July 1, 2025 • 9 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, former Labour minister Stuart Nash and Thomas Scrimgeour from the Maxim Institute joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
The Government has introduced some new measures to crack down on shoplifting - do we see these working?
Do we see the Government helping to fund Wegovy? The obesity crisis impacts a significant amount of Kiwis - but what about the costs?
National have been talking about removing Treaty of Waitangi references and removing special treatment for certain ethnicities, but ACT and NZ First have criticised the party for not following through. What do we make of this?
Jaffas are being discontinued - will we all miss them?
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):
Pully away from six the huddle with New Zealand Southeby's
(00:03):
International Realty find You're one of a kind huddle. We've
got Stuart Ash, former Labor Party minister, and Thomas Scrimger
of the Maxim Institute. Highlights here about now, Stu, you
being a former police minister, can answer this for me.
This is read the shoplifting on the spot finds. Can
police actually hand them out before determining guilt through a court?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yeah? Sure they can. Yeah, I mean this is a
major problem. When I was Minister of Police but also
Minister of Small Business. This is a this is a
real problem. Coss retailers literally hundreds of millions of dollars
a year in this and they can get away with
scott free because there was no fines. Cops realize that
there's no pointing horn in front of the courts because
the cost of doing that was massively disproportionate to the
(00:44):
amount that they'd stolen. So really there was no there
was no solution. So I'm a big fan of I
do see the downside. The downside is that these people
who really won't be able to afford the fifty bucks
or whatever or five hundred dollars. Well, then just just
owing a whole lot of money to the point where
they probably will some of them.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Some of them have got lots of money and still
shoplift a lah gol garment, but so they can afford it.
But I still am not sure because surely if you're
standing there, the cops says to you, can you shoplifted,
here's a five hundred dollar fine, you could go No,
I didn't, and then they can't give it to you
because you are denying guilt.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Most most of the time, it's reasonably obvious if you
do so, you know, still.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Deny it unless you accept you can't be fined, right, Yeah, well, look,
very obvious workaround.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yeah, the cops will sort this out, there's no doubt
about this. But what it does do is it seems
a very clear signal and a really important signal that
there's a society in our communities. We will not tolerate
people who go and signal.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
But I need it to work as well, Thomas, can
you tell me what you think? I'm not convinced, Heather.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
I think you're onto something with enforceability questions. I mean,
I like the idea that finds a process quicker as
opposed to dragging people through the courts for shoplifting, which
just takes too long to be a proper deterrent. But
we know already the cops are struggling to enforce a
bunch of things. Just last week we were reading in
the news about trespass notices for women who've been victims
(02:10):
of domestic violence, and I think the phrase was not
worth the paper they're written on. And if cops can't
enforce tresspass notices against specific individuals who are already being identified,
I'm not sure how much this will actually be able
to be imposed upon people. Even though it's a nice idea,
it has this kind of proportionality. A fine of five
hundred bucks for you know, shoplifting up to five hundred bucks,
(02:31):
that's neat, But I'm a bit of a skeptic about
how much of a difference it will make.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Yeah, so, ste somebody's texted and said, it's like a
speeding ticket, right, you get the speeding ticket, and then
it's presume the onus is on you to disprove that
you should pay the speeding ticket. Would work like that
or would it be the other way around, where the
owners is on the cop to prove to get you
to accept guilt.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Look, the bottom line, Heather is cops prioritize jobs as
they come through, and shoplifting will be the least you
can imagine. But what we are seeing, and certainly in Napier,
we've sing a lot more men and women in blue
sort of wandering the streets, keeping people safe in being seen.
I hope it does work. I don't know if it'll
be a deterrent, but I hope it does work. But
(03:13):
you know, you may call it virtue signaling, or some
people may call it virtual virtue signaling. I don't have
a problem with that, because you know, the problem is
shoplifting is costing US hundreds of millions of dollars. At
least someone is looking to do something about it. The
cops will determine the best way to enforce it, so
let's leave it up to them.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Now, what do you think, Thomas about funding wegovy should
we do it publicly?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Well, I'm not really convinced we should be doing it publicly.
I mean, it's a bit of a shortcut drug, but
I'm sure it helps some people. But the bigger question
is why is this trial by media the National Party
in the last election campaign, we're talking about we are
going to fund thirteen cancer drugs and just overriding Farmac's processes.
And if you're a WGOV kind of shadowy lobbyist, if
(03:57):
you want a trial by media to pressure a government
or a government agency to funder thing, my thinking is,
why are we even talking about it? Let the analysts.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Figure it out.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Yeah, what do you reckonsume?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Well, here the you know, you and I are the
wrong people to talk about it, right because we spend
hours in the gym most days and we eat healthily,
and don't you still of course, well, you know you
got to keep fitting healthy at our age, at my age.
The bottom line is is I think if you've got
a medical problem that means that obesity into an outcome,
(04:29):
then it probably should be a prescription and it probably
should be funded. If you're just a fat bastard has
eaten too many pies and a lot of chips and
drunk too much coke, then the evidence shows if you're
on this drug, it's supressus hunger. Once you get off it,
then you're back to your your core weight, which is
your heaviest weight. So you've got to be on the
droke for life. You know, I am a little bit
(04:51):
you know, I'm probably not in the majority here, but
I'm a little bit about personal responsibility. Having said that,
it's a tricky one because you know, one in three
adults in New Zealand a class is obese. The cost
of the health system of treating diabetes and other health
related diseases is massive, it really is.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Yeah, Now, Stu, do you reckon because you know, if
you're doing the weights, you really need those muscles to
pop right, You need to shread for it. Would you
give yourself a little with goovi just just to get
that looking rule tight?
Speaker 2 (05:21):
No way. I would just eat less, calves more protein
and work a little bit harder.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
I love it. Personal responsibility or take a break the
huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty achieve extraordinary results
with unparallel reach. Check with the huddle. We've got Thomas
Skrimja and Stewart Nash. Thomas, what do you make of
act publicly confirming that that had this fighting cabinet with
national about removing that treaty principles from the legislation.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
Well, obviously it's a bit of a bit of trouble
for National because the coalition partners on a range of issues.
They're getting to, I guess, determine what the storyline is
to make a bit of noise Act to vocal about this.
The National really just don't want to talk. But I think,
you know, we don't want to let Act be the
ones who just say on education is just about academic excellence.
(06:08):
You know, there are other things that matter. We have
an education system that is about creating citizens and so
you know the Treaty of White tonguey. Stories of nationhood
and citizenship matter as well. So National needs to be
confident to tell a different story that isn't the old
system that Labor had in place and that Stuart was
in government for. Or Act noise making as well. So
(06:28):
the National need to be bolder about it.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
I whan the trouble that National has got there is
that every time they do something where they where they
try to kind of you know, pull a quick one
on us. Do you they just get busted by Act,
don't they you?
Speaker 2 (06:40):
No? No, I agree, I have a real problem with us.
First and foremost. If this was so important to David Seymour,
it should have been the coalition agreement and it wasn't. Secondly,
he is bound by cabinet responsibility. He has agreed to
disagree clause, so he can come out and say I
don't agree with the cabinet decision, which is a big
call to make. But he has that card up asleep,
(07:01):
which he didn't use. And I heard the Ministry of
Education in view to Mike Hoskin about this, and I
completely agree with her. There is a wider review at
the moment of treaty clauses in all legislation. The Treaty
of White Tangi clause is throughout the Education Act. If
you just take it out in one section, then then
that leads to a whole lot more trouble than just
leaving it and then waiting for the wider review. I
(07:23):
think David is being very well, well, if you're going
to take it out of the Education Act at a
one clause, you take it out of the whole Act.
But as the as Eric Stanford said, there is a
wider review going on by.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
You know, give it this though, stud because you're going
to I mean, if you're going to take it out
of it, just take it out of the bit that
you're working on at the moment, you don't need it.
Take it out right, and then then when Goldie goes
through and reviews everything, he can take all the bits out.
There's no point, though, leaving it there for him to
find if you're going to take it out anyway. No,
the reason that you leave it there is because you're
not planning to take it out. You're planning to rewrite it.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
No, No, that's not true. So my understanding is Erica
has actually taken it out of a primary objective and
put it into the second objective. What she has said
is the primary objective his educational attainment. And we all
agree on that. But as mentioned, David is breaking cabinet
confidence and if it was so important to him, why
didn't he put this in the coalition agreement? This is
David playing politics and I think it's I think it's
(08:19):
a little bit mediocre.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Okay, are you going to miss Thomas the Jaffers?
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Well, I wanted to say that I am going to
miss the Jaffers, that I'm missing this treasured treat, but
I can't remember the last time I actually bought one,
so probably a bit of a hypocritical thing to say.
I mean, I think if they come back with a
splash in the near future, you know, I might then
be sucked into buying one when they come back from
the dead. But honestly, they're not a regular habit for me.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Fly by night such an admission of exactly how we
behave there, Thomas stew of course you would never let
a thing like this cross your lips.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Well, that's why you that's why you go to the
Jim here to say you can have the odd treat.
But I'm a hard Jubes man, truth be not. Remember
the last time I had a Jeffer Jefferson's. On the
other hand, now that is the top biscuit out there.
But Jeffers not sut of my scene. I'm afraid. Really yeah,
I love them over any day every day.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Oh that's bold. Okay, guys, thank you very much. Appreciate that.
Stuart Nash and Thomas Scrimscher a huddle this evening. For
more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news Talks.
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Pully away from six the huddle with New Zealand Southeby's
(00:03):
International Realty find You're one of a kind huddle. We've
got Stuart Ash, former Labor Party minister, and Thomas Scrimger
of the Maxim Institute. Highlights here about now, Stu, you
being a former police minister, can answer this for me.
This is read the shoplifting on the spot finds. Can
police actually hand them out before determining guilt through a court?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Yeah? Sure they can. Yeah, I mean this is a
major problem. When I was Minister of Police but also
Minister of Small Business. This is a this is a
real problem. Coss retailers literally hundreds of millions of dollars
a year in this and they can get away with
scott free because there was no fines. Cops realize that
there's no pointing horn in front of the courts because
the cost of doing that was massively disproportionate to the
(00:44):
amount that they'd stolen. So really there was no there
was no solution. So I'm a big fan of I
do see the downside. The downside is that these people
who really won't be able to afford the fifty bucks
or whatever or five hundred dollars. Well, then just just
owing a whole lot of money to the point where
they probably will some of them.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Some of them have got lots of money and still
shoplift a lah gol garment, but so they can afford it.
But I still am not sure because surely if you're
standing there, the cops says to you, can you shoplifted,
here's a five hundred dollar fine, you could go No,
I didn't, and then they can't give it to you
because you are denying guilt.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Most most of the time, it's reasonably obvious if you
do so, you know, still.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Deny it unless you accept you can't be fined, right, Yeah, well, look,
very obvious workaround.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yeah, the cops will sort this out, there's no doubt
about this. But what it does do is it seems
a very clear signal and a really important signal that
there's a society in our communities. We will not tolerate
people who go and signal.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
But I need it to work as well, Thomas, can
you tell me what you think? I'm not convinced, Heather.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
I think you're onto something with enforceability questions. I mean,
I like the idea that finds a process quicker as
opposed to dragging people through the courts for shoplifting, which
just takes too long to be a proper deterrent. But
we know already the cops are struggling to enforce a
bunch of things. Just last week we were reading in
the news about trespass notices for women who've been victims
(02:10):
of domestic violence, and I think the phrase was not
worth the paper they're written on. And if cops can't
enforce tresspass notices against specific individuals who are already being identified,
I'm not sure how much this will actually be able
to be imposed upon people. Even though it's a nice idea,
it has this kind of proportionality. A fine of five
hundred bucks for you know, shoplifting up to five hundred bucks,
(02:31):
that's neat, But I'm a bit of a skeptic about
how much of a difference it will make.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Yeah, so, ste somebody's texted and said, it's like a
speeding ticket, right, you get the speeding ticket, and then
it's presume the onus is on you to disprove that
you should pay the speeding ticket. Would work like that
or would it be the other way around, where the
owners is on the cop to prove to get you
to accept guilt.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Look, the bottom line, Heather is cops prioritize jobs as
they come through, and shoplifting will be the least you
can imagine. But what we are seeing, and certainly in Napier,
we've sing a lot more men and women in blue
sort of wandering the streets, keeping people safe in being seen.
I hope it does work. I don't know if it'll
be a deterrent, but I hope it does work. But
(03:13):
you know, you may call it virtue signaling, or some
people may call it virtual virtue signaling. I don't have
a problem with that, because you know, the problem is
shoplifting is costing US hundreds of millions of dollars. At
least someone is looking to do something about it. The
cops will determine the best way to enforce it, so
let's leave it up to them.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Now, what do you think, Thomas about funding wegovy should
we do it publicly?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Well, I'm not really convinced we should be doing it publicly.
I mean, it's a bit of a shortcut drug, but
I'm sure it helps some people. But the bigger question
is why is this trial by media the National Party
in the last election campaign, we're talking about we are
going to fund thirteen cancer drugs and just overriding Farmac's processes.
And if you're a WGOV kind of shadowy lobbyist, if
(03:57):
you want a trial by media to pressure a government
or a government agency to funder thing, my thinking is,
why are we even talking about it? Let the analysts.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Figure it out.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Yeah, what do you reckonsume?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Well, here the you know, you and I are the
wrong people to talk about it, right because we spend
hours in the gym most days and we eat healthily,
and don't you still of course, well, you know you
got to keep fitting healthy at our age, at my age.
The bottom line is is I think if you've got
a medical problem that means that obesity into an outcome,
(04:29):
then it probably should be a prescription and it probably
should be funded. If you're just a fat bastard has
eaten too many pies and a lot of chips and
drunk too much coke, then the evidence shows if you're
on this drug, it's supressus hunger. Once you get off it,
then you're back to your your core weight, which is
your heaviest weight. So you've got to be on the
droke for life. You know, I am a little bit
(04:51):
you know, I'm probably not in the majority here, but
I'm a little bit about personal responsibility. Having said that,
it's a tricky one because you know, one in three
adults in New Zealand a class is obese. The cost
of the health system of treating diabetes and other health
related diseases is massive, it really is.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Yeah, Now, Stu, do you reckon because you know, if
you're doing the weights, you really need those muscles to
pop right, You need to shread for it. Would you
give yourself a little with goovi just just to get
that looking rule tight?
Speaker 2 (05:21):
No way. I would just eat less, calves more protein
and work a little bit harder.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
I love it. Personal responsibility or take a break the
huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty achieve extraordinary results
with unparallel reach. Check with the huddle. We've got Thomas
Skrimja and Stewart Nash. Thomas, what do you make of
act publicly confirming that that had this fighting cabinet with
national about removing that treaty principles from the legislation.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
Well, obviously it's a bit of a bit of trouble
for National because the coalition partners on a range of issues.
They're getting to, I guess, determine what the storyline is
to make a bit of noise Act to vocal about this.
The National really just don't want to talk. But I think,
you know, we don't want to let Act be the
ones who just say on education is just about academic excellence.
(06:08):
You know, there are other things that matter. We have
an education system that is about creating citizens and so
you know the Treaty of White tonguey. Stories of nationhood
and citizenship matter as well. So National needs to be
confident to tell a different story that isn't the old
system that Labor had in place and that Stuart was
in government for. Or Act noise making as well. So
(06:28):
the National need to be bolder about it.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
I whan the trouble that National has got there is
that every time they do something where they where they
try to kind of you know, pull a quick one
on us. Do you they just get busted by Act,
don't they you?
Speaker 2 (06:40):
No? No, I agree, I have a real problem with us.
First and foremost. If this was so important to David Seymour,
it should have been the coalition agreement and it wasn't. Secondly,
he is bound by cabinet responsibility. He has agreed to
disagree clause, so he can come out and say I
don't agree with the cabinet decision, which is a big
call to make. But he has that card up asleep,
(07:01):
which he didn't use. And I heard the Ministry of
Education in view to Mike Hoskin about this, and I
completely agree with her. There is a wider review at
the moment of treaty clauses in all legislation. The Treaty
of White Tangi clause is throughout the Education Act. If
you just take it out in one section, then then
that leads to a whole lot more trouble than just
leaving it and then waiting for the wider review. I
(07:23):
think David is being very well, well, if you're going
to take it out of the Education Act at a
one clause, you take it out of the whole Act.
But as the as Eric Stanford said, there is a
wider review going on by.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
You know, give it this though, stud because you're going
to I mean, if you're going to take it out
of it, just take it out of the bit that
you're working on at the moment, you don't need it.
Take it out right, and then then when Goldie goes
through and reviews everything, he can take all the bits out.
There's no point, though, leaving it there for him to
find if you're going to take it out anyway. No,
the reason that you leave it there is because you're
not planning to take it out. You're planning to rewrite it.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
No, No, that's not true. So my understanding is Erica
has actually taken it out of a primary objective and
put it into the second objective. What she has said
is the primary objective his educational attainment. And we all
agree on that. But as mentioned, David is breaking cabinet
confidence and if it was so important to him, why
didn't he put this in the coalition agreement? This is
David playing politics and I think it's I think it's
(08:19):
a little bit mediocre.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Okay, are you going to miss Thomas the Jaffers?
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Well, I wanted to say that I am going to
miss the Jaffers, that I'm missing this treasured treat, but
I can't remember the last time I actually bought one,
so probably a bit of a hypocritical thing to say.
I mean, I think if they come back with a
splash in the near future, you know, I might then
be sucked into buying one when they come back from
the dead. But honestly, they're not a regular habit for me.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Fly by night such an admission of exactly how we
behave there, Thomas stew of course you would never let
a thing like this cross your lips.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Well, that's why you that's why you go to the
Jim here to say you can have the odd treat.
But I'm a hard Jubes man, truth be not. Remember
the last time I had a Jeffer Jefferson's. On the
other hand, now that is the top biscuit out there.
But Jeffers not sut of my scene. I'm afraid. Really yeah,
I love them over any day every day.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Oh that's bold. Okay, guys, thank you very much. Appreciate that.
Stuart Nash and Thomas Scrimscher a huddle this evening. For
more from Heather 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.