September 9, 2026 • 10 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Tim Wilson from the Maxim Institute and former broadcaster Mark Sainsbury joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
The Government has confirmed they'll be cutting some of the red tape around the hospitality sector - a move that's been welcomed by industry experts. Do we think this is a good idea - or could this cause extra harm?
At least 10,000 public service workers have downed tools and gone on strike after months of failed negotiations. What do we make of this, is serious change needed? What could this Government do for the public service?
Labour is looking to introduce tougher regulations on AI if they get elected - do we need this kind of oversight?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
And joining us now is Tim Wilson from the Maxim
Institute and Mark Sainsbury, a broadcaster and the founder of
I Always Meant to Ask Gentlemen. Good evening to you.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Good evening.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
Good evening.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
So what do you make of these sanctions from the
UK and France and Canada? And do you think, Tim,
that perhaps we've been a bit too quiet on the issue?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
No, I can hear the argument that it's quite distant
to us. And we haven't recognised Palestinian statehood yet. as
other countries have. This is what an independent foreign policy
looks like.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Okay, Mark, is this independent foreign policy also looking a
bit wussy?
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Yeah, I think it is looking a bit wussy. Look,
it's such a sort of hot issue, the whole thing,
but we need to take a stand, and I agree
with Al. We should be with our like-minded partners. If
we're not doing our fair of Trump, I think that's
a disgrace.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
OK, well, let's move on. We had the Brewers Association
on just after the five o'clock news because the reviews
come out and it suggests cutting the red tape for
alcohol licensing. And that's the Act policy and they're into it.
And Louise Upston is into it. Is this a good thing, Tim,
or will it cause more harm than good?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
No, I think it seems like a good thing in
the sense that it seems the laws seem quite messy
having to file again for the same same organisation, etc.,
to the same sort of administrative body. And in terms
of the harm, I would submit that probably in terms
of alcohol, as was mentioned by the Brewers Association guy,
(01:35):
those are licensed environments people are watching over, whereas when
you're sitting at home and you've got a 24-pack from
the bottle store, it's not quite the same environment. I've
got to say, though, I've got a question about the
industry itself.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
So what does the word gastro mean to you?
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Gastroenteritis.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Exactly. Hands and knees. So why do they have gastropubs, guys?
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Why?
Speaker 2 (02:04):
What is going on? Gastronomic.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Mark Sainsbury, I think the last time I socialized with
you was in the Cujo Lounge. So I do know
that you actually quite like a drink. What did you
make of the whole freeing up of the licensing laws?
Speaker 3 (02:17):
Well, I think you were on to it right at
the start, Angie, when you said, is it going to mean,
you know, how's it going to affect like the bottlos?
That's what I've got a real objection to, the proliferation
around the place. And there's been a campaign to try
and cut back on that and get more local interest
in it. But the hospitality industry has done it, especially
down here in Wellington, has done it so hard. And
(02:37):
anything that can make things a bit easier... I think
would help. And I agree that in some place, I
think it's Scotland, but it's actually cheaper to drink in
the pub than to take it home because it's a
better environment. Because they're saying, actually, when people go to
the pub or bar or wherever they're going, and they're right,
there is supervision, it is controlled, and you're in a
(02:59):
relatively safe environment. And you look at most of the
trouble you have is people not drinking on licensed premises,
but just getting preloading and getting out on the street
and that sort of thing. So, yeah, look, let's try
and do something to help the hospital because they're in
desperate need of it right now. And the sort of restrictions,
I mean, the time it's taking to get licenses renewed
and stuff like that, no other business would put up
(03:21):
with that.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
There we go. Make pubs great again, or is that
too triggering?
Speaker 1 (03:26):
That's great. And I do agree with it because then,
of course, you're surrounded by peers. Your behavior is a
lot better. You've got security there. Yeah, I totally get that.
But here's the thing. We're all against, we don't like
the regulation. We don't like the bureaucracy. We don't like
things taking a long period of time. But as we
saw from the Auckland Council the other day, yesterday, when
they had the meeting about the fast track for the
(03:47):
real estate developments, they said, well, then you end up
with the Wild West and that people are actually going
too far. So what is the right balance of regulation
versus an easier way of doing business, Mark?
Speaker 3 (03:59):
Well, yeah, I mean, it's the timing. It's the delays.
It's the length of time. The scrutiny shouldn't be any different.
Licensed premises should have to justify their renewal and the
fact they've been operating properly. But it's just the time.
It's just ridiculous. It's constraining.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
And what about you, Tim? I know you're about freedom,
and I know you don't like regulation, but we do
need some regulation or else people take the mickey.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Oh, I agree. And no one's saying, oh, there's no regulation,
we're going to completely change the environment. No, what they're
saying is if we can centralise it, simplify it, and
favour the licensed organisations who are trying to comply, then
that seems reasonable.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
OK, we're going to talk actually in just a few moments'
time about regulation when we talk about AI, because the
Labour Party's come out with a new AI policy, which
involves setting up a new department. Whereas, of course, National
and ACT believe it should be allowed to be free
and should be under the control of business. That is
next on The Huddle with Mark Sainsbury and Tim Wilson.
Here on Newstalk ZB, it's 14 to 6. All right,
(05:08):
on The Huddle today, we have Mark Sainsbury, we have
Tim Wilson, and our next topic is about the public
service strike which happened today. Gentlemen, and we'll start with Mark,
any sympathy for the striking public service workers?
Speaker 3 (05:20):
I do have a bit. I mean, it's like, you know,
turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas, are they? The
public service has had a bit of a hard time
under this government. And I think, as Fleurford Simons pointed out,
they've protested and they've gone on strike with governments of
both Labour-led and National-led. And if you were looking at
a pay rise that basically was eating away at, you know,
(05:43):
effectively a pay cut if it doesn't meet the CPI,
then you've got to do what you've got to do.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Yeah, what do you think, Tim? Because these guys, a
lot of them, particularly MB, they're on $ 100, 000 average. They
actually get paid quite well. And I don't know about you,
but I can't remember the last time I had a
pay rise. So do you have any sympathy?
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Yeah, look, I do have sympathy, but having said that,
let's think about the context. So like the public service
in 2017 to 23, it grew by 33%. Public servant
numbers peaked in 2024, 65,000 people. Since then, apparently, it's
been slashed to the bone. The number today is 64,500 people.
(06:27):
So the notion that the public service has somehow been
under attack by this government, I just don't buy it.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
No, no, they just moved around the dick chairs on
the Titanic, and I get that as well. But I
asked Fleur a particular question. If you're going to pay
people more, the public service more, and we only have
a limited amount of revenue, and the people want to
make sure that we cut our government spending, if we
end up paying those workers more, we're going to employ
less to them. And I asked her, what would you choose?
(06:53):
And she didn't answer. But that's a question for the ages,
isn't it, Mark?
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Yeah, look, it's inevitably, and I know certainly AI is
going to be one of the things as well. It's
going to have a massive, a massive impact. We're staring
that down as well. It's a bit like a catch-22,
isn't it? You ask for too much and they say
we can't afford it, so we'll give you the pay rise,
but we're going to sack 30% of you. Tim?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
But they haven't sacked 30% of them. They say they will.
They said they would last time. But anyway, I thought
it was interesting. Don't you believe them, Tim? Well, I
don't know. I just I tend to look to history
to give an example. Previous behavior is quite indicative of
future behavior. I thought there was when you asked her
that question to Andrew, she started talking about this government's been,
(07:43):
you know, been cajoled by tobacco and suddenly it became political.
I was like, oh, wait a minute. Is there something
else happening here?
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Well, what do you reckon? Do you reckon this was
actually a political stunt with the election just around the corner,
November 7th?
Speaker 2 (07:56):
It may be something to galvanise their own workers, so
to speak. But there's also a fundamental difference, I think,
to people who are observing this, where it's like, nurses,
we want more money. Yeah, OK. Teachers, yeah, we like that. Bureaucrats, hmm.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
We're talking about bureaucrats, and you're the one who mentioned AI, Mark.
Labour's come out today and promised to set up an
AI regulator and a new AI department. So they're wanting
more public service workers.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Look, I'm fascinated by the whole AI thing. I'm constantly
watching sort of YouTube. People are pining on what's going
to happen. And I still think that the feeling seems
to be there has to be something And if we
can't control it, that's a worry, but there needs to
be some sort of regulation and oversight. How it's done,
I just, you know, don't ask me, but you look
(08:47):
at this and think, that's not, we talk about the
Wild West, you know, what's going to happen if this
thing goes in sort of unmanaged at all?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
This is terrible. Sandro and I think you're going to
agree with each other. Can we handle this, Sandro?
Speaker 3 (09:02):
No.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
And maybe I don't overly agree with you because Labour
wants that direct government body to draft rules and safeguard creators'
pay and create more bureaucracy. National and ACT view excessive
rules as an obstacle to productivity and economic growth. And
we just talked about cutting away those rules and those
barriers with the hospitality laws. So why shouldn't we allow
AI to carry on and and make its own future.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Well, I would submit that AI is fundamentally different to
those other issues. To booze. AI is different. Like, for example,
booze was going to take over the world, but it's
actually in recession now. So that's what's happening there. What
Labour's actually recommending is a body of AI oversight within
(09:46):
DPMC Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. And that was
actually suggested in a 2023 Maxim paper about artificial intelligence
and government. So I'm for it because this is such...
has been described as a new industrial revolution. You would
think you would want some people overseeing what's happening and
(10:06):
not a Wild West.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Well, there you go. Tim Wilson agrees with the Labour
Party and a Maxim report. And Labour agrees with the
Maxim report. Isn't that a wonderful win-win situation? For Tim
Wilson from the Maxim Institute and Mark Sainsbury, I thank
you both, gentlemen.
And joining us now is Tim Wilson from the Maxim
Institute and Mark Sainsbury, a broadcaster and the founder of
I Always Meant to Ask Gentlemen. Good evening to you.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Good evening.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
Good evening.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
So what do you make of these sanctions from the
UK and France and Canada? And do you think, Tim,
that perhaps we've been a bit too quiet on the issue?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
No, I can hear the argument that it's quite distant
to us. And we haven't recognised Palestinian statehood yet. as
other countries have. This is what an independent foreign policy
looks like.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Okay, Mark, is this independent foreign policy also looking a
bit wussy?
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Yeah, I think it is looking a bit wussy. Look,
it's such a sort of hot issue, the whole thing,
but we need to take a stand, and I agree
with Al. We should be with our like-minded partners. If
we're not doing our fair of Trump, I think that's
a disgrace.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
OK, well, let's move on. We had the Brewers Association
on just after the five o'clock news because the reviews
come out and it suggests cutting the red tape for
alcohol licensing. And that's the Act policy and they're into it.
And Louise Upston is into it. Is this a good thing, Tim,
or will it cause more harm than good?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
No, I think it seems like a good thing in
the sense that it seems the laws seem quite messy
having to file again for the same same organisation, etc.,
to the same sort of administrative body. And in terms
of the harm, I would submit that probably in terms
of alcohol, as was mentioned by the Brewers Association guy,
(01:35):
those are licensed environments people are watching over, whereas when
you're sitting at home and you've got a 24-pack from
the bottle store, it's not quite the same environment. I've
got to say, though, I've got a question about the
industry itself.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
So what does the word gastro mean to you?
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Gastroenteritis.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Exactly. Hands and knees. So why do they have gastropubs, guys?
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Why?
Speaker 2 (02:04):
What is going on? Gastronomic.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Mark Sainsbury, I think the last time I socialized with
you was in the Cujo Lounge. So I do know
that you actually quite like a drink. What did you
make of the whole freeing up of the licensing laws?
Speaker 3 (02:17):
Well, I think you were on to it right at
the start, Angie, when you said, is it going to mean,
you know, how's it going to affect like the bottlos?
That's what I've got a real objection to, the proliferation
around the place. And there's been a campaign to try
and cut back on that and get more local interest
in it. But the hospitality industry has done it, especially
down here in Wellington, has done it so hard. And
(02:37):
anything that can make things a bit easier... I think
would help. And I agree that in some place, I
think it's Scotland, but it's actually cheaper to drink in
the pub than to take it home because it's a
better environment. Because they're saying, actually, when people go to
the pub or bar or wherever they're going, and they're right,
there is supervision, it is controlled, and you're in a
(02:59):
relatively safe environment. And you look at most of the
trouble you have is people not drinking on licensed premises,
but just getting preloading and getting out on the street
and that sort of thing. So, yeah, look, let's try
and do something to help the hospital because they're in
desperate need of it right now. And the sort of restrictions,
I mean, the time it's taking to get licenses renewed
and stuff like that, no other business would put up
(03:21):
with that.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
There we go. Make pubs great again, or is that
too triggering?
Speaker 1 (03:26):
That's great. And I do agree with it because then,
of course, you're surrounded by peers. Your behavior is a
lot better. You've got security there. Yeah, I totally get that.
But here's the thing. We're all against, we don't like
the regulation. We don't like the bureaucracy. We don't like
things taking a long period of time. But as we
saw from the Auckland Council the other day, yesterday, when
they had the meeting about the fast track for the
(03:47):
real estate developments, they said, well, then you end up
with the Wild West and that people are actually going
too far. So what is the right balance of regulation
versus an easier way of doing business, Mark?
Speaker 3 (03:59):
Well, yeah, I mean, it's the timing. It's the delays.
It's the length of time. The scrutiny shouldn't be any different.
Licensed premises should have to justify their renewal and the
fact they've been operating properly. But it's just the time.
It's just ridiculous. It's constraining.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
And what about you, Tim? I know you're about freedom,
and I know you don't like regulation, but we do
need some regulation or else people take the mickey.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Oh, I agree. And no one's saying, oh, there's no regulation,
we're going to completely change the environment. No, what they're
saying is if we can centralise it, simplify it, and
favour the licensed organisations who are trying to comply, then
that seems reasonable.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
OK, we're going to talk actually in just a few moments'
time about regulation when we talk about AI, because the
Labour Party's come out with a new AI policy, which
involves setting up a new department. Whereas, of course, National
and ACT believe it should be allowed to be free
and should be under the control of business. That is
next on The Huddle with Mark Sainsbury and Tim Wilson.
Here on Newstalk ZB, it's 14 to 6. All right,
(05:08):
on The Huddle today, we have Mark Sainsbury, we have
Tim Wilson, and our next topic is about the public
service strike which happened today. Gentlemen, and we'll start with Mark,
any sympathy for the striking public service workers?
Speaker 3 (05:20):
I do have a bit. I mean, it's like, you know,
turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas, are they? The
public service has had a bit of a hard time
under this government. And I think, as Fleurford Simons pointed out,
they've protested and they've gone on strike with governments of
both Labour-led and National-led. And if you were looking at
a pay rise that basically was eating away at, you know,
(05:43):
effectively a pay cut if it doesn't meet the CPI,
then you've got to do what you've got to do.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Yeah, what do you think, Tim? Because these guys, a
lot of them, particularly MB, they're on $ 100, 000 average. They
actually get paid quite well. And I don't know about you,
but I can't remember the last time I had a
pay rise. So do you have any sympathy?
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Yeah, look, I do have sympathy, but having said that,
let's think about the context. So like the public service
in 2017 to 23, it grew by 33%. Public servant
numbers peaked in 2024, 65,000 people. Since then, apparently, it's
been slashed to the bone. The number today is 64,500 people.
(06:27):
So the notion that the public service has somehow been
under attack by this government, I just don't buy it.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
No, no, they just moved around the dick chairs on
the Titanic, and I get that as well. But I
asked Fleur a particular question. If you're going to pay
people more, the public service more, and we only have
a limited amount of revenue, and the people want to
make sure that we cut our government spending, if we
end up paying those workers more, we're going to employ
less to them. And I asked her, what would you choose?
(06:53):
And she didn't answer. But that's a question for the ages,
isn't it, Mark?
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Yeah, look, it's inevitably, and I know certainly AI is
going to be one of the things as well. It's
going to have a massive, a massive impact. We're staring
that down as well. It's a bit like a catch-22,
isn't it? You ask for too much and they say
we can't afford it, so we'll give you the pay rise,
but we're going to sack 30% of you. Tim?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
But they haven't sacked 30% of them. They say they will.
They said they would last time. But anyway, I thought
it was interesting. Don't you believe them, Tim? Well, I
don't know. I just I tend to look to history
to give an example. Previous behavior is quite indicative of
future behavior. I thought there was when you asked her
that question to Andrew, she started talking about this government's been,
(07:43):
you know, been cajoled by tobacco and suddenly it became political.
I was like, oh, wait a minute. Is there something
else happening here?
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Well, what do you reckon? Do you reckon this was
actually a political stunt with the election just around the corner,
November 7th?
Speaker 2 (07:56):
It may be something to galvanise their own workers, so
to speak. But there's also a fundamental difference, I think,
to people who are observing this, where it's like, nurses,
we want more money. Yeah, OK. Teachers, yeah, we like that. Bureaucrats, hmm.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
We're talking about bureaucrats, and you're the one who mentioned AI, Mark.
Labour's come out today and promised to set up an
AI regulator and a new AI department. So they're wanting
more public service workers.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Look, I'm fascinated by the whole AI thing. I'm constantly
watching sort of YouTube. People are pining on what's going
to happen. And I still think that the feeling seems
to be there has to be something And if we
can't control it, that's a worry, but there needs to
be some sort of regulation and oversight. How it's done,
I just, you know, don't ask me, but you look
(08:47):
at this and think, that's not, we talk about the
Wild West, you know, what's going to happen if this
thing goes in sort of unmanaged at all?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
This is terrible. Sandro and I think you're going to
agree with each other. Can we handle this, Sandro?
Speaker 3 (09:02):
No.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
And maybe I don't overly agree with you because Labour
wants that direct government body to draft rules and safeguard creators'
pay and create more bureaucracy. National and ACT view excessive
rules as an obstacle to productivity and economic growth. And
we just talked about cutting away those rules and those
barriers with the hospitality laws. So why shouldn't we allow
AI to carry on and and make its own future.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Well, I would submit that AI is fundamentally different to
those other issues. To booze. AI is different. Like, for example,
booze was going to take over the world, but it's
actually in recession now. So that's what's happening there. What
Labour's actually recommending is a body of AI oversight within
(09:46):
DPMC Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. And that was
actually suggested in a 2023 Maxim paper about artificial intelligence
and government. So I'm for it because this is such...
has been described as a new industrial revolution. You would
think you would want some people overseeing what's happening and
(10:06):
not a Wild West.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Well, there you go. Tim Wilson agrees with the Labour
Party and a Maxim report. And Labour agrees with the
Maxim report. Isn't that a wonderful win-win situation? For Tim
Wilson from the Maxim Institute and Mark Sainsbury, I thank
you both, gentlemen.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!