May 10, 2025 • 10 mins
This week on the Sunday Panel, ZB Wellington mornings host Nick Mills and broadcaster and journalist Wilhelmina Shrimpton joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
Labour has introduced a new members' bill designed to crack down on tobacco lobbying. Do we need to stop lobbying - or introduce more transparency in the name of health and safety?
Ahead of a House of Lords vote on Monday, 400 artists have signed letter seeking protection from AI - can Governments get ahead of technology with policy?
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 Rudkin
from News Talks edb.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
It it's time for the panel, and today I'm joined
by broadcaster and journalist Wilhelmina Shrimpton. Good morning, Wilhelmina, good morning,
and also ZB Wellington Morning's host Nick Mills.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
How you doing, Nick, I'm doing great, Thanks and great.
Thank you for not calling me a reporter as well.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Were you happy we Were you happy with the introduction?
Was it okay? Ning y?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I don't want to claim to have any reporter.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
Right, no, fair enough.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I think I think we're all we're all in our
right boxes. Let's start by talking about lobbying. I had
a chat to Antolli about this earlier this morning, because
there's been a few cases of you know, we suddenly
realizing the impact that maybe tobacco and alcohol lobbyists can
have on our policy, which really shouldn't be of a
huge surprise. But I suppose the question, Wilhelmina, is how
(01:04):
much input and how much weight should be taken? Should
they have and we should put on their input and
should we be more transparent about it?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (01:14):
One hundred percent.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
I definitely think when it comes to making decisions and
forming policies about something as important as health, that all
sides and all opinions and all experiences of course should
be considered, as long as that one particular side isn't
being favored over the other for any particular reason.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
It would seem to me that the industry.
Speaker 5 (01:32):
In particular the likes of tobacco and alcohol industries, would
have insights perhaps that others may not be able to address.
And given how big a player they are, they're a
really important voice to be heard in this discussion and
in the process of forming this policy, so it wouldn't
really be fair to silence them. But I do agree
with what Anne was saying earlier on the show that
it does need to be transparent. Transparency means that we're
(01:54):
able to better keep decision and policy makers accountable. Everything's
above board, we understand the process, and we need to
make sure that. Of course, if there's more eyeballs on
it and we know what's going on, that it's hard
anything dodge to go ahead.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I mean, everyone should be able to have their say.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Nick, right, Yeah, I'm not a great fan of lobbyists
and the whole stuff that came out that they've got
VIP cards that can sniff and to be hive any
time they want. And these are very very clever and
influential people that have been decision makers in the past,
have got connections from a past life. You know. I
think it needs to be one hell of a more
(02:29):
transparent than it is right now. And even someone like
myself who does sell alcohol. Yes there should be a
view and yes there should be the information should be there,
but it should be so transparent that everybody can see everything.
And you know, I think that you know, the whole
idea of some elite group of ex journalists X high
(02:51):
profile people can have some sort of influence over some
stuff that's probably probably not that great. It's not a
good idea.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Well, I think there is an issue, isn't there When
someone walks straight out of being a minister and cabinet
and then takes a lobby too, and they know exactly
kind of where the government sits, what their ideas are
on things, how they work will ameanor. I don't think
that's an ideal situation that someone can walk straight into
that environment. There needs a bit of a stand down period,
doesn't there?
Speaker 4 (03:18):
Oh one hundred percent.
Speaker 5 (03:19):
I mean that knowledge, that information, those contacts, even those processes,
like you say, like the swipe cars, that's all an
area of privilege that perhaps other groups who are also
trying to have their say and their view heard, don't
have so completely. Think that there should be a firm
line drawn in the sand, a stand down period. That's
not to say that those connections are going to fall
(03:39):
by the wayside, They'll always be there, but I think
the objects of it, definitely in the first instance, is
to have that distance will mean.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
That it's a more robust process.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
You'd hope, Nick, just playing devil's advocate here, could you say,
do you think it would be okay to say, actually,
if we are dealing with life and death, we're dealing
with something as serious as tobacco, which has a massive
impact on someone's house, Yes, we should limit lobbying. What
do you think that it's too difficult? Then you you know,
(04:09):
it's hard to draw a line in the sand where
lobbying can start and stop.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
And even the thought you know, it's Mother's Day and
happy Mother's data all by the way you think about it.
You know, Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Alcohol lobbyists being able
to have a say in that. Really is that anything?
I mean, I understand about where you can sell alcohol
and what alcohol does, they should be involved in all that,
(04:34):
but something as specific as that that really sorry that
that grinds my gears a little bit, right, you and Amana, I.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Just don't think that it would be fair to say
no to one particular facet and then say yes to others.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
I totally understand the concern.
Speaker 5 (04:51):
I agree with the concern and the potential sway that
they might have, but I just don't think it can
be one set of rules for one section or facet
or policy an area and.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
Another set of rules for other It has to be
one one way or the other.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
And the other thing that we've got to remember, these
are very influential, smart people that are a lobbyist on
talking about they can very very much sway people. They
swayed people in their previous lives. The history is very careful.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Yeah, I mean, the history of tobacco lobbyists since the
nineteen fifties is actually quite fascinating. But look, that's a
whole nother story. Let's move on to AI and we're
taking a look at what's happening in the UK, because
of course, I think we're all very concerned about AI
and making sure that you know, we can get all
the benefits from it but without destroying industries, and creative
industries are particularly concerned about it, and in the UK
four hundred British musicians and writers and artists have said,
(05:42):
hang on a minute. The system that you want to
all set up, which is basically I have to opt
out of allowing AI companies to scrape my material and
use the data, isn't going to work. We want a
little bit more reassurance from you that you're going to
develop some kind of licensing regime that's going to allow,
you know, for this human created content well into the future.
(06:04):
I think they've got to I think this is absolutely
the conversation we should be having willing manner. But I
just think it's really hard to put in place and
for it to have an impact, because if a UK
company doesn't like what's been implied to them, they can
just set up somewhere else and continue scraping whatever material
they want.
Speaker 5 (06:25):
One hundred percent, AI is such a fascinating topic. I
can talk about it for ever. It's so exciting but
also quite scary. At the same time, you know, you've
got the likes of political figures videos being made as
propaganda and it's not actually there more the likes of
deep fake pornography where someone's taking someone else's image and
using artificial intelligence to jug it and make it look
(06:45):
as if it's them.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (06:48):
Look, I think that there is definitely there's merit and
introducing some form of legislation or rules of regulation, but
I just worry about it actually keeping up with the
technological advances. I mean, we saw this a lot with
Digital Communications Act. The intent, the sentiment was there to
try and crack down unharmful behavior online, but given how
fast moving technology is, a lot of that struggles to
(07:08):
keep up. And I know there was a point in
time I was doing stories around revenge porn and it's
since been amended and changed now, but previously the threshold
for proving harm was so high it was near impossible
to get a conviction. And those harm tactics online are
just constantly changing. So that's not to say that we
shouldn't introduce something now because the longer we leave it,
(07:28):
the faster the horse is going to bolt, but just
how effective it will be and keeping up unless things
are rushed through under urgency really really quickly. It's yeah,
I'm not sure if it'll be able to keep up
with the changes.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Because Nick, we all want to be you know, forward thinking,
tech kind of minded countries, don't we. We we want
to jump on board this, but you also got to
make sure that you're protecting people along the way.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
I'm sorry, but it's bolted and you're not going to
be it's gone. I mean, we have a segment show
with a very amazing music like called James Irwin that
comes on. He recorded three songs with three different ideas
on AI and all three sounded like hits and it
was done. He said, he did it in seven minutes.
(08:16):
So the world's gone. It's gone, and it is really
really exciting, and it is scary. It is a tiny
bit scary. But to think that we can stop AI
from recording a hit record or pinching somebody's lyrics or
pinching somebody's beat or somebody's rhythm to make something, it's
absolutely gone. And I'm sorry. No matter what anyone tries
(08:37):
to do, this is the new world now, and artists
will have to be creative again, and they'll have to perform.
They'll have to go out and travel and perform to
make their money. And maybe the world will change, Maybe
we'll go back to albums and CDs and stuff so
that you have to physically have them on your hand.
Speaker 5 (08:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I don't think Spotify would like that idea very much,
but yeah, you know, it does come back to what
makes us human, and that is our creativity and our
originality in that respect. But I don't think that you
can just completely go oh yeah, or copyright laws is
sort of let's just flag it and let's not bother
trying to come up with a solution here that protects
(09:18):
people's you know, work.
Speaker 5 (09:22):
Well, I mean one hundred percent, one hundred percent, that's
the thing. What I was saying is that even if
we think the horse has bolted, we can't just throw
up our hands and not do anything about it. What
I think is really interesting, and I saw someone actually
post about this on social media a couple of days ago,
is there's this massive rise in AI, but it's getting
to the point now where there's so much of it
and a lot a lot of it's really advanced, and
sometimes we can't tell. But I think a lot of
(09:43):
people are starting to pick up the nuances and AI
produced audio, video, even text through chat GPT. I was
saying reading something where someone was saying, I'm actually getting
to the point now where I'm so used to the
language and the style that chat GPT produces that they
can actually pick it up in various businesses, copy or
(10:04):
captions on social media.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
So at the same time.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
Perhaps we have regulation and laws, but at the other point,
we've got methods and ways of actually recognizing whether something's
being produced by AI.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
You know, perhaps there's technology.
Speaker 5 (10:17):
I mean, I know there's technology you can scan content
through to pick up whether it was created by II,
but we're getting more advanced in the way that we
recognize it as well, neck Mels.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
What I mean is Shrimpton, thank you very much for
your time this morning. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live to News Talks it B from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News Talks edb.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
It it's time for the panel, and today I'm joined
by broadcaster and journalist Wilhelmina Shrimpton. Good morning, Wilhelmina, good morning,
and also ZB Wellington Morning's host Nick Mills.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
How you doing, Nick, I'm doing great, Thanks and great.
Thank you for not calling me a reporter as well.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Were you happy we Were you happy with the introduction?
Was it okay? Ning y?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I don't want to claim to have any reporter.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
Right, no, fair enough.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I think I think we're all we're all in our
right boxes. Let's start by talking about lobbying. I had
a chat to Antolli about this earlier this morning, because
there's been a few cases of you know, we suddenly
realizing the impact that maybe tobacco and alcohol lobbyists can
have on our policy, which really shouldn't be of a
huge surprise. But I suppose the question, Wilhelmina, is how
(01:04):
much input and how much weight should be taken? Should
they have and we should put on their input and
should we be more transparent about it?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (01:14):
One hundred percent.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
I definitely think when it comes to making decisions and
forming policies about something as important as health, that all
sides and all opinions and all experiences of course should
be considered, as long as that one particular side isn't
being favored over the other for any particular reason.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
It would seem to me that the industry.
Speaker 5 (01:32):
In particular the likes of tobacco and alcohol industries, would
have insights perhaps that others may not be able to address.
And given how big a player they are, they're a
really important voice to be heard in this discussion and
in the process of forming this policy, so it wouldn't
really be fair to silence them. But I do agree
with what Anne was saying earlier on the show that
it does need to be transparent. Transparency means that we're
(01:54):
able to better keep decision and policy makers accountable. Everything's
above board, we understand the process, and we need to
make sure that. Of course, if there's more eyeballs on
it and we know what's going on, that it's hard
anything dodge to go ahead.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I mean, everyone should be able to have their say.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Nick, right, Yeah, I'm not a great fan of lobbyists
and the whole stuff that came out that they've got
VIP cards that can sniff and to be hive any
time they want. And these are very very clever and
influential people that have been decision makers in the past,
have got connections from a past life. You know. I
think it needs to be one hell of a more
(02:29):
transparent than it is right now. And even someone like
myself who does sell alcohol. Yes there should be a
view and yes there should be the information should be there,
but it should be so transparent that everybody can see everything.
And you know, I think that you know, the whole
idea of some elite group of ex journalists X high
(02:51):
profile people can have some sort of influence over some
stuff that's probably probably not that great. It's not a
good idea.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Well, I think there is an issue, isn't there When
someone walks straight out of being a minister and cabinet
and then takes a lobby too, and they know exactly
kind of where the government sits, what their ideas are
on things, how they work will ameanor. I don't think
that's an ideal situation that someone can walk straight into
that environment. There needs a bit of a stand down period,
doesn't there?
Speaker 4 (03:18):
Oh one hundred percent.
Speaker 5 (03:19):
I mean that knowledge, that information, those contacts, even those processes,
like you say, like the swipe cars, that's all an
area of privilege that perhaps other groups who are also
trying to have their say and their view heard, don't
have so completely. Think that there should be a firm
line drawn in the sand, a stand down period. That's
not to say that those connections are going to fall
(03:39):
by the wayside, They'll always be there, but I think
the objects of it, definitely in the first instance, is
to have that distance will mean.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
That it's a more robust process.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
You'd hope, Nick, just playing devil's advocate here, could you say,
do you think it would be okay to say, actually,
if we are dealing with life and death, we're dealing
with something as serious as tobacco, which has a massive
impact on someone's house, Yes, we should limit lobbying. What
do you think that it's too difficult? Then you you know,
(04:09):
it's hard to draw a line in the sand where
lobbying can start and stop.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
And even the thought you know, it's Mother's Day and
happy Mother's data all by the way you think about it.
You know, Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Alcohol lobbyists being able
to have a say in that. Really is that anything?
I mean, I understand about where you can sell alcohol
and what alcohol does, they should be involved in all that,
(04:34):
but something as specific as that that really sorry that
that grinds my gears a little bit, right, you and Amana, I.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Just don't think that it would be fair to say
no to one particular facet and then say yes to others.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
I totally understand the concern.
Speaker 5 (04:51):
I agree with the concern and the potential sway that
they might have, but I just don't think it can
be one set of rules for one section or facet
or policy an area and.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
Another set of rules for other It has to be
one one way or the other.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
And the other thing that we've got to remember, these
are very influential, smart people that are a lobbyist on
talking about they can very very much sway people. They
swayed people in their previous lives. The history is very careful.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Yeah, I mean, the history of tobacco lobbyists since the
nineteen fifties is actually quite fascinating. But look, that's a
whole nother story. Let's move on to AI and we're
taking a look at what's happening in the UK, because
of course, I think we're all very concerned about AI
and making sure that you know, we can get all
the benefits from it but without destroying industries, and creative
industries are particularly concerned about it, and in the UK
four hundred British musicians and writers and artists have said,
(05:42):
hang on a minute. The system that you want to
all set up, which is basically I have to opt
out of allowing AI companies to scrape my material and
use the data, isn't going to work. We want a
little bit more reassurance from you that you're going to
develop some kind of licensing regime that's going to allow,
you know, for this human created content well into the future.
(06:04):
I think they've got to I think this is absolutely
the conversation we should be having willing manner. But I
just think it's really hard to put in place and
for it to have an impact, because if a UK
company doesn't like what's been implied to them, they can
just set up somewhere else and continue scraping whatever material
they want.
Speaker 5 (06:25):
One hundred percent, AI is such a fascinating topic. I
can talk about it for ever. It's so exciting but
also quite scary. At the same time, you know, you've
got the likes of political figures videos being made as
propaganda and it's not actually there more the likes of
deep fake pornography where someone's taking someone else's image and
using artificial intelligence to jug it and make it look
(06:45):
as if it's them.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (06:48):
Look, I think that there is definitely there's merit and
introducing some form of legislation or rules of regulation, but
I just worry about it actually keeping up with the
technological advances. I mean, we saw this a lot with
Digital Communications Act. The intent, the sentiment was there to
try and crack down unharmful behavior online, but given how
fast moving technology is, a lot of that struggles to
(07:08):
keep up. And I know there was a point in
time I was doing stories around revenge porn and it's
since been amended and changed now, but previously the threshold
for proving harm was so high it was near impossible
to get a conviction. And those harm tactics online are
just constantly changing. So that's not to say that we
shouldn't introduce something now because the longer we leave it,
(07:28):
the faster the horse is going to bolt, but just
how effective it will be and keeping up unless things
are rushed through under urgency really really quickly. It's yeah,
I'm not sure if it'll be able to keep up
with the changes.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Because Nick, we all want to be you know, forward thinking,
tech kind of minded countries, don't we. We we want
to jump on board this, but you also got to
make sure that you're protecting people along the way.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
I'm sorry, but it's bolted and you're not going to
be it's gone. I mean, we have a segment show
with a very amazing music like called James Irwin that
comes on. He recorded three songs with three different ideas
on AI and all three sounded like hits and it
was done. He said, he did it in seven minutes.
(08:16):
So the world's gone. It's gone, and it is really
really exciting, and it is scary. It is a tiny
bit scary. But to think that we can stop AI
from recording a hit record or pinching somebody's lyrics or
pinching somebody's beat or somebody's rhythm to make something, it's
absolutely gone. And I'm sorry. No matter what anyone tries
(08:37):
to do, this is the new world now, and artists
will have to be creative again, and they'll have to perform.
They'll have to go out and travel and perform to
make their money. And maybe the world will change, Maybe
we'll go back to albums and CDs and stuff so
that you have to physically have them on your hand.
Speaker 5 (08:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I don't think Spotify would like that idea very much,
but yeah, you know, it does come back to what
makes us human, and that is our creativity and our
originality in that respect. But I don't think that you
can just completely go oh yeah, or copyright laws is
sort of let's just flag it and let's not bother
trying to come up with a solution here that protects
(09:18):
people's you know, work.
Speaker 5 (09:22):
Well, I mean one hundred percent, one hundred percent, that's
the thing. What I was saying is that even if
we think the horse has bolted, we can't just throw
up our hands and not do anything about it. What
I think is really interesting, and I saw someone actually
post about this on social media a couple of days ago,
is there's this massive rise in AI, but it's getting
to the point now where there's so much of it
and a lot a lot of it's really advanced, and
sometimes we can't tell. But I think a lot of
(09:43):
people are starting to pick up the nuances and AI
produced audio, video, even text through chat GPT. I was
saying reading something where someone was saying, I'm actually getting
to the point now where I'm so used to the
language and the style that chat GPT produces that they
can actually pick it up in various businesses, copy or
(10:04):
captions on social media.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
So at the same time.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
Perhaps we have regulation and laws, but at the other point,
we've got methods and ways of actually recognizing whether something's
being produced by AI.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
You know, perhaps there's technology.
Speaker 5 (10:17):
I mean, I know there's technology you can scan content
through to pick up whether it was created by II,
but we're getting more advanced in the way that we
recognize it as well, neck Mels.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
What I mean is Shrimpton, thank you very much for
your time this morning. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live to News Talks it B from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.