So overall, coming to the point of the question, it's
exactly right though that I think we're seeing a lack
of leadership, which is sometimes leadership means you make a
decision people don't like. And I sometimes wonder about this
with the New Zealand government, the possibility of term limits
(04:03):
or reason I flag this is because you can look
at those such if you're not looking to get re elected,
is that the time to make the hard course where
you say, you know what, I'm not going to be
turning up for the next round.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
We need to do the right thing.
Speaker 5 (04:15):
Have you discussed this with Winston.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
But surely it's almost a perfect time to start working together.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
I just think We've got to get real or the
pain is going to continue to escalate. And that's the
way I look at a lot of these things. How
much more pain do you want? It's only going one way?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
You Do you have an idea? JD? Do you have
a plan that you think could work?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Not a broad broad plan, but you know, one of
the things that was mentioned earlier that I'm not comfortable
with is the idea that you index when it starts
based on life expectancy, because that starts to sound like
the pension is some sort of promised utopian time of relaxation,
and I just don't think the real will.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
It is it is sixty five? Is that particular date now,
isn't it?
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (04:56):
But yeah, sure, but everybody's the same. But let's say
you said you were going to pass away earlier. Does
that mean you start getting it sooner? And I would
argue no, just because you might die soon, it doesn't
mean you're utility and usefulness is also ending sooner. And
some people pass away before they ever get there. Do
you turn around and say they should get a lump
sum for their family.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
No.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
I don't think the idea that it's a guaranteed period
of your life necessarily makes sense.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
You see, I would probably argue that if you were
sixty three or sixty two and you had a terminal illness,
that you should be able to get a couple of
years of entitlement to make your life better if you
needed a term.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
Yeah, well that was my point about creating flexibility, So
it should be at the and I think some countries
do this. So you can choose to actually get the
pension early, but you don't get one hundred percent and
you or you could choose to defer when you get
the pension. But the trouble is is that you know,
we have this sort of the debated new Zella, as
I said at the moment, is exclusively around extending from
(05:55):
sixty five to sixty seven. I do not think that
sort of a very narrow.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I think means testing has been sneaking in there a
bit too.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
Well no, but look, I mean I think means testing
as one which which is just a mess, and it
creates a lot of distortions. I think the way it
is now, of course, if you are actually still working
and earning, you know you are likely paying back thirty
nine percent of your pension is taxed so some people
will get a net terms a great deal less than others,
and that's that's good, you know. So in other words,
you're you are effectively income tested. And of course if
(06:26):
you have children or other people at home, you get
a lot less. So I know, as a person who
gets a pension, that my pension, my net pension is
a lot less than other people's because I've got somebody
living at home and I'm actually earning other money elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Yeah, same boat, rowing the same way, and I don't
like it. I mean, I don't think that's fair either.
Take a short break, taking sure, take a short break
and be back with Tim Brown and Dati trust. I
want to come back with my favorite topic because we
talked about it again this week, that topic of amalgamation.
Everyone all the crowd goes wild Friday face off for
(07:00):
Tim Brown and JD trust Girl. Finally, amalgamation looks like
it might be happening. It looked while looks like the
government has given us three months to come up with something. Tom,
You've you've we've had this discussion before, I'm sure on
the show somewhere along the line. You know, my view
is very pro apaht sort of seems to be the
one that's a little bit of the sticking block. Why
(07:23):
why is I mean, as well as your opinion, you
know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (07:28):
Look, I think the I think this government, almost uniquely
in my experience, has focused on housing affordability as a
sort of a critical problem that New Zealand has. I mean,
we've obviously got a productivity problem, but if you know,
if you're getting a lousy wage and you've got an
expensive home, you are your emigrating right. So the only
way we can solve that problem is by making housing
more affordable. And I think this government has done some
(07:50):
incredibly brave moves around of housing affordability, which are obviously
trashing them in the polls because nobody who owns a
house likes to see its value going down, even though
that's good for the next generation.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
And that can you remember that happening before, because I
can't know.
Speaker 5 (08:04):
That's the I think Chris Bishop is a uniquely brave politician.
I've not encountered a politician with the bravery that he's
got around this issue, and the fact that he's managed
to persuade his colleagues. He wasn't ambitionous. I mean, remember
that Bill English was also very hot on this issue.
He was not able to get John Key to agree
to it because John Key was like property owning democracy,
(08:25):
We're just not going to trash the property owning part
of it. So the next step, of course, is you
look at Wellington as an example, with the rates going
crazy and now the water charges on top of that.
You know, that's obviously it's all very wealthy. The capital
value of your home to come down so it becomes
more affordable in terms of your borrowing from the bank
and whatnot. But you've got this huge expense associated with
(08:47):
what you pay for rates, what you pay for water,
and you know, the corporatization of the water activities and
creating that is a separate area of accountability. Bringing in
the Communist Commission to regulate all of those things. Are
ultimately going to pay dividends in terms of the water cost,
which after all, in Willington is thirty six percent of
what your rates go to as three waters. So thirty
six percent is now being hyped off into this. We're
(09:09):
still going to pay for it, yeah, but at least
we will get it regulated and it won't just be
sort of like Fulton Hogan going around digging holes for
the sake of making Fulton Hogan rich. So I think
that sort of accountability is yet to come, but I
think it will. The next step is, you know, how
do we make councils. How do we make the other
sixty six percent or sixty four percent of the council's
(09:31):
you know, activities more efficient? And I think that amalgamation
and restructuring of councils is a necessary part of that.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
So bring it on.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Okay, JD. That was a hard act to follow, that
was it was. It was.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Arms here, nodding an agreeing.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
It's true. I see it as as a necessary step
to drive some efficiencies overall. I guess one of the
things that stands out to me is you can make
arguments for other things. And I always like to say,
you know, there are no silver bullets. There's just a
lot of lead bullets. This is one lead bullet to
make a step in the right direction, and then we
can try and improve from there. Keep you know, what's
(10:09):
the next thing to improve it. I do share that
concern about the costs going up effectively op X on everybody, right,
and I think about the young people coming into this city,
you know, if you come here for university all these things,
you start thinking we're pushing ten twelve thousand dollars a
year of just the right to live here. That's going
to put a lot of young people off being able
(10:30):
to come here or stay after university. And that I
think is my biggest concern, is that cost.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
There are you optimistic about, like what an amalgamation could
produce for our city? Could we start competing with Auckland
and christ Church again if we're well one rather than
you know, a half and a half in a quarter
and a courter.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
I think we It comes back to that leadership thing,
and this is that lead bullets point, which is there's
still so much waste and incompetence sitting in these councils
that we've got to address that as well at some point.
You know I read this morning is that that Wellington
City Council has just opted out of the billet that
new law that prevents firing firing.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
What it does prevents anyone over two hundred thousand having
a fight if they lose.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
It, correct, And so you're just sitting here saying this
is yet another assault on the citizenry by the bureaucracy.
And I don't think you know, we talk left verset right,
it's not. It's the state versus the people, and the
people are losing.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
How's your ham sandwich looking now?
Speaker 4 (11:29):
He's looking pretty pathetic at the moment. To be honest,
you know you're watching, watching.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Can I just explain to our listeners because some of
our listeners wouldn't have heard that in Tim's looking a
little bit pre election. J D Trust was on this
very show and he said he had more faith in
the ham sandwich who's having for lunch that he did
without Andrew Little.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Yeah, and look he's being embarrassed by the bureaucracy right now,
like these people are running rough shot over everybody. I
keep coming back to maybe they've done something about it,
but remember the story of three hundred employees too many
nothing did they get? No, we're all still paying for that,
And that's what I mean. The pay will continue to
rise until the citizenry have had enough. And I think
(12:11):
they're really pushing their lark.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Here's an interesting one for you, because I mean, this
is not on pop, but this is what the show's about.
We had two guests in here, Justin Lester and Nikola
Willis Nicola Young, not Nikola Willis nicklay Young. Sorry, I
was thinking about that. They both thought that that report
was a complete waste of time.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
About the overstaffing.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Yeah, I mean basically didn't care.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Well, let them pay for it, Tim, your thoughts.
Speaker 5 (12:44):
As you and I have discussed in the past, I
think one of the fundamental problems with Relective City councilor
that I perceived when I was there for my three years,
is that it's a business with four hundred areas of activity,
you know, ranging from libraries to water to you name it.
You have four hundred and then you have this eighteen
member board effectively the councilors a mayor, and they have
(13:07):
to make decisions around these four hundred activities. The quality
of information that was provided to these people, many of
whom were not particularly sophisticated in terms of their understanding
of financial information or analysis, was derisory, and I tried
constantly to actually get a review of how the information
was actually being presented and given to the elected members.
(13:33):
Whatever the issue is around the four hundred people, it's
only as small part of the problem as I see it,
because the people who are actually running the show don't
have the information to make the right decisions.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Were you surprised to read what JD was just brought
up that the senior management of the council made the
decision about that signing off that they wouldn't be able
to you know, they would still be legally allowed to
go to the Council if there was a dispute in
their employment.
Speaker 5 (13:59):
Well, I'm not surprised to have read it this morning,
but what I thought was interesting about it is that
if the chief ex because the chief it's a weird situation.
The chief executive is the only employee of the counselors,
So effectively he's the one who's employed by the counselors
and then he looks after everybody else. So if you're
a counselor and you want to have a chat to
(14:19):
the bicycle person or something, you can go and talk
to them, but it's kind of totally artificial, and even
if you think that utterly incompetent, you can't do anything
about it. You can just sort of form You can
then go to the chief executive and say, look, I'm
not very happy with you know, Joe blogs or whatever.
But so the chief executive's job is in my view
is to be extremely sensitive to what the counselors want
(14:42):
and very very engaged with what the counselors want. Now,
if the councilors are genuinely saying we want to have
a situation where we can dismiss people without there being
a sort of you know, the light, the possibility of
large payments, then if the chief executive decides, well, screw you, guys,
I'm just going to go and do whatever I like,
that to me is a very bad signal in terms
(15:04):
of his sensitivity to what the councilors are actually seeking.
And I think that's my concern is that is Matt
Proctor really being sensitive to what the councilors are actually
demanding out of hab or is he running his own ship.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
He's working for his employees.
Speaker 5 (15:22):
I think that would be a strong inference.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Really not us as absolutely no.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
And I think that this is a problem both at
the national level and the city level, is you've effectively
we've got to pretend democracy the CEO is in charge
of the city, the CEO is overseeing some terrible decisions,
the city, you know, is crumbling, and we pretend that
going out and voting for councilors is going to change
anything when ex councilors are right and saying, well, we
(15:49):
can't actually affect change, So who's in charge?
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Can I bring up someone said in the newsroom when
we were discussing this as a topic that maybe this
is a hangover from the Tory Faro leadership, that the
CEO didn't have any trust in the previous mays so
made all the decisions hisself rather than going to the council.
Is is there any credence in that argument?
Speaker 5 (16:11):
I suspect there's an element of that. But but over
my many years of involvement with counsel, I have seen
a lot of a lot of the chief executives have
had very good relationships with with mayors, so very close
related Gary Paul and Kerry Predigast Lavery with just a
(16:31):
less not so much adjusted, but with Celia, so you know,
there was there was very close relationship, so you kind
of knew that they were walking together basically.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
But shouldn't that shouldn't that be the case, shouldn't the
chairman of the board?
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Of course?
Speaker 5 (16:46):
I think that's I think that's that's the concern is
that if Andrew and Proctor are kind of out of step,
then that is a real.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Problem, a real problem.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
And do you I mean, I'm not putting you in
the corner here because you you're the only one who
makes this group here that know the truth going on.
Do you think that they would have a good relation.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
Look, I actually I have had no cafece you know,
nobody has told me behind the bicycle sheds anything. So
but I look at things like that in the newspaper
and I feel it would be interesting to ask Andrew
whether he was embarrassed by what he read in the
newspaper today, whether he was he sanctioned that, I mean,
if he did, I mean, if he sort of.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
I mean, we've had many discussions on the show with
him about the CEO and the chief financial officer because
both of it had the lead bullets pointed at them,
you know, too often. And he's not his one hundred
percent behind Well's.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
But he's not going to turn up here and talk
about employees in a way that could ultimately end up
in court. So you know, there's a there's a major
major issue there about whether he's going to be publicly
honest about what he really believes about any of these people.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Don't we deserve that? Though?
Speaker 3 (17:57):
J d I think we did.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Andrew can sit there looking at the wall by the
car park until he decides to, you know, maybe grow
some spine and actually lead, you know, and figure out
what are we going to do about this? Because based
on maybe I'm wrong, but my reading on this, this
change from the CEO is that Andrew Little was unaware
and it's a law change. So they went above and
(18:19):
beyond to again stuff more rate payer money into the
hands of the council employees and risk us yeah and
risk yeah. And I look forward to the next email
telling me why our rates are going up some more
and why this is you know, you know, and you
just sit here and you're like, they're going to destroy
the city. They are a pack of leeches.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Oh my gosh, you're getting really, don't I'm not.
Speaker 5 (18:40):
I just like you to know I have got a
somewhat different view. I think I think they could be
doing things a bit more efficiently.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
That's what you hear. Whatever review. You don't expecting everyone
to agree. O.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
It's like looking at the water thing. Another half billion
dollar blowout? How many of these we're going to have?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
If well, we can talk about that very shortly. We'll
come back with that, have some headlines, get Mexican and
be back with j D. Trusk and Tim Brown. Now, Max,
before you disappear. Obviously, Tim Brown doesn't know cancel culture
does it? You know? Over the time, I'm not apologize,
I'm leaving.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
I'm leaving. I'm not.
Speaker 6 (19:17):
I'm just lying prostrate on the floor down Gosh, no
complaints please, Oh, as I say, I could write a
book on what said during the air brakes and Tim
took it to another level with JD.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
We read Max knew where it was going though.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Person Now I have to tell our listeners because I'll
be sitting here. So what the hell went on? Tim?
Explain what you said?
Speaker 3 (19:42):
I just said it.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
I thought he had the best bedside voice I've ever
heard of my life. And I mean, I just wondered
if he was he'd pulled it. He would pull it
out in bars and things and use it to woo people.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
But he was too. You should be a clear voyant
he does. It is exactly what he does. That's Max
told to a tea. He goes out, sits on the
edge of the bar. Hello, how are you Let's move
come on, let's move on to something that we do
know a little bit more about water meters, Tayaki. Why
(20:13):
will cost rate pairs say that rate payers are going
to pay five hundred and ninety million dollars to install
one hundred to the water meters? Now this was one
hundred and seventy eight million a few only a few
years ago. Tim Brown, tell us what's going on and
where we at?
Speaker 5 (20:29):
To be honest, the five hundred and eighty million dollar
figure is so unintelligible as to make you feel that
it might have been arrived at by throwing a dart
into a dartboard. It's I mean literally, I mean so
I've spoken with the chief executive a Blue Current, which
is New Zealand's largest metering business, and it's got it's
half owned by Vector and half owned by the Queensland
(20:50):
Investment Corporation. And I got the numbers out of there
and they and so they've got literally millions of water
and electrical and gas meters across Australasia. So the figures
which they quoted to me were significantly below five hundred
dollars per household for a full metering setup in connection
(21:12):
plus the cost of installation.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
So what does that bring the number up to?
Speaker 5 (21:16):
So well, to give you an idea of what that
would So that sort of figure would be about seventy
million dollars basically for the metering technology necessary and the
connection across the wealated region. So nothing like this five
hundred olden.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
So what did you did? You give me a number?
Story I had Grace talking to me.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
I think it's well, it's one hundred and forty seven
thousand accounts, let's say times five hundred bucks, which is
about about less, say eighty million dollars or seventy five
million dollars.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Where do we get this number of five hundred ninety million.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
That's what I mean. I mean it makes zero sense
now what a lot of company is doing, and I
mean vector and most electricity companies would be an example
of this. Very few electric companies own meters. That it's
a very specialist outsourced area, and companies like Blue Current
and others provide this as a highly competitive market. There
are lots of guys.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Who do it.
Speaker 5 (22:07):
They will provide the water company or the electricity or
the gas company with the necessary information for about one
hundred dollars a year. So you you know you've got.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
To So you've got your five hundred. Let me just
try and do the mess on this. So you've got
your five hundred dollars for your meter, then you pay
one hundred dollars.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
No, no, no no.
Speaker 5 (22:25):
So they do everything, So they install all the meters,
they owed, all the meters they own all those charge
one hundred bucks and they charged they charged Tuckey why
one hundred bucks, so, which is fourteen point seven million
dollars a year. They would be charging fourteen point seven
million dollars a year for all the information about customer
usage that Tuckywi needs. So you've looking at five hundred
(22:45):
and ninety million dollars worth of capex versus fourteen point
seven million dollars worth of opex. I mean, that's the
sort of scale of difference. So that's why.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
I mean, that's that's that's just that's not.
Speaker 5 (22:56):
Only but not only that, just looking at the overall
picture that came out of their water services strategy. What
is they're talking about this vast expense in terms of meters. Now,
obviously the reason you do meet is twofold. What is
you want to be able to charge for water in
the same way we do for electricity. But secondly, you
want to actually encourage people to use less and to
(23:17):
find out about leaks and to reduce consumption. Well, the
Tucky Wy at the moment is providing about twice as
much water per resident as water Care at Auckland. So
you're talking massive reductions in terms of water loss, whether
it's on residential.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
To try to cut to the chase, because I've got
to go to a down breaking minute, I want to
get JD in. So cut into the chase. You're saying
that we're losing all this water, so we're actually not
charging for half amount of water we should be able to. No,
no, no no.
Speaker 5 (23:44):
So I mean what I'm saying is is that I'm
looking at the big picture. So you've got this water
loss problem that is the biggest problem which relative's got.
If you can solve that problem, do you need to
spend another five hundred million dollars on another reservoir? Do
you need to spend a couple of billion or whatever
they're talking about on the networks. I mean, the trouble
is that they've got this belts embraces type model, which
(24:04):
is why we're looking at water charge is going crazy
because they've got the maximum possible spend for meters, for
fixing leaks, and for reservoirs. And I would say, if
you do this thing efficiently and effectively, you do not
need all of that stuff. Because if if Waleytonians used
half as much water as they do now, which is
definitely practical because that's only where water care is at
(24:27):
Auckland there, you just don't need all the other spend.
And I mean it's these issues which actually are not
being scrutinized.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
JD. I can see smoke coming out years because you
love those extra spending you.
Speaker 4 (24:38):
Yeah, well, I mean, long story short. You know, it
had been a couple of days since the last demonstration
of incompetence from the council, but you know, here we are.
It blows my mind. They just cannot seem to do
anything without it being hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.
I mean, I look at what three hundred something million
to strengthen the town hall, half a billion dollars on
a sludge plant, half a billion dollars on what the
(25:00):
hell is going on over and then.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
We can get it for a hundred bucks in house.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Well, this is what drives me insane. Are going to
drive the city into the ground, drive up poverty, cause
a lot of problems, all while they sit there being
able to say, Hey, Mira, mirror on the wall, how
much will I increase rates by this?
Speaker 3 (25:16):
Here?
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Tim Brown and Jad trust Friday face off. This week,
we interviewed doctor Ezekiel Emanuel, a world health policy advisor
and expert, worked with Obama, worked with Biden. He is
a cancer specialist. He's an oncologist, very very smart guy.
He said that New Zealand and Jad, I'm going to
(25:39):
come to you with this, needs to have a separate
fund for how health, but it also needs to invest
more in AI. I mean, he said, every cancer surgeon
should have a robot next to them. I can see
you getting excited by this. I mean he's talking off
your song. Shee didn't He.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
Yeah, one hundred percent. And I totally agree with what
he's saying. I think the country needs to look at
it those not a singular big bang project, because this
is just a continuum of technological improvement. We should be
looking at certain areas that we want to apply this
type of technology to. So we don't want to get,
you know, the idea that we revolutionize everything immediately. Some
(26:16):
of those things like the teallyhealth example. You know, I'm
a big fan of my friends at TEND who are
doing some of this sort of work across the health
sector here in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
They drive telehealth. I know that they're employing.
Speaker 4 (26:27):
AI scribes to help doctors improve how they're recording things.
All of these things they do pay dividends. They help
us lower the pressure on the health system, which I
think is a critical point. Yeah, you look at We've
had situations at work where people have diagnosed long running
illnesses and things themselves. I'm not advocating that people, you know,
(26:48):
go and always look your history.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
I mean, for you, I've been doing it, and I've
got now little file or my AI. It's a file
of health knows what medication I take everything, And when
I say something, they say, oh, I actually could be
just a byproduct of that drug that you're taking. I mean,
I don't have to go to a doctor anymore to find.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
That out, and that is a huge improvement. I just
want to flag that, you know, these things aren't quite
perfect yet, but they are really solid and one of
the things that New Zealand I don't think he acknowledged this,
but one of the problems we have here as well
is if you have something somewhat rare, the likelihood you
encounter a medical professional who has seen it is low.
So my father had an issue for many years and
(27:28):
it just happened that one doctor was traveling through who
happened to have seen this one time before. That's the
sort of thing that AI can help in a small country,
really broad in our awareness of what are some of
these more niche health issues as well and help people.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
Yeah, I mean he also said we should have a
separate line in the budget. Health shouldn't even be in
your budget. It should be like X amount of dollars,
you know, that's for budget for the health services. What
are your thoughts on there.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
Well, I don't think he's quite right on that, actually,
I think there is a kind of a line for health,
which is, you know, obviously sucking up more of government's
money than any other topic. But there were a couple
of things which she said which I thought were interesting.
One is he said we should pay doctors more, and
but we should also insist that that they justify their
national pay by by basically working more efficiently. So I like,
(28:18):
I like the concept of incentive based pay. And the
other thing he said was that the infrastructure of the
hospitals in New Zealand are very defective and the very
out of date and basically the hospitals have clearly, you know,
need a bit of a spruce up. And I think
I think the government's management of its hospital estate and
to an extent, the equipment in the hospitals is a
(28:41):
national scandal. And I you know, I think that is
something which you would like to think that the government
will be getting on top of more. Because anyone at
Wellington who goes to Welling to public, you know, which
is a relatively new hospital, but it's still pretty like weird.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
It doesn't feel new.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
But if you go to Wakefield or the other private ones,
you know, there you are actually at a much more
pleasant surroundings. And it's things like that which I do
feel that there is a sort of a level of
operational efficiency within the ministry which is which is not
up to scratch.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
It was interesting that he said to Simmy and Brown.
He met with Simmy and Brown and he said, I'm
happy to help in any way I can if you
want my help. Didn't know, I mean, I thought that
was you know, we should be looking out into the
world and thinking how we can do better things with
medicine and New Zealand. I think that's undoubtedly, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
But I think, look, I think Simeon is actually doing
a really good job. My take from you know, I mean,
I don't know the guy from a barrisopia, even though
he had I share the same surname.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
But you know, I think.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
That he he certainly he says all the right things
when I hear him on the radio. He realizes there
are problems and he has tried to make the system
more efficient and basically deliver healthcare where it's where it's
actually needed. So, you know, but there's an infrastructure problem,
there's a remuneration problem, there's an efficiency problem, and he's
all of those things have to be worked out.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
JD, You've just had a baby. As we talked about,
how how did that experience? How was that experience from
seven years ago when you had your first one?
Speaker 3 (30:04):
It went really well.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
I mean, this is one of the things that I
actually sometimes am torn on when it comes to health
in New Zealand is frequently we do have great engagements
with the health sector. I've looked at this recent conversation
more through the lens of the technological improvements to try
and lower the pressure on it.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
But the actual level.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
Of care we received was fantastic.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Right, come back in a second and get hots and not.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
The Friday face.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Hot than not hots andnot's time. I just read my
guests at Winston Churchill quote that I saw last night.
The difference between humans and animals is that animals never
allow a full to lead the pack. Okay, give me
your hots and lots and brown well.
Speaker 5 (30:47):
I kind of only have hots to be honest. I mean,
I mean, we've got a lovely storm raging of Wellington
at the moment. I love it when we have a
good storm. So you know, that made me feel good
walking down here this morning. And the other thing which
I love about Walton and always makes me feel good
is that I constantly seem to bump into people on
the street. And I went to Glogloo the coffee shop
(31:08):
over and Blair and again, super cool new coffee shop.
Absolutely choker, you know, going off like a firework. I mean,
I just think, you know, for me, while it is
still a super social fund city to be and so
you know, I felt really good coming in here this morning.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
I'm glad you say I love a good storm. I
love a good storm. Now that I don't own a
beachside cafe, but I mean of my own a beachside cafe.
Storms aren't too good for business, but I love them
now lying and being watching the rain power and I go, yes,
come on, JA, do you give me your hots and knots.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
So I'm going to go pretty close to home. I
lived just off Row Valley. It's great to see that
there's a new record store and bar a sort of
opening over there. You know, a little bit of vibrancy.
Good to see some green shoots a period.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Talk about five us to get the license to poor buggers.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
But yes, yeah, but I think I've talked enough about
the as a council. And on the negative though they
do have they do have a question out to the
public because they now want to remove some more car
parks and Arrow Valley after removing seventy only a couple
of years ago, because now they don't think that there
should be car parks near crossings, and so I just
(32:13):
worry when you have these little areas where there's only
a handful of shops and they serve a little local
community that this continual assault on the mobility of the citizenry.
It just puts more pressure on the operators.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
And you know what, I absolutely love a good custard
square and no one does the custard square like ro bakery.
No one. And you can't get a park there. I
would drive up now and get a custard square for
my lunch bike there.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
You can bike there.
Speaker 5 (32:37):
They've got a fantastic bike rate right outside the front
of the shop.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Let's talk about that storm.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Yeah, yeah, I want to see you on your bike
on the storm. I see, you know, I see these
crazy people with kids and storms on those bikes with
kids on the back and this absolute storm, And I
say to myself, that's just nuts. That's almost a child abuse,
isn't it.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
No, isn't Those children are going to be so resilient
and tough and they're going to be that They're the future,
not the kids who are sit in front of their
computer screens.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
I disagree with.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
What would that kild know about AI? That kild in
the back of that bike was shivering and getting wet
because his parents have got this ideology that they should
have Tim Brown, Daty Trusk, thank you very much for
joining us on Friday, Facebook, have a wonderful, stormy weekend.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
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 sed B.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Friday Faith Office, Tim Brown, director of New Zealand Infrastructure
Commission and former Wellington City councilor. Good mornington, Good body, Nick,
how are you? I'm very well?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Thank you?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Is that going loud enough? Is Tim loud enough? I
think you could probably come up a bit, come a
bit closer to that microphone, please, sure, there you go.
And j D Trusk Ray Gunn co founder and CEO
and mister Ai himself. Good morning, Jd. Good to see you, Neck,
Good to see you too. Congratulations Austin, Yes, Austin so great.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Yeah, yeah, no, we're really stoved with it. He's been great,
he's sleeping well. He's one month old in two days time.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
How did you come up with, Austin? Is it something
to do with the place.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
A little bit, A little bit with the place. My
wife and I and our son, Henry, who's seven, we've
been there a couple of times and we liked like
the area, so it just felt unique, a little bit
different rather than you know, another Steve.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Ste Oh, gosh, I didn't say that right. Let's get
into it. OECD has released a report stating that our
super could should be indexed by life expectancy and means testing. Now, Tim,
you're closer to retirement than JD. So I'll start you
(01:36):
on this. I mean, what do we have to do.
We can't afford it, can we.
Speaker 5 (01:39):
We can't afford it, so we have to do something.
But unfortunately, the politicians are elected by the public, and
the public don't want to do anything. So it's a
classic problem where I think you could talk to almost
any every reasonable politician and they would say this is
a major, major problem. But unfortunately the electorate do not
want us to do anything with it.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So is it just a scared that they didn't know
that it'll be election killer? If they brought something in
put it up to sixty seven, would that be enough
to lose an election?
Speaker 5 (02:10):
Well, I guess they're the ones who've got all the polling,
so they must think so. I Mean, what I've never
understood is why they couldn't have At the very least,
it started with a level of flexibility, so that if
somebody wishes to, you know, you could retire at sixty
if you'd only get a certain percentage of the pension,
you could retire at seventy and you'd obviously get a
greater percentage. So you would think that the model should
be that will introduce flexibility as a first stage towards
(02:35):
trying to actually targeted solutions, because some people do want
to retire with they're sixty and some other people don't
want to retire until they're in their seventies.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
So did you have a kiwi say it?
Speaker 3 (02:45):
No, I didn't have one.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
No. Yeah, I'm just curious, you know, being I'm not
saying you're old or anything. I'm just saying I just
wondered whether you did because of the positions that you held. Jade,
what are your thoughts? I mean, you've got a long
way before you're in anywhere near retirement, but you're a
successful businessman. Do you ever keep say it?
Speaker 4 (03:02):
I don't, But that was really off the advice at
the time that being self employed it didn't make as
much economic sense, and I highly encourage everybody else to
actually be part of it. You know, I have a
passion as well for investing in things, so I'm pretty
comfortable with my decision. But that was the reason. You know,
when my employer tops it up, that's just going from
my left pocket to my right pocket. So it doesn't really, but.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
It's kind of an idea of that you've got a plan,
I mean, yes, I mean I'm a classic example of
the plan was me, yep, you know what I mean.
My plan was I don't need any of these insurance
superannuation because I've got businesses, I got homes. I'm all right.
But if something happens like it did with COVID in
the world.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean, you've got to diversify your investment.
So overall, coming to the point of the question, it's
exactly right though that I think we're seeing a lack
of leadership, which is sometimes leadership means you make a
decision people don't like. And I sometimes wonder about this
with the New Zealand government, the possibility of term limits
(04:03):
or reason I flag this is because you can look
at those such if you're not looking to get re elected,
is that the time to make the hard course where
you say, you know what, I'm not going to be
turning up for the next round.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
We need to do the right thing.
Speaker 5 (04:15):
Have you discussed this with Winston.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
But surely it's almost a perfect time to start working together.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
I just think We've got to get real or the
pain is going to continue to escalate. And that's the
way I look at a lot of these things. How
much more pain do you want? It's only going one way?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
You Do you have an idea? JD? Do you have
a plan that you think could work?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Not a broad broad plan, but you know, one of
the things that was mentioned earlier that I'm not comfortable
with is the idea that you index when it starts
based on life expectancy, because that starts to sound like
the pension is some sort of promised utopian time of relaxation,
and I just don't think the real will.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
It is it is sixty five? Is that particular date now,
isn't it?
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (04:56):
But yeah, sure, but everybody's the same. But let's say
you said you were going to pass away earlier. Does
that mean you start getting it sooner? And I would
argue no, just because you might die soon, it doesn't
mean you're utility and usefulness is also ending sooner. And
some people pass away before they ever get there. Do
you turn around and say they should get a lump
sum for their family.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
No.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
I don't think the idea that it's a guaranteed period
of your life necessarily makes sense.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
You see, I would probably argue that if you were
sixty three or sixty two and you had a terminal illness,
that you should be able to get a couple of
years of entitlement to make your life better if you
needed a term.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
Yeah, well that was my point about creating flexibility, So
it should be at the and I think some countries
do this. So you can choose to actually get the
pension early, but you don't get one hundred percent and
you or you could choose to defer when you get
the pension. But the trouble is is that you know,
we have this sort of the debated new Zella, as
I said at the moment, is exclusively around extending from
(05:55):
sixty five to sixty seven. I do not think that
sort of a very narrow.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I think means testing has been sneaking in there a
bit too.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
Well no, but look, I mean I think means testing
as one which which is just a mess, and it
creates a lot of distortions. I think the way it
is now, of course, if you are actually still working
and earning, you know you are likely paying back thirty
nine percent of your pension is taxed so some people
will get a net terms a great deal less than others,
and that's that's good, you know. So in other words,
you're you are effectively income tested. And of course if
(06:26):
you have children or other people at home, you get
a lot less. So I know, as a person who
gets a pension, that my pension, my net pension is
a lot less than other people's because I've got somebody
living at home and I'm actually earning other money elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Yeah, same boat, rowing the same way, and I don't
like it. I mean, I don't think that's fair either.
Take a short break, taking sure, take a short break
and be back with Tim Brown and Dati trust. I
want to come back with my favorite topic because we
talked about it again this week, that topic of amalgamation.
Everyone all the crowd goes wild Friday face off for
(07:00):
Tim Brown and JD trust Girl. Finally, amalgamation looks like
it might be happening. It looked while looks like the
government has given us three months to come up with something. Tom,
You've you've we've had this discussion before, I'm sure on
the show somewhere along the line. You know, my view
is very pro apaht sort of seems to be the
one that's a little bit of the sticking block. Why
(07:23):
why is I mean, as well as your opinion, you
know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (07:28):
Look, I think the I think this government, almost uniquely
in my experience, has focused on housing affordability as a
sort of a critical problem that New Zealand has. I mean,
we've obviously got a productivity problem, but if you know,
if you're getting a lousy wage and you've got an
expensive home, you are your emigrating right. So the only
way we can solve that problem is by making housing
more affordable. And I think this government has done some
(07:50):
incredibly brave moves around of housing affordability, which are obviously
trashing them in the polls because nobody who owns a
house likes to see its value going down, even though
that's good for the next generation.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
And that can you remember that happening before, because I
can't know.
Speaker 5 (08:04):
That's the I think Chris Bishop is a uniquely brave politician.
I've not encountered a politician with the bravery that he's
got around this issue, and the fact that he's managed
to persuade his colleagues. He wasn't ambitionous. I mean, remember
that Bill English was also very hot on this issue.
He was not able to get John Key to agree
to it because John Key was like property owning democracy,
(08:25):
We're just not going to trash the property owning part
of it. So the next step, of course, is you
look at Wellington as an example, with the rates going
crazy and now the water charges on top of that.
You know, that's obviously it's all very wealthy. The capital
value of your home to come down so it becomes
more affordable in terms of your borrowing from the bank
and whatnot. But you've got this huge expense associated with
(08:47):
what you pay for rates, what you pay for water,
and you know, the corporatization of the water activities and
creating that is a separate area of accountability. Bringing in
the Communist Commission to regulate all of those things. Are
ultimately going to pay dividends in terms of the water cost,
which after all, in Willington is thirty six percent of
what your rates go to as three waters. So thirty
six percent is now being hyped off into this. We're
(09:09):
still going to pay for it, yeah, but at least
we will get it regulated and it won't just be
sort of like Fulton Hogan going around digging holes for
the sake of making Fulton Hogan rich. So I think
that sort of accountability is yet to come, but I
think it will. The next step is, you know, how
do we make councils. How do we make the other
sixty six percent or sixty four percent of the council's
(09:31):
you know, activities more efficient? And I think that amalgamation
and restructuring of councils is a necessary part of that.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
So bring it on.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Okay, JD. That was a hard act to follow, that
was it was. It was.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Arms here, nodding an agreeing.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
It's true. I see it as as a necessary step
to drive some efficiencies overall. I guess one of the
things that stands out to me is you can make
arguments for other things. And I always like to say,
you know, there are no silver bullets. There's just a
lot of lead bullets. This is one lead bullet to
make a step in the right direction, and then we
can try and improve from there. Keep you know, what's
(10:09):
the next thing to improve it. I do share that
concern about the costs going up effectively op X on everybody, right,
and I think about the young people coming into this city,
you know, if you come here for university all these things,
you start thinking we're pushing ten twelve thousand dollars a
year of just the right to live here. That's going
to put a lot of young people off being able
(10:30):
to come here or stay after university. And that I
think is my biggest concern, is that cost.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
There are you optimistic about, like what an amalgamation could
produce for our city? Could we start competing with Auckland
and christ Church again if we're well one rather than
you know, a half and a half in a quarter
and a courter.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
I think we It comes back to that leadership thing,
and this is that lead bullets point, which is there's
still so much waste and incompetence sitting in these councils
that we've got to address that as well at some point.
You know I read this morning is that that Wellington
City Council has just opted out of the billet that
new law that prevents firing firing.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
What it does prevents anyone over two hundred thousand having
a fight if they lose.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
It, correct, And so you're just sitting here saying this
is yet another assault on the citizenry by the bureaucracy.
And I don't think you know, we talk left verset right,
it's not. It's the state versus the people, and the
people are losing.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
How's your ham sandwich looking now?
Speaker 4 (11:29):
He's looking pretty pathetic at the moment. To be honest,
you know you're watching, watching.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Can I just explain to our listeners because some of
our listeners wouldn't have heard that in Tim's looking a
little bit pre election. J D Trust was on this
very show and he said he had more faith in
the ham sandwich who's having for lunch that he did
without Andrew Little.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Yeah, and look he's being embarrassed by the bureaucracy right now,
like these people are running rough shot over everybody. I
keep coming back to maybe they've done something about it,
but remember the story of three hundred employees too many
nothing did they get? No, we're all still paying for that,
And that's what I mean. The pay will continue to
rise until the citizenry have had enough. And I think
(12:11):
they're really pushing their lark.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Here's an interesting one for you, because I mean, this
is not on pop, but this is what the show's about.
We had two guests in here, Justin Lester and Nikola
Willis Nicola Young, not Nikola Willis nicklay Young. Sorry, I
was thinking about that. They both thought that that report
was a complete waste of time.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
About the overstaffing.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Yeah, I mean basically didn't care.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Well, let them pay for it, Tim, your thoughts.
Speaker 5 (12:44):
As you and I have discussed in the past, I
think one of the fundamental problems with Relective City councilor
that I perceived when I was there for my three years,
is that it's a business with four hundred areas of activity,
you know, ranging from libraries to water to you name it.
You have four hundred and then you have this eighteen
member board effectively the councilors a mayor, and they have
(13:07):
to make decisions around these four hundred activities. The quality
of information that was provided to these people, many of
whom were not particularly sophisticated in terms of their understanding
of financial information or analysis, was derisory, and I tried
constantly to actually get a review of how the information
was actually being presented and given to the elected members.
(13:33):
Whatever the issue is around the four hundred people, it's
only as small part of the problem as I see it,
because the people who are actually running the show don't
have the information to make the right decisions.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Were you surprised to read what JD was just brought
up that the senior management of the council made the
decision about that signing off that they wouldn't be able
to you know, they would still be legally allowed to
go to the Council if there was a dispute in
their employment.
Speaker 5 (13:59):
Well, I'm not surprised to have read it this morning,
but what I thought was interesting about it is that
if the chief ex because the chief it's a weird situation.
The chief executive is the only employee of the counselors,
So effectively he's the one who's employed by the counselors
and then he looks after everybody else. So if you're
a counselor and you want to have a chat to
(14:19):
the bicycle person or something, you can go and talk
to them, but it's kind of totally artificial, and even
if you think that utterly incompetent, you can't do anything
about it. You can just sort of form You can
then go to the chief executive and say, look, I'm
not very happy with you know, Joe blogs or whatever.
But so the chief executive's job is in my view
is to be extremely sensitive to what the counselors want
(14:42):
and very very engaged with what the counselors want. Now,
if the councilors are genuinely saying we want to have
a situation where we can dismiss people without there being
a sort of you know, the light, the possibility of
large payments, then if the chief executive decides, well, screw you, guys,
I'm just going to go and do whatever I like,
that to me is a very bad signal in terms
(15:04):
of his sensitivity to what the councilors are actually seeking.
And I think that's my concern is that is Matt
Proctor really being sensitive to what the councilors are actually
demanding out of hab or is he running his own ship.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
He's working for his employees.
Speaker 5 (15:22):
I think that would be a strong inference.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Really not us as absolutely no.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
And I think that this is a problem both at
the national level and the city level, is you've effectively
we've got to pretend democracy the CEO is in charge
of the city, the CEO is overseeing some terrible decisions,
the city, you know, is crumbling, and we pretend that
going out and voting for councilors is going to change
anything when ex councilors are right and saying, well, we
(15:49):
can't actually affect change, So who's in charge?
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Can I bring up someone said in the newsroom when
we were discussing this as a topic that maybe this
is a hangover from the Tory Faro leadership, that the
CEO didn't have any trust in the previous mays so
made all the decisions hisself rather than going to the council.
Is is there any credence in that argument?
Speaker 5 (16:11):
I suspect there's an element of that. But but over
my many years of involvement with counsel, I have seen
a lot of a lot of the chief executives have
had very good relationships with with mayors, so very close
related Gary Paul and Kerry Predigast Lavery with just a
(16:31):
less not so much adjusted, but with Celia, so you know,
there was there was very close relationship, so you kind
of knew that they were walking together basically.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
But shouldn't that shouldn't that be the case, shouldn't the
chairman of the board?
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Of course?
Speaker 5 (16:46):
I think that's I think that's that's the concern is
that if Andrew and Proctor are kind of out of step,
then that is a real.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Problem, a real problem.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
And do you I mean, I'm not putting you in
the corner here because you you're the only one who
makes this group here that know the truth going on.
Do you think that they would have a good relation.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
Look, I actually I have had no cafece you know,
nobody has told me behind the bicycle sheds anything. So
but I look at things like that in the newspaper
and I feel it would be interesting to ask Andrew
whether he was embarrassed by what he read in the
newspaper today, whether he was he sanctioned that, I mean,
if he did, I mean, if he sort of.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
I mean, we've had many discussions on the show with
him about the CEO and the chief financial officer because
both of it had the lead bullets pointed at them,
you know, too often. And he's not his one hundred
percent behind Well's.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
But he's not going to turn up here and talk
about employees in a way that could ultimately end up
in court. So you know, there's a there's a major
major issue there about whether he's going to be publicly
honest about what he really believes about any of these people.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Don't we deserve that? Though?
Speaker 3 (17:57):
J d I think we did.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Andrew can sit there looking at the wall by the
car park until he decides to, you know, maybe grow
some spine and actually lead, you know, and figure out
what are we going to do about this? Because based
on maybe I'm wrong, but my reading on this, this
change from the CEO is that Andrew Little was unaware
and it's a law change. So they went above and
(18:19):
beyond to again stuff more rate payer money into the
hands of the council employees and risk us yeah and
risk yeah. And I look forward to the next email
telling me why our rates are going up some more
and why this is you know, you know, and you
just sit here and you're like, they're going to destroy
the city. They are a pack of leeches.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Oh my gosh, you're getting really, don't I'm not.
Speaker 5 (18:40):
I just like you to know I have got a
somewhat different view. I think I think they could be
doing things a bit more efficiently.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
That's what you hear. Whatever review. You don't expecting everyone
to agree. O.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
It's like looking at the water thing. Another half billion
dollar blowout? How many of these we're going to have?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
If well, we can talk about that very shortly. We'll
come back with that, have some headlines, get Mexican and
be back with j D. Trusk and Tim Brown. Now, Max,
before you disappear. Obviously, Tim Brown doesn't know cancel culture
does it? You know? Over the time, I'm not apologize,
I'm leaving.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
I'm leaving. I'm not.
Speaker 6 (19:17):
I'm just lying prostrate on the floor down Gosh, no
complaints please, Oh, as I say, I could write a
book on what said during the air brakes and Tim
took it to another level with JD.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
We read Max knew where it was going though.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Person Now I have to tell our listeners because I'll
be sitting here. So what the hell went on? Tim?
Explain what you said?
Speaker 3 (19:42):
I just said it.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
I thought he had the best bedside voice I've ever
heard of my life. And I mean, I just wondered
if he was he'd pulled it. He would pull it
out in bars and things and use it to woo people.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
But he was too. You should be a clear voyant
he does. It is exactly what he does. That's Max
told to a tea. He goes out, sits on the
edge of the bar. Hello, how are you Let's move
come on, let's move on to something that we do
know a little bit more about water meters, Tayaki. Why
(20:13):
will cost rate pairs say that rate payers are going
to pay five hundred and ninety million dollars to install
one hundred to the water meters? Now this was one
hundred and seventy eight million a few only a few
years ago. Tim Brown, tell us what's going on and
where we at?
Speaker 5 (20:29):
To be honest, the five hundred and eighty million dollar
figure is so unintelligible as to make you feel that
it might have been arrived at by throwing a dart
into a dartboard. It's I mean literally, I mean so
I've spoken with the chief executive a Blue Current, which
is New Zealand's largest metering business, and it's got it's
half owned by Vector and half owned by the Queensland
(20:50):
Investment Corporation. And I got the numbers out of there
and they and so they've got literally millions of water
and electrical and gas meters across Australasia. So the figures
which they quoted to me were significantly below five hundred
dollars per household for a full metering setup in connection
(21:12):
plus the cost of installation.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
So what does that bring the number up to?
Speaker 5 (21:16):
So well, to give you an idea of what that
would So that sort of figure would be about seventy
million dollars basically for the metering technology necessary and the
connection across the wealated region. So nothing like this five
hundred olden.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
So what did you did? You give me a number?
Story I had Grace talking to me.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
I think it's well, it's one hundred and forty seven
thousand accounts, let's say times five hundred bucks, which is
about about less, say eighty million dollars or seventy five
million dollars.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Where do we get this number of five hundred ninety million.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
That's what I mean. I mean it makes zero sense
now what a lot of company is doing, and I
mean vector and most electricity companies would be an example
of this. Very few electric companies own meters. That it's
a very specialist outsourced area, and companies like Blue Current
and others provide this as a highly competitive market. There
are lots of guys.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Who do it.
Speaker 5 (22:07):
They will provide the water company or the electricity or
the gas company with the necessary information for about one
hundred dollars a year. So you you know you've got.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
To So you've got your five hundred. Let me just
try and do the mess on this. So you've got
your five hundred dollars for your meter, then you pay
one hundred dollars.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
No, no, no no.
Speaker 5 (22:25):
So they do everything, So they install all the meters,
they owed, all the meters they own all those charge
one hundred bucks and they charged they charged Tuckey why
one hundred bucks, so, which is fourteen point seven million
dollars a year. They would be charging fourteen point seven
million dollars a year for all the information about customer
usage that Tuckywi needs. So you've looking at five hundred
(22:45):
and ninety million dollars worth of capex versus fourteen point
seven million dollars worth of opex. I mean, that's the
sort of scale of difference. So that's why.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
I mean, that's that's that's just that's not.
Speaker 5 (22:56):
Only but not only that, just looking at the overall
picture that came out of their water services strategy. What
is they're talking about this vast expense in terms of meters. Now,
obviously the reason you do meet is twofold. What is
you want to be able to charge for water in
the same way we do for electricity. But secondly, you
want to actually encourage people to use less and to
(23:17):
find out about leaks and to reduce consumption. Well, the
Tucky Wy at the moment is providing about twice as
much water per resident as water Care at Auckland. So
you're talking massive reductions in terms of water loss, whether
it's on residential.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
To try to cut to the chase, because I've got
to go to a down breaking minute, I want to
get JD in. So cut into the chase. You're saying
that we're losing all this water, so we're actually not
charging for half amount of water we should be able to. No,
no, no no.
Speaker 5 (23:44):
So I mean what I'm saying is is that I'm
looking at the big picture. So you've got this water
loss problem that is the biggest problem which relative's got.
If you can solve that problem, do you need to
spend another five hundred million dollars on another reservoir? Do
you need to spend a couple of billion or whatever
they're talking about on the networks. I mean, the trouble
is that they've got this belts embraces type model, which
(24:04):
is why we're looking at water charge is going crazy
because they've got the maximum possible spend for meters, for
fixing leaks, and for reservoirs. And I would say, if
you do this thing efficiently and effectively, you do not
need all of that stuff. Because if if Waleytonians used
half as much water as they do now, which is
definitely practical because that's only where water care is at
(24:27):
Auckland there, you just don't need all the other spend.
And I mean it's these issues which actually are not
being scrutinized.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
JD. I can see smoke coming out years because you
love those extra spending you.
Speaker 4 (24:38):
Yeah, well, I mean, long story short. You know, it
had been a couple of days since the last demonstration
of incompetence from the council, but you know, here we are.
It blows my mind. They just cannot seem to do
anything without it being hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.
I mean, I look at what three hundred something million
to strengthen the town hall, half a billion dollars on
a sludge plant, half a billion dollars on what the
(25:00):
hell is going on over and then.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
We can get it for a hundred bucks in house.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Well, this is what drives me insane. Are going to
drive the city into the ground, drive up poverty, cause
a lot of problems, all while they sit there being
able to say, Hey, Mira, mirror on the wall, how
much will I increase rates by this?
Speaker 3 (25:16):
Here?
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Tim Brown and Jad trust Friday face off. This week,
we interviewed doctor Ezekiel Emanuel, a world health policy advisor
and expert, worked with Obama, worked with Biden. He is
a cancer specialist. He's an oncologist, very very smart guy.
He said that New Zealand and Jad, I'm going to
(25:39):
come to you with this, needs to have a separate
fund for how health, but it also needs to invest
more in AI. I mean, he said, every cancer surgeon
should have a robot next to them. I can see
you getting excited by this. I mean he's talking off
your song. Shee didn't He.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
Yeah, one hundred percent. And I totally agree with what
he's saying. I think the country needs to look at
it those not a singular big bang project, because this
is just a continuum of technological improvement. We should be
looking at certain areas that we want to apply this
type of technology to. So we don't want to get,
you know, the idea that we revolutionize everything immediately. Some
(26:16):
of those things like the teallyhealth example. You know, I'm
a big fan of my friends at TEND who are
doing some of this sort of work across the health
sector here in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
They drive telehealth. I know that they're employing.
Speaker 4 (26:27):
AI scribes to help doctors improve how they're recording things.
All of these things they do pay dividends. They help
us lower the pressure on the health system, which I
think is a critical point. Yeah, you look at We've
had situations at work where people have diagnosed long running
illnesses and things themselves. I'm not advocating that people, you know,
(26:48):
go and always look your history.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
I mean, for you, I've been doing it, and I've
got now little file or my AI. It's a file
of health knows what medication I take everything, And when
I say something, they say, oh, I actually could be
just a byproduct of that drug that you're taking. I mean,
I don't have to go to a doctor anymore to find.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
That out, and that is a huge improvement. I just
want to flag that, you know, these things aren't quite
perfect yet, but they are really solid and one of
the things that New Zealand I don't think he acknowledged this,
but one of the problems we have here as well
is if you have something somewhat rare, the likelihood you
encounter a medical professional who has seen it is low.
So my father had an issue for many years and
(27:28):
it just happened that one doctor was traveling through who
happened to have seen this one time before. That's the
sort of thing that AI can help in a small country,
really broad in our awareness of what are some of
these more niche health issues as well and help people.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
Yeah, I mean he also said we should have a
separate line in the budget. Health shouldn't even be in
your budget. It should be like X amount of dollars,
you know, that's for budget for the health services. What
are your thoughts on there.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
Well, I don't think he's quite right on that, actually,
I think there is a kind of a line for health,
which is, you know, obviously sucking up more of government's
money than any other topic. But there were a couple
of things which she said which I thought were interesting.
One is he said we should pay doctors more, and
but we should also insist that that they justify their
national pay by by basically working more efficiently. So I like,
(28:18):
I like the concept of incentive based pay. And the
other thing he said was that the infrastructure of the
hospitals in New Zealand are very defective and the very
out of date and basically the hospitals have clearly, you know,
need a bit of a spruce up. And I think
I think the government's management of its hospital estate and
to an extent, the equipment in the hospitals is a
(28:41):
national scandal. And I you know, I think that is
something which you would like to think that the government
will be getting on top of more. Because anyone at
Wellington who goes to Welling to public, you know, which
is a relatively new hospital, but it's still pretty like weird.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
It doesn't feel new.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
But if you go to Wakefield or the other private ones,
you know, there you are actually at a much more
pleasant surroundings. And it's things like that which I do
feel that there is a sort of a level of
operational efficiency within the ministry which is which is not
up to scratch.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
It was interesting that he said to Simmy and Brown.
He met with Simmy and Brown and he said, I'm
happy to help in any way I can if you
want my help. Didn't know, I mean, I thought that
was you know, we should be looking out into the
world and thinking how we can do better things with
medicine and New Zealand. I think that's undoubtedly, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
But I think, look, I think Simeon is actually doing
a really good job. My take from you know, I mean,
I don't know the guy from a barrisopia, even though
he had I share the same surname.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
But you know, I think.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
That he he certainly he says all the right things
when I hear him on the radio. He realizes there
are problems and he has tried to make the system
more efficient and basically deliver healthcare where it's where it's
actually needed. So, you know, but there's an infrastructure problem,
there's a remuneration problem, there's an efficiency problem, and he's
all of those things have to be worked out.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
JD, You've just had a baby. As we talked about,
how how did that experience? How was that experience from
seven years ago when you had your first one?
Speaker 3 (30:04):
It went really well.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
I mean, this is one of the things that I
actually sometimes am torn on when it comes to health
in New Zealand is frequently we do have great engagements
with the health sector. I've looked at this recent conversation
more through the lens of the technological improvements to try
and lower the pressure on it.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
But the actual level.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
Of care we received was fantastic.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Right, come back in a second and get hots and not.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
The Friday face.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Hot than not hots andnot's time. I just read my
guests at Winston Churchill quote that I saw last night.
The difference between humans and animals is that animals never
allow a full to lead the pack. Okay, give me
your hots and lots and brown well.
Speaker 5 (30:47):
I kind of only have hots to be honest. I mean,
I mean, we've got a lovely storm raging of Wellington
at the moment. I love it when we have a
good storm. So you know, that made me feel good
walking down here this morning. And the other thing which
I love about Walton and always makes me feel good
is that I constantly seem to bump into people on
the street. And I went to Glogloo the coffee shop
(31:08):
over and Blair and again, super cool new coffee shop.
Absolutely choker, you know, going off like a firework. I mean,
I just think, you know, for me, while it is
still a super social fund city to be and so
you know, I felt really good coming in here this morning.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
I'm glad you say I love a good storm. I
love a good storm. Now that I don't own a
beachside cafe, but I mean of my own a beachside cafe.
Storms aren't too good for business, but I love them
now lying and being watching the rain power and I go, yes,
come on, JA, do you give me your hots and knots.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
So I'm going to go pretty close to home. I
lived just off Row Valley. It's great to see that
there's a new record store and bar a sort of
opening over there. You know, a little bit of vibrancy.
Good to see some green shoots a period.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Talk about five us to get the license to poor buggers.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
But yes, yeah, but I think I've talked enough about
the as a council. And on the negative though they
do have they do have a question out to the
public because they now want to remove some more car
parks and Arrow Valley after removing seventy only a couple
of years ago, because now they don't think that there
should be car parks near crossings, and so I just
(32:13):
worry when you have these little areas where there's only
a handful of shops and they serve a little local
community that this continual assault on the mobility of the citizenry.
It just puts more pressure on the operators.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
And you know what, I absolutely love a good custard
square and no one does the custard square like ro bakery.
No one. And you can't get a park there. I
would drive up now and get a custard square for
my lunch bike there.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
You can bike there.
Speaker 5 (32:37):
They've got a fantastic bike rate right outside the front
of the shop.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Let's talk about that storm.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Yeah, yeah, I want to see you on your bike
on the storm. I see, you know, I see these
crazy people with kids and storms on those bikes with
kids on the back and this absolute storm, And I
say to myself, that's just nuts. That's almost a child abuse,
isn't it.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
No, isn't Those children are going to be so resilient
and tough and they're going to be that They're the future,
not the kids who are sit in front of their
computer screens.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
I disagree with.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
What would that kild know about AI? That kild in
the back of that bike was shivering and getting wet
because his parents have got this ideology that they should
have Tim Brown, Daty Trusk, thank you very much for
joining us on Friday, Facebook, have a wonderful, stormy weekend.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
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
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.
Bleep! with Ana Navarro
Fear thrives in silence and confusion. Ana Navarro rejects both. Her voice is an antidote to today’s chaos. Her new podcast, Bleep! with Ana Navarro, takes on today’s most pressing issues with the voices most connected to it: decision-makers, political leaders, cultural shapers, and people on the frontlines of the story. The conversations acknowledge the emotions we all feel—despair, sadness, fear— but emerge with knowledge, perspective, and hope. The belief is simple: fearless dialogue can transform fear into courage, and courage into change. When fear dominates the headlines, this show digs deeper. Because information, debate, and conversation don’t just ease fear, they give us power to shape the future.
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.