Insolvencies, Simeon's $32.9b Policy, Comanchero Crackdown | GUESTS: Maria Slade & Matthew Tukaki

Kia Ora Aotearoa! Welcome to The Working Group, New Zealand's top political podcast not funded by NZ on Air. I'm your host, Martyn Bradbury, editor of The Daily Blog.

Joining me tonight:

• Damien Grant - libertarian liquidator and Cthulhu of Capitalism
• Maria Slade - Business Desk Journalist
• Matthew Tukaki - Media Tycoon, Businessman, UN Chairperson, New Zealand Māori Council Sledgehammer

Tonight's issues:

• Issue 1 – Simeon Brown’s $32.9b road policy – sensible infrastructure or sexual fantasy?
• Issue 2 – Insolvencies up + outgoing Treasury warnings – how bad will the economy get?
• Issue 3 – Comanchero crackdown vs gang patch ban

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXT: Working to 3598 

Check out the Social Media - https://bento.me/theworkinggroup

Episode Transcript

S1 (00:05):
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to the greatest
NZ live political podcast in the world. The working group,
hosted by beloved left wing broadcaster Comrade Bomber Bradbury, with
the best political panel in New Zealand media reviewing the week,
setting the agenda, avoiding defamation. The working group is brought

(00:25):
to you by Gravity Credit Management. When the weight of
capitalism is becoming the event horizon of an imploding black hole,
call zero 800 gravity and our team will get blood
out of a stone. That's zero 800 gravity. This is
the working group.

S2 (00:38):
Kia Ora Aotearoa. I'm your host, the editor of the
daily blog, Martyn Bradbury. Hashtag socialism, hashtag solidarity. Hashtag chip
is doing his best, I suppose. QAnon, anti-vaxxer, incel, free
market lunatics to the right of me. Insufferably humorless, middle
class woke cancellation lynch mobs were left to me. And
here I am, dear listener, stuck in the radical middle

(01:00):
with you. This is the working group, New Zealand's best
and greatest weekly political podcast that isn't funded by New
Zealand on air. Text working to 3598. For all show
updates and subscribe to our Rover. YouTube and Facebook pages.
Joining me tonight to discuss the big issues is the
greatest political panel in New Zealand broadcasting history. Our first

(01:22):
panelists pronouns are mine and believes marriage is between a
man and his property. He demands the jackboot of the
state is removed from the throats of Big tobacco, big
polluters and monstrous corporations, and put on the throats of
the biggest threats to capitalism like beneficiaries, the homeless and
hungry children. The libertarian liquidator, the controller of capitalism, the

(01:47):
18th most important heteronormative white cis male columnist staff, the
honorary ambassador from Israel. Damien. All tax is theft. Grant.
Kia ora comrade, welcome back to the show. One word
to describe the week, please, Sir Keir. Well, it's spring,
isn't it?

S3 (02:01):
First day of spring. So now what? Third day of spring.
It's feeling good. The daffodils are out. I'm feeling frisky.
You're looking good. Let's go.

S2 (02:10):
Baby Lamb's ready to roast. Our next panelist has actual
integrity and is a real journalist. And shouldn't be on
any panel with Damien Grant. And sure as Christ shouldn't
be anywhere near a Marxist like me, the best business
journalist in New Zealand, which has nothing to do with
the fact that there are only five business journalists in

(02:32):
New Zealand. The burning insight and brilliant oversight of business
desk journalist Maria Slade. Welcome back to the show. Kia ora.
One word to describe the week, please. Hi.

S4 (02:42):
Did I to Kingy Tewatia. Beautiful. It's been a big week.
And can I just say, I have never seen catering
on the scale that they do at Turangawaewae. Can you
imagine how many potatoes have been peeled this week? It's astounding.

S2 (02:56):
And last but certainly not least, he's the Maori for
all seasons, media tycoon, businessman, U.N. chairperson, New Zealand Maori Council.
Sledge hammer where he goes, sparks fly. He's the working
class hammer and the sickle friend of the downtrodden, enemy
to the racist. The one, the only Matthew Tukaki called

(03:18):
a comrade. Welcome back to the show. Good to be
with you, bomber. One word to describe the week, please, sir. Harassment, zero. Well,
I think the days.

S5 (03:25):
Of harassment from the rights of Maori are over. And
I think the the tangi at Turangawaewae is evidence of that. Because,
as Tuheitia once said, only a few weeks ago, there
is room in Kotahitanga for everyone.

S2 (03:39):
Amen. Let's get into this evening's issue. Issue one Simeon
Brown's $32.9 billion road policy. Sensible infrastructure or sexual fantasy
issue two insolvencies up plus outgoing Treasury warnings. How bad
will the economy get? Issue three Comanchero crackdown versus gang

(04:00):
patch ban an issue for tonight? No toast or tea
for new mums. Plus, we'll have a final word at
the end of the show where each panelist can sound
off to see who will breach broadcasting standards this week.

S3 (04:13):
Not again.

S2 (04:13):
It'll still be hurting from last week. Let's kick things
off tonight with issue one. Simeon Brown announced a $32.9
billion road policy, which has immediately come into criticism for
slashing public transport, slashing cycling ways, slashing walking paths while
blowing billions on roads that empower the trucking industry who

(04:36):
just happen to be best mates with, you guessed it,
the National Party. Maria. The report shows a massive looming
funding gap of around $6 billion a year for transport,
with barely half the government's project worth being affordable, requiring
pipes to fill that gap that locks in decades of
future transport budgets to repay them. Many won't happen because

(04:56):
it's too costly with not enough sector capacity. Isn't it
time for us as a country to bring back the
Ministry of Works and build it ourselves? Thoughts?

S4 (05:06):
I don't think that'll solve the problem. Why? I kind
of admire the National Party for coming out with this one, because,
you know, you could buy an awful lot of cancer
drugs with, with that money that they are committing to roads.
Yes you would.

S2 (05:20):
That's a big call. But you're right.

S4 (05:22):
But having said that, look, I do think we need
some of these projects, you know, particularly in some of
the more provincial areas, like, you know, the Burundians, for example.
And every time you get a bit of heavy rain
down the Hawke's Bay, you know, Gisborne gets cut off
now kind of thing virtually. You can't go on like this.
You just economies just cannot survive. Like like in Gisborne,
for example, where the leader brand company have got a huge,

(05:45):
big salad farm that was funded by the Provincial Growth Fund,
I might add. They want to try and develop an
industry there on the back of, you know, their salad growing,
you know, efforts. But if they can't get the product out,
you know, how can you do it? So yes, we
need more security of infrastructure in that regard, I do believe.

S2 (06:05):
Follow up question will the parents picking the kids up
from school stuck in gridlock, see any difference after this?

S4 (06:13):
Well, it sounds like a lot of those projects there's three, four,
five years away yet, so no is the short answer.

S2 (06:19):
Uh, Matthew, Minister Brown says Kiwis rejected Labor's phantom projects,
slower speed limits and infestation of speed bumps to justify
this infrastructure spend. But doesn't weaponising our impatience by lifting
speeds everywhere lead to vastly more deaths?

S5 (06:37):
Well, I mean, the obvious answer to that, in my view,
is yes. But coming back to the point about about
we need infrastructure in this country. We do. I think
the transport plan by the government is short sighted to
the point where actually, number one, who's going to pay
for it? When are they going to pay for it
and or by when? Rather are they going to pay
for it? And where's other transportation infrastructure that's required? Where's rail?

(06:59):
Where's our airport infrastructure to handle? What is our one
of our largest export receipts, which is inbound tourism. But
they're putting up the levy on that for $100 per
per ticketed price sort of nonsense. That's right. So you've
got all this other sort of stuff going on. I
think it's short termism. I would rather have a discussion
in order to pay for this sort of stuff longer term,

(07:20):
because these, these big projects, roading or otherwise, they don't
just happen within a single term of government. It spans
multiple governments. All you have to do is have a
look at the debacle that is Transmission Gully over more
than half a century. I think it is. And the
other thing too is should should they bring back the
Ministry of Works? Yes. You know, why not? I mean,

(07:40):
those little yellow cars were there for a reason. They
did God's work. And as for all those parents picking
up their kids. Well, maybe you want to carpool to
make your lives a little bit easier than driving around
in your four wheel drives, picking your snotty little rags
up from from private schools in Ponsonby, because I think,
quite frankly, we pander to that sort of glitterati set

(08:01):
when trying to inform public infrastructure. And it hasn't worked
in other countries. It sure as heck won't. Or maybe
it worked in Sweden, I don't know. Um, but can
we have a discussion about how to pay for all
this stuff?

S2 (08:12):
Follow up question. Our subsidization of public transport was supposed
to be an emission reducing tactic as well. So by
cutting public transport and cycleways and walkways, it will produce
more emissions that are feeding the climate change extremes, which
we're watching now, burn our country. Isn't there a counterproductive
feedback loop if all it is, is roads, roads, roads?

S5 (08:33):
I think the right wing bomber have an allergic reaction
to anything that has the words public and transport in
the same sentence, and that's the problem. It's an ideological
set of haw haw and nonsense that these who is
on the right have got to sort out.

S3 (08:49):
So what was the public transport that the previous government met.
They had six years. What was the what was the
big public transport for?

S5 (08:57):
First of all, other than.

S3 (08:58):
Other than I-rex?

S5 (08:59):
Well, well, well, yeah. I mean at some point you
guys are going to have to get over your, your
BuzzFeed sort of nonsense when it comes to I-rex. At
some point we've got to maintain.

S3 (09:09):
I will concede I was conceding a point. I know,
I know, but I was.

S5 (09:13):
Reinforcing your point. I was reinforcing it lovingly. So I
don't want to hoot on you.

S3 (09:17):
So I don't, I don't I. There you go.

S5 (09:23):
Somebody had to go first. Somebody I've been.

S3 (09:26):
I've been I've been called worse by better.

S2 (09:28):
Um.

S3 (09:29):
But what? So you're saying that the National have an
allergy to public transport? What was the public transport?

S5 (09:36):
I said I said the.

S3 (09:38):
Past.

S5 (09:38):
Administration. I said the right don't put words in my mouth.
Otherwise you will be hooting this evening. No.

S2 (09:43):
No.

S5 (09:44):
What I, what I, what I said was what I
said was the right has an affliction, an allergic reaction
to to the words public and transport in the same sentence.
And I'll give you an example of one of the
things that the last government did, and I think works
really well, is to psychologically change New Zealanders mindset that
you don't have to be sitting in traffic. If only

(10:04):
you jumped on public transport. So the subsidisation of fees
and all the rest of it, that that's a more
a longer term play. But they did it. Where is
the the rights play in trying to campaign for that
sort of stuff to motivate a change in our transportation habits?

S2 (10:20):
Uh, Damien, the best part about this report, I thought
were points 48, 49 and 50.

S3 (10:26):
Are good points. Yes.

S2 (10:28):
Where they argue that emissions don't need to be considered
for giant state highways because spending money on them doesn't
necessarily mean they will get built. That was their argument.
Is this level of sophistry the sort of trickery we
should be celebrating in social policy?

S3 (10:44):
Nobody cares about climate change. I don't care about climate change.

S6 (10:48):
See, that's.

S5 (10:49):
An indictable statement.

S3 (10:50):
I don't care about climate change.

S5 (10:52):
You don't? But everybody but everybody else does.

S3 (10:54):
No they don't. People absolutely do not care about climate change.
And you can see that in their patterns of behaviour.
People continue to fly.

S5 (11:01):
Sorry, sorry. But isn't it a broad, broad statement, too
broad to say that everybody doesn't believe in climate change?
I do. So that's not that's not.

S3 (11:09):
What I said. Don't put words in my mouth. But
you did.

S5 (11:11):
Let's play the tape back.

S3 (11:11):
Not play the tape back. I said that people don't care,
don't care, don't care.

S2 (11:17):
They might believe in it, but I don't care.

S3 (11:19):
So there's there's there's there's a big there's a big difference.
So that was the stroke talking. So I, I, I
accept that climate change that an increase in carbon increases um,
climate extremes. I don't care about it because the solutions
being imposed are socialist are create far more greater harm.

(11:39):
The effectively what happens when you introduce solutions to climate
change is that you grind the poor further and further
into the dust. A climate change policies only really affect
the poor. They do not affect the wealthy. If I
have to pay $700 to go to Australia as opposed
to 600 or 800, I don't. I don't care. That

(12:02):
doesn't really affect me. But when you put a price
on carbon for people who are driving fuel inefficient cars
trying to get their kids to school, you slap an
extra 20% on. You feel virtuous about that because I'm
doing something for climate change, but you're not doing anything
for climate change. What you are doing is you are
making life harder for the most marginal people in the community.

(12:23):
Whilst you feel good about yourself. Those people out there
trying to get their kids to school to put food
on the table there. That's their priorities. Not this middle
class sophistry about climate change.

S5 (12:35):
The Boston bomber opened that bottom drawer. Give this man
the Socialist Certificate of the century. Follow up.

S4 (12:41):
Question. Almost socialist.

S2 (12:43):
Follow up question. Helen Clark has accused.

S3 (12:45):
I care about the living standards of of of the
poor and working class, because they need to be.

S2 (12:50):
Able to clean his chimneys for God's sakes. Right. And
and I.

S3 (12:53):
Believe that the economic policies pursued by this Marxist over
here do exactly the reverse. But my trains.

S2 (13:00):
Run on time. My trains run on time. Yes, because.

S3 (13:02):
You have one train a day. Yeah. The the the
the the the the effect of climate change policy, Matthew,
is to make the poor poorer. And if you want to,
the reality is that we're not doing any we're not
going to achieve anything in climate reduction because the Chinese
are building coal plants.

S5 (13:20):
We're we're in public or social or economic policy. Does
anything carry that statement that climate change policy or. Sorry,
forgive me, I might get the wording a bit wrong. Uh,
that that climate change policy hurts the poor.

S3 (13:36):
What happens when you put a price on carbon for
for petrol?

S5 (13:40):
Well, petrol prices invariably go up.

S3 (13:42):
Okay. And do you think I care about the increase
in petrol prices, do you think? Do you think a
change in petrol prices significantly affects my quality of life?
Or Maria's quality of life, or your quality of life? Well,
I would never put words.

S5 (13:54):
In his mouth, but.

S3 (13:55):
But do you think it. Do you think an increase
in the petrol price, the cost of running your car,
if it goes from 70 to $90 a week, do
you think that has an impact for the most marginal
members of our community?

S4 (14:05):
But Damien, I interviewed the owner of a solar panels
business yesterday. And which one? A like for solar. And
he John Harmon owner John Harmon.

S3 (14:16):
He's a he's a he's a really good man. He
is a.

S4 (14:18):
Very good man. Very interesting man. He is a you know,
an advocate for solar. He believes that's the answer to
a large number of our electricity and power problems. He
owns a solar panel business. But he said at the
moment his customers are early adopters and rich greenies. Yes,
because no one else can afford it. It's to put
a proper system in on your house. Probably costs 15 $20,000,

(14:41):
particularly if you're going to put in a battery, which
is what you really want. Yes. And he said, why
is the government. Not subsidizing solar panels? Why are we
not putting them in on the roofs of car parks
and shopping malls and creating.

S2 (14:55):
State.

S4 (14:56):
Wide? Does our government not have that policy? So my
question being, if our government were to bring in a
policy like that to encourage wholesale adoption of solar panels,
would that not help poor people?

S3 (15:09):
Um, I would need to I'd need to run it through.
But fundamentally, you need to look at the real cost
of doing that.

S2 (15:17):
So but not the environmental cost of all the destruction
that happens. Just the real cost.

S3 (15:22):
No, because whatever we do in New Zealand has no,
no fundamental impact on the environment. But let's say you
go there and you say, all right, we are going
to spend our subsidised, say, $20,000 putting solar panels on
a whole bunch of houses. And remember, it's people who
live in relatively wealthy houses that can afford or are
going to get those subsidies if you are living in, like,

(15:42):
the same apartments downtown, right? That's where I'm quite often
poor people live in substandard housing or overcrowded housing. Um,
they're not always living in standalone units, are often living
in apartment complexes. But let's just let's just put the
other side of the equation, because this is where I
think a lot of these economics fall down. So you say,
all right, we're going to invest x number X number

(16:05):
of billion dollars doing all of these things. So at
the end of that what have we actually done. We
still have a whole bunch of houses getting electricity, which
is what we had at the start of the process.
But we have we have effectively done a huge, great
big hole in the ground. We're not increasing our productivity.
We're not increasing the amount of economic activity that happens

(16:26):
in the country. All we are doing is we are
swapping our electricity generation from, um, source X to source Y.
And in the process of doing that, we lower the.

S2 (16:36):
Price of the cost. You'd lower the price of the
cost are.

S3 (16:39):
Adding a huge amount of debt. We're going to have
to pay for that through higher taxes, through increased borrowing, but.

S2 (16:46):
You lower the price of the electricity.

S3 (16:48):
There is a no. Not necessarily. Yes. Because.

S2 (16:52):
Because there is.

S3 (16:52):
Capital. Because there is a because. Because here's here's the thing, bomber.
If you think about this, if, if the capital cost
of putting that equipment on there was free, then yes,
you would be lowering the cost of, of electricity. But
the capital cost is not free.

S2 (17:09):
But but here's the thing you're not seeing. Here's the
thing you're not seeing. When you generate excess power, it
goes back to the grid for them to use it.
So you're creating you're creating more electricity.

S3 (17:21):
That is that is true. But that is only that
only has a positive impact if you assume that there
is no capital cost. My question is, before you can
answer Maria's question, this is a good or a bad
thing for the poor. You need to say, all right,
what is the what is the counterfactual? What is the
economic cost? costs. What are we not doing that we
could otherwise?

S5 (17:41):
But, Damien, it's not a counterfactual. You make a series
of very broad based statements with very little in fact
or evidence to back it up, to be frank. Give
me an example. I'll give you an example. The number
of so-called poor people living like cattle in in very
small plots. I did not know they were not the
specific words, but that's how I interpreted the words, because
that's what.

S3 (18:01):
But is that not true?

S5 (18:02):
No, it's not true. It's not true.

S3 (18:03):
Poor people are more likely to live in substandard accommodation
and high density areas than so defined.

S5 (18:10):
So do me a favor. Define poor versus wealthy. Because
in this country, some of the most poorest people in
our country are not living on benefits. They are the
middle classes who themselves would like to see, I imagine
a subsidy for some sort of cheaper electricity alternative, because
their bills are just as bad as everybody else. So
just who is poor in New Zealand today?

S3 (18:30):
My my my my my my statement was that if
you have a subsidy for solar on people's houses, but you.

S5 (18:37):
Keep on Yeah, but you keep on referring to poor people. Yes.
So who's poor?

S3 (18:41):
It is. It is. As well. Bummer. Obviously you're more
likely another.

S5 (18:45):
Broad based.

S3 (18:46):
Likely another.

S5 (18:47):
Broad based statement.

S3 (18:48):
Not likely. More. More likely that. Well, I think it's
a if you're going to take advantage of a solar
panel on your house, you have to own a house.
If you're living in an apartment. Now, there are some
quite nice apartments that didn't exist ten years ago, to
be fair, but you are. If you are living in
a house, you are and you own the house, you

(19:10):
are more likely to be wealthier than somebody who is
living in. I'm sorry.

S2 (19:13):
That's again another untrue statement.

S5 (19:16):
What's untrue? Solar panels are not just for private or
home ownership or home accommodation. They are for businesses. I mean,
the biggest landowner, the biggest building property owner in the country.
You've said to an entirely separate. No no no no
no we're talking. So I deal in factual not counterfactuals. So.
No no no no no no no I'm not changing
the topic. I'm. saying to you that you're factually wrong

(19:38):
in the statements that you are making. You haven't demonstrated because, well,
because you don't let me. You keep on interrupting me.
I feel I feel that I'm no longer just a
stroke victim. I'm waiting for the baseball bat now where
I can't have a voice. But anyway, that's coming. That's coming. Right. So.
So my point is, the largest single property owner in
the country remains the crown. So what can we do

(19:59):
with Crown assets to provide, say for example, sustainable technology
like solar panels or otherwise on Crown buildings, including the
state House asset base, which, by the way, is being
stripped away by the REITs in favor of what we
call now social housing, where the asset doesn't stay on
our books. But that's a whole nother discussion. You're right.

(20:19):
I just changed the topic there. However, coming back to it.

S3 (20:22):
So so so the original question that Maria posed was
would putting solar panels having a subsidy for solar panels
help the poor? And my response to that was, that
is not a question you can answer easily until you
know the capital cost of putting.

S5 (20:38):
The convenience bomb.

S2 (20:39):
Right wing.

S3 (20:41):
And what is what is what is the what is
the counterfactual? If you're going to spend a dollar in
one area, you are not spending a dollar somewhere else.
And so if we're going to spend however many tax.

S2 (20:53):
Breaks, those damn.

S3 (20:53):
Tax breaks, tens of billions of dollars putting solar subsidies on, on, on, on,
effectively middle class and wealthy people's houses, is that going
to help?

S5 (21:03):
I'm glad you put middle class in there now.

S2 (21:06):
Well I yeah quick round. I don't I don't I
don't want, I don't want to I don't want to
hoot in anyone but quick round. 68% of road deaths
are on are on rural roads. 77% of roads go
through rural areas. In Northland, three out of four road
deaths were in rural areas, and road crashes cost 9.7
billion inches 2021. That's 4% of total GDP. Won't lifting

(21:31):
speed rates under the guise of increasing productivity be paid
in rural lives. Damien. Grant.

S3 (21:36):
No.

S2 (21:38):
Maria.

S4 (21:39):
Yes, probably.

S5 (21:40):
Oh, without a doubt. Including the fact that we do
very little in prevention. Let's have a talk about Assisi
in a future time.

S2 (21:48):
A 71% of those online agree, comrades, we.

S3 (21:51):
If we if we could just ask Maria and and
Matthew if we if we reduced the speed limit down
to 20km an hour, would that not save lives?

S2 (22:00):
Yes it would.

S4 (22:02):
What do you mean? Where are you talking like?

S2 (22:04):
Well, everywhere.

S3 (22:05):
Every 20km around the country. It would.

S2 (22:07):
Of course, it would.

S3 (22:08):
Not save.

S2 (22:09):
Lives. Of course it would.

S4 (22:10):
Well, if you can enforce it, probably. Yes it could.

S3 (22:13):
So. And you would agree with that.

S5 (22:15):
Matthew, I would say to you, my counterfactual to you
would be this more investment in public transport would invariably
and inevitably save lives. Okay. That was bring back kiwi roads.

S3 (22:25):
So so the an answer to the to the question.
Oh sorry. Wouldn't it would an increase in the um, um,
increasing the speed limit. It does kill um, results in
more deaths. Yes, probably it will. But if that's your
if you're going to say, well, we're going to take
a policy that reduces the deaths. And that's the only

(22:46):
policy consideration that Maria, you, you are you are allowing
300 people to die. 300 fathers, mothers, children's daughters. Their
lives have been crushed, snuffed out just like that. The
argument that just because we're increasing the speed limit, some
people are going to die is not an argument not
to do it. If that's your.

S2 (23:07):
Evidence, if it's social policy, that just makes zero sense.

S3 (23:10):
If that's if your if your policy prescription is, we
must pursue a policy that reduces the death toll and
that is the only policy consideration, then we can get
to the zero death toll as Michael Wood was producing.
But there will be a there will be a very
high economic cost. And neither of you two are prepared
to wear that cost because neither of you believe in

(23:30):
setting the road limit down to 20.

S5 (23:33):
So that's impractical. I just love it when our males
tell Ahmadi that what to believe in. I didn't realize
it still happened.

S2 (23:40):
Now you know what Putin feels like. Comrades, we must
move on to issue two. Following business sentiment last week
that showed 20% believing they will go to the wall
before the end of the year. Data released this week
shows the number of insolvencies for New Zealand companies was
in the highest in eight years. This is the same
week that the outgoing Treasury head doctor, uh McLeish, calls

(24:03):
for a capital gains tax and slashing super. How bad
is New Zealand economy going to get and when is
it going to get better? Matthew. Outgoing Treasury head doctor
McLeish has criticised the government for not willing to embark
upon unpopular changes like capital gains and super reform. And
seeing as we as a nation, seeing as we are

(24:25):
a nation that can only sell houses to each other
as we retire and call that wealth creation? Who in
the political spectrum will be brave enough to take those
challenges on?

S5 (24:35):
I think the advice from the outgoing secretary is interesting,
but interesting is a word that I use cautiously. Given
this government is afraid of taking the advice of the
senior officials, advisers and bureaucrats. She's said some things going
out the door. I'm more interested in seeing what they're
going to do in terms of her replacement and how

(24:55):
that's all going to work out. I think it's. Look,
I've never thought it's good just to have your musings
as you go out the door when you're in the chair.
You push for the solution to the problem. You don't.
You don't burn the house down on the way out
the door. So to be honest. Yeah. Follow up question
should there be a capital gains tax? Absolutely. There should

(25:15):
be a CGT. Absolutely. Without a shadow borrow.

S4 (25:18):
A Damian phrase here. Jump on in. Everybody agrees there
should be a capital gains tax. Everybody does.

S2 (25:25):
I'm right here. I am saying it to his face.
You're saying it to his face. I don't think we're getting.

S5 (25:31):
Canceled this week.

S4 (25:32):
I think it's true. I do believe that most people
believe that you speak to tax partners, you speak to economists,
you speak to anybody. Really? Except maybe Damien. Damien? Yes.
And we all know we should have one. It's like,
you know, we know we should take the medicine, but
nobody wants to swallow it.

S3 (25:50):
Yes, but you see, the beautiful thing about a capital
gains tax is that I don't trust only the middle
class will pay it. Eric Watson is not going to
pay a capital gains tax. There is no there is
no way you can devise a capital gains tax that
will that will capture the the super wealthy. And let's
not forget where when you impose a capital gains tax

(26:12):
on a, on a, on a jurisdiction like New Zealand,
you are going to capture those people who can't move
their wealth overseas. And that's the middle class and the
upper middle class. So you can smack them. But anybody
else who has the ability to move their capital offshore
moves their capital offshore.

S2 (26:28):
So when we implement the capital gains tax we also
have to stop flight. I agree with you. I agree with.

S5 (26:33):
You. This is the issue. This is the issue with this.
And it's been a thread of conversation throughout this evening
so far. Yes, we're starting this them and us sort
of narrative once again. It's like it's like the culture
wars are back. Well, I mean you say, you know,
it's the middle class, you're going to punch them or
you didn't say exactly. I don't.

S3 (26:50):
I don't want to punch them. But then there's Eric Watson.

S5 (26:53):
When did Eric Watson become a you know, so so
I think what we've got to have my point is
we've got to have policy, tax policy, economic policy, transportation
policy that sustains longer than a three year term of well,
let's let's.

S2 (27:06):
Talk about that math. What's that got to do with everything?

S5 (27:09):
Everything.

S3 (27:10):
Because you are you are making some allegation about me saying,
you know, them and us. So I need a lawyer.
How how does that how does that dovetail into what
you just said?

S5 (27:18):
What I was suggesting is that before, when we started
this conversation this evening, there was no mention of the
middle class. I'm glad to see they've emerged again. Like
a like a rainbow through the clouds.

S2 (27:28):
Matthew, this. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the
fourth Labour government's neoliberal experiment, and Roger Douglas free market
fantasies are Kiwis to politically gun shy for radical economic overhauls.
In the shadow of that.

S5 (27:42):
My personal view is New Zealanders are exhausted and tired
of ongoing, consistent and sustained disruption to their lives for
for the 80s and 90s the 2000. And even today,
it's like we're a guinea pig for economic social policy globally.
And it's got to stop. We need we need to
have a break and have a cup of tea. Can
we all just calm down and at least let policy

(28:05):
begin to embed so we can figure out, so what's
a capital.

S3 (28:08):
Gains tax then you're saying on the one hand oh
we've got to have a cup of tea. And on
the other hand says ha ha ha, we're going to
have a.

S2 (28:14):
Capital gains tax.

S5 (28:15):
Well, because the capital gains tax has been a discussion
going on in this country for many years, and no
one's got the the nuts, to be frank, to do it.

S2 (28:22):
Okay.

S3 (28:23):
So do you want do you want a cup of tea, Matthew.
And we're going to have. Or do you want to
have radical economics? Both.

S2 (28:31):
He wants both, goddamn it.

S5 (28:32):
Because I wouldn't mind a gin right about now because.

S3 (28:35):
You know, I mean, pick, pick, pick a lane.

S2 (28:38):
Damien. Between April and June, there were 700 insolvencies reported,
up 23% from the first quarter of the year and 36%
higher than the same period a year ago, according to
the latest BWA Insolvency Quarterly Market report.

S3 (28:51):
BW Brian William and Associates. Yes, you.

S2 (28:54):
Are a liquidator.

S3 (28:55):
Who's a good man. What are your thoughts.

S2 (28:57):
From the coalface? You've got you are facing it every
week now.

S3 (29:02):
Yes, I am too. I got two comments. Yep. One
of them is that the number, the level of bank
receiverships is suspiciously low. What do you mean? You're not
seeing a lot of them.

S4 (29:17):
It's the IRD, isn't it?

S3 (29:18):
It's the IRD. It is the IOD that is driving
the insolvency. You have a look at the Gazette, and
you can see the level of applications by the revenue
to liquidate. Now, the Inland Revenue Department stopped enforcing debts
about April May 2020. They've had a couple of fits
and starts where they've got active again. And but it's

(29:39):
only really since maybe April this year. They've really started to, to,
to crank things up. And so we know that the
idea is sitting on somewhere like 6 to $6.5 billion
worth of unpaid tax arrears is my suspicion that the
the figure is a lot more than that. They just
write off all the debt that's over about five years old.

(30:00):
So I think we that's that is what's driving the
level of insolvency. So it will be it will be
a mistake to assume that the spike in insolvencies is
driven by underlying economic factors. It's driven largely by increased
enforcement by the revenue.

S2 (30:15):
Where do you think that's going to go for the future?

S3 (30:17):
Well, that's up to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Right, right.

S4 (30:20):
But that's because these problems have been going on for
a long time, like some of these businesses have obviously
been suffering for a while, and they've been kicking the
can down the road and, you know, maybe paying off
a bit of tax here and there. And now it's
kind of come to a head. So it isn't entirely
not to do with the economy though, is it?

S3 (30:37):
Um, yes and no. So there's been. If the revenue,
you always have a situation where you're going to have 5%
of the companies in some form of economic trouble, that's
the whole nature of economy. That's the Schumpeter's destruction model.
So and you want, you know, you want people to

(30:57):
get into business and with the expectation that 5 or 10%
will come unstuck reasonably quickly. Um, so that's I think
and if the revenue does nothing for three years or
effectively nothing, which is what's where we're in when they
decide to play catch up, we could be in boom
economic times and you would still see this spike in

(31:18):
in And insolvencies. And so I'm, I'm a little bit
wary when I. And and that's why I said at
the start that the the lack of bank insolvencies bank
receiverships is telling because you're not seeing those large systemic
failures happening. Now, that's possibly because the banks are doing
more workouts. They're possibly the banks are gun shy because

(31:42):
some of the the Commerce Commission stuff that's coming out. Um,
but I think it's possibly because they're not having a
large number of impaired debts at that level.

S5 (31:52):
Can I ask you a question? Should we review the
Insolvency Act? Is it 2006? Should we review.

S3 (31:58):
It? That's the personal insolvency. Yeah. Um, um, that's a
big question. There are, um, there are aspects of the
Companies Act that I think are wrong. And I know
that Minister Bailey is working on that at the moment.
My my personal view is that the the official assignee
Is relatively inactive, but it's important to understand that the

(32:22):
official Assignee is the government department that looks after bankruptcies.
Their worldview is that they they are not there to
hound the the debtor, the insolvent. Their job is to
protect the bankrupt from angry creditors. And I think by
and large, they do a good job on that. And
liquidation is somewhat different. In a liquidation you want a
liquidator who will investigate the affairs of the company. And

(32:43):
what you have in the insolvency industry at the moment
is you have a regime whereby the the insolvency the
Companies Act rewards liquidators who are inactive. The the our profession,
the insolvency profession, the liquidation profession is dominated by a
number of small firms who have a reputation for being inactive.

(33:03):
And those firms get the majority of the work.

S5 (33:06):
Okay.

S2 (33:06):
Maria. Research out last week showed 77% of businesses believe
the current economy was having more of a detrimental impact
on their business than Covid and the GFC. As a
business journalist, how tough is it out there for companies
right now?

S4 (33:20):
It is tough, there's no doubt about that. But if
you look at a lot of the underlying numbers, it's
not as bad. It's not catastrophic, right? For example, there's
a company called Credit Works who do data. They're a
credit bureau for the construction industry primarily, although they do
other sectors as well. And if you drill down into
their data, yes, all the sales are down. Um, but

(33:43):
it depends which bits you look at. For example, the
beginning of the sort of construction phase of building a
house is digging the drains and laying the concrete. So
therefore concrete is quite a sort of harbinger, if you like. And,
and concrete sales are not down as much as all that. Oh, right.
They are down but not right. They've sort of gone. Yeah.
Not boom. This is radio. Sorry. That wasn't very descriptive

(34:07):
was it? Um, we got.

S3 (34:08):
We got the sound effect.

S4 (34:09):
Yeah. So, so yes, it's bad, but not that bad. Right.
And again, with the Centrex data that came out this week. Yes,
liquidations are up, as we saw, but maybe for, you know,
all kinds of reasons. But consumer um, consumer defaults were
actually it had slowed off a wee bit. Right. So

(34:31):
it's not great, but it's not absolutely terrible. And it's
not as bad as the GFC.

S2 (34:36):
In your opinion, is the OCR drop enough to restore
economic faith?

S4 (34:40):
Not yet. No. Right. Um, it's a little bit of a,
you know, the wind turning. But we're going to need
a few more cuts before it really has an impact.
And again, it will take quite a while to flow through.

S2 (34:52):
Quick round to you all. When will Adrian Orr get
a knighthood for services to unemployment. Damien Grant.

S3 (34:59):
I you know it's coming.

S2 (35:00):
You know it's coming. How are you going to celebrate?

S3 (35:02):
No, Adrian. Actually, no. Nicola Willis probably if Nicola Willis
gets another term. Yeah. Thanks to the malfeasance of Adrian.
Or maybe she might get a knighthood. Right.

S2 (35:12):
When? When? When is he getting a knighthood?

S4 (35:14):
Over Damien's dead body.

S3 (35:16):
I think Adrian Hoare might like to organise that. Matthew.

S5 (35:20):
Well, I'm sending him a Christmas card.

S2 (35:22):
61% say no way. Uh, comrades, we must have a
word from our sponsor.

S3 (35:29):
Our sponsor is Gravity Credit management. I was chatting to
Andrew today. Andrew's had a win on a couple of
large files, and so he is particularly excited. He's quite
upbeat when things go his way. Um, but as credit,
somebody in the, um, debt collection business, he's even a
bit when things don't go his way. Uh, but Andrew nonetheless,

(35:53):
as he likes to point out, he's sitting on a
small pot of cash. He's a bit like, um, Uncle
Scrooge sitting in there looking at all that money, and
he wants to give. Well, he doesn't want to give
it away. He wants to buy your old ledgers. If
you have an accounts receivable book, people sitting out there
at 180 days that are not paying. Call Andrew on 800. Gravity.
got a gravity credit. Jonesy and Andrew will be delighted

(36:16):
to take your call, and he may even pay you
some money for some old ledgers.

S2 (36:20):
Comrades, we must move on to issue three. Over the week,
every patched member of the Comancheros gang in Christchurch was arrested.
When the government quietly, while the government quietly included in
the facetious gang bang patch legislation, search and surveillance powers
that are more police state than human rights respecting democracy.
This podcast. I'm not sure why. More than any other show,

(36:42):
has been at the forefront of explaining what has been
happening in the underworld since the invasion of the 501 seconds,
who have brought a level of violence and criminal sophistication
that makes our domestic gangs look like disorganized crime. We
had a situation while Labour was in power, where the
GCSB and Sis were picking up international communications between 500

(37:04):
and 1 syndicates and cartels, but this intelligence was not
being sent to domestic cops in New Zealand to action.
Instead that Intel was going up the intelligence chain of
command to the NSA and our Australian spy counterparts, Maria.
This level of crackdown could only be occurring if the

(37:24):
spy agencies of New Zealand were helping domestic cops with Intel.
What do you think has been the turning point here?
Cartels having influence in New Zealand, or, as the Financial
Times pointed out in a recent exposé last week, the
Chinese using Shadow Mirror banking services here in Auckland. This
seems to have become a national interest security interest.

S4 (37:48):
Well, there's a whole lot of questions in there. I
work with Jared Savage at the New Zealand Herald. Great
man has made a bit of a career out of
following the gangs. Totally. I ran into him in the
newsroom the other day and I said, you know, how's
it going with the gangs? And he said, well, look,
it's just clickbait. We keep writing about it because people
keep reading it. And I think, you know, very briefly, obviously,

(38:09):
with the effect that the 501 and the importation of
these very serious gangs, it's completely changed the landscape here
in New Zealand. And the New Zealand Police have just
simply had to catch up, I would say. Yeah, it's
not my expert area, but it sounds like they are.
They're just getting a lot more sophisticated and tackling this
much more sophisticated crime. But it's sort of a side

(38:29):
point I would make is that people do get quite
obsessed with the gangs. And yes, we have had an
increased problem and increased gun violence, etc., but it's there's
not that many gang members out there, you know, they're
mostly shooting each other, which again, not cool, not good.
But people get a bit obsessed with it. Yeah. And
on the whole idea of banning gang patches, well, that's

(38:51):
just ridiculous. It's just ridiculous. It's impossible to enforce. It
won't make any difference. It just aggravates people. You know?
I don't even know why we're talking about it. Really?

S2 (39:00):
Damian, a point of myth in America sells for $5.
It sells for $100 in New Zealand. This is why
we're seeing a spike in gang violence and soaring importation.
Can a state win a war on drugs?

S3 (39:13):
$5, you say?

S2 (39:15):
It's $5 in. In America, they sell it. It's $5
a point, but here it's $100. That's a markup.

S3 (39:20):
Maybe we should do a working group special from Colombia. Francisco,
I think, you know, those are. Those are some. That's
some good margin. That's.

S2 (39:29):
Well, that's. And that's why that's why it's coming here.
But a can a state with a war on drugs.

S3 (39:35):
How much how much profit are you? Actually I'll work
this out. It's about half $1 million swallowing a condom.
So it's like there is just. No, no, seriously.

S2 (39:46):
You do that recreationally.

S3 (39:47):
I did, I.

S5 (39:49):
I would stay at home.

S3 (39:50):
Damien, I worked I worked that out to try and
to an answer to your question. Martin, is there a.

S5 (39:57):
Graphic that shows you swallowing a condom? That's.

S3 (40:00):
You'll just have to imagine that on your own. I
do in the.

S2 (40:04):
Shower now.

S3 (40:04):
You know. Now you.

S5 (40:06):
Can't. I can't unsee see that now.

S3 (40:08):
You'll. You'll be praying for a second stroke to stop.
To stop.

S5 (40:11):
The imagery, you have to use the word stroke and
condom in the same.

S2 (40:14):
Paragraph. Gentlemen. So we need Hooton back.

S3 (40:19):
When you consider when you consider that that is the
amount of margin that that that a drug mule could.
So let's say the drug mule gets 20% of that.
So it's $100,000 for taking a trip to Bali or
wherever it is. When the profit margins are that high,

(40:39):
then no, you can't remember. In Bali, the Indonesians shot,
I think, nine, uh, young Australians and an utterly pointless
exercise when the consequence for dealing drugs is that the
state will take a 29 year old man, ignore the
protestations of his mother, and put a bullet in his

(41:02):
chest and do it publicly. And that has no dent
in the drug trade, then? No, the state can't win
a war on drugs either. The last time I smoked
a joint, no, God, I was, I was, I was
living in state accommodation in Turangi, where the state had

(41:23):
complete control over my life. They controlled the prison. Where? Yes, where,
where I slept, what I ate, what I did, who
I could talk to. And the state was unable, and
in fact, agents of the state actively conspired to ensure
that I had access to alcohol and access to cannabis.
There is simply no way. Now, in an environment where

(41:45):
the state can lock you up, the state still cannot
control access to drugs. Then no bomber. The answer to
your question is no. And the reason why you've got
the commissioners and the 501 and the headhunters, and you
just have a look at the news stories today. There's
some guy from the Hells Hell's Angels, 450 kilos of meth.

(42:08):
There's some guy from the Headhunters having 14.8. Wayne Doyle,
$14.8 million worth of his assets were being taken by
the state. Almost certainly the product of crime when the
rewards for criminal activity are so huge. When you consider
that a totalitarian state is required to stop the drug trade,

(42:29):
and even then it probably can't work, we should just stop.

S2 (42:32):
Matthew, what do we do now? We've arrested everyone. Unemployment
is 4.6%, but over 9% for Maori and 8.5% for Pasifika.
Where are the jobs to give people hope for alternatives
to crime?

S5 (42:46):
Just. Just before we get there, this business with drugs.
We have a problem in the Pacific. That's where that's
where we have a problem. We have a problem in
Tonga and Samoa as new entry points for drugs that
are largely precursors coming in from China. Let's just face it.
And if you have a look at the Security Intelligence
briefing released by the Sis, I think it is today,

(43:07):
you'll get to see a lot of that. I think also,
we've got a change in the way that gangs have
been constructed in Aotearoa. So we used to have discussions
about the Black Power and the Mongrel Mob. Now we're
having discussions about the Comancheros, the Mexican cartels that have
never gone away. Yes, we have never as a as
a global community or law enforcement had the jump on

(43:28):
destroying the cartels as much as you put into it.
I mean, take Colombia, for example. Any number of South
American countries, and yet the trade still goes on. My
biggest concern is our backyard and what's going on in
the Pacific. And when I talk about trying to encroaching
through development and economic development and funding and investment into
the South Pacific, think about the workforce that's going with

(43:50):
that money that some of that workforce, I dare say,
if you inquired and investigated it a little bit more
and peered underneath the covers, you would see where the
importation is coming from.

S3 (44:00):
So you think we can win a war on drugs.

S5 (44:02):
No, I'm saying what we need to do as a
country through law enforcement is beef up our surveillance and
intelligence activities. We are a country that should be able
to protect our borders. Instead of cutting the intelligence teams
at immigration and all these other places and governments.

S3 (44:19):
What is what is the purpose of beefing up the
security as you're as you're saying.

S5 (44:22):
More surveillance of the incoming threat of drugs, because ultimately,
drugs that arrive in our country that can be stopped
are going to have a detrimental effect not only to
our individual New Zealanders, but our economy, the health system,
to mayor, to mayor, to mayor.

S3 (44:37):
So, but but I ask you the question, can we
win the war on drugs.

S5 (44:42):
As New Zealand, as a small country with with borders
that we can surveil? Yes, I believe we can.

S3 (44:48):
Okay. So what is what what do you think would
be required when, as I pointed out, a drug, a drug.

S2 (44:57):
Can I just say drug? The answer to this a drug.

S3 (45:00):
A drug mule, a drug mule can can bring in
half $1 million worth of cocaine inside their body. How?
Without doing full strips body invasive searches of everybody. That's
that's the how how are you going to.

S2 (45:15):
So that's the other.

S5 (45:16):
Way you think about these things. That's not how it
actually works, though. Um, what we've got to do is
cut the supply chains. And at the moment the supply
chain is coming through the Pacific, and it's building and
getting bigger and bigger and bigger. We've got to be
able to support the Pacific island nations, to be able
to enforce their laws, their borders, and so on and
so forth. We've got fishing vessels coming over the borders

(45:36):
into into economic zones. Not for fish. They're bringing other
crap with them. So we need to beef up that. Now,
it's not true that just because you swallow a condom,
that's the importation of drugs into this country. That's not
how it's working.

S3 (45:49):
But that is but that but that is an effective
way of bringing it in. You can bring it in
on a ship. You take a.

S5 (45:55):
Boat, that's where it's coming in. It's coming in, it's
coming in through our ports. It's coming in through our
our supply lines. That's where we need to focus our effort,
to be frank.

S3 (46:04):
Do you do you have any idea how many.

S2 (46:06):
Do you.

S3 (46:06):
Have? Any idea how many containers arrive at the port
are actively searched by customs? Minimal, right? Minimal. So.

S5 (46:13):
And but why is that, Damian?

S3 (46:14):
And because the. If you were to say. All right,
we are to in order to stop the drugs coming
in because an awful large percentage of the drugs are
coming in through containers. And so people are bringing stuff
in on, on, on the containers and they and you
might have a DVD and there's a part of the
DVD that's welded in. You've got a bit of drugs
in there, right? The only way to find that drug

(46:34):
is to break apart the DVD. To get it, the
you would need to search every single container you would
need to the the. It's not practical. The degree of
cost involved to effectively supervise the border is astronomical and
economically catastrophic. So I, I think you are enjoying your

(46:55):
willing suspension of disbelief if you believe that the state
has the capacity it does to stop importing drugs, and
even if the state could do it, Matthew, that would
be a state and a society that you would not
want to live in.

S2 (47:08):
Valid point. Counter perspective. The way you'd go about winning
the war on drugs, I think, is that you acknowledge
it's a it's an actual working market, right. Who is
able to bring all of this drugs in and how
is it being done? Well, the Financial Times was really
clear that a lot of these Chinese shadow banking mirror

(47:28):
organizations have set the infrastructure up so that 501 syndicates
can take money here in New Zealand and pay the
cartel over there. So if you're looking at how you
catch those buggers out, you've got to focus on the
surveillance element of of of the Chinese banking shadow community
here in Auckland. So that would be your first thing.
The second thing is that you would legalise cannabis. Hear

(47:50):
me out. The profit margin from cannabis. $100 million could
go into drug rehabilitation. Now, we only currently spend $10
million a year on, on on drug rehabilitation. That's not
enough to get someone off meth, right? If you are
able to use taxation from a legalized cannabis market, you

(48:12):
could you could fund the rehabilitation programs, because the reason
that $100 that that point is $100 here and only
$5 in America is because of the demand for it here, right?
It's a demand issue. You cut down the demand by
actually funding proper rehabilitation programs. Let's, let's.

S3 (48:31):
Let's come back to a more fundamental question. So, Matthew,
let's let's say you could stop drugs. My question to
you is why? What what is the benefit of stopping
people taking methamphetamine?

S4 (48:45):
Can I just leap in here? Because I was about
to ask that very question, Damien. So you would not
do anything. You would just let society be and people
smoke Myth or whatever it is to their heart's content.
Is that how you see it?

S2 (48:58):
Hearts explode.

S3 (49:00):
Um, well, in my libertarian Paradise, yes, but we don't
live in a libertarian Paradise. The. To answer my own question,
the problem we have with methamphetamine is the problem we
had with with synthetic cannabis. When synthetic ketamine was being
manufactured by commercial operations, it was manufactured, and there were
company directors who cared about personal liability and the quality

(49:20):
of the product that made you sick. And it wasn't
good for you. But nobody died from taking synthetic ketamine
when it was legal. When when the when these drugs
are illegal, then you start getting poor quality stuff. You
get stuff that's that people don't know what they're buying.
There is no market signal. And so what happens is
that somebody, somebody's child takes synthetic cannabis or some other,

(49:42):
you know, fentanyl or whatever. They get sick and they die.
The reason why they died is because they are they
are consuming an unsafe product that is untested with no
market power behind it. And then the natural reaction of
that parent and that community is to say we must
ban the drugs because the drugs is what's happening, but
that's a mistake. The reason why it's like if you

(50:03):
drink moonshine, you're going to get sick because moonshine is
manufactured at the back of a garage somewhere. If you
are drinking alcohol manufactured by lion, Nathan or whatever, okay,
it's still not good for you necessarily, but you're not
going to get poisoned because Lion Nathan care about their. No,
but you.

S4 (50:19):
Could develop an addiction and cause a great deal of
harm to your family.

S3 (50:23):
But you do that. Okay, so let's let's just let's.

S5 (50:26):
Just do that because it's legal.

S3 (50:28):
Let's let's just say that with that with with that
addiction thing. Right. So, so heroin is heroin is the classic, uh,
if you are taking medical grade heroin, you can take
medical grade heroin for year after year after year. It's
not good for you. It's not great for your mental health.
But but you can do that. The reason why people

(50:49):
spiral so quickly is they're not taking medical grade heroin,
they are injecting themselves with heroin or.

S2 (50:56):
Any.

S3 (50:56):
Other stuff that gets sucked down into it. And so
what what we do is we have a look at
somebody who is taking, who is consuming an unsafe product
manufactured in the market, where there is no brand equity,
where there was no reputational effects, and that person gets
very sick. And our role as a society is we
say we we must impose the most severe consequences we have,

(51:19):
including lining young men up against the wall and pulling
lead on them because we want to stop that person
getting sick. And my reaction is, if you if you say,
all right, we know I've got an 11 year old boy,
I know he's going to take drugs at some point. Right?
I am deluding myself if I think that he doesn't
when he does, and so will your daughter and so

(51:42):
will your children. Our children are going to take drugs
if you have children. Understand this. At some point in
their lives they are going to consume drugs. And when
they do, I hope that that person takes drugs that
is manufactured by somebody who was responsible. And here's the
here's the headline. The Comancheros are not responsible. They don't

(52:04):
care about the life of your child. They are not
interested in the welfare of their consumers. But Merck Sharp
and Dohme is.

S5 (52:11):
The problem that I have with everything you've just said
is twofold. Number one, I do not believe that open,
unfettered market dictation of drugs and class A drugs in
particular in any country, is a viable option to explore
for these reasons. Number one, drugs kill and drugs don't
only kill the person who's taking them. Potentially, it kills

(52:31):
the people around them, the loved ones domestic violence, throwing
their kids up against walls and meth induced comas. It's
completely unacceptable. And I think we've got to stop trying
to play economics with this sort of nonsense where we say, oh,
let the market dictate, let the market produce high quality,
really good drugs so people don't die as often or whatever.

(52:53):
When also, it's also a wrong narrative to suggest that
we're like Indonesia and we're going to line people up
against walls and shoot them for whatever, um, crime. I
don't think it was a Bali. I don't think it
was nine of them. I think it was two of
them that were ultimately executed. Anyway, coming back to the point,
the point I was trying to make is that drugs
in this country kill people, and often they kill the innocent.

(53:15):
And so just to legalize it, to say, oh, we'll
take care of that problem. That's not how it works, gentlemen.
That is not how it works.

S3 (53:22):
Are you more likely if if you are going to
take heroin, are you more likely to get sick and
from heroin manufactured by the Comancheros or heroin manufactured? I
don't know.

S5 (53:35):
Because I wouldn't take I don't know because I would
not take heroin. However, how many, how.

S3 (53:39):
Many, how many, how many, how many.

S2 (53:41):
Galleries allow it, don't they?

S3 (53:42):
How many? I don't know how many. How many documented
cases were there of people dying from synthetic cannabis when
it was legal. Pick a number between 0 and 1.
So I believe.

S5 (53:53):
It was zero.

S3 (53:54):
Okay. How many people died from taking synthetic cannabis when
it was? When it was when it. When Peter Dunn
lost his nerve and made it illegal?

S5 (54:03):
I do not know the answer to the question.

S3 (54:05):
However, it's about it's about. It's about 60. Right. And
and that right there, Matthew. That that's the answer. That's
what I'm trying to get across. We are not.

S5 (54:13):
Talking about synthetic cannabis. We know you're wanting to talk
about class A drugs that have a significant detrimental effect
on not only our society but our lives.

S3 (54:23):
What is more detrimental than death?

S4 (54:25):
There was a dairy owner in Henderson who was murdered
by a 14 year old who was completely off his
brain on synthetics. So that's probably a number you didn't count.

S3 (54:35):
But hold on. But was he was he out of
was he out of his brain on synthetic cannabis before
or after synthetic cannabis was made illegal?

S4 (54:44):
I don't know, but he was a 14 year old
that was addicted.

S2 (54:46):
It's something it's something that that's.

S3 (54:48):
But that but that right there is is is. So
the answer to my question there was so important because
what what we what we're seeing is we we have
a 14 year old committing a violent crime on, on,
on synthetic cannabis. And so our reaction is we need
to ban synthetic cannabis, since the synthetic cannabis example is

(55:08):
so powerful because it shows what happens when the state says,
we are going to take a product that people are
going to consume, our children will consume drugs. We don't
want to admit that fact, but it's true. And and
if your child consumes synthetic cannabis made by a by
a pharmaceutical company, you might pick them up from the,

(55:29):
from the hospital. And that's bad, as.

S5 (55:30):
I did with cannabis as I.

S3 (55:32):
Did with cannabis.

S5 (55:33):
I would campaign wholeheartedly against the legalization of class A
drugs in this country, because I think it's the easy
option that we take when we don't want to face
the reality of what it's like to fight against these, these, these,
these meth induced class.

S2 (55:49):
But class B and class C should definitely be legalized. Okay. Comrades,
we must move on to issue four. We must move
on to issue four. Hold on.

S3 (55:55):
No, we have no time. The.

S2 (55:57):
Are we out? Yes. We got.

S3 (55:59):
Five minutes.

S2 (56:00):
Okay. Very quickly. The government this week. The government this
week embarked upon a U-turn. So sharp and so quick.
You would have missed it if you blinked with new
mums in Wellington, had the budget for a cup of
tea and a slice of toast after being giving birth.
Dumped because of cost cutting measures. Damien, other than you,
what sort of arsehole cuts the toast budget for mums
who have just given birth?

S3 (56:20):
Um, they should be given toast by the family members.
I don't know, of.

S2 (56:23):
Course I knew that, Maria, as these sorts of nasty
surprises are these sorts of nasty surprises of cuts going
to keep coming up from a public service who have
got no interest in helping the government.

S4 (56:33):
I think it was all a big misunderstanding, and a
couple of rounds of toast are not going to save
the health service.

S2 (56:38):
Uh, Matthew.

S5 (56:40):
I ballooned over a long period of time. If a
pregnant woman wants something, give.

S2 (56:44):
It to her.

S6 (56:45):
I mean, preach, preach. Yeah.

S2 (56:47):
We're gonna wrap the show. Final word. Damien grant. I've
been looking.

S3 (56:51):
At the odd situation of Gloriavale being debanked. My libertarian
instinct is that the BNZ doesn't want a bank gloriavale.
And they should not be obligated to. Um, but the
more I think about it, we don't have a free
market for banking. Banking is a highly regulated environment. If
there was one bank controlled by the state, I would
say that that bank would have no choice. They would

(57:11):
have to offer everybody banking services. So we're somewhere between
free banking and a banking monopoly. So I'm starting to
come down to the view that maybe, um, the BNZ
should allow Gloriavale to bank. Maria.

S2 (57:25):
Final word.

S4 (57:26):
I was sat in the High Court on Monday morning
as part of an application to get the interim receiver's
report in the Duval. Yes, management. We are awaiting the
judge's decision on that. I think that report should be
released for. I think Damien thinks it should be released too,
but for different reasons. He he thinks statutory management has

(57:48):
gone too far. I think they probably had very good
reason to, but I agree that we need to know why.
We need to know why they brought them in.

S2 (57:55):
Matthew.

S5 (57:56):
Final word. I think my final word is kotahitanga. I
said at the beginning, I said at the end there
is room in Kotahitanga for everyone. And I think with
the passing of the Maori king, it's an opportunity for
us to reflect on all these different debates that end
in silliness and madness. I've always said, and I'll maintain,
we are a country that's stronger together. Kotahitanga is the

(58:18):
answer to that. So let's just get on the same
waka and start pedaling. Preach.

S2 (58:24):
Any final word? Damien? Uh, we.

S3 (58:27):
Would like to thank our two guests. Sorry, I was just, um.
I don't have the, um. I think I know yours
at Slade Iving, which is, um, a lovely shout out
to your husband, If you like what Maria has got
to say, you can catch Maria at the Herald, NZME
and Matthew Tukaki. Um, it's always a pleasure to have

(58:50):
you on, son. I'm disappointed you were so wrong on drugs,
but that's that's okay. If you like what Matthew's got
to say, you can catch him at, uh, at weightier news.
And your Twitter handle is at.

S5 (59:02):
Matt, about to change to the mighty George Clooney. The mighty.

S3 (59:05):
George Clooney. All right, bomber, you've got 55 minutes.

S2 (59:08):
Panel. Loved, uh, panel loved Matthew. And, uh, Maria came
a quick second. Thank you, comrades, to my final word
this week. This month, we collectively enter the September effect
heading into Wall Street's crash zone. Historically, Wall Street has
had three of its largest meltdowns in September and October.
But commentators argue the stock market isn't suffering from irrational

(59:29):
exuberance this time, and that the Fed's promise of a
rate cut will keep markets happy. But chip maker Nvidia
shows signs of dangerous, irrational exuberance. And while the fed
has promised a rates cut, the geopolitical tensions this time
around with the possibility of a Trump election in November,
means that every bad faith actor from Putin to Iran

(59:52):
to she wants to cause external pressures, so an October
shock can't be ruled out. Now he is done with
the weather. That was the working Group, New Zealand's number
one weekly political podcast, not funded by New Zealand on air.
We'll see you Tuesday next week. Kia ora and cat. Bye.

S1 (01:00:08):
Well, that was New Zealand's greatest weekly political podcast, the
working Group. Not one minute of this show was funded
by New Zealand on air. Nope. No. Creamy. Public broadcasting
money for us. That was the working group.