Full Show Podcast: 11 September 2024

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
The only drive show you can trust to ask the questions,
get the answers by the facts, and give the analysis. Heather,
due to the Allen Drive with One New Zealand, Let's
get connected and you talk as they'd be.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Afternoon. Coming up on the show, Alan Lickman is the
man who has correctly predicted presidential elections for nearly four decades.
We're going to talk to him later on about who
he thought on that debate. Hawksbay Regional Council has been
found out for the flooding and wired Or We're going
to speak to Craig Little, the WIDO or May who
always thought they were at fault. And we'll also get
you across all the details of the Treaty Principles Bill,
which have now been released.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
Heather Dupless l Yes, on that debate.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
I don't know that debate is going to change very
many people's minds, largely because I think both of the
candidates were surprisingly good in some ways but also surprisingly
disappointing in others. We'll start with Donald Trump. Hey had
some clangers. I mean, probably the wackiest thing he said
was that illegal migrants in Ohio are stealing and eating
people's cats. And dogs, And when he was pressed on it,

(01:02):
he basically saw it on the news, Yes, sord on
the news, so he just started repeating it. Apparently isn't
true at all. But that's the kind of kooky thing
that goes viral. And it looks to me like he
is already grabbing the headlines after the debate with the
stupidest thing that he said in the debate. But then
if you're surprised, you know. On the other hand, if
you're surprised by Donald Trump saying something stupid, what rock
have you been living under? Please tell us voters I

(01:25):
think have already baked in his craziness. So I don't
know that him saying something crazy is going to change
anybody's mind about him, you know what I mean. And
actually he's surprised on the upside on some stuff. I mean,
he showed remarkable restraint in not talking over Karmala Harris
when he could have, and not having real personal cracks
at her when he could have. He is actually like him,

(01:47):
will hate him, a really good debater. He says what
he says, however, wacky, with quite a lot of conviction
and certainty, which I think goes a long way on
Karmala Harris. She has some really good moments. I would
say she had more good moments than he did. She
laughed at as particularly crazy stuff that worked really well
for her because it made him look even more crazy.
She was very passionate, very convincing on abortion and Roe

(02:09):
v Wade, but she was very weak on the economy
and her connection to Biden and their combined track record.
She did not defend that very well. And actually she's
a credible debater, but that's about it. She's not great.
I'd give her about a four out of five. She
looked quite a few times like she was trying to
remember what she was supposed to say. And as I've
said before, I've been thinking this a long time, and

(02:30):
I'm starting to feel like I'm going to be proven
right on this. She's not that charismatic. The thought of
her is actually better than her herself. Like thinking of
her and what she stands for is better than actually
seeing her or hearing her. She just isn't that fun
when you actually see her performing. So I don't think
there was a clear winner on this. I think if
you had to call one, you'd probably call it for KRMLA.

(02:51):
But like really close. You'd call it for Karmala because
she was the underdog who gave a credible performance, but
she didn't really knock it out of the park. So
I don't know. I don't think this is going to
change that many voters' minds.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
To Heather, do to see Alan.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
But anyway, Alan Nickman, who you know, is much more
experience than I am, and much more credible on this.
He'll be with us after five o'clock. Now, more than
fifty former Olympians have signed an open letter calling on
the government to rethink letting transgender athletes participate in women's
sports at the community level. The athletes, which include former
Olympians Barbara Kendall and also David Girard, said Sports New

(03:26):
Zealand's guidelines disregard the rights of female athletes and go
against scientific everness. Now David Gerard is also an emeritus
professor in sports medicine at Otago University.

Speaker 3 (03:34):
Hey, Dave, Hello, how are you?

Speaker 4 (03:37):
Heather?

Speaker 2 (03:38):
Very well and it's very nice to talk to you again. Now,
what is your concern about the participation of transgender women
at the community level.

Speaker 5 (03:47):
Well, my concern hasn't changed over the years, but I
think what has changed, Heather is the discussion we're having
now is a little bit different to the one we
would have had five years ago. And that's because there's
a lot more very convincing evidence and research out there
to show unequivocally that male bodied athletes, in other words,

(04:09):
athletes who have transitioned having had the benefit of male puberty,
will retain most of those benefits irrespective of whether they
take and gen suppressing drugs and reidentify as a woman.
In other words, if we're logically depending upon somebody's self

(04:32):
identification as the criterion for competition against females, then we're
ignoring the science, and I think we're being dismissive of
female athletes.

Speaker 2 (04:44):
Yes, okay, now you're not going to get an argument
out of me on that one. But I'd made a
distinction personally between what's going on at the professional or
elite level, where I think transgender women cannot compete against
against this gender women, but at the community level, I
was more relaxed about it. Am I wrong?

Speaker 5 (05:02):
No? I don't necessarily think you're wrong, and I think
the jury is still out on that. I guess the
question that's raised and we need some more clarity from
Sport New Zealand on This is where we draw the line.
If somebody meets the criteria and participates in community sport,

(05:23):
and it's everyone's prerogative, isn't it. The physical and psychological
benefits of exercise, everyone's right. But where do we how
far do we allow a trans athlete to progress if
they want to participate in a team sport where there
may be contact, physical contact and issues relating to danger

(05:44):
or safety. And then there's the fairness. I think these
criterias still apply even in a community sport level, and
I think that's the clarity that's needed by the swimming
clubs and the athletic clubs and the social clubs are
irrespective of the sport and the national sporting association we're

(06:05):
talking about.

Speaker 2 (06:06):
Okay, so do you think all of the things that
apply all of my objections at the elite level, which
is that you know, people body, people born into a
male body are better at competing, that they can throw further,
they can run faster, they can jump high. They've got
all of that advantage, but also the damage that can
be done to the female body. All of those things
that I see as problems at the elite level. You
see at community level as well.

Speaker 5 (06:28):
Well, I think it's it begins somewhere. I'm not, for
one moment trying to exclude trans athletes or transgender individuals
from participating, but I'm just trying to get some logic
to this. You know, how how far do you allow
somebody to go? And do you allow you know, male

(06:51):
bodied athletes to compete in collision sports or you know.
I mean, I just think there's a there's an issue
there that's all got to be addressed.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
Look, I think it's fair for you to raise it, Dave.
What do we do though? I mean, if you've got
there will be a number of trans women in the
community who will want to be able to do things
like play netball or rugby or box or whatever. So
if they can't do it with women who they identify with,
where do they do it.

Speaker 5 (07:20):
Well, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't participate, but I'm
just asking that we add some clarity to this and
people are open and honest about it. And if a
bunch of netballers or a women's rugby team says, yes,
we're quite happy to have athbet X play with us

(07:42):
or against us, then that's fine. I just think there
needs to be some common sense applied to something which
was ideological and.

Speaker 2 (07:53):
Give me your common sense. Though, don't pussy foot around
on this stave. Because you don't have to pussy foot
around on this particular program. We take everybody's opinions as
full noise as they come. So tell me what you think,
because you're the expert. Should trans women be competing against
naturally born women at the community sport level?

Speaker 5 (08:09):
Well, again, it depends on the sport we're talking about, yep.
And if they want to join a swimming club or
run athletically, or throw the discuss or put the shot.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
Yeah, you know.

Speaker 5 (08:25):
But what I'm more concerned about the issues relating to
physical contact in the same way you wouldn't get a
flyway or a band wad box are expected to see.

Speaker 2 (08:35):
You're talking about rugby, rugby league, boxing, those kinds of things.

Speaker 5 (08:40):
Collision, collision and contact sports. That's you know, I mean,
as a physician, that's where my consume would be.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
David, it's always good to talk to you. I really
appreciate it. Dave Gerard, former Olympian and emeritus professor and
sports medicine at Otago University. Nine two nine two is
the text number. You're welcome to ayan on that that
Boho dress. By the way, that Kate Middleton Warren her
video yesterday is already sold out. That'll surprise absolutely no one.
That woman could honestly, she could put a hat on,
like an old fashioned hat. We'll just go buy it out.

(09:07):
We'll be like latest fashion item. The dress was by
American label Veronica Beard. It was originally available to buy
for thirteen hundred New Zealand dollars, and yesterday, a few
hours after the video was out, it could still be
found at some retailers for maybe about six hundred and
forty bucks or something like that. Now sold out, you
ain't gonna find it anywhere. So if you didn't snap

(09:27):
it up already, sorry, you can't be in the Baho dress.
Seventeen past four.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
Digging deeper into the day's headlines, it's Heather Duper c
Allen Drive with one New Zealand one Giant Leaf for Business,
New Storks b or Sport with the new tab app
downloaded today RI eighteen bed Responsibly.

Speaker 2 (09:46):
Darcy water Grave sports stalk hosters with USA das Hello,
Heather so nav host Sterling tell us about the sky.

Speaker 3 (09:52):
Who have not heard of never host Sterling. Well, if
you're not in the fight scene, you wouldn't have done.
He has a kickboxer and he's moved to MMA works
for said he kickboxing gym, which is where Israel Dus
and Dan Hooker and Quikarta, France and all the rest
of them came from. He was over in the States
at a thing called the Contender Series, which is the
next level down from the UFC. Dana White the ampisary

(10:14):
of all of that. He watches this competition and then
awards contracts to the main event the UFC based on
what he's seen. So Never Sterling this afternoon where everyone
else is watching the Donal Trump bloke and the other bloke,
I was like, I'm going to watch some violence, and
so I watched that instead. And Latsu was the name
of his opposition, and second round he wiped him out
with an incredible left hook. He just cleaned his clock.

(10:38):
And afterwards, Adana Whites said, have been watching you. Your
big powerhouses are light heavyweights about six foot four. In
the old money, he is carved of granite. It looks
like he goggles marble. I mean this guy there's something
else and he has been accepted. They said we're giving
you a contract.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
Remarkable about his left hook was it wasn't it didn't
like there wasn't a massive drawback on that one. Ay,
he didn't sort of pull back and come and smash
it into the guy's face. He just kind of launched
it from a midpoint.

Speaker 3 (11:04):
And so you can tell that he has been because
I've been in here to show and go check this
out a lot of different angles.

Speaker 4 (11:09):
It was.

Speaker 3 (11:10):
It was quite something else. But he's been talked about
for a long time in the circles, especially up at
City Kickboxing, and now he's had his opportunity. I think
five and zer going into that as far as his
record so far in MMA, and he has proven that
he is something that they want to chase. So another
one from City Kickboxing.

Speaker 2 (11:28):
Breakers are going back to TV and Z which is
good for the Breakers, right because this will increase their
fan base, you'd think.

Speaker 3 (11:34):
So it's still going to be on Sky. It's still
going to be on ESPN because that's part of a
deal that the National Basketball League and Australia have with
the ESPN that their games are all shown. But now
Sky don't have to do it so they don't have
to pay for the production values because it's about eighty
thousand dollars a game to go on there and produce
a game on the floor. So they're not doing it.

(11:57):
They've worked because they also don't want to pay for
two things, right, they don't want to pay for the
breakers and then pay for the NBA and their ESPN coverage.
What's the point they're going to get the breakers? Anyways?
I was like, why we do this? Makes sense? So
TV and Z rolled and mel Robinson is going to
join us Tonight's talk.

Speaker 2 (12:11):
About TV and Z covering the production costs.

Speaker 3 (12:13):
We find out more about it when we talk to Malwaite.
They've got no money. Of course, they.

Speaker 2 (12:18):
Please press them on this because this is my big
concern about TV and Z getting into the free to
air sports is that it costs so much to produce
that I just worry that they're going to blow.

Speaker 3 (12:29):
They will be picking up what ESPN are doing because
ESPN have a contract with the NBL to provide that.
All they're doing is putting it on free to wear
on TV and Z Plus and on TV and Z
on Duke when they can because it does Clash sometimes
with the Super Smash, but it's always going to be
all the breakers games live and free on that playful,

(12:51):
which is great for sport in this country. That's slowly
but surely it's going back to the day. And I
was talking to Alex Pale, the digital editor of The
Hero before I said, are you any here? Remember of course,
you know way back when when pay TV started, and
was like, oh, there's no way it's eving. Going back
to Fredawear and you know what he said to me,
I'm a but younger than you, mate. I've never seen
freeda wear sport. It's TV ever since I can remember.

Speaker 2 (13:12):
Oh how good? Hey, thank you? Darcy. Okay, Darcy's back
seven o'clock for sports.

Speaker 3 (13:16):
Talk yep Mel Robinson joining us to talk about that
acquisition and what else may or may not go on?
What else we're going to buy? Have you got no
more money? You're going to answer that, can't you.

Speaker 2 (13:24):
No, They've got lots of money. We're gonna burn through it.
Darcy water Grave four twenty three.

Speaker 1 (13:29):
Digging deeper into the day's headlines, it's hither Duper c
Allen Drive with Fun New Zealand Let's get connected.

Speaker 2 (13:36):
And news Talk said, be oh, thank god, it's happened.
Taylor Swift has endorsed Kamala Harris. Thank god, because now
we can stop talking about it. Because honestly, if you've
been following what's going on in the newspapers, especially in
the last couple of days, it's got fever pitch about
whether Titay is going to endorse her or not. Because
she's been she's weighed in on previous elections, she hadn't
waded in on this one, and so some of the
newspapers were going completely spare, were nuts so over it.

(13:58):
One of them, I think it was The Guardian, was trolling,
trolling Taita and with the headline something along the lines
of is Taylor Swift secretly a Trump supporter? I mean
obviously not. But anyway, if what they were aiming to
do was pressure her into actually picking sides, it's worked,
and she's finally come out in support of Karmala Harris.
She's put on her Instagram a picture of herself with
a cat. Now that is relevant. Wait for it, she said,

(14:21):
Like many of you, I watched the debate tonight, I
will be casting my vote for Karmala Harris. And Tim
Waltz in the twenty twenty four presidential election. I'm voting
for Kamala Harris because she fights for the rights and
causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I've
done my research, and I've made my choice. Your research
is all yours to do, and the choice is yours
to make. With love and hope, Taylor Swift, Childless cat

(14:42):
Lady very good, very good, And if you don't know
what that's a reference to, just google Childless Cat Lady.

Speaker 6 (14:49):
JD.

Speaker 2 (14:49):
Varnson will tell you everything you need to know. On
the TV and Z, guys having more sport. By the way,
this is quite good for them because they've got a
cricket now, which is given to them by spar got
some of the netball now, they've got some of the basketball.
So this is the start of their play on the
free to air sport. Here the what the hell planet
are you on? Karmela is extremely charismatic and credible, unlike
that deranged, screaming fanatic heither. You'll clearly upset that Trump

(15:13):
didn't win. He's an idiot. Here the keep your left
wing crap at home. Here the Trump on that debate
hands down. He's got all the headlines on every media site.
Dan Dichinson with his thoughts, and Barry Sopa.

Speaker 1 (15:23):
Later the day's newsmakers talk to Heather First, Heather Dupless
Allen drive with One New Zealand let's get connected news
talk z Bean. Do you know.

Speaker 2 (15:43):
This' I've got some more bad news on everything going
on with the gas situation, of the energy situation, methodex
has just announced it's going to be cutting stuff. If
you heard Shane Jones this morning with Mike, he kind
of made passing reference to it. It was the first we
knew of it. I'm going to give you the details
as soon as I possibly can. On the debate, Dan
Mitchinson is going to talk to us about it. Barrizopa
has also been watching it, going to give us his

(16:04):
take on it. Alan Lichtman, Now, if you follow American politics,
you all know this guy's name. He has the thirteen
Keys to the election, right. He writes that up. He
has correctly predicted most presidential elections for the last four decades.
And he was watching the debate and I want to
know what his take on it is. Who he thought
one He's going to be with us after five o'clock.

(16:25):
The interesting thing about his thirteen keys is he's basically,
according to them, KRMLA wins right, So as far as
he's concerned, Karmla's going to win the election. His third key,
incumbency is quite an interesting one, though, And I want
to know how this works because he doesn't consider her
the incumbent, but you would argue that there's an element
of incumbency to her right because she's connected to Biden,

(16:46):
who is the incumbentc So anyway, well, and to my
point that Carmela isn't charismatic, he says she's not charismatic,
but then again he also says Donald Trump is not charismatic,
so he's been completely fair on it. He's with us
after five o'clock.

Speaker 4 (17:00):
Either.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
Harris clearly won that debate. When you look at the
context of uncertainty as to how she would perform, she
ripped into Trump brilliantly. James, thank you twenty four away
from five it's.

Speaker 1 (17:09):
The world wires on news talks, it'd be drive yes.

Speaker 2 (17:12):
So to that debate, there were personal attacks in both directions,
and do not worry, we will be playing you some
of those throughout the show. But there was also a
lot of policy stuff as well. Here's an early exchange
between the two candidates on the economy.

Speaker 7 (17:23):
Donald Trump actually has no plan for you because he
is more interested in defending himself than he is in
looking out for you.

Speaker 3 (17:31):
It's just a sum that you say.

Speaker 1 (17:34):
So.

Speaker 8 (17:34):
I went to the Wharton School of Finance and many
of those professors that our professors.

Speaker 9 (17:39):
Think my plan is a brilliant plan. It's a great plan.

Speaker 8 (17:41):
It's a plan that's going to bring up our worth.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
Anti will protesters have clashed with riot police outside a
weapons expo in Melbourne. Dozens of protesters have tried to
enter the convention center with the exposed being held. Paul
Dowsley of seven News is on the scene. Further down
here the fence has been breached and they were trying
to do it again here.

Speaker 4 (18:01):
So there is actually now if we come down where
Capsican Spray was before.

Speaker 9 (18:05):
Marl Capsigen Spray.

Speaker 10 (18:06):
So now instead of there being a fence, there is
just this line of police protesters here protecting.

Speaker 2 (18:12):
Themselves with greats and finally crash the party like a
record scratched as unders spreading this basically to give me
an excuse to play you some taite because I know
you love it. As you know, she's endorsed Karmela for president.
She said on Instagram that she wanted to set the
record straight because AI had falsely said she'd endorsed Trump,
and so she's encouraged Americans also to register to vote.

Speaker 1 (18:34):
International correspondence with Ends and Eye Insurance Peace of Mind
for New Zealand Business.

Speaker 2 (18:40):
Dan Mitchinson, US correspondence with US.

Speaker 11 (18:42):
Now Dan, Hello, Hey, can we just say what a
brilliant marketer Taylor Swift is releasing that just moments after
the debate came out?

Speaker 2 (18:51):
Well, yes she is, You're right, But what I wanted
immediately was does she take the headlines away from the
fact that Donald Trump said some stupid stuff and therefore
not really helped, like you know what I mean, Like,
would it have been bitter she did for twenty four
hours so he could really wallow in his pet's comment.

Speaker 11 (19:06):
Yeah, you're right. I guess she's probably gonna still a
little bit to you know, because she's hopped on the
bandwagon like that. But you know that the Harris campaign said,
we had no idea that she was going to do
this at all. At this point in time. There was
a lot of speculation that she was going to do it.
It was just when, not if.

Speaker 2 (19:22):
Yeah, let's be honest about it. Taylor's doing it for
Taylor's sake. This is not about helping Kamala. It's about
making Titay look good. Now, what do you think who
won the debate?

Speaker 11 (19:31):
I think, hands down it was Harris. It really was
interesting though. I had an insta pole on my ex
account right now and seventy eight percent thought that Trump
won the debate. And there were a few, including some
writers with Newsweek, who said that he won the debate
because they thought that that Kamala Harris was not authentic
and that the moderators David Mure and Lindsay Davis were

(19:53):
very biased and kind of short up Harris's performance. And
I have to agree, I was not impressed with the
with the moderators at all this this time.

Speaker 2 (19:59):
Why not? What did they they got? You goat?

Speaker 11 (20:01):
I thought they were well. First of all, I thought
they were very leaning towards Kamala Harris. I thought they
pushed more on the follow up questions when they did
do them, and it wasn't as often as they should
towards Donald Trump. And I thought that their questions just
weren't as solid as they could be.

Speaker 2 (20:18):
Yeah, that's probably fair. I suppose they corrected him a
couple of times factually, and not at all with her,
But then he was the one who is known to
be the liar. The thing that I think is that
she the thing that counted against her the most was
that her performance was only really about a four out
of five, because there were times where I felt she
sort of faultered and looked like she was trying to
remember what she's supposed to say. Did you pick up

(20:39):
on that?

Speaker 11 (20:40):
Yeah, I agree that. And I'm going to be listening
when Barry talks about this because I'll be anxious to
hear what he has to say about this. I think
she did do that. I think she seemed a little
nervous at first, but she was a lot more confident
overall than I expected. And I would have to say
she came in as an underdog, and she remained calm
a lot of the time, and I think a lot
of her previous district any experience, came into play here,

(21:01):
and she reminded me at times that she was almost
like she was talking to a jury. Whereas I think Trump,
for the first ten minutes or so, it was okay,
but then he was very angry. It was very off topic,
and he seemed to be grabbing at anything and everything.

Speaker 2 (21:13):
Yeah, and you know what, just the optics, like, just
when you looked at the Camra, just looked at what
was happening on your television screen. Here you had this
bright and sunny woman smiling, and you had this old
guy brooding and looking delicious.

Speaker 4 (21:25):
Yes.

Speaker 11 (21:25):
And the comment about eating pets when he was referring
to the Haitian immigrants eating the dogs and the pets
in Springfield, Ohio, I mean that's been confirmed. I don't
know how many times that that was not true, but
he said it, and it immediately started trending. And somebody's
going to make a fortune off mugs and T shirts
with that with that comment.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
But then, I don't think this changes anybody's opinion. I
think if you think that, if you want to vote
for Trump, you already know that he says lunatic stuff,
So it's not going to change your mind. And if
you want to vote for Karmala because of what she
stands for, her crappy performance, like her four out of
five performance, wasn't that crappy is also not going to
put you off, is it. No?

Speaker 11 (21:59):
I think I think if you're if you're a Trump
in the Trump camp right now, you're going to remain
in the Trump camp. If you believe in fracking, you're
gonna believe in fracking. If you are are for abortion
or against abortion, you're gonna your mind's already set on this.
It was just a chance to see how both of
these two would go head to head in what might
just be their only presidential debate between now and November.

Speaker 2 (22:17):
Milania tune up.

Speaker 11 (22:19):
She did not, which was interesting because they made an
announcement about two or three hours ahead of the debate
that she wasn't going to show up tonight. And of
course there was no audience there, which I think, honestly
and in the spin room afterwards, they were just even Republicans.
And this was a disaster for Trump, but I think
he would have played much better with an audience there.
And then of course you've got Milania who's also making

(22:40):
her headlines because she's she wants more to come out
assassination attempt against her husband and these videos that have
been released on social media. She's got a book that's
coming out. I got to tell you, though, these commercials,
this is just a very clever marketing campaign. It reminds
me of the old Elizabeth Taylor commercial that she used
to do for her perfume. I think it was called
White Diamonds. I mean, it's a very stylized kind of

(23:04):
campaign that she's doing. But it's all for this book
right now, and I think that got kind of pushed
to the back burner after the debate tonight.

Speaker 2 (23:11):
Yeah, hey, Dan, thank you. Has always really appreciate your time,
and good luck weathering the remaining weeks of this campaign.
That's Dan Mitchinson, the US correspondent who was watching it
for US. David Seymour's Treaty Principal's Bill is again in
the news with US today and the reason is a
couple of couple of reasons. The first one is it's
going to spend six months at Select Committee. Six months.

(23:36):
That is a long time for US to be talking
about the Treaty Principal's Bill at Select Committee. I mean, look,
it's apparently the standard time for things to go to
Select Committee, but most things that go to Select Committee up,
you know, not this contentious, right, So they have like
bubble along. It's Select Committee. You sort of dip in
and dip out every now and again. Maybe you get
like three or four news stories out of it. I

(23:56):
don't know. If you're lucky, you might get seven. Who knows.
This thing is going to be fiery from start to finish,
So it's going to be a long six months for
the National Party. I would say, I'm kind of I
have to be honest, I'm surprised the NATS have given
him six months on this. This is a big win
for David Symore because you don't have to have six months.
You could you could see it there for a day
and then shut it down that day. It's a liqimity bye,

(24:18):
bring it back. They have let him have the full
six months, which means they're going to white tonguey next
year with this thing still going on. So anyway, there
is more because they've released the final the final version
of what the principles will look like in the bill.
I'm run you through that as well. I'm Barry Soopers
with us next sixteen Away from.

Speaker 1 (24:36):
Five Politics with Centrics Credit, check your customers and get payments.

Speaker 2 (24:40):
Certain Barr Senior Political Correspondence with US at Barry Good afternoon.
I guess that you think that Kamala Harris will a debate.

Speaker 12 (24:46):
Oh, well, there's no guess, because you know that. I
do know that. I think you know the fact of
the matter is that the big question and the lead
up to this debate was was Carmela Harris going to
be a match for Donald Trump? The question She was
more than a match. She flawed the man. The man
was like a Joe Biden, sitting there grumpy and almost

(25:09):
looking as though he was going to sleep at times,
probably inwardly fuming. Though the moderators I heard Dan mention
about them pushing back against Trump, but they were being
sensible because he was talking so much rubbish that was
clearly disputable, and they on a couple of occasions disputed

(25:32):
what he had said before moving to Karmala Harris. But look,
here's bits of the debate edited by me Philly Heavily.

Speaker 8 (25:39):
Of course, her vice presidential pick, which I think was
a horrible pick by the way, for our country, because
he is really out of it. But her vice presidential
pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine.
He also says execution after birth, it's an execution, no
longer abortion because the baby is born is okay, and

(26:00):
that's not okay with me.

Speaker 11 (26:01):
There is no state in this country where it is
legal to kill a baby after it's born.

Speaker 7 (26:06):
Mount and Vice President want to get your response to
President Trump. Well, as I said, you're going to hear
a bunch of lies. And that's not actually a surprising fact.

Speaker 8 (26:13):
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in,
They're eating the cats, they're eating they're eating the pets
of the people that live there. Talk about extreme I
probably took a bullet to the head because of the
things that they say about me. They talk about democracy,

(26:35):
I'm a threat to democracy.

Speaker 7 (26:37):
What is important is that there is a president who
actually brings values and a perspective that is about lifting
people up and not beating people down and name calling.

Speaker 8 (26:50):
She went out in Minnesota and wanted to let criminals
that killed people, that burned down Minneapolis. She went out
and raised money to get them out of jail. She
did things that nobody would ever think of. Now she
wants to do transgender operations or illegal aliens that are
in prison.

Speaker 7 (27:08):
Donald Trump, the candidate, has said in this election, there
will be a bloodbath if this and the outcome of
this election is not to his liking. Let's turn the
page on this, Let's not go back. Let's chart a
course for the future here.

Speaker 2 (27:25):
Here to that, okay, guy, I mean what we were
hoping for was some political analysis. This way you can vote.

Speaker 12 (27:35):
Of course, I hope don't have a vote, but honestly,
you could have picked out so many more stupid things
that Trump said. I mean, I think he's lost it.
And you think Joe Biden on the last debate was bad,
I think Donald Trump was equally as bad, if not worse.

Speaker 2 (27:53):
Which is you actually, because you've been a long time
Donald Trump, you.

Speaker 12 (27:58):
Know, we here a Trump. I followed Trump in his
first campaign for the White House against Hillary Clinton, and
I've got to say, you know, I thought that Hillary
Clinton would beat him because I thought nobody could vote
a man that has thoughts like Donald Trump and as
an out and out misogynist and somebody that you wouldn't

(28:21):
have around your dinner table. But they did. They voted
him in, and the Americans were so loyal to him.
When I challenged a few of them, the terrorists who
were back here in New Zealand, I got my head
bitten off that Donald Trump was just amazing. While I'm sorry,
you know from where I said. I look at politics,
and I have done for many years. I have never

(28:42):
seen a person like Trump running for such an important office.

Speaker 2 (28:48):
Have you managed to look at the Treaty Principles bill,
the ones that have been agreed the Treaty Principles?

Speaker 12 (28:53):
Yeah, well no, I haven't looked at the bill, but
I heard you mentioning I've got audio, but I won't
play it because we're probably running out of time. Because
it was it came up in the House today and
David Seema, you'll be aware of the poll that was
taken earlier this year. It was a Curier poll that
showed to sixty two percent of Labor supporters were in

(29:13):
favor of the Treaty Principal's Bill and sixty sixty six
percent of National were in favor. So I was waiving
that about today when he was being questioned by Willie Jackson.
But look that six months select committee time. That can
be cut back quite easily because the National Party will
chair the committee that considers it. But if they've run

(29:36):
out of submissions, it's going to be very hard for
them to extend it.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
Run out of submission.

Speaker 12 (29:43):
Well, you know, somebody very senior in Parliament told me
the other day that he thought probably four months. But
even at four months, all right, time it'll go over
the go over White Tangy weekend and that'll you know,
there'll be problems up at white Tangy because of it.
So certain he is causing a few problems, there's no
doubt about that.

Speaker 2 (30:01):
I'm fascinated that he's managed to get this one over
the line for that long. From the nets.

Speaker 12 (30:05):
Well, you know it's its form when a bill is
referred to a select committee. Six months. Six months is
the time that's written. But you know it can be sure,
it can be longer. But you know they're giving him
what is expected of a bill when it goes to
a select committee.

Speaker 2 (30:22):
Barry, thank you very much, really appreciate it, very so
for senior political correspondence coming up eight away from five,
putting the.

Speaker 1 (30:28):
Tough questions to the newsmakers, the mic asking breakfast.

Speaker 13 (30:31):
So outside the powerscrapt the mill closure, massive blow of
course for regional New Zealand, two hundred and thirty jobs
just like that, so that old regions in real trouble.
The Minister of for Regional development of the Associate Energy
Minister as well Shane Jones.

Speaker 10 (30:41):
As with us, one thing we can control as the
structure and the competitiveness of our power prices each Jim
Taylor's who quite frankly have ruled over various governments, intimidated
them and look, do you want an economy where the
price of power is internationally competitive to keep businesses functioning?
Or do you want to disemvalue economy and turn it into.

Speaker 14 (30:58):
An important model.

Speaker 10 (31:00):
I don't want that, which is why Sime and Brown
and I are signing off the criteria. But the review
of the power sector will involve structural separation.

Speaker 13 (31:07):
Back tomorrow at six am, the mic asking breakfast with
the Jaguar f pace used talk ZB right.

Speaker 2 (31:12):
This is the news on meth and X five away
from five. By the way, METHA and X. This is
terrible news for the regions of New Zealand. Read the
energy prices and what's going on with gas. Meth and
X is now going to shed staff and it's going
to move from a two plant operation to a one
plant operation. It says for the foreseeable future. But you
know how these things work. Once they shut them down,
they ain't coming back at the moment, they have everything

(31:35):
shut down basically until the end of next month because
they've sold the gas remember to Contact Energy and Genesis
Energy basically to keep the country's lights on. They are
now consulting on returning to a smaller operation with fewer
roles than just one plant with the other indefinitely idled.
Now this is really bad news, unfortunately for Taranaky, because Taranaki,
I mean, honestly, that was a very prosperous region pre

(31:59):
twenty seventeen and it is now really suffering. I mean,
I think still there's still obviously some prosperity going on there,
but it's really suffering and it's going to take a
blow with this one. We're going to talk to Neil Holden,
the local mayor. He'll be with us quarter past quarter
past five or half past five. Lord, everything's changing on
us as the show goes on, because there's so much
happening at the moment, So half past five he's going
to be with us on that situation. Wide or another

(32:23):
region that's having a bit of trouble. Slightly vindicated and
Wide are because hawks. They remember they were saying that
the reason that they flooded in June was because Hawk's
Bay Regional Council. Who are we're faster developing the impression
they're a bunch of numpties. They didn't go and clear
the bar, remember the sand bar ahead of the storm,
so all the water backed up and flooded the town.
Mike Bush, old sexy police commissioner has formerly still sexy though,

(32:47):
has done the investigation. What it's an objective statement, isn't he?
I mean, come on, point to another one that was
as sexy as that anyway in my very good as
job as well, which is the most important thing uses
of freaking out anyway. So whatever, So he went and
had to look at it, and he found out, Yeah,
kind of surprising that they weren't actually clearing the bars.
So we have a chant to the wider woman at

(33:11):
some stage, it's gonna calm down now, talk.

Speaker 1 (33:14):
You soon, pressing the newsmakers to get the real story.
It's hither duplessy Ellen drive with one New Zealand let's

(33:34):
get connected news dog said.

Speaker 9 (33:36):
Be they're eating the dogs, the people that came in.

Speaker 8 (33:47):
They're eating the cats, they're eating they're eating the pets.

Speaker 7 (33:52):
When we listen to this kind of rhetoric, when the
issues that affect the American people are not being a
I think the choice is clear.

Speaker 9 (34:02):
In this election.

Speaker 8 (34:03):
She wants to confiscate your guns and she will never
allow frakin.

Speaker 7 (34:06):
In Pennsylvania, people start leaving his rallies early out of
exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one
thing you will not hear him.

Speaker 2 (34:14):
Talk about is you.

Speaker 8 (34:15):
All I can say is I read where she was
not black. I'll say that, And then I read that
she was black, and that's okay.

Speaker 7 (34:24):
I intend to be a president for all Americans and
focus on what we can do over the next ten
and twenty years to build back up our country by
investing right now in you, the American people.

Speaker 15 (34:37):
What these people have done to our country and they're
destroying our country. The worst president the vice president in
the history of our country.

Speaker 2 (34:47):
So Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are faced off in
their first presidential debate. Now, Alan Lickman is the name
many will know. He's correctly predicted almost every US election
outcome in four decades. He was watching the debate. Ellen Hallow, Hello,
So it's very good to talk to you. Was there
an obvious winner there for you?

Speaker 14 (35:05):
Oh?

Speaker 16 (35:06):
I thought it was crystal clear that Harris was the winner,
not that she was so great. She was good, maybe
very good. Trump was abysmal. He got baited by Harris
time and time again to get off focus, talk about
crowd size, people leaving his crowd the Central Park five

(35:28):
and you know when he was really right in calling
for their execution. You know, his handlers had been constantly
telling him focus on the economy. Tell us, you know,
your plans for the economy wasn't there. And you know,
no matter what the question was, he went off and
off and on about immigration. You know, he was even asked,

(35:53):
you know, for nine years you said you're going to
come up with a healthcare plan concepts. How are you
going to end the Ukraine War? He didn't have an answer.
How are you going to deport eleven to twelve million
undocumented Immigrants's not as if they all live in communities
with a big sign undocumented immigrants live here. They're mingled
in with the general population. You'd have to demand proof

(36:17):
from tens of millions of Americans. No answer to that.
And I think the one thing that people will remember
from Trump, because it was so off the rails, so insane,
is this idea of immigrants eating people's pets. People can
relate to that. You know, the details of policy can
go over people's heads, but people know just how nutty

(36:40):
and how crazy that was. And you know, Trump spoke,
had a lot more speaking time than Harris, but you
know it was it was rambling and off topic. He finally,
in the last few seconds of the debate made a
very strong point, and that is, all right, You've got
all these wonderful plans. Why haven't you implemented them in

(37:03):
the three and a half years you're in office. That came,
you know, in the eleventh hour and fifty ninth minute
of the debate, and you just got lost. That would
have been a very good theme instead of all this
off topic stuff for Trump to develop.

Speaker 2 (37:19):
I thought, Ellen, you make some very good points, But
do you think this is going to change anybody's vote.
If you love Kamala, you're going to stick with Camelin.
If you love Trump, You're gonna stick with him, aren't you.

Speaker 16 (37:29):
That's that's not true. First of all, I made my
prediction deliberately before this debate that Harris would be the
first women president of the United States, because I did
not believe events of the campaign influence the outcome, and
certainly there was nothing about this debate that would shake

(37:53):
the prediction that before the debate, right, So in that's sense,
and I thought it. You know, it was important that
Harris didn't have a complete meltdown, or far from it.
You know, the much more of a meltdown was by Trump.

Speaker 2 (38:11):
Yeah, well, I think that was the point I was
trying to make. The debate is not really going to
change anyone's mind, is it. I want to ask you though,
about your keys, Ellen, because this is particularly fascinating this
time around your third key of your thirteen, which is
about incumbency. You are considering Kamala Harris not the incumbent.
But this is a little bit tricky this time, right,

(38:31):
because she's not the incumbent, but she's tied to the incumbent,
isn't she.

Speaker 16 (38:35):
Well, we've had vice presidents running before. George J. W. Bush,
Robert Reagan's vice president ran in nineteen eighty eight, Richard Nixon,
Dwight Eisenhower's vice president ran in nineteen sixty. They don't
get the key. The key is binary. The sitting president
is running is needed to turn that key in favor

(38:59):
of the encore. But I don't freelance. I don't attempt
to second guess. If you're going to use my system,
you've got to stick to how the keys are defined
and not try to put your own gloss on them.
If you want to do that, develop your own system,
I welcome it.

Speaker 2 (39:16):
Ellen. Also, am I reading this right? But you do
not consider either of these two to be charismatic?

Speaker 16 (39:22):
That's correct. And again, don't get hung up on the word.
You've got to read my book Predicting the Next President,
which I carefully define the meaning, and that is to
win this key if you're the incumbent, or to turn
it against the incumbent if you're the challenger. You have
to be one of those once in a generation inspirational,

(39:47):
transformational candidate across party lines. The iconic examples are Franklin
Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Whatever you may think of Harris,
he's not a Franklin Roosevelt. Now we know Trump is
a sh but he doesn't fit the definition of the
key because he only appeals to a narrow base. Unlike
Reagan or FDR, who won six elections and landslides, Trump

(40:11):
lost the popular vote in two elections combined by ten
million votes, and his approval rating in four years as
president was forty one percent, right at the bottom historically
of all presidents. So appealing to a narrow base, however
much you do so, does not fit the definition of
the key.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
Allan, it's good to talk to you, really respect you work.
Thank you so much. It's Ellen Lickman, us historian who
is predicted, as I said earlier, almost every single US
election correctly in the last four decades.

Speaker 9 (40:39):
Heather due to see Alan hither.

Speaker 2 (40:41):
I work in you Plymouth. I'm in a support industry
to agriculture, transport and the energy sector. I am literally
on gardening leave next to no work breakdowns, et cetera.
Coming through. I expect to lose my job. That's from
Don We got a statement from Methodis, and I've got
to be honest with you. Looks like they're going to
shut the whole thing down in this country. At some stage.
You'll get you across that shortly. It's coming up quarter past.
Every once in a while, there's a company that makes

(41:02):
an impact so large it changes entire interest industries. Enter
byd right at this point, from humble beginnings as a
battery maker in nineteen ninety five. BYD has exploded into
a titan with eight hundred thousand employees. And they're not
just in your pocket with phone batteries anymore. They're on
your streets with buses, they're in your factories with forklifts,
and they even kept you safe during the pandemic as

(41:23):
the world's largest mask producer. For BYD, it's all about
engineering and the environment. And here's the kicker. BYD is
an engineering powerhouse. Picture this Toyota. The current auto king
has sixty thousand engineers. BYD one hundred and three thousand
engineers and counting, and they're cranking out fifteen new patents
every single day. So it's no wonder their cars are

(41:46):
turning heads. BYD isn't just riding the wave of the future,
they're actually creating it. If you're curious about this, you
want to dive into the BYD revolution at BYD Auto
dot Co dot NZ. The future is charged and ready
ever duplicy Ellen teen past five now. Mike bush Lad
review into the response to the wide ware flood has
found that Hawks Bay Regional Council really needs to Bucket's

(42:07):
ideas up. Remember how the locals and Widewall were saying
that the flooding was the council's fault because the council
hadn't cleared the sandbar. Well, this review says, it's actually
surprised the bar wasn't cleared regularly. Craig Little is the
mirror of white Oi and with us. Now, hey, Craig, hi,
how are you? I'm very well, thank you? Do you
feel vindicated?

Speaker 4 (42:24):
Oh?

Speaker 17 (42:24):
Look, I'm fessed a little bit relieved. The command has
been a big journey for us, and we doubt our
sales every day, but we knew that we were right.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
It hasn't completely blamed the council though, for this flooding event.
Has it.

Speaker 17 (42:36):
Well, there's three things that we're not happy about, and
that's the highest well, the high spring tie and the
high waves. We can completely categorically say that it's not
true that it is just a yearly, annual event, and
we have the facts and figures to prove that. So
that's the only thing that goes against it. But everything else,
if those three weren't there, it's a combination of four things. Well,
actually it's only a combination one thing, and that's the

(42:58):
river mouth the bar.

Speaker 2 (43:00):
Yeah, now, it's pretty it is pretty scathing of the
fact that these guys at the hawks Bury Reginal Council
should be clearing out that bar more regularly and should
be listening to what you people are saying. So do
you think anything's actually going to change?

Speaker 17 (43:11):
Look, I've heard. Look, the biggest thing is the id
apology I've been asking for for quite some time. Is
that going to happen now? And I guess that's number one?
NeSSI they all have got to say the sorry, you know,
and actually have a bit of empathy for all the
poor people that are still suffering. And so that'll be
a big one for me. But some big improvements have

(43:31):
to happen.

Speaker 2 (43:33):
Yep. Do you have confidence?

Speaker 17 (43:35):
Not at the stage. No one's runging me from the
Regial Council or anything really except to say that they're
going to have a release and wire on the Friday
because they've got their own three reports as well.

Speaker 4 (43:44):
Don't forget.

Speaker 17 (43:45):
Yeah, And totally different to the Mike Busch. Mike Bush did,
I think did a wonderful job and like say, there's
only three things that the three things that he referred
to Tonkin and Taylor that happens to be a Regial
Council report and the things we don't agree on. But
he had a very short time frames, so he did
do well.

Speaker 2 (44:03):
Craig, thank you. I really appreciate your time and how
generously being at the moment. That's Craig Little, Mayor of
wider Way. So look, as I was telling you, we've
got more details on the treaty principles build the full
the three proposed principles. The full three proposed principles have
now been released and they are much much much bigger
than what was originally suggested by the act Party. Basically,

(44:23):
the first three the first version of this was just
one line for each. This is much more comprehensive. The
second the second set of principles based on the Second Treaty.
The second article of the treaty is the most contentious
one really, so one that's getting all of the resistance.
This is what it is. It's the headline is rights
of Hapoo and Ewe Maori. The Crown recognizes the rights
that Hapoo and e We had when they signed the treaty.

(44:45):
The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights
differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to
enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, treaty settlements,
or other agreement with the crown. So basically saying, everybody's
got the same rights to property in Taunga and whatever else,
except four when those rights are specified in legislation, in

(45:07):
treaty settlements or other agreements with the crown. Now, I
feel like that will go somewhere to neutralizing some of
the more rational disagreement with the treaty Principal's bell. But
if you just hate it because you hate it, you're
going to continue to hate it. We're going to speak
to Helmet Modlick of Nazi Tour after half past six.
It's five twenty two.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
The name you trust to get the answers you need
Heather duple c Allen drive with one New Zealand let's
get connected and news talk.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
As that'd be Heather, I thought Krmala Harris's best moment
was her comments on the disaster created by division by
race and her intention to make the US one people. Mary,
thank you, coming up. What's actually twenty four past five?
Now listen, here we are again and we're having the
debate in the papers and in the beehive and in Parliament.
About whether Wellington is dying. It's not a new debate,

(45:54):
but it's cropped up again, and this time it's been
sparked by all of the closures in the city in
the last few weeks. Pandoro, which we talked about on Friday,
and Egmont Street Eatery and Evit Thomas, Evit Edwards, the
Florist and so on. Is much bigger list than that,
But that's just the most recent. Opinion is divided as
you would expect. Nikola Willis, local Wellington MP, says no,
it's not dying. But I suspect she knows the truth.

(46:17):
She's just saying that because she doesn't want her government
to be blamed for it, because they've done all the
public sackings which are hurting the city at the moment.
Young Wellington residents who want a more vibrant place to
live they say, yeah, it is dying when you ask them,
And a political writer at The Herald who lives there suggested, no,
Wellington's not dying. It just feels sorry for itself because
of the sackings and so on. Look, I'll be honest
with you, this is not even up for debate.

Speaker 6 (46:38):
For me.

Speaker 2 (46:38):
I'm very clear on this one. Absolutely, Wellington is dying.
It's a fact. It's been dying for decades. And when
John Key said it eleven years ago and copped a
lot of criticism for it and backtracked a bit, he
shouldn't have because it's actually right, it was dying. People
who are looking at the unemployment numbers over the last
year at the moment, or the house prices over the
last year, all blaming the government for the sackings, they
missed the point entirely. Wellington isn't dying because of the

(47:00):
public sackings that are going on at the moment, or
the homeless people that the Council and the previous government
have crammed into the central city and the emergency hotels,
or it's not even dying because of the diggers that
appear to have been sitting on Taranaki Street in the
Central City for what feels like a year now. Wellington
was dying a long time before all of this. Wellington
has been dying since the big corporates left decades ago.

(47:22):
It used to be the city where the banks and
the big corporates at headquarters and from Terrors based and
all those guys. It was the big place in New Zealand.
It isn't anymore. Everybody's left for Auckland, right. You spend
a weekend in Wellington and then spend a weekend in
Auckland and it's going to leave you an absolutely no doubt.
Wellington's lost its buzz. It will never die completely. As
long as it is the seat of government and where

(47:43):
the public sector is and where Peter Jackson chooses to
live and work, it will always have something going on.
But it is getting smaller, it is getting less vibrant,
and it is going backwards when the rest of us
are all pushing ahead and going forwards. And nowadays the
bigger problem for Wellington is that it's not just competing
against Auckland and christ and it's now competing against Melbourne
and Sydney and Singapore in a world that is so

(48:04):
much more connected. And when young people can live anywhere
in any one of those places, why would they choose Wellington?
Why would they say that Wellington beats Melbourne or Wellington
beat Sydney. I'm sad to say this about a city
that I've loved living in, But if you had to
choose between any of these places, you would not choose Wellington,
would you ever do?

Speaker 1 (48:22):
For see, Ellen, I have got.

Speaker 2 (48:24):
To tell you about the You know, I tell you
all the time that Wellington City Council is stupid, But
when you hear the evidence that I've got this time around,
it's going to be slam dunkn you. If you even
sort of like sitting on the fence or vacillating on this,
you will one hundred percent agree with me. You just
wait to hear that very good news. Can I just
say that Kmart is opening a store at Auckland's Westgate.

(48:44):
Well done Westgate, scoring yourself a Kmart. It's going to
be the biggest Kmart store in the country, six seven
hundred square meters twenty four hours it'll be open, which
is a bit over the top, but I just want
to throw a big so who to Kmart because I
went there today to buy kid's shoes twelve bucks as

(49:05):
opposed to the other ones I was buying at eighty bucks.
So yeah, Kmart's doing well for itself, isn't it.

Speaker 1 (49:10):
Headline's next on your smart speaker, on the iHeart app
and in your car on your drive home. Hither duple
c Allen Drive with one New Zealand let's get connected
and you talk asz'd.

Speaker 2 (49:24):
Be hebe aging population. Now, this is the thing that
we've been talking about a lot, just as a bunch
of people, you know, citizens, policymakers, people who are interested
in the news, investors are starting to make what probably
half age has actually been making decisions about this. Debra

(49:46):
Lamby's going to talk us through. She's off Milford Asset Management.
She will be with us in about forty five minutes
or thereabouts. Hither you are wrong this and starting with
the previous council this is in Wellington, have been ruining Wellington.
They've made a hostile environment and an absolute mess with
the bike lay. It remind me to tell you about
the bike thing, the stupid decision from the council. They
run in front of people's homes where they can't even

(50:07):
park outside their own house.

Speaker 6 (50:08):
Listen.

Speaker 2 (50:09):
I agree that the current council in Wellington is accelerating
the decline of the city, but the current council and
the previous council under Justin Lester and the previous council
under Celia Wade Brown are not to blame for the
situation entirely that they find themselves in. What happened is
all the big corporates left yoonks ago and went to
a brighter, sunnier, warmer place called Auckland. And what properly

(50:31):
happened is they took a whole bunch of rational voters
with them, and a whole bunch of people who cared
about money and understood how money worked. And when all
those voters went away, they just left all these other
like loonies in Wellington voting in a green council all
the time? Can that maybe be part of the problem?
Twenty three away from six ether Do for Sea, Ellen's
more bad news, unfortunately for Central North Island regions. In

(50:52):
the last hour method X has announced it's planning to
scale down its operation. It's going to cut staff and
it's going to move from two plants down to one.

Speaker 1 (50:59):
Now.

Speaker 2 (50:59):
This is, unfortunately, just one day after Windstone announced it's
going to close its two mills in Little a Pea.
Who district New Plymouth Mayor Neil hold Them is with
me on this, hey.

Speaker 4 (51:07):
Neil, gooday Neil.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
There were rumors right, and they've been doing the rounds
for a little while. Did you see this coming?

Speaker 10 (51:15):
Oh?

Speaker 18 (51:16):
Look, we saw this coming in twenty eighteen with the
last government's flawed energy policy. This is a direct and
logical consequence. It was always going to happen. We told
them it would happen. Our omissions are going up and
New Zealand manufacturers are suffering. And what astounds me is
that in the face of you know, basically this is

(51:38):
a policy which is going to shut down New Zealand manufacturing.
That And I went and spoke with Chris Haipkins and
Meghan Woods and Labor and said, come on, you've seen
the evidence. Kat, can you actually change your policy. Let's
find a middle way, work with the opposition, I mean,
work with the government, and let's get out there and

(51:59):
get some gas and get people working again and we
can get emissions down. And the response I got is
it's a bottom line, we're not going to change.

Speaker 2 (52:06):
Well is the gas to get though? Because I mean,
I am very sympathetic to your argument. But Richard Tweedy,
formerly of Toddy Energy, spoke yesterday to Business disconced there
just isn't gays. We're running out.

Speaker 18 (52:17):
Well, the reality is we've had since since twenty eighteen,
the incentives to go looking for it haven't been there.
We've you know, that there was some work done to
chase after you know, the stuff that was already kind
of in development. But you know, we know that if
we were out looking and looking hard and there was
a long term, you know, a positive, long term outlook

(52:40):
that that I sort of went through the electoral cycles.

Speaker 19 (52:44):
That there would be more gas out there.

Speaker 18 (52:46):
But the reality is the last government wanted to turn
off the tap. And you know what astounds me. I
saw the unions in terms of the mills having a
crack at the current government. But they need to be
asking these politicians that they support, well, what's your policy
going to do for us? Because don't think this is
the last one.

Speaker 4 (53:06):
I mean, the.

Speaker 18 (53:07):
Dairy workers were at their just Transition event and I said,
how are we going to dry millions and millions of
leaders of milk power milk every year during the flush
and keep everybody working in the dairy factories if the
price of energy goes through the roof? And how are
we going to keep our emissions down if we're replacing
gas with coal? And you know the answer I got

(53:29):
was are you know that? That's a good question, Neil,
But we're not sure that there's a future for the
dairy industry anyway, and it was like you what, yeah.

Speaker 2 (53:38):
Cookie Staffe, what's it going to do this methan X decision?
What's this going to do to your region?

Speaker 18 (53:43):
Look, it's it's that there's I think, you know, potentially
around seventy good hard working Kiwis are going to lose
their jobs, and they're really good jobs at metics. They're
well locked. After the other thing is met Necks has
historically anchored the gas expiration in New Zealand because they
basically say, we'll buy everything that you can produce. So

(54:05):
it's good that methodics have said we're still going to
you know, we're still hanging on by our fingernails, and
there is an opportunity for the opposition to step up
and say to New Zealanders we're going to put our
you know, we're going to put our country before our
party political objectives and do the right thing. And that's
you know, I've asked for another meeting with presciptions. He's

(54:28):
shown that he can be pragmatic and I have you know,
confidence that eventually, if you know, if people see the
evidence of poor decision making, eventually they will change their minds.
So that that really is what we need and then
I believe that, you know, with the with both sides
of the House committing to an energy policy that keeps
New Zealanders in work and allows us to manufacture, that

(54:52):
we will be able to attract investment and find more
gas and then we don't need to import Indonesian cold.

Speaker 4 (54:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:59):
Well, very good argument, Neil, Thank you. Neil hold him
new Plymouth mayor.

Speaker 1 (55:03):
The Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's international realty, unparalleled reach
and results.

Speaker 2 (55:09):
On the huddle with me this evening, we've got Jack Tame,
host of Q and A and Saturday Mornings here on
z'd be hello Jack, Hey, and we're supposed to have
Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union, but Jordan, it turns out,
has Jordan has notifications silenced on his phone.

Speaker 6 (55:24):
So look, we know what Jordan would We know roughly
what Jordan would say, right, I know that?

Speaker 8 (55:30):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (55:31):
Do you want to be.

Speaker 6 (55:31):
Jordan and I'll be me?

Speaker 2 (55:32):
Or can I be you and you be Jordan?

Speaker 14 (55:34):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (55:34):
Honestly.

Speaker 2 (55:36):
Heather then asks who won the debate and Jack goes, oh, Carmela,
hands down.

Speaker 6 (55:41):
You know Jack, Jack doesn't think hands down?

Speaker 2 (55:45):
Can I can I go back to being Jack and
it's much better.

Speaker 6 (55:48):
I reckon, No, I reckon you won, but I reckon
that like confirmation bias plays such a big role in
all things. So many analysts watch this stuff and go like, oh, yeah,
look at Karmala Watcher and you've got you've really got
to try and put yourself in the position of a
Trump voter or of someone who I can't believe there's
anyone still in this position who hasn't made up their

(56:10):
mind heading into November's election. So yeah, I reckon tem
Harris will be happier than Team Trump tonight, but I
reckon they shouldn't be too happy because I reckon she
actually stumbled on a couple of big things. So the
first of all, the very first question of the night was,
can you say, Carmala Harris to the American people that
economically they are better off today than they were four

(56:31):
years ago when you and Joe Biden took the White House?
And I thought she was super super weak.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
Didn't come.

Speaker 6 (56:39):
Yeah, you shoudn't, shuldn't come close to answering the question.
But also I just thought she looked really nervous and
she didn't really have a coherent answer to that, and
you've got to remember that when it comes to policy,
the American voters say the issue they care about most
at the moment is the economy, ahead of immigration, ahead
of abortion rights. It's the economy, it's the cost of living,
and I reckon she's still pretty weak on that. That

(57:01):
being said, she obviously got more confident throughout the debate,
and every time Trump went off on one of those
trumpy and tangents and was kind of speaking semi coherently
at best, it obviously suited Kamala Harris. And I think
he just took the bait probably more times than he
should have. Instead of just saying, you know, he should
have every single answer, he should have just said, looked

(57:22):
at the camera and said, ask yourself this, Are you
better off today than you were four years ago? Are
you better off today than you were four years ago? Instead,
he was talking about eating cats and dogs, he was
talking about executing fetuses at nine months. He was talking
about some pretty wild stuff. And I don't think that helped.

Speaker 2 (57:38):
Him so because I agree with you that that pretty
much everybody will have made up their mind and they
will see the winner that they want to see in this.
Then the question is okay, how do you win the election?
And the only way that you win the election if
everybody's made up their mind, is whether you can mobilize
enough of your voters as opposed to the other side.
Which of them is going to be the mobilizer.

Speaker 6 (57:58):
Well, I think it'll comes down to election momentum. And
if you think about the momentum of the last six
to eight weeks, it's very much been in the democrats favor.
I mean, it is kind of remarkable tonight that in
a debate that was almost one hundred minutes long, I
think there was one sentence that reference to Donald Trump's
attempted assassination, Like that's crazy that that happened in July

(58:22):
and it barely featured in that debate tonight. I mean,
he was shot in the air and it barely featured tonight.
But it just speaks to how the momentum has shifted.
And you know, when you think about not only the
performance tonight, in the fallout and you know everyone is saying, oh,
maybe Carmela had it or whatever, you know, and think
about Taylor Swift's endorsement, like, I don't think there are
people who were on the fence who are now going

(58:46):
to be supporting Karmala Harris because Taylor Swift is endorsing her.
But I do think Taylor Swift endorsing her helps her
with momentum. And the more momentum that Carmala Harris has,
the more likely she is to actually get people to
the polls, which.

Speaker 2 (58:59):
Were moment minds, the little ones to go out and vote.
All right, listen, we've got Jordan on the phone. But
I'm going to punish Jordan by just waiting some more.
So we'll come to Jordan shortly. Quarter two.

Speaker 1 (59:10):
The Huddle with New Zealand Southerby's International Realty exceptional marketing
for every property.

Speaker 2 (59:16):
It's slow the mark. They're back with the Huddle, Jack
Tame and Jordan Williams.

Speaker 14 (59:19):
Hello, Jordan, I'm never going to want to just down there?

Speaker 2 (59:23):
What were you doing?

Speaker 14 (59:25):
I can report the wine bar on Woodward Street in
Wellington does not have reception for spark, but it does
have reception for one. And you happen to call my
business partner who was sitting next to me in his
sign rang and mind didn't.

Speaker 2 (59:39):
This is how we work on this show. We know
everything about.

Speaker 14 (59:41):
How we don't know how you knew who I.

Speaker 2 (59:43):
Was to find your phone off with us. We've got
spies everywhere we are the s I s no, Jordan, listen,
thank you for for well, thank you for obviously being
with somebody we know that you would be with. So
thank you for being predictable.

Speaker 14 (59:59):
I think you'll produce deserves a chocolate bush for that.

Speaker 2 (01:00:02):
But yes, German spy who won the debate?

Speaker 14 (01:00:05):
Oh, very clearly, camel this, I mean, Trump was very predictable,
whereas we, I mean we were all I think waiting
to see if Kamala Harris actually had some substance, and
she delivered. I mean, she's not my politics, but she
was impressive and considered string arguments together in a way
that clearly Donald Trump didn't he couldn't. There's lots of

(01:00:27):
assertions that as classics oft Donald Trump. I mean, it
is totally agree with Jack. It is just incredible to
think what where we were post assassination attempt. It looked
to be in the bag. How in the space of
what six weeks things can change. It would take now,
I think a pretty big October surprise, which is the

(01:00:48):
sort of the chan's always something that up ends the
election or changed the momentum to sort of to sort
of change the direction of travel. I would have.

Speaker 2 (01:00:58):
Thought, Jordan, you managed to see the way that David
Seymour has rewritten those treaty principles.

Speaker 14 (01:01:05):
Yeah, I mean, is it going to diffuse the critics. Yeah,
there's two ways to look at it. The first is
that it more accurately reflects the treaty, and that is that,
you know, our Article two of the treaty around E
we were guaranteed to Artaker. On the other hand, I
thought the whole point of the Treaty Principle's bill was

(01:01:28):
to down the debates that actually Article two simply guarantee
to EWE what it was the default in English law
that you know, self determination writes your property, et cetera,
et cetera. So it depends on the one hand, the
critics of the bill should actually be you know, jumping
to joy. It more accurately reflects what the treaty was about.

(01:01:50):
On the other hand, is it a capitulation from Act
and that even if it now passed, would it continue
to give the judiciary a license for special treatment? They've
sort of lost the principal stance. Yeah. So the point
is it depends on the way you look at it.
I think reasonable minds, even those that support the bills,

(01:02:15):
would differ on whether it's a good move or not.
I do think, though, is if he hasn't received anything
from the National Party or the governing parties in terms
of actually getting the bill over the line, it does
appear at first glance a capitulation for nothing.

Speaker 6 (01:02:30):
Okay, what do you reckon, Jack, Yeah, that's a very
interesting take. I reckon, I reckon they're almost irrelevant, and
that I don't think this discussion, as much as David
Seymour might want it to be held in good faith
around the principles as he's defined and released them, I
don't think it's going to matter. I don't think the

(01:02:51):
debate is going to be about this. I think it's
going to go to non academic binaries are you racist?
Are you not racist? Pretty extreme language that will serve
the extreme ends on both sides of this debate. So
I reckon. You know, people who are vehemently opposed to
exposition and people who vehemently support it are going to
be really exercised throughout the entire Select Committee process.

Speaker 11 (01:03:14):
I think ACT and.

Speaker 6 (01:03:15):
David Sema are going to draw out this process as
much as they possibly can. It's going to be really
irritating for national maybe even a little bit from New
Zealand first as well. But I think it's almost to
Jordan's point, almost it almost doesn't matter how the principles
have been defined as per seam War's language, because I

(01:03:35):
really don't see the debate actually being about those words
and what is in there.

Speaker 2 (01:03:40):
I think both of you bang on, guys, Thank you
very much, Jack Tam and Jordan Williams. Coming up seven
away from six.

Speaker 1 (01:03:46):
On your smart speaker, on the iHeart app and in
your car on your drive home. Heather duple c Allen
drive with one New Zealand one giant lead for business news.

Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
Talks be okay, hither I have a business. The new
Plymouth in this mirror is absolutely gas lighting us. He
was sorry, an avid supporter of the labor government, including
utilizing the Green Fund to start cycle lanes everywhere, struggling
to retain his seat next time around, and he knows this.
That's from Jonathan Neil. I would agree Neil has been
a little bit more like I would consider him to

(01:04:18):
be more in the Jacinda and Meghan Woods camp than
I would necessarily in the Chris lux and David Seymour camp,
if you know what I mean. But I think that
was just generally like good old regional mayor sucking up
to the central government. Verbut of the dollars, which is
what happens all the time, Like everybody was sucking up
to the government, the labor government when they're in there,
so you can get some of the dollars and stuff.

(01:04:40):
I think what you're hearing now is the god honest
truth coming out of his mouth. Now get a load
of this. You know how, I tell you all the
time that Wellington City Council is the dumbest group of
people ever. I present to you the best evidence thus far.
We returned to the scene of the crime, the Island
Bay cycle Now, the Island Based cycle way is a

(01:05:02):
complete shambles for various reasons, but it's really supposed to
make the cyclist safer and it really isn't either getting
hit all the time there. So what they've done now
is they've put a whole bunch of planter boxes either
side of the Island Base cycle Way on a twenty
five meter stretch and I think there are about seventeen
of these planter boxes and I think the point of
them is to try to separate the cars from the cycle.

(01:05:23):
You can't run the cyclist over if there's a planter
box between you and the cyclist, you know what I mean?
So they put these planter boxes there. Total cost sixty
eight thousand dollars, which means that every one of these
planter boxes is four thousand dollars. Now, let me describe
the planter box to you. This thing would be around

(01:05:44):
about I reckon eighty centimeters by eighty centimeters by eighty centimeters.
That is not a big planter box. I'm not talking
about a gigantic planter box. I'm talking about a general
like large pot. Do you know what I mean? Type thing?
How in God's name is that worth four thousand dollars?

(01:06:06):
Four thousand dollars? You could go down to Bunning's and
get yourself a concrete pot for probably like one hundred
or two hundred dollars. How do you go from that
to four thousand dollars? How did that sound like a
good idea to you, Wellington City Council. Meanwhile, you can
get hit sticks which do exactly there's a flexible wall
eyed thingies do exactly the same thing. You could get
twenty of them for less than two thousand dollars, less

(01:06:27):
than half the price of one of these planter boxes.
I give up, I give up new stick zimb m.

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
If we have business inside the business hour, we'd hinder
duplic Elan and my hr on NEWSTALGSB.

Speaker 2 (01:06:50):
Even in coming up in the next hour Helmet motlch
of Natutos and whether he likes the new treaty principles
as they're now written. Milford Asset Management on the impact
of the aging population on investent does and also Gavin
Gray will be with us out of the UK. At
seven past six now, Contact Energy has reached an agreement
to take over Manawhere Energy in a near two point
three billion dollar merger. Contacts Chief executive Mike fuj said

(01:07:11):
the merger would make Contact more resilient and diversify its
generating portfolio. The deal is still subject to approval by
the Commerce Commission, the High Court and shareholders, but the
companies would like the deal done by early next year,
and Contact Energy CEO Mike futures with us now.

Speaker 19 (01:07:25):
Mike, Hi, how are you going very well?

Speaker 2 (01:07:28):
Thank you?

Speaker 6 (01:07:28):
Do you reckon?

Speaker 2 (01:07:29):
You'll get permission for this given what is going on
with the criticism, Jen Taylor's getting Yes.

Speaker 19 (01:07:35):
Absolutely, Look, we're very confident that we will. The Commerce
Commission obviously have to do their due diligence and perform
the regulatory duty. But we wouldn't be in have done
today's announcement if we didn't believe we had a very
good case. Remember, this isn't about today's headlines. This is
about a sixty year investment. And so that's what the
perspective people have to hold there, right.

Speaker 2 (01:07:57):
Isn't mana, we're a generator from you go.

Speaker 19 (01:08:00):
As a generator, Yeah, as a generator, and we're a
generator and retailer.

Speaker 2 (01:08:04):
Yeah, and so you would be strengthening your position as
a gen tailor, which is the very thing that is
copying the criticism.

Speaker 19 (01:08:11):
No, Look, we can more than adequately supply our retail
position as it stands today. What this enables us to
do is to firm up our wholesale portfolio and provide
more products to commercial industrial New Zealand and to tear
to retailers that we can more than adequately already supply
our retail Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:08:30):
I just wonder to mean, because surely the situation they
would look at is that they would They would ask
the question, is it better off with Contact owning this
business or this business supplying wholesale to Contact? And surely
if that's if that's the question they have to ask,
they'll probably prefer the latter, Wouldn't that?

Speaker 19 (01:08:46):
No, not necessarily, because remember the hydro that we're buying
from Manua is winter weighted and our hydro is summer
weighted spring summer, and the combination actually in and of
itself free generation to be put into market because we're
not as individuals trying to hedge our position. We've got
a combined portfolio which we can manage. So overall, our

(01:09:09):
assessment is it's better for the market. It frees up generation,
and as I said earlier today, it underpins more renewable
intermittent renewable generation, because that's the big dilemma we have
to solve, what do we do about these intimatetent renewables.

Speaker 2 (01:09:23):
Yeah, okay, did you see the methin x news.

Speaker 19 (01:09:27):
Yes, yes, that they are considering, and that that's a
function of the gas market. Methin X does underpin the
gas market. The upstream gas market has had some real
issues over the last year or so in terms of
dry wells being drilled, and so it's probably a natural outcome.
And what we really need there is we need some
drilling success from the upstream players and that should bring

(01:09:50):
that back under control.

Speaker 2 (01:09:51):
I'm reading this the very last thing that they said.
I'm reading as unless there is more gas, we're shutting
the whole thing down. Are you reading it like that?

Speaker 19 (01:09:58):
That is look that the logical outcome. But the critical
thing is is that we still have gas reserves in
this country and we need to go after and drill
for them, and that will stabilize the situation.

Speaker 2 (01:10:09):
Do you believe, Mike, that there's more gas out there?

Speaker 19 (01:10:13):
There's always more gas.

Speaker 2 (01:10:15):
Did you see what Richard Tweety said yesterday?

Speaker 19 (01:10:18):
Yes, Richard did say we do need to He did
say Method X should close and LNG import and alan
G import would be a good insurance policy. And we
are looking at that. But I think obviously with Taranaki's
still got a bit to give. All in gas drilling

(01:10:41):
is always sometimes you had a good run, sometimes you
had a bad run.

Speaker 2 (01:10:44):
Mike, he actually said we're running out of gas as
a country. Do you think he's wrong? I want you
to tell me he's wrong.

Speaker 19 (01:10:51):
I wouldn't put it that way. Gas is the matter
of the technology you bring to bear, the investment you make,
and how you think about the reservoirs. It's a complex
technical subject. No, one never really runs out of gas.
It just becomes economic at some point to produce it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:07):
Are you paying meth and X as much for the
gas as the government is?

Speaker 19 (01:11:13):
That's commercially confidential. We did a very we did a
good We did a good commercial deal with meth and
X which stabilized the electricity market very rapidly, and prices
have come back down to the lowest in the western world.
That's quite not quite the dramatic headline as it was

(01:11:35):
a few weeks ago, But the world has turned in
the electricity market.

Speaker 2 (01:11:39):
Do you because it's fallen off off the cliffs so badly,
Did you think, oh, geez, we didn't have to pay
that much for the gas after all.

Speaker 19 (01:11:46):
No, No, that's again, that's like the man of a deal.
That's just good prudent risk mitigation. And we don't think
about to today and tomorrow's spot. As I said, our
time horizon is always over the medium long term, and
we're looking for common sense solutions and that was the
right thing to do at that particular time. So absolutely

(01:12:06):
no regrets whatsoever.

Speaker 2 (01:12:07):
Mike, It's good to talk to you always as I
really appreciate your time that Mike Fuse Contact Energy CEO.
So this is what methin X has said, right. The
very last thing in their statement was answering a question
as to whether Methinx is closing its New Zealand business altogether.
They said no. While our intention is to continue to
operate our last remaining Mutunui plant, the natural gas supply

(01:12:28):
outlook for the country is challenged and requires significant and
immediate action by the government to incentivize upstream developers to
arrest declining supplies and return New Zealand energy and natural
gas markets to their potential. Without such action, we are
compromising the country's economic prosperity, energy security, and our ability

(01:12:49):
to continue to operate beyond the near term. As in
what they are saying is unless the government can get
more people into this country investors in here, drilln for gas,
method X is gone. They're not going to be able
to make it work. And by the way, this is
what this is what the government's paying methods. Remember how
methodics shut when they shut down the business just temporarily

(01:13:09):
to the end of the month next month and then
sold the gas back to Contact and I think it
was Genesis or something. The government was also buying some
of the gases I was just talking to Mike about
for schools and hospitals and stuff. Methdex has charged them
through the nose for it they are selling. This is methads.
They are selling the gas at the price four times

(01:13:30):
the price they paid for it. So the government is
paying up to thirty thirty dollars a gigduel to buy
back the gas. Methadex only paid six bucks a gigduel,
so it's somewhere between twenty four and thirty. It's four
to five times what methodics pay for it. Not official,
according to industry sources, it will be accurate fourteen plus six.

Speaker 1 (01:13:50):
Crunching the numbers and getting the results. It's Heather Duplicy
Ellen with the Business Hours thanks to my HR, the
HR platform for SME on newstalk said.

Speaker 2 (01:14:00):
Just reminder, we're covering off the Treaty Principles bill, the
Treaty Principles as they've been rewritten with helmet Motlaguna, Nutty tour.
After half past six, Heather read the planter boxes at
the island based cycle where you're not taking into account
the cost of the traffic management and one thousand road
cones when somebody went there to place the planter boxes.
Actually probably right, it's probably planter boxes ten dollars each,

(01:14:22):
traffic management sixty seven thousand dollars, do you know what
I mean? So, yeah, maybe I've been unfair. Maybe actually
they just blew it all on nothing. Seventeen past six.
Now we've got the first example of David Seymour's Ministry
of Regulation pulling another minister into line. By now pay later,
providers will be allowed to charge whatever fees they want
after Cabinet decided to exempt them from the credit contracts

(01:14:44):
and consumer finance. Basically, Cabinet decided to side with David
Seymour and not Andrew Bailey. Janatub Trainey is The Herald's
Wellington Business editor.

Speaker 6 (01:14:51):
Hey you name hey, Heather.

Speaker 2 (01:14:53):
Yeah, how did David Seymour get them to side with him?

Speaker 20 (01:14:57):
Well, that's a good question, and I think I think
it is pretty significant because you know, David Seymour, Minister
for Regulation, his advice that he gets from the new
Ministry for Regulation gazumps the advice of MB and the
commerson Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bailey, the experts in consumer
affairs issues like around buy now, pay later, So you know,

(01:15:20):
the effects of this could be quite big. Buy now,
pay later. The way it works is you go and shop,
you buy something, and then you repay the money in installments,
so you don't pay any interests. But if you miss
a payment, you pay a big fee. So what I
think the government recognizes is that that model is quite
different to traditional debt, so like quite different to a

(01:15:43):
credit card or something like that where you're paying interest.
So the argument is we'll buy now, pay later, shouldn't
be put under the exact same rules as the banks
and the credit cards they issue, for example. Everyone agrees
on that, but Andrew Bailey thought, hey, we still need
to put some rules around the fees that these buy now,
pay later providers charge, because you know, we don't want

(01:16:04):
to sort of just just let them, let them have
complete free reign. And David Seymour, you know i'd act
leader ideologically doesn't love a lot of regulation. He said, no,
let's just let the market sort it out. You know,
these providers can't hike fees too much because if they do,
they'll lose their customers. So let's just leave them to it,
and David Seymour won.

Speaker 2 (01:16:25):
Now, Janey, it's the second time in a matter of
literally days that David Seymour has overridden Andrew Bailey on something,
because the other one was also the supermarket regulation. Do
we know whether David is doing this out of actual
ideological purity or is he using Is this some sort
of political horse trading going on here?

Speaker 20 (01:16:44):
Well, that's a good question, and it might be a
bit of both. Really, you know, I think this is
always the challenge with political parties and a coalition. They
need to keep their voters happy and differentiate themselves from
the major party, in this case, National that they're in
a coalition with. So I think it may well be both.

(01:17:05):
I have no doubt that ideologically David Seymour prefers to
take hands off approach. You know, he believes that you
intervene too much and you just taught the market and actually,
you know, yeah, just just just let let competition do
its thing. But at the same time, you know, he's
a good politician, and it really almost seems like he enjoys,

(01:17:29):
you know, ribbing his coalition partners a little bit. It
was interesting because Christopher Luxen was asked about this and
post cabinet press conference earlier this week, because David Seymour
came out and said, you know, leave leave the supermarkets alone.
They don't need to be regulated more, even though Andrew
Bailey said, look what, we're open to regulating the supermarkets

(01:17:52):
more heavily. And Christopher Luxon just shot down a question.
He was pretty snappy when asked about it, and he
said what did he say? Said something to the effect
of right, Andrew Bailey is the Commison Consumer Affairs Minister,
full stop. Let me be really clear.

Speaker 21 (01:18:08):
So yeah, I.

Speaker 20 (01:18:09):
Think it's you know, I think this is kind of
an amusing situation, but it's the way the system's set up,
how AMP works. It makes for a bit of entertainment
for us.

Speaker 2 (01:18:19):
Yes, I don't mind a bit of friction in there
because usually grind out the stupid ideas like that. Hey,
thank you very much much, really appreciated. That's Janeta Trony,
who's the Wellington Business editor. Hither the fact that Harris's team,
this is Karmala. Harris's team has gone for an immediate
rematch shows they have damage to repair. It's actually well,
the fact that there's a rematch is true. The Harris
campaign wants a second presidential debate with Trump. Now they've

(01:18:40):
asked for it. Trump basically needs to agree to it.
You could read it one of two ways. You could
either read it as she feels like she has damage
to repair, or you could read it as she knows
that she did reasonably well and she can do better,
and so she wants another crack at it. One of
the twenty two past six.

Speaker 1 (01:18:58):
Whether it's Macro micro or US playing economics, it's all
on The Business Hour with Heather duple c Allen and
my Hr the HR Solutions for Busy SMEs New Stalks AB.

Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
Twenty four and Debora l Ambias of Milford Asset Management
A deebra Hi, how are you very well? Thank you. Listen.
One thing that we're talking a lot about in the
community at the moment is aging populations. Do you get
the impression investors in thinking about this as well?

Speaker 22 (01:19:23):
Yeah, So, the rise of aging populations around the world
is one of the most significant demographic shifts in modern history.
So here in New Zealand, the proportion of people aged
over sixty five is expeded to almost double by twenty fifty,
and globally we see similar trends, So the number of
people aged over sixty is expeded to double and the
number of people aged over eighty is expeded to triple

(01:19:45):
by twenty fifty, and investors are increasingly focused on the
implications of this. Given that on average, twenty five percent
of total healthcare spend occurred in the last ten years
of life of an individual and around ten percent in
the final year of life, aging populations simultaneously placed immense
pressure on healthcare systems and create substantial opportunities for companies

(01:20:07):
that provide critical services due to increasing demands for medicine,
hospital care, and death care services.

Speaker 2 (01:20:13):
Are there many businesses, many companies who are actually talking
about how this aging population trend will impact them.

Speaker 22 (01:20:19):
Yeah, and I'll maybe give you three three examples. So
HCA operates over one hundred and eighty hospitals in the US,
and it's expecting total spending hospitals to accelerate to around
six percent per year over the next decade. So, in
other words, that means that it will have almost doubled
its revenue in ten years time. Another example is AstraZeneca,
which is a global pharmaceutical company and it expects global

(01:20:41):
demands for pharmaceuticals to accelerate from around four percent growth
per year to around six percent. And a final interesting
example is Service Court, which is a death care provider
in the US and they operate in the funeral, cremation
and cemetery space. And so when I met with the
company earlier in the year in the US, they were
talking about expecting an increase in volumes for a decade
and a half and that's driven by the first baby

(01:21:04):
boomers reaching eighty years old starting from twenty twenty six.
So this is a bit of a morbid topic. But
as they say, nothing is certain in this life apart
from death and taxes.

Speaker 2 (01:21:13):
That's through I suppose when it comes to how they're
performing on the market. How are these companies who are
in healthcare and death care fearing when you compare them
to let's say the high growth sector is like AI.

Speaker 22 (01:21:22):
Yeah, so when companies like Nvidia they have absolutely soar
due to the AI boom, the more steady returns from
healthcare and death care sectors are still actually highly respectable,
especially in this more defensive part of the market. So
Astrosenic and Service Corps shares have delivered a respectable low
double digit percentage return on average over the past five years,
and HHA has been even more impressive, delivering an average

(01:21:44):
twenty five percent return per year over the past five years.

Speaker 2 (01:21:47):
And then what about the workers in healthcare? How are
the how's the agent population going to affect them?

Speaker 22 (01:21:53):
Yeah, So, in addition to increasing demand for healthcare, aging
populations of course reduced the pool of working age people.
This means we have less work to do the work
that we're currently doing, and we're going to have more
of that work. So companies are looking for solutions and
things like automation and robotics, and this is leading to
advances and things like automated pharmacies and these work via
robots that can scan a QR code for a prescription,

(01:22:16):
get the medicines that have been prescribed, to spense them,
and then whila, you can pick up your prescription, no
humans required. And a company called Becton Dickinson is the
global leader here. And then we're also seeing very rapid
advancers and things like laboratory automation, which is greatly increasing
the efficiency of the way that lads run.

Speaker 1 (01:22:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:22:32):
Is this happening in other sectors as well.

Speaker 22 (01:22:35):
Yes, So as the pool of working age people shrinks,
sectors ranging all the way from manufacturing through to logistics
are increasingly turning to automation to fill the gap and
maintain productivity. So, for example, robotic density and manufacturing has
doubled over the past six years and has increased set
to increase further, and so robots greatly increase the productivity

(01:22:55):
of factories. They keep workers and safer by literally taking
the load of heavy lifting, and they also reduced the
number of people required in the factory.

Speaker 14 (01:23:03):
So these are just a.

Speaker 22 (01:23:04):
Few examples of ways that companies are innovating to help
with solutions that developed nations will high as they face
shrinking workforces and aging populations.

Speaker 2 (01:23:13):
Deborah, listen, that's fascinating, Thank you so much. I really
appreciated the Zebra Lambie Milford asset Management. Prince William has
been out at a primary school in the UK today
really reinforced the fact that his wife has got a
long way to go, he said. He told one world
wisher it's good news, but there is still a long
way to go, which is, you know, just trying to
tell us not an out of the woods just yet.
Gavin Gray is going to be with us before the

(01:23:34):
end of the programs us through newstalksb.

Speaker 1 (01:23:44):
Everything from SMEs to the big corporates, The Business Hour
with Heather Dupleic Outlets and my HR, the HR solution
for busy sms on News Talksbas.

Speaker 9 (01:24:03):
Kisses fill.

Speaker 2 (01:24:07):
The upgrades with us in ten minutes time are The
BB documentary is out. This is called The BB Files,
is one about Benjamin nettan Yahoo. It's been at the
Toronto Film Festival. This is despite his best efforts through
the Israeli courts to try to stop the screening of it.
And the reason he was trying to stop the screening
of it is because it features leaked police interrogation videos
for the very first time, for the first time anybody's

(01:24:27):
been able to see it. And these are the videos
that were recorded by the coppers over in Israel between
twenty sixteen and twenty eighteen before they formally brought the
charges of corruption against Benjamin net and Yahoo. So should
be interesting. So screening there at the moment they're looking
for distribution, and when they find distribution, then everybody else
will be able to see it twenty three away from seven.

Speaker 1 (01:24:46):
Heather dupi Cel.

Speaker 2 (01:24:48):
Now the three principles to be included in the controversial
treaty principles will have been released today. They include principles
of civil Government that's number one, Number two the rights
of Hapou and Ewe Maori, and number three the right
to equality. Cabinet documents released today also reveal warnings from
officials that the policy is based on a novel reading
of the treaty and advice that government should stick with
the status quo. Helmut Motlik is the chief executive of

(01:25:10):
Terrunanga or tour Rara and is with us. Now, hey, helmet,
now that you've seen them, what do you think, have
you got any problems with them?

Speaker 4 (01:25:21):
It's second first, same as the first fast header. The
the idea that the idea that that the rights that
accrue to New Zealanders and that the rights that a
crew to Parliament as sovereign just came out of fresh air,
is of course what the first one is trying to say,
which of course is factorily incorrect. That came from the British,

(01:25:44):
and the britsh got it from signing a treaty with
the Hapuu of New Zealand. That seems to be totally
missing in David's calculation in respect of the rights that
supposedly accrue to ewe and were those only going to
be the rights that the government decides to give Ie

(01:26:04):
will just ignore all of the constitutional and historical background.
Then we'll make it up as we go. So no, no,
it's not a surprise entirely. But yeah, second best sements?

Speaker 2 (01:26:14):
Is that fair? I mean because the rights that it's
talking about here are rights that are specified. These are
the rights for hapou and e maori, specified in legislation,
specified in treaty settlements, are specified in other agreements with
the crown. Where else are the rights going to come from?

Speaker 4 (01:26:28):
Well, they come from the original documentation, the original treaty
that was signed up to. That's where they come from.

Speaker 1 (01:26:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:26:34):
And one of the interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:26:35):
That's not going to happen because that is still that
is what your treaty settlements, that that's covered off by
treaty settlements. They reflect what's in the treaty.

Speaker 4 (01:26:43):
No, No, the only thing that are spoken to in
the treaty settlements that primarily relate to property and also
then relate at the margin to opportunities to be consulted
and to engage in process. The tility your white tongue,
he says, a heck of a lot more than that
here that is and that that well, if you want,
if you want to read it, and.

Speaker 2 (01:27:04):
What are the rights are about that's in there?

Speaker 4 (01:27:07):
Well, well, well, let's go back one step and let
me frame it this way. What what what David is
in those you're supporting his views trying to sell is
the idea that one hundred thousand warlike, fiercely independent tribes
in their in their leadership agreed when presented when met

(01:27:29):
with a console representing two thousand British people who were
living in the country at the time. David's proposition is
that those one hundred thousand fiercely independent warlike people surrendered
all of their rights to this, to to to Busby
and Tobson, and they did that willingly.

Speaker 2 (01:27:53):
What are the rights that are not represented in these principles?

Speaker 4 (01:27:59):
Not to speaks to the ability to continue to live
your life according to your customs, to have responsibility for
your people, your place, and to live according to your
own to Coomer, that's what was agreed and that's the
only thing that makes sense.

Speaker 2 (01:28:17):
Or in agreements with the crown.

Speaker 4 (01:28:19):
Yeah, but that was the journey we were on. The
journey we were on was truth and reconciliation of figuring
out what does what does those rights in eighteen forty
translate to in the current setting, And that was the
trajectory we were on. Now, what David doesn't doesn't like
where that that conversation was going, and so he's trying
to actually enter into a revision this history writing exercise,

(01:28:42):
ignoring all of the history, all of the legal advice,
all of the precedent, and wanting to just rewrite the
whole thing.

Speaker 2 (01:28:50):
Okay, is it possible that what David Seymour was I'm
not going to speak for him. I'm be having a
punt at this, but I don't like the way the
courts are going on any numberumber of issues, right, So
maybe the right place for these things to be defined
is not by the courts as it has been up
to now, but actually by the representatives that we elect.

Speaker 4 (01:29:08):
What's the problem with that, Well, there's two main observations
I'd make about that. The whole idea of a constitutional
of constitutional law is that it supersedes the ability of
current government to faff around according to you know, the

(01:29:30):
women will of the current settings with some fundamental things, right,
so you put in place of ideas that supersede the
ability of governments to just for example, I'll give you
an example, right, just because just because everybody decided today
that we don't like what was agreed previously, we're going

(01:29:54):
to change in fact, the provisions that have been set
aside for the aging population, and so they've they've all
made plans for being able to retire, have their superannuation,
have their healthcare provided for. But because we don't like
that anymore, we're going to change the law. Now, is

(01:30:14):
that right? Probably not, but it's possible, it's possible under
the the the ability from just pure democratic principle to
play out. Now that's a that's a contemporary example where
the idea of just you know, simple democratic principle doesn't
make it right. And I just make the parallel that

(01:30:37):
the agreement that was entered into that enabled the British
to stay here, it is set is set down, it's
it's readable and all of the historical interpretation and research
and context that's all clear, and rewriting it is just
an exercise. And that's what he's trying to do. No,

(01:31:03):
that's what he's trying to do. He's trying to actually
say it doesn't mean what it says. We're going to
have a debate.

Speaker 2 (01:31:09):
That's the whole point to principles helmet. Sorry, that's the
whole point of pripriples. No, all of the principles do this, right,
all of the principles look at the articles in the
treaty and say this, we have to find a way
to apply this to twenty twenty four New Zealand and
then extract from it. That's all that this is doing.
He's not rewriting anything. He's just writing three principles to

(01:31:31):
override all the other principles.

Speaker 4 (01:31:34):
Well, he's wanting to do that. But here's there's two
observations I'd make in that connection. First Off, he still
is not acknowledging, not in any of his literature nor
anything he's said, that the treaty actually means what it says.
His interpretation of those words are for LASiS. So that's
first point. Second point is, and I've spoken to them
directly about this, is when it comes to the interpretation

(01:31:57):
of law, whether it's constitutional law or any others who's
job visit to do that. That's that is literally the
job of the judiciary. That's what judges and judiciary do, Okay, right,
and so what and so I'm asked, David, so why
have you moved away from that tried and true international really.

Speaker 2 (01:32:17):
For you because the judges and lunatics in this country
at the moment aren't they the helmet Listen, thank you,
haven't got any more time, but really appreciate it as always.
Love chatting to the Helmet Modeling Chief executive Gavin Gray
next quarter too.

Speaker 1 (01:32:30):
If it's to do with money, it matters to you.
The Business Hour with hither duper clan and my HR
the HR solution for busy smy on news talks it'd be.

Speaker 2 (01:32:42):
K corresponding Gavin Grays with us evening to you, Gavin. So,
we were not expecting the UK economy to flatline. We
were expecting tiny bit of growth. What happened?

Speaker 23 (01:32:51):
Yeah, big disappointment. Just announced within the last hour that
the UK economy just basically flatlined for the second month
in a row. And let's have thought there'd be a
slight growth to GDP of zero point two percent. So
what went wrong? Well, we're being told there is longer
term strength in the services sector, so there should be

(01:33:13):
a growth over the last three months as a whole
and into the future. But it's other things that have
brought the figures down, so really honing down more precisely
on what they reckon. The growth was led by computer
programmers and the health sector, which recovered from strike action
back in June, but there were falls in advertising companies,

(01:33:35):
architects and engineers, with manufacturing crucially falling overall, with a
particularly poor month for car and machinery firms. Construction industry
also suffered badly. So yeah, the government going to look
at this. I'm going to think, well, you know, we're
still looking back at the previous administration of the previous government.

(01:33:55):
And indeed the UK did have the highest growth rate
for the first six months twenty twenty four among the
group of G seven nations. But I think a second
line of flatlining will be of some concern to those
in government.

Speaker 2 (01:34:08):
Kevin, Listen, this Apple tech situation in Ireland is fascinating.
Am I reading this right? That Ireland actually doesn't want
the text money.

Speaker 23 (01:34:17):
Yes, so this is quite a complex story and it
goes back over some eight or more years, but Originally,
when the company Apple headquartered its business for Europe, Middle
East and that sort of region, they decided to go

(01:34:37):
to Ireland for it. Why well, because Ireland was offering
massive tax discounts, and indeed it was said that that
had been a bigger incentive to lure big companies away
from countries like the UK and the rest of the EU.
And boy it works. Suddenly Dublin was springing up with
a whole load of huge multinational companies headquartering their region

(01:35:00):
all offices in Dublin. But the Irish government gave these
tax advantages to Apple. The European Top Court said it
was illegal. The Irish government said, well, we don't want
the tax back and we don't think it's illegal. But
after all the toing and throwing, Apple indeed have been
ordered to pay Ireland roughly twenty four billion New Zealand

(01:35:23):
dollars in unpaid taxes. The Irish government has said it will.

Speaker 2 (01:35:26):
Respect the ruling.

Speaker 23 (01:35:28):
The ruling incident, it was because effectively no other company
was being given the tax advantages that Apple were being given,
so they said that was unfair. As I said, though
for the period of time it's taken to discuss this
with the original decision decision covering the period nineteen ninety
one to twenty fourteen, then an appeal on it. As

(01:35:49):
you can imagine, plenty of others have tried to take
advantage of that particular scheme in Ireland.

Speaker 2 (01:35:54):
It's good to talk to you, Gevin as always. Thank
you so much, Gevin Gray are UK correspondent.

Speaker 13 (01:35:59):
Right, Well, I'm.

Speaker 2 (01:35:59):
Getting a lot of texts along the same lines. Wow,
Hither that's clear evidence of why things actually need to
be clarified. This is obviously rehelmet bodlock Hither. If that's
the level of the argument against the Treaty Principles, build
and I'm completely lost and it carries on. Now what
is going on here is that there's shifting. It's a
shifting debate. It's constantly shifting, right so, so, originally the

(01:36:22):
problem with the Treaty Principles was Principal two didn't give
enough rights to Hapu and Ewi MARII. Then David Semill
fix that. Now the problem is shifted to something. Now
that's not the thing you can argue against anymore. Now
we're going to argue against the fact that Parliament's deciding
instead of the judges, which is the most lunatic thing
you've ever heard, because obviously the elected people should have
the final say on literally everything. Right, the judges are

(01:36:45):
just there to do their jobs to hand down the sentences,
make some civil lawsy absolutely have to like on the
edges and stuff like that, but for the most part,
they are there to interpret the law, and the people
elected to Parliament are there to make the law. With
something as important as this obviously should be the elected people.
You're going to find that this is going to be
what's gonna happen the whole way through because as Jack
Tame said earlier in the show, and he was right, Ultimately,

(01:37:05):
this is not an argument about the stuff that we
are talking about at the level that we're talking about it.
It's really a binary thing at the very base level.
Are you a racist or are you not a racist?
That's what it's going to come down to. If you
support the Treaty Principals Bill, you're a racist. I'm obviously
I don't think this. This is just what's going to
get lumped at you. And if you do support it,

(01:37:26):
if you don't support it, then you're obviously on the
right crew. It's basically going to come down to that,
and all this other stuff is just noise, just noise, noise, noise,
So brace yourself from more of it.

Speaker 1 (01:37:34):
Whether it's macro MicroB or just playing economics. It's all
on The Business Hour with Heather Duplicy Ellen and my HR,
the HR platform for sme US talks.

Speaker 2 (01:37:45):
B five Away from seven. I have managed to avoid
this conversation all day, not because I'm not interested in it,
but because I don't really know what to say about it.
This is the Dave Grohl situation. So Dave Grohl has
feested up. Okay, I do know what to say about it.
I do know what to say about it. Dave Grohl

(01:38:05):
has fesced up to the fact that he who has
been married for twenty plus years and has three daughters
with his wife and is you know, the kind of
like like happy family Dad Rocker. He has in fact
managed to get someone up the duff, isn't he, And
they've had a baby girl, and so he's gone public
with it, and he's admitted that this has happened, and

(01:38:26):
he is going to be part of his baby daughter's
newborn daughter's life, which is the decent thing to do.
And he would like everybody to respect that. Now people
are very disappointed in this because Dave grol. Everybody thought
that Dave Grohl was one out of the box, like
he was different to all the other rockers, to which
I say, hello, he's a rocker, and he's one of
the world's most famous rockers. And look at his panteene heir,

(01:38:46):
what do you think that man doesn't care what people
think about him? Of course he does. Also, what I
would say, though, the predominant thing that I would say
is people make mistakes. This is a big one. This
is like an unforgive. If I was her, he'd be
out the house forget about it no more. But people
make mistakes. I don't judge him too harshly on how
they make on the mistakes and make It's more how

(01:39:06):
they handle it afterwards. And he's handled this very well,
hasn't he. But he has missed a trick by not
actually opening his Instagram post with the words to this
song ants.

Speaker 8 (01:39:19):
I've got another confession.

Speaker 2 (01:39:22):
Hey, why didn't he do that? Guys, I've got another
confession to make. I've got somebody up the duff ants.

Speaker 12 (01:39:27):
Come on, Oh, poor old Dave Grohl.

Speaker 21 (01:39:29):
I mean, not only has he done something unforgivable, been caught,
had to fess up to it, but he's given us,
the media hacks of the world, just so many puns,
like you know, like like this one. I'm sure there's
he's got such a long back catalog. I'm sure people
like me will be quickly ferreting through all the song
names and stuff to look for all.

Speaker 2 (01:39:46):
Were you shocked?

Speaker 21 (01:39:48):
You know what I was? You're right, because you're right.
He's a rocker, and I mean, let's not forget he
was the drummer in Nirvana. But despite that, he never
really came across as a rock star. No, he was
like a nice, thoughtful, normal guy. Yeah, like you, your
dad's mate who you really get along with as well?

Speaker 2 (01:40:02):
Normal guys have affairs ants, Yeah, there you go. I mean,
we don't really know these people, do well an a
fair though? Or was it a groupie? Now? I want
to know more. I don't feel like we've I feel
do you feel like he got ahead of a bad
story that's about to come out?

Speaker 21 (01:40:15):
I think he has made the best of the situation,
best of you by their days.

Speaker 17 (01:40:20):
I love that.

Speaker 2 (01:40:20):
Good from you. Okay, see it tomorrow By Now

Speaker 1 (01:40:34):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Full Show Podcast: 11 September 2024

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

All Episodes

Full Show Podcast: 11 September 2024

Stuff You Should Know