August 26, 2025 • 10 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, CTU economist Craig Renney and Infrastructure NZ CEO Nick Leggett joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
More than a hundred students at Lincoln University are being re-tested after suspicions they used AI to cheat. Is this the right move from the university?
Are we in favour of 4-year parliamentary terms?
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 Southby's International Realty. Find your
one of.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
The kind to me this evening we have Craig grinny
C to you, economist and the legot of Infrastructure New Zealand.
Hell are you too, Craig? Do you use the AI?
Speaker 3 (00:17):
I try not to.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Occasionally I do, but generally speaking, it's not something that
really works for me.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Why not.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
I'm dealing with complicated data sets and there's a consequence
it's really hard to get the AI to work that way.
Empty Frank, I'm quite old fashioned. I still own a calculator.
I still prefer to do it that way rather than.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Just for like, you know, I've got, I've got I
don't know, potato and three carrots in a ten tuna?
What should I make for dinner? You don't even use
it for that.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
At that point I'd pick up deliver easy and and
and get that to solve the problem. But I think
it's a really interesting question in from your previous interview,
which is how you stop students from using AI To
answer the question about being asked about how you didn't
use AI. You know in your previous exam, it's everywhere,
(01:12):
and it's really hard to get people, even in an
oral exam, to stop them from learning via AI the
thing that they should have learned in the first place.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Absolutely, what do you reckon? Nick? Look are you there?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
I wondered, why?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Oh yes, sir, I am sorry?
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Okay, Well, did you have any.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
People would like that?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Arry? I. I thought your interview was very interesting because
you were thinking here there and asking questions about how
we deal with this in the future. And I just
don't think I think it's that that the the academic chips,
you know, he was struggling with that, and I think
(01:54):
that's representative of society, like we are going to have
to jump ahead and consider, well, everybody's doing this, how
do we measure their knowledge and their understanding in the future.
I thought the oral test was quite a good one,
you know, for this particular assessment. And you know, the
other question that sort of came into my mind as
I listened to your questioning was how are we going
(02:17):
to look back at this in three or five years time?
Are we going to look back and go, yeah, I
know we're on the right track, sticking to our guns,
thinking that everybody had to be retested, or is the
world just going to have moved on because of AI
and the way everybody just uses it without even thinking.
So you know what the problem?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
But was it obvious to you what the problem is?
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Nick?
Speaker 2 (02:36):
The problem for universities is that they try to pump
kids out nowadays, just like it's just like a sausage
factory eight, Like a kid goes in and they come
up with a degree. And so if you have to
slow that process down and test one hundred and twenty
kids in every single class verbally, you're not going to
be able to make as much money. There's your problem.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Well, I just think that probably they're quite rigid in
the way they've decided, you know, and they want to
assess students. And that's what I was picking up is
that they just shiver as we don't have another way
of doing this, and we can't deviate. Now I understand
that from practical a practical perspective, I just think we're
going to have to evolve very quickly. Do you use method.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Neick?
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Sorry?
Speaker 1 (03:17):
What was that?
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Do you use AI?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Does the Pope wear a little red hat? Of course?
I do. I use it for everything. Interestingly, a lot
of generating thought, you know, thought for me you know, like, oh,
I've got a question about such and such, and it
might be a work related topic or it might not be.
And it can give me immediately because it knows men,
(03:40):
because I educate it, it knows exactly the direction I
want to go off.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Like give an example, what kind of existential questions are
you asking it?
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Oh? Well, okay, let me think. You know what, what
are some interesting infrastructure delivery models in Scandinavia? And they
relate to New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Even I'm so sorry for Ai. AI hates you. AI
wishes that you were not a customer. AI is much
more interested in what I'm doing, which is seending my
kids photos and Craig, do you see that you're being
left behind? You being on with it?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
It's just I don't know. When we talked about the university,
I just I wouldn't want us to lose the currency
of the qualifications that we have. Yes, I wouldn't want
us to lose you know, you know, we go there.
We give these institutions the ability to award people with
degrees and certificates that allow them to earn lots more
money to make, you know, decisions for other people. You know,
AI is really important. Clearly, we've got to design, you know,
(04:38):
institutions around you know, the different environment in which they're
going to be in and we're all going to be
in the future. But it's really important that individuals when
they leave university have the knowledge and the skills, regardless
of AI that you know, and it's really important that
we don't lose that. In thinking about that really worries me.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
It may be something close to an existential crisis for
our universities.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Actually, the huddle with New Zealand Southby's International Realty, the
global leader in luxury real estate, right.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
You're back of the huddle, Craig really and Nick Leaget right,
I'm going to start with you, Craig, because I know
Nick is going to give us a spray on this
four year terms yes or no.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
It's a yes from me. It's the other center. It
really is having worked in government, having worked in opposition,
three years is just too short. By the time you
get an election out of the way, by the time
you get through coalition negotiations, you basically have eighteen months
of governing the country. In the real world, it doesn't
lead to good long term government with value.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Craig with or without Safeguard's extra checks.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Though oh no, absolutely I couldn't. You know, we absolutely
need more safeguards. We absolutely need more opportunities to hold ministers.
So I would spend more time in the House. We
have a really good select committee process, but we ignore
the results of too many select committee processes, and we
don't spend long enough debating bills and looking at them
(06:04):
properly in the House. And we use urgency far too often.
Both parties have used urgency far too often. So I
think we need to If you're going to have a
four year term, you're going to have to slow the
House down and make better laws. But it's it's, it's so.
I think it would provide so much more stable government,
and I would provide much better planning for delivering the
(06:25):
infrastructure and the things we all need.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Okay, now, I think that probably is what you think
he is.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Well, I was going to say, I don't need to speak.
Craig has said everything that that I believe on the subject. Look, either,
I know that you've had a go at them, and
I understand your reasons why. But if New Zealand wants
different results, if we want to be more productive, if
we want to get bitter value out of our public
(06:51):
services and our infrastructure. We've got to do some things differently.
And giving a governing party or parties longer periods to
actually get their policy agenda through and make things work
seems to me to be a pretty good attempt at
doing that. And you know, why is this country? You
(07:11):
know we talk about your program every day. You talk
about things that are wrong, and I agree with you
on much of it. But here's a way, here's an
actual solution that might improve the way we govern. And yes,
like Craig, I think urgency is used far too often.
We've got to have a much higher bar. We've got
a strength in our select committees so they actually properly
(07:33):
scrutinize and listened to when they do scrutinize and come
up with amendments to legislation. And we've got to allow
parties to actually get an agenda lodged and humming at
the moment. And I take your point. You don't get
to change a four year terment. You've got to wait
(07:53):
to vote the party out. But also you get to
see the cut of their jib and you might give
them a second term.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
No leaf of them.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Here's the thing, though, Nick, I don't mind it, but
all we're talking about, well I do mind it without
the safeguards. All we're talking about is a four year term.
But no one because it's not sexy to talk about
all the other stuff that you need to do, like
the changes you need to do at Select Committee. And
but that's so fundamental. And so do you think that
if we went to a referendum and we were like
New Zealand, do you want a four year term? Would
we also have all of that stuff baked in so
(08:24):
that we could know that it would be safe.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Well, I think there needs to be a political consensus
around that, and in a sense we have to safeguard
those things that go along with it because and I
don't know how you're sabbath that. I mean, I don't
want to see that question on the referendum voting paper.
But we do have to have it baked in, don't we.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Yeah, we totally totally do, really quickly. What do you think,
Craig about the TV and Z payoffering? You like this idea?
Speaker 4 (08:54):
I haven't really seen it as the ped TV offer.
I don't I'm not a big fan of peds TV,
particularly for where there's big sporting events. It's one of
the few times the country can actually get together and free.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Do you like football?
Speaker 4 (09:08):
By the way, I'm not actually a big giant fan
of sport generally, but in terms of really I'm not
as a Newcastle United fan, you know, it's just a
permanent exercise and disappointment. But in terms of the in
terms of the in terms of what I think, the
more opportunities we can actually use TV in the the
media to actually come together rather than making an excusive
(09:31):
and holding and stopping some people from viewing it, that
to me is a much better way than than actually,
you know, putting up hay Wolves.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
What about you neck Well, I think if the if
the underlying TV channel is no longer financial, you've got
to look at ways to generate revenue to keep it going.
But I agree with Craig's sentiment actually in terms of
we do need free to wear big sporting matches available
for everybody, but actually we've also got to have you know,
(10:00):
we know that our current media structures are waning in
places and we need to look at ways to keep
them going, and that does mean revenue generation for these
sort of things, so it might be a reality. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
I mean the thing is the all whites games are free,
so we'll have our games. I don't know if i'd
call them big, but we will have them. Guys. Thank you,
Craig Rennie Nick Leggett. I'll huddle this.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Evening for more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live
to news talks they'd be from four pm weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
The huddle with New Zealand Southby's International Realty. Find your
one of.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
The kind to me this evening we have Craig grinny
C to you, economist and the legot of Infrastructure New Zealand.
Hell are you too, Craig? Do you use the AI?
Speaker 3 (00:17):
I try not to.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Occasionally I do, but generally speaking, it's not something that
really works for me.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Why not.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
I'm dealing with complicated data sets and there's a consequence
it's really hard to get the AI to work that way.
Empty Frank, I'm quite old fashioned. I still own a calculator.
I still prefer to do it that way rather than.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Just for like, you know, I've got, I've got I
don't know, potato and three carrots in a ten tuna?
What should I make for dinner? You don't even use
it for that.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
At that point I'd pick up deliver easy and and
and get that to solve the problem. But I think
it's a really interesting question in from your previous interview,
which is how you stop students from using AI To
answer the question about being asked about how you didn't
use AI. You know in your previous exam, it's everywhere,
(01:12):
and it's really hard to get people, even in an
oral exam, to stop them from learning via AI the
thing that they should have learned in the first place.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Absolutely, what do you reckon? Nick? Look are you there?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
I wondered, why?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Oh yes, sir, I am sorry?
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Okay, Well, did you have any.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
People would like that?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Arry? I. I thought your interview was very interesting because
you were thinking here there and asking questions about how
we deal with this in the future. And I just
don't think I think it's that that the the academic chips,
you know, he was struggling with that, and I think
(01:54):
that's representative of society, like we are going to have
to jump ahead and consider, well, everybody's doing this, how
do we measure their knowledge and their understanding in the future.
I thought the oral test was quite a good one,
you know, for this particular assessment. And you know, the
other question that sort of came into my mind as
I listened to your questioning was how are we going
(02:17):
to look back at this in three or five years time?
Are we going to look back and go, yeah, I
know we're on the right track, sticking to our guns,
thinking that everybody had to be retested, or is the
world just going to have moved on because of AI
and the way everybody just uses it without even thinking.
So you know what the problem?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
But was it obvious to you what the problem is?
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Nick?
Speaker 2 (02:36):
The problem for universities is that they try to pump
kids out nowadays, just like it's just like a sausage
factory eight, Like a kid goes in and they come
up with a degree. And so if you have to
slow that process down and test one hundred and twenty
kids in every single class verbally, you're not going to
be able to make as much money. There's your problem.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Well, I just think that probably they're quite rigid in
the way they've decided, you know, and they want to
assess students. And that's what I was picking up is
that they just shiver as we don't have another way
of doing this, and we can't deviate. Now I understand
that from practical a practical perspective, I just think we're
going to have to evolve very quickly. Do you use method.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Neick?
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Sorry?
Speaker 1 (03:17):
What was that?
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Do you use AI?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Does the Pope wear a little red hat? Of course?
I do. I use it for everything. Interestingly, a lot
of generating thought, you know, thought for me you know, like, oh,
I've got a question about such and such, and it
might be a work related topic or it might not be.
And it can give me immediately because it knows men,
(03:40):
because I educate it, it knows exactly the direction I
want to go off.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Like give an example, what kind of existential questions are
you asking it?
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Oh? Well, okay, let me think. You know what, what
are some interesting infrastructure delivery models in Scandinavia? And they
relate to New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Even I'm so sorry for Ai. AI hates you. AI
wishes that you were not a customer. AI is much
more interested in what I'm doing, which is seending my
kids photos and Craig, do you see that you're being
left behind? You being on with it?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
It's just I don't know. When we talked about the university,
I just I wouldn't want us to lose the currency
of the qualifications that we have. Yes, I wouldn't want
us to lose you know, you know, we go there.
We give these institutions the ability to award people with
degrees and certificates that allow them to earn lots more
money to make, you know, decisions for other people. You know,
AI is really important. Clearly, we've got to design, you know,
(04:38):
institutions around you know, the different environment in which they're
going to be in and we're all going to be
in the future. But it's really important that individuals when
they leave university have the knowledge and the skills, regardless
of AI that you know, and it's really important that
we don't lose that. In thinking about that really worries me.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
It may be something close to an existential crisis for
our universities.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Actually, the huddle with New Zealand Southby's International Realty, the
global leader in luxury real estate, right.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
You're back of the huddle, Craig really and Nick Leaget right,
I'm going to start with you, Craig, because I know
Nick is going to give us a spray on this
four year terms yes or no.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
It's a yes from me. It's the other center. It
really is having worked in government, having worked in opposition,
three years is just too short. By the time you
get an election out of the way, by the time
you get through coalition negotiations, you basically have eighteen months
of governing the country. In the real world, it doesn't
lead to good long term government with value.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Craig with or without Safeguard's extra checks.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Though oh no, absolutely I couldn't. You know, we absolutely
need more safeguards. We absolutely need more opportunities to hold ministers.
So I would spend more time in the House. We
have a really good select committee process, but we ignore
the results of too many select committee processes, and we
don't spend long enough debating bills and looking at them
(06:04):
properly in the House. And we use urgency far too often.
Both parties have used urgency far too often. So I
think we need to If you're going to have a
four year term, you're going to have to slow the
House down and make better laws. But it's it's, it's so.
I think it would provide so much more stable government,
and I would provide much better planning for delivering the
(06:25):
infrastructure and the things we all need.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Okay, now, I think that probably is what you think
he is.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Well, I was going to say, I don't need to speak.
Craig has said everything that that I believe on the subject. Look, either,
I know that you've had a go at them, and
I understand your reasons why. But if New Zealand wants
different results, if we want to be more productive, if
we want to get bitter value out of our public
(06:51):
services and our infrastructure. We've got to do some things differently.
And giving a governing party or parties longer periods to
actually get their policy agenda through and make things work
seems to me to be a pretty good attempt at
doing that. And you know, why is this country? You
(07:11):
know we talk about your program every day. You talk
about things that are wrong, and I agree with you
on much of it. But here's a way, here's an
actual solution that might improve the way we govern. And yes,
like Craig, I think urgency is used far too often.
We've got to have a much higher bar. We've got
a strength in our select committees so they actually properly
(07:33):
scrutinize and listened to when they do scrutinize and come
up with amendments to legislation. And we've got to allow
parties to actually get an agenda lodged and humming at
the moment. And I take your point. You don't get
to change a four year terment. You've got to wait
(07:53):
to vote the party out. But also you get to
see the cut of their jib and you might give
them a second term.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
No leaf of them.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Here's the thing, though, Nick, I don't mind it, but
all we're talking about, well I do mind it without
the safeguards. All we're talking about is a four year term.
But no one because it's not sexy to talk about
all the other stuff that you need to do, like
the changes you need to do at Select Committee. And
but that's so fundamental. And so do you think that
if we went to a referendum and we were like
New Zealand, do you want a four year term? Would
we also have all of that stuff baked in so
(08:24):
that we could know that it would be safe.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Well, I think there needs to be a political consensus
around that, and in a sense we have to safeguard
those things that go along with it because and I
don't know how you're sabbath that. I mean, I don't
want to see that question on the referendum voting paper.
But we do have to have it baked in, don't we.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Yeah, we totally totally do, really quickly. What do you think,
Craig about the TV and Z payoffering? You like this idea?
Speaker 4 (08:54):
I haven't really seen it as the ped TV offer.
I don't I'm not a big fan of peds TV,
particularly for where there's big sporting events. It's one of
the few times the country can actually get together and free.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Do you like football?
Speaker 4 (09:08):
By the way, I'm not actually a big giant fan
of sport generally, but in terms of really I'm not
as a Newcastle United fan, you know, it's just a
permanent exercise and disappointment. But in terms of the in
terms of the in terms of what I think, the
more opportunities we can actually use TV in the the
media to actually come together rather than making an excusive
(09:31):
and holding and stopping some people from viewing it, that
to me is a much better way than than actually,
you know, putting up hay Wolves.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
What about you neck Well, I think if the if
the underlying TV channel is no longer financial, you've got
to look at ways to generate revenue to keep it going.
But I agree with Craig's sentiment actually in terms of
we do need free to wear big sporting matches available
for everybody, but actually we've also got to have you know,
(10:00):
we know that our current media structures are waning in
places and we need to look at ways to keep
them going, and that does mean revenue generation for these
sort of things, so it might be a reality. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
I mean the thing is the all whites games are free,
so we'll have our games. I don't know if i'd
call them big, but we will have them. Guys. Thank you,
Craig Rennie Nick Leggett. I'll huddle this.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Evening for more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live
to news talks they'd be from four pm weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
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
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!