September 7, 2024 • 10 mins
This week on the Sunday Panel, Opes Partners economist Ed McKnight and producer and commentator Irene Gardiner joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
David Seymour is vowing to push back against the Grocery Commissioner's recommendations - where do we sit on this? Are we for or against regulation? Is it necessary to create competition?
Australian model Elle Macpherson has opened up about her journey with cancer and treating it with holistic methods instead of traditional treatments. Should we be concerned with this? Do people listen to health advice from celebrities?
Are we boring? New research shows Kiwis are some of the earliest diners in the world, with many restaurants slowing down service after 7:30pm after the 5pm dinner rush. Why do we think this is?
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 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudgin
from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
EDB Yes, it is time for the Sunday Session Panel,
and joining me today we have a resident economist and
ope's partners Ed mcnight, Good morning.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Ed, Francesca, good to speak to you, and journalist.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
TV producer and commentator Irene Gardner.
Speaker 4 (00:26):
Hi, Irene, Well have a good morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Good to have you both here.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
He look.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I spoke to David Seymore this morning and we were
talking about the little pushback against the grocery Commissioner's recommendations,
and you know, I kind of I said to him, Look,
I know that you want You've got long term plans
to open up the competition, but maybe we should be
looking at some short term plans to open up the competition.
But you know, the minister didn't really agree with me.
(00:53):
To put it simply ed, how do you feel where
do you sit on this with the grocery Commissioner making
some recommendations and whether they should be sort of taken
up by cabinet.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
I guess the big question is whether more rules lead
to more competition or less competition. So I listened to
that interview and was thinking, well, how do you get
a pathway forward? And I think I've got a potential
solution for your Francesca. I reckon that if the grocery
Commissioner wants to bring in a new rule, then before
he puts that rule in place, he should come out
and tell us all what it's going to do, how
(01:27):
much is it going to low grocery prices, or what's
it actually going to do for us? And then a
year later we should look back and see whether it
worked or not. And if it didn't work, if the
new rule didn't get the results he told us it
was going to get, then that rule should automatically be
taken out. And that probably is a nice happy medium
between what the grocery Commissioner wants and what David Seymour wants,
(01:48):
which is basically say, hey, look, I don't want the
grocery Commissioner coming out making a whole heap of rules
that don't end up working for us.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Well, that also prevent other players wanting to come into
the market because of all the regulations. And I got
his point there. I understood what he was implying there
that we don't want more regulation to put off more competitors.
Your thoughts are in.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Yeah, similar, I mean it isn't It is a really
important area because you know, let's face it, there's not
much more that impacts you know, not much that impacts
the household budget more than grocery prices, and that becomes
particularly in sharp relief when you know times are tougher.
So I can understand why it's quite a lot of
(02:32):
political focus in this area. And I have no issue
with getting a commissioner, which seemed to be one of
the things that David Seemo was saying maybe was the needed.
But I think it probably is quite a good idea
having a commissioner. I don't really feel that I personally
know enough to work out exactly where you will put
the line between regiation, you know, and you know, encouraging
(02:56):
competition versus potentially accidentally stifling it. But I think it's
probably quite good that we're having a discussion because I
suspect between what there are court says and what David
Seymour is saying, I think, you know, I think, as
Ed said, we'll end up somewhere in the middle ground.
I think, and I think it's a discussion worth something
(03:17):
because we need to work at what is best, what
does work best? I mean, David made some fair points
I thought about. You know, you can sometimes with best
intentions of these things, you can end up having unintended consequences. Yeah,
so I think it's there that needs a bit of
thought and a bit of care. But yeah, hopefully between
the two different forces that might land in the right face.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
I like your solution, though, ed, and it would be
really great if there was a sort of an uptake
on that for various different actually ideas that we have
across various different sectors as well, if they were things
that could create short term change. I mean, if it's
something you know, I like your solution, But as long
as it's not something well actual, you'll see the difference
in five years. There's no point measuring in one. But
(03:58):
sure there's quite a few things that we could apply
that to.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Actually, well, I.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Think that should happen for almost all bureaucrats. Is every
time there's something we don't like in New Zealand, we
all think, do you know what we need to take
action and we need another rule. But I think often
rulemakers aren't honest enough with the public and saying well,
here is what we expect the rule to achieve and
over what time frame. Now, if they set out clear
(04:23):
guidelines in advance of here's what we want to do,
here's why we want to do it, here's the impact
we think it's going to have, and over what time frame?
And actually, if we don't see those results, we're going
to take that rule away so that we're not overburdening
the country with too many rules. And I think it'd
be really good if both politicians and filmmakers we're that
honest with the public.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
What you've just sedesced Their error is that they give
us details which we.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Are not an accountability. Can you imagine that, Irene?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Do you have any concern over celebrity's influence on public health?
The story about al macpherson talking about her cancer journey,
you know, caught the attention of quite a few people
who said, look, it's people are totally entitled to make
the own decisions around their health, but when you decide
to publicize them, there is a responsibility to make sure
they're explained in context.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
That one did worry me. It always worries me when
someone talks about, oh, I didn't have my chemo or
my this or my va. You know, I did this
because I hate to say this, but that's often followed
by a story a couple of years later where that
person has died. Because you know, I'm not saying that
natural healing can't help, but sometimes you need to throw
(05:34):
the whole everything at things. And I think El's comments
were misleading because of the type of pre cancer condition
that she had and various things. But I think what
does happen that ends up counts balancing It is that
the conversation then begins and people come out and say, hey,
be careful, da da da. So I think on balance,
when well known people do talk openly about medical things,
(05:58):
generally speaking, it is a good thing because you know,
I know of suitutions where a well known person talked
about I don't know, a prostrate to show or something,
and some man thinks all over to go and check that,
and the next thing you know, they've found something small
and all as well. I know when Kevin Melne had
his issues with health issue, he talked very openly about
it and that helped a few people. So I think
(06:19):
I'm balance. It's a good thing when well known people
talk about these things and get it out there. But
I think you do have to be really careful when
you start to getting into natural healing of cancer things
along those lines.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
No, I think you're absolutely right, Iren. I think there
is a role for celebrities to pay for making people comfort,
warning people about things, making them feel less alone in things.
I mean, I don't think speaking on behalf of both
of you, but Yed, I don't think either of us
would make a decision about our health based on what
a celebrity did. I think we'd all probably listen to
our doctor, wouldn't we.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Yeah, And that's for two reasons. You've got a lot
of survivors bias in this story, and that we only
hear about this story because she decided not to go
down the traditional medical route and it worked for her. Now,
what you won't here as all of the stories of
people who perhaps went down a similar route and unfortunately
it didn't work out so well for them. So we've
(07:13):
always got to be very careful in filtering out information.
And I was just out for breakfast with a friend
discussing this, and she was saying, when you hear about celebrities,
and especially Al Macpherson, you've got to remember that they
are speaking from a huge position of privilege where they
can afford and I'm not even making this up. I
think it was thirty two or thirty four doctors that
she could consult with, and for the last forty years
(07:36):
she's probably been eating the best food, seeing a personal
trainer a couple of times a week, if not more,
being able to pay for the best yoga and any
other treatments to help her get healthy. Now that's not
going to be available for most people. And so you've
always got to remember that what worked for a celebrity
isn't necessarily going to work for someone who's a more
(07:57):
normal person like us three, where you've got more of
the stresses from everyday life and less money.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I mean, you wouldn't. You wouldn't make decisions based on
what a celebrity seed or did, would you.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
Irene, Well, I wouldn't. But you know, obviously, if something
triggered someone to go and get a check for something.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
That's a good, great thing, yep.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
But yeah, no, it can also be a bad thing.
I mean, the tastic example was Jimmy McCarthy in America
with all her stuffling King vac scenes to autism, and
that did so much harm for so long, and you know,
is still hard to get people through that won't go there.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Thank you for bringing that up, Irene. Now are we
really boring? Apparently we have the earliest dinners in the world.
When we go out, we have the earliest last order. Generally,
our kitchens are sort of done and dusted by about
eight thirty in the evening, Irene, what's the latest night
you've had? It recently?
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Barely leave my sofa. Friend. I'm very pleased to hear though,
that I'm a trend because I've always wanted to eat
my dinner early, and things have always teased me about it.
But so no, I'm part of a trend now, isn't it.
I mean, you know, I'm not a person of great stomach.
(09:15):
It's much basically a digestion to eat earlier.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Well, people who are sort of on the intimateent fasting
or like to have a you know a period of
time where they don't eat, you sip for them, they're
eating earlier, and it is good to digestive food before
you sleep in things? Is it? Is it? Is it
a health issue? Or we just are we just tied
ed and we want to go to bed.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Look, I recently turned thirty one, and I could tell
you it's because we're tired and we want to go
to bed and with sick of going out late. But
I'd say probably the latest I've been out of seven
thirty is my usual time. I think the latest would
have been about nine pm. And it's actually quite difficult
to get a table at nine pm these days, even
in Auckland, because as you said, a lot of places
(09:56):
close their kitchens around eight thirty.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Thirty one, Ed Irene, I feel I feel quite young.
And Chipper is the hearing ED talk about at thirty
one that he you know, can't go out either or
Red No, I love it. Thank you both so much
for joining me. Ed McKnight and Iron Garnet.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live to News Talks it Be from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudgin
from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
EDB Yes, it is time for the Sunday Session Panel,
and joining me today we have a resident economist and
ope's partners Ed mcnight, Good morning.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Ed, Francesca, good to speak to you, and journalist.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
TV producer and commentator Irene Gardner.
Speaker 4 (00:26):
Hi, Irene, Well have a good morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Good to have you both here.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
He look.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I spoke to David Seymore this morning and we were
talking about the little pushback against the grocery Commissioner's recommendations,
and you know, I kind of I said to him, Look,
I know that you want You've got long term plans
to open up the competition, but maybe we should be
looking at some short term plans to open up the competition.
But you know, the minister didn't really agree with me.
(00:53):
To put it simply ed, how do you feel where
do you sit on this with the grocery Commissioner making
some recommendations and whether they should be sort of taken
up by cabinet.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
I guess the big question is whether more rules lead
to more competition or less competition. So I listened to
that interview and was thinking, well, how do you get
a pathway forward? And I think I've got a potential
solution for your Francesca. I reckon that if the grocery
Commissioner wants to bring in a new rule, then before
he puts that rule in place, he should come out
and tell us all what it's going to do, how
(01:27):
much is it going to low grocery prices, or what's
it actually going to do for us? And then a
year later we should look back and see whether it
worked or not. And if it didn't work, if the
new rule didn't get the results he told us it
was going to get, then that rule should automatically be
taken out. And that probably is a nice happy medium
between what the grocery Commissioner wants and what David Seymour wants,
(01:48):
which is basically say, hey, look, I don't want the
grocery Commissioner coming out making a whole heap of rules
that don't end up working for us.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Well, that also prevent other players wanting to come into
the market because of all the regulations. And I got
his point there. I understood what he was implying there
that we don't want more regulation to put off more competitors.
Your thoughts are in.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Yeah, similar, I mean it isn't It is a really
important area because you know, let's face it, there's not
much more that impacts you know, not much that impacts
the household budget more than grocery prices, and that becomes
particularly in sharp relief when you know times are tougher.
So I can understand why it's quite a lot of
(02:32):
political focus in this area. And I have no issue
with getting a commissioner, which seemed to be one of
the things that David Seemo was saying maybe was the needed.
But I think it probably is quite a good idea
having a commissioner. I don't really feel that I personally
know enough to work out exactly where you will put
the line between regiation, you know, and you know, encouraging
(02:56):
competition versus potentially accidentally stifling it. But I think it's
probably quite good that we're having a discussion because I
suspect between what there are court says and what David
Seymour is saying, I think, you know, I think, as
Ed said, we'll end up somewhere in the middle ground.
I think, and I think it's a discussion worth something
(03:17):
because we need to work at what is best, what
does work best? I mean, David made some fair points
I thought about. You know, you can sometimes with best
intentions of these things, you can end up having unintended consequences. Yeah,
so I think it's there that needs a bit of
thought and a bit of care. But yeah, hopefully between
the two different forces that might land in the right face.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
I like your solution, though, ed, and it would be
really great if there was a sort of an uptake
on that for various different actually ideas that we have
across various different sectors as well, if they were things
that could create short term change. I mean, if it's
something you know, I like your solution, But as long
as it's not something well actual, you'll see the difference
in five years. There's no point measuring in one. But
(03:58):
sure there's quite a few things that we could apply
that to.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Actually, well, I.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Think that should happen for almost all bureaucrats. Is every
time there's something we don't like in New Zealand, we
all think, do you know what we need to take
action and we need another rule. But I think often
rulemakers aren't honest enough with the public and saying well,
here is what we expect the rule to achieve and
over what time frame. Now, if they set out clear
(04:23):
guidelines in advance of here's what we want to do,
here's why we want to do it, here's the impact
we think it's going to have, and over what time frame?
And actually, if we don't see those results, we're going
to take that rule away so that we're not overburdening
the country with too many rules. And I think it'd
be really good if both politicians and filmmakers we're that
honest with the public.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
What you've just sedesced Their error is that they give
us details which we.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
Are not an accountability. Can you imagine that, Irene?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Do you have any concern over celebrity's influence on public health?
The story about al macpherson talking about her cancer journey,
you know, caught the attention of quite a few people
who said, look, it's people are totally entitled to make
the own decisions around their health, but when you decide
to publicize them, there is a responsibility to make sure
they're explained in context.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
That one did worry me. It always worries me when
someone talks about, oh, I didn't have my chemo or
my this or my va. You know, I did this
because I hate to say this, but that's often followed
by a story a couple of years later where that
person has died. Because you know, I'm not saying that
natural healing can't help, but sometimes you need to throw
(05:34):
the whole everything at things. And I think El's comments
were misleading because of the type of pre cancer condition
that she had and various things. But I think what
does happen that ends up counts balancing It is that
the conversation then begins and people come out and say, hey,
be careful, da da da. So I think on balance,
when well known people do talk openly about medical things,
(05:58):
generally speaking, it is a good thing because you know,
I know of suitutions where a well known person talked
about I don't know, a prostrate to show or something,
and some man thinks all over to go and check that,
and the next thing you know, they've found something small
and all as well. I know when Kevin Melne had
his issues with health issue, he talked very openly about
it and that helped a few people. So I think
(06:19):
I'm balance. It's a good thing when well known people
talk about these things and get it out there. But
I think you do have to be really careful when
you start to getting into natural healing of cancer things
along those lines.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
No, I think you're absolutely right, Iren. I think there
is a role for celebrities to pay for making people comfort,
warning people about things, making them feel less alone in things.
I mean, I don't think speaking on behalf of both
of you, but Yed, I don't think either of us
would make a decision about our health based on what
a celebrity did. I think we'd all probably listen to
our doctor, wouldn't we.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Yeah, And that's for two reasons. You've got a lot
of survivors bias in this story, and that we only
hear about this story because she decided not to go
down the traditional medical route and it worked for her. Now,
what you won't here as all of the stories of
people who perhaps went down a similar route and unfortunately
it didn't work out so well for them. So we've
(07:13):
always got to be very careful in filtering out information.
And I was just out for breakfast with a friend
discussing this, and she was saying, when you hear about celebrities,
and especially Al Macpherson, you've got to remember that they
are speaking from a huge position of privilege where they
can afford and I'm not even making this up. I
think it was thirty two or thirty four doctors that
she could consult with, and for the last forty years
(07:36):
she's probably been eating the best food, seeing a personal
trainer a couple of times a week, if not more,
being able to pay for the best yoga and any
other treatments to help her get healthy. Now that's not
going to be available for most people. And so you've
always got to remember that what worked for a celebrity
isn't necessarily going to work for someone who's a more
(07:57):
normal person like us three, where you've got more of
the stresses from everyday life and less money.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I mean, you wouldn't. You wouldn't make decisions based on
what a celebrity seed or did, would you.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
Irene, Well, I wouldn't. But you know, obviously, if something
triggered someone to go and get a check for something.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
That's a good, great thing, yep.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
But yeah, no, it can also be a bad thing.
I mean, the tastic example was Jimmy McCarthy in America
with all her stuffling King vac scenes to autism, and
that did so much harm for so long, and you know,
is still hard to get people through that won't go there.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Thank you for bringing that up, Irene. Now are we
really boring? Apparently we have the earliest dinners in the world.
When we go out, we have the earliest last order. Generally,
our kitchens are sort of done and dusted by about
eight thirty in the evening, Irene, what's the latest night
you've had? It recently?
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Barely leave my sofa. Friend. I'm very pleased to hear though,
that I'm a trend because I've always wanted to eat
my dinner early, and things have always teased me about it.
But so no, I'm part of a trend now, isn't it.
I mean, you know, I'm not a person of great stomach.
(09:15):
It's much basically a digestion to eat earlier.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Well, people who are sort of on the intimateent fasting
or like to have a you know a period of
time where they don't eat, you sip for them, they're
eating earlier, and it is good to digestive food before
you sleep in things? Is it? Is it? Is it
a health issue? Or we just are we just tied
ed and we want to go to bed.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Look, I recently turned thirty one, and I could tell
you it's because we're tired and we want to go
to bed and with sick of going out late. But
I'd say probably the latest I've been out of seven
thirty is my usual time. I think the latest would
have been about nine pm. And it's actually quite difficult
to get a table at nine pm these days, even
in Auckland, because as you said, a lot of places
(09:56):
close their kitchens around eight thirty.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Thirty one, Ed Irene, I feel I feel quite young.
And Chipper is the hearing ED talk about at thirty
one that he you know, can't go out either or
Red No, I love it. Thank you both so much
for joining me. Ed McKnight and Iron Garnet.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live to News Talks it Be from nine am Sunday,
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.
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!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.