June 25, 2024 • 8 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers' Union and Government relations consultant Kaine Thompson joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
The Government has announced a second Covid inquiry into the economic and societal impacts of lockdowns, restrictions and vaccine mandates. Is this necessary?
The new Three Strikes reigime has been introduced to the House today - what do we think? Is it too watered-down?
Julian Assange is free now - what happens next?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The huddle with New Zealand Southerby's International Realty exceptional marketing
for every property on.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
The huddle with us this evening, we've got Jordan Williams
Taxpayers Union in Cane Thompson Government Relations consultant. How are
you too, I'm going to come back to this. I'm
going to come back to this and just attack. First
of all, though, do you think, Jordan that we are
going to end up with Jacinda and Ashley in the
stand giving public submissions?
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Well, I hope.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
So.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
You look around the world and the equivalent inquiries have
potted under the litmus tests in a public hearing the
decision makers that frankly, they you know, it's difficult to
imagine sending people home to stay at home is pretty amazing.
It is incredible that we've not had that to date
and that the current inquiry had all that behind closed doors. Look,
(00:47):
even if there's nothing wrong, it is only right. I mean,
for example, look at what came out in Scotland and
in Britain in relation to the WhatsApp messages. We pride
ourselves on being on having trends experient government, and this
is of course we should understand what was going on
behind the scenes, and I think it's just extraordinary that
(01:09):
that wasn't the default.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Yeah, absolutely, Kine, Are you there for that? I'm there
for that.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Am I there for having people up on the stand?
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
You don't want you don't want the decision makers to
answer some questions about sending you home.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
I think if we had the decision makers on the stand,
and there's a whole lot of people besides the iconic
view that we would all point to and say that
they should be on the stand. But if you go
back and think about the shape of the current Royal
Commission of Inquiry, Yes, the the scope is new, but
I think we've got kind of swung the other way
around where we've gone, Okay, we're going to have a
(01:45):
huge public trial to hear all the concerns that people have,
which we know from a certain demographic, is going to
be putting people on trial for their views that the vaccine.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Calls the country has that happy.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Yes it does, Yes it does, Yes it does. That's
what we're responding to. I think there's a middle ground here,
which is, yes, there needs to be accountability, Yes, there
needs to be transparency. I think the lessons that we
can learn were the systems that were put in place
at the time to provide the oversight necessary for the
public's assurance, were they right? I think that's the question
that needs to be answered. That the one I would
(02:22):
be interested in.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
COVID has done more to drive both both polarization and
reduced trust and institutions in New Zealand. To say that
that the will suggest that this sort of inquiry should
be behind closed doors, how does that address those questions.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
I'm not suggesting it should be behind closed doors, and
I don't think COVID is the problem. I think what
is responded to, how we've responded to COVID has been
the problem. The fact that it's sitting behind closed doors,
I think is being addressed by the second round of
the inquiry. But we shouldn't be looking for something that
provides us with the opportunity to put people on trial.
That's not the objective. The objective is to make sure
(03:00):
that in future, when these situations arrive, that we're better
equipped to be no. No, no, no, no, no no no.
And I agree it's going to be.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
About the next pandemic. What I want is answers about
what was done to this country. I think we deserve them, Okain.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
I am here. I'm taking account of you here. You know,
like I think there is a degree of accountability and
transparency in the process. That's the fight. I've said that before.
I just don't know that braying over a trial is
the right way to go about.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Love.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Do you love just and Nanna? You're scared of what's
going to happen to her.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
I'm not scared of what's going to happen to anyone.
I think if anyone gets into public office, they have
to be a counsel and they have to be transparent.
All right, I'm okay with that part. But I think
that there's a whole system that sits behind us. It
can't just be yes.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
But there's always one there's always one boss Kine who
makes the call, and that boss is going to have
to wear it. Will take a quick back, can come back.
We're definite gonna talk about the three strikes the.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's international realty, unparalleled reach and results.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
On the huddle with me, We've got Can Thompson, Jordan
Williams right, Jordan. The three streakes is three strikes law,
needs beefing up, doesn't it.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Yeah. Firstly, let me just make clear. I think I
worked with Nicole McKee prior to before she was before
she was famous. I think Nicole is one of the
most remarkable New Zealander is one of the most remarkable MPs.
I am sad to say Nicole has been totally captured
by officials on this matter. It is so bad. This
(04:35):
three strikes two point zero. It is so bad the
Sensible Sentencing Trust. The guys that were behind the first
round are literally reforming the band or a fundraising to
sort of reform their group in order to oppose this law.
It is so bad. I thought that it was extraordinary
that Nicole said that. You know, but the good thing
(04:58):
is this won't be repealed by Labor.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Well.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
No, your job is to get good law across the mind.
It is to protect us from from absolute thugs, these recidivus.
I mean, you've got you reading out the profile earlier.
It's extraordinary. That's your job, not measure it well. Labour
thinks this is okay, because I thought, because.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
If Labour thinks it's okay, it's probably not.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
That is just extraordinary. The other thing I mean I've look,
I'm not bring any sex. Secretly, I've had an a
call up about this and she said yes. But the
advice I'm getting is that it's retrospective. And we can't
mean to think that they're not even going to count
the strikes under the last regime. They're going to reset
everyone absolutely nuts. Look, she needs to get external legal advice.
(05:43):
It does not take the brains of Britain to realize
this is not retrospective. It is simply sentencing policy for
offenses that haven't yet been committed. Too, right, it is
not retrospective.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Caine, what do you.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Think, Well, surprise, surprise, I'm going to agree with you
if you want to pass the law with regardless of
whether I agree with it or not, or anyone agrees
with whether or not. If you're passing law, pass the
law you want to pass. This doesn't feel like it's
the law they want to pass. And I think that
the argument that some would make that it's retroactive, well, look,
(06:18):
plenty of law can be retroactive if you think about
the way that it's applied. I think that Jordan's probably
right again that their offessionals have captured the view here
of the minister. Yeah, yeah, that's sorry the other way around.
But I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the law.
But if you're going to pass the law, make the
law work. To say that it's going to withstand the
(06:38):
scrutiny of a subsequent government, I think is weak source
to be honest.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Are too right? Hey Kane, what do you think of
Juliana Sane walking for you?
Speaker 4 (06:46):
Finally, I don't know if I care hither. I think
like it's a it was a huge deal what twenty
years ago. Yes, it's taken on a life of its own.
I mean, yes, he annoyed the government of the United
States of America. Mike Pence has already said it to
this Garage of Justice and all the rest of it.
But you know, like we're twenty years on, I'm not
sure I care.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Yeah, what do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Jordan? I'm really torn on this matter. He exposed the
UIs government for clearly illegal and highly unethical, disgraceful behavior.
On the other hand, the allegation that he was begged
for stuff to be redacted that put lives in danger
and he chose not to points to him being evil too.
But you just can't tell what is sinister from the
(07:31):
UIs government because very clearly has been law fear against him. Yeah,
I really struggle to figure out who the hero is here.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
For his own sake, Like it's got this outright, Kane,
because at least he's going to get some sunlight and
proper food. I mean, he's not looking at me.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
It's the text was your needs were looking for an
investigator at the moment, are you? I mean he's probably
would he be employable?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Actually, maybe you can come join our police for us.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
To be if you'd spend your good characteristic And I
also think his techniques might be a little old. Yeah,
as anyone's surprised that the United States government has been
up to up to f words on this. You know,
I was told I couldn't use some words on the
show tonight that story. Yeah, but you know, so he's
(08:19):
had his twenty years and in a situation where he
had his rights constrained. Regardless of how that was played out,
whether it was in an embassy he couldn't get out of,
whether it was in Belmarsh pregnant, where it was, wherever
it was, he's paid his price.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Yeah, I tend to agree. Hey, guys, thank you We're
going to leave the next one because I'm terrified that
Jordan's going to say all the bad words out loud. Jordan, Williams,
Kane Thompson a huddle this
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Evening 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.
The huddle with New Zealand Southerby's International Realty exceptional marketing
for every property on.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
The huddle with us this evening, we've got Jordan Williams
Taxpayers Union in Cane Thompson Government Relations consultant. How are
you too, I'm going to come back to this. I'm
going to come back to this and just attack. First
of all, though, do you think, Jordan that we are
going to end up with Jacinda and Ashley in the
stand giving public submissions?
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Well, I hope.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
So.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
You look around the world and the equivalent inquiries have
potted under the litmus tests in a public hearing the
decision makers that frankly, they you know, it's difficult to
imagine sending people home to stay at home is pretty amazing.
It is incredible that we've not had that to date
and that the current inquiry had all that behind closed doors. Look,
(00:47):
even if there's nothing wrong, it is only right. I mean,
for example, look at what came out in Scotland and
in Britain in relation to the WhatsApp messages. We pride
ourselves on being on having trends experient government, and this
is of course we should understand what was going on
behind the scenes, and I think it's just extraordinary that
(01:09):
that wasn't the default.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Yeah, absolutely, Kine, Are you there for that? I'm there
for that.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Am I there for having people up on the stand?
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
You don't want you don't want the decision makers to
answer some questions about sending you home.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
I think if we had the decision makers on the stand,
and there's a whole lot of people besides the iconic
view that we would all point to and say that
they should be on the stand. But if you go
back and think about the shape of the current Royal
Commission of Inquiry, Yes, the the scope is new, but
I think we've got kind of swung the other way
around where we've gone, Okay, we're going to have a
(01:45):
huge public trial to hear all the concerns that people have,
which we know from a certain demographic, is going to
be putting people on trial for their views that the vaccine.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Calls the country has that happy.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Yes it does, Yes it does, Yes it does. That's
what we're responding to. I think there's a middle ground here,
which is, yes, there needs to be accountability, Yes, there
needs to be transparency. I think the lessons that we
can learn were the systems that were put in place
at the time to provide the oversight necessary for the
public's assurance, were they right? I think that's the question
that needs to be answered. That the one I would
(02:22):
be interested in.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
COVID has done more to drive both both polarization and
reduced trust and institutions in New Zealand. To say that
that the will suggest that this sort of inquiry should
be behind closed doors, how does that address those questions.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
I'm not suggesting it should be behind closed doors, and
I don't think COVID is the problem. I think what
is responded to, how we've responded to COVID has been
the problem. The fact that it's sitting behind closed doors,
I think is being addressed by the second round of
the inquiry. But we shouldn't be looking for something that
provides us with the opportunity to put people on trial.
That's not the objective. The objective is to make sure
(03:00):
that in future, when these situations arrive, that we're better
equipped to be no. No, no, no, no, no no no.
And I agree it's going to be.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
About the next pandemic. What I want is answers about
what was done to this country. I think we deserve them, Okain.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
I am here. I'm taking account of you here. You know,
like I think there is a degree of accountability and
transparency in the process. That's the fight. I've said that before.
I just don't know that braying over a trial is
the right way to go about.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Love.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Do you love just and Nanna? You're scared of what's
going to happen to her.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
I'm not scared of what's going to happen to anyone.
I think if anyone gets into public office, they have
to be a counsel and they have to be transparent.
All right, I'm okay with that part. But I think
that there's a whole system that sits behind us. It
can't just be yes.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
But there's always one there's always one boss Kine who
makes the call, and that boss is going to have
to wear it. Will take a quick back, can come back.
We're definite gonna talk about the three strikes the.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's international realty, unparalleled reach and results.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
On the huddle with me, We've got Can Thompson, Jordan
Williams right, Jordan. The three streakes is three strikes law,
needs beefing up, doesn't it.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Yeah. Firstly, let me just make clear. I think I
worked with Nicole McKee prior to before she was before
she was famous. I think Nicole is one of the
most remarkable New Zealander is one of the most remarkable MPs.
I am sad to say Nicole has been totally captured
by officials on this matter. It is so bad. This
(04:35):
three strikes two point zero. It is so bad the
Sensible Sentencing Trust. The guys that were behind the first
round are literally reforming the band or a fundraising to
sort of reform their group in order to oppose this law.
It is so bad. I thought that it was extraordinary
that Nicole said that. You know, but the good thing
(04:58):
is this won't be repealed by Labor.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Well.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
No, your job is to get good law across the mind.
It is to protect us from from absolute thugs, these recidivus.
I mean, you've got you reading out the profile earlier.
It's extraordinary. That's your job, not measure it well. Labour
thinks this is okay, because I thought, because.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
If Labour thinks it's okay, it's probably not.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
That is just extraordinary. The other thing I mean I've look,
I'm not bring any sex. Secretly, I've had an a
call up about this and she said yes. But the
advice I'm getting is that it's retrospective. And we can't
mean to think that they're not even going to count
the strikes under the last regime. They're going to reset
everyone absolutely nuts. Look, she needs to get external legal advice.
(05:43):
It does not take the brains of Britain to realize
this is not retrospective. It is simply sentencing policy for
offenses that haven't yet been committed. Too, right, it is
not retrospective.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Caine, what do you.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Think, Well, surprise, surprise, I'm going to agree with you
if you want to pass the law with regardless of
whether I agree with it or not, or anyone agrees
with whether or not. If you're passing law, pass the
law you want to pass. This doesn't feel like it's
the law they want to pass. And I think that
the argument that some would make that it's retroactive, well, look,
(06:18):
plenty of law can be retroactive if you think about
the way that it's applied. I think that Jordan's probably
right again that their offessionals have captured the view here
of the minister. Yeah, yeah, that's sorry the other way around.
But I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the law.
But if you're going to pass the law, make the
law work. To say that it's going to withstand the
(06:38):
scrutiny of a subsequent government, I think is weak source
to be honest.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Are too right? Hey Kane, what do you think of
Juliana Sane walking for you?
Speaker 4 (06:46):
Finally, I don't know if I care hither. I think
like it's a it was a huge deal what twenty
years ago. Yes, it's taken on a life of its own.
I mean, yes, he annoyed the government of the United
States of America. Mike Pence has already said it to
this Garage of Justice and all the rest of it.
But you know, like we're twenty years on, I'm not
sure I care.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Yeah, what do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Jordan? I'm really torn on this matter. He exposed the
UIs government for clearly illegal and highly unethical, disgraceful behavior.
On the other hand, the allegation that he was begged
for stuff to be redacted that put lives in danger
and he chose not to points to him being evil too.
But you just can't tell what is sinister from the
(07:31):
UIs government because very clearly has been law fear against him. Yeah,
I really struggle to figure out who the hero is here.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
For his own sake, Like it's got this outright, Kane,
because at least he's going to get some sunlight and
proper food. I mean, he's not looking at me.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
It's the text was your needs were looking for an
investigator at the moment, are you? I mean he's probably
would he be employable?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Actually, maybe you can come join our police for us.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
To be if you'd spend your good characteristic And I
also think his techniques might be a little old. Yeah,
as anyone's surprised that the United States government has been
up to up to f words on this. You know,
I was told I couldn't use some words on the
show tonight that story. Yeah, but you know, so he's
(08:19):
had his twenty years and in a situation where he
had his rights constrained. Regardless of how that was played out,
whether it was in an embassy he couldn't get out of,
whether it was in Belmarsh pregnant, where it was, wherever
it was, he's paid his price.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
Yeah, I tend to agree. Hey, guys, thank you We're
going to leave the next one because I'm terrified that
Jordan's going to say all the bad words out loud. Jordan, Williams,
Kane Thompson a huddle this
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Evening 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.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.