May 3, 2025 • 40 mins
This week on The Panel, Tim Beveridge is joined by Shane Henderson and Paul Spoonley to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.
Bob Jones passing, Tory Whanau, prisoner voting ban to be reinstated, Budget 2025, Prince Harry and more!
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 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from news Talk, SAIDB,
debating all the issues and more. It's the panel on
the Weekend Collective on news Talk, said B.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I know there's a body of bo's too.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Far, the part.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
I don't know you, I don't know. We don't mean
to be a part. Gotches and welcome to the Weekend
Collective this Saturday, the third of May twenty twenty five.
That's a little bit of Merlin Williams by the Waiters
New Zealand Music Month. Of course May the whole of
May's New Zealand Music Month, so we thought we'd there
was a request from one of our panelists, so I
(00:53):
will introduce you to just a moment. But as I say,
in just a moment our panel we have a new
panelist too joining us. Very exciting, so drum roll please
when you get to that moment. But looking a little
further forward to when we will also be taking your
calls after four o'clock for the one Roof radio show.
We're joined by Helen O'Sullivan. She's a CEO of real
estate at Velocity. We're going to talk about what type
(01:14):
of property if you're going to invest, is the most
profitable because we can all look at these lovely townhouses
and apartments are springing up and think, let's get into those.
But what sort of property is going to give you
the best return? And of course there's a rental return
as well, which is technically what you're supposed to be
buying it for. Otherwise technically you should be up for
the capital gains tax. But we'll dig into that a
bit more. It's a technical point, for technical point for
(01:35):
beginners there and also for the parents squad. Google Sutherland
would be joining us. He's principal psychologist at Umbrella Well
being teenage angst, when is it just teenaged ansi and
angst and depression and a crush that hasn't been mutual
and when is it something actually wrong? You have a
chat about that, and if we've got time, we'll have
to talk about this new thing of gentle parenting. What
(01:56):
is it and how has it been twisted? And don't
forget before six will be talking with Nathan Limb for
the Sports Rap, covering, among other things, the Warriors and
the Cowboys and Auckland f C. Not much in this game,
but Aukland f C Orkan De f C orkf C.
We love them. Welcome to the Weekend Collective. It is
eight past three.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Tim Beveridge on the weekend Collective called.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
News Talk. Yes, in time for our panel and no
particular order. I was thinking of the old expression something old,
something new, something borrowed, something blue. I'm not sure why
that came up, but in terms of maybe something that
is not so new. But he's the reason you can't
be new if you are a sociologist and an emeritus professor.
And I'm really just waiting for the day that I
(02:41):
can actually introduce him, his Lord, Spoony Paul Spoonley. I thought,
what's more interesting than what's more interesting than sir? Is Lord?
Speaker 3 (02:49):
I think that is it?
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yes, yes, Lord, we don't have lords these days.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
No, we don't. We don't have an upper house at all. No,
you might not have noticed that, but no, not.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Unless we're celebrating New Zealand Music Month, from which case
there's only one lord on there and a new guest
on the show. So something new you And he is
fairly he's a fairly youthful looking sort of chap but
he is. He's, among other things, he's an Auckland councilor
for the White Tuckery. He's Auckland Council Law for the
White Tuckery ward and his name is Shane Henderson. Hi Shane.
(03:18):
How are you doing?
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:18):
A fantastic How you guys? Great?
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Not too bad? So you've you've you've been keeping busy
as a White Tuckery member for the council.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Oh, absolutely made always busy. We've been talking about stadiums
pretty much the entire term, but it's been come to
coming to a head the last week and pretty huge stuff.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Excellent. You're standing for a second term, obviously, I'm well
a third term actually another term. You're you're an old pro.
Do you think Wayne's going to stand again? Isn't he? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:44):
He will stand again?
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Yeh.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
I don't know, to be honest. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
How what's survivor around the table?
Speaker 4 (03:50):
Is it?
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Do you guys? Actually? Because all we see is the
dramatic headlines and the sort of it seems that you're
actually not too bad a council despite the start was
seemed a bit I don't know, it seemed a bit
uncomfortable and Wayne, but Wayne seems to be. Everything seems
to be going all right. Is there much? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Pretty good mate, I mean in council meeting days sometimes
it can look a bit like Parliament gets a bit heated,
a bit fiery and a bit interesting. But you know,
when the lights sort of go off in that town hall,
we say gooday and have a few beers.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
And you have some excellent right, Well, good to have
you on the on the pound. Right, let's well, let's
get into the first top. And of course the big
news of yesterday one of the large big pieces of news,
where I say, was the death of Sir Bob Jones,
New Zealand night property magnate, one of New Zealand's true characters.
Paul he was, he was.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
We don't have enough of them, do we.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
No, it's like we cancel everyone who's a little bit quirky,
don't we. You knew him, didn't you.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
I did.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
I did.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
He and I didn't see eye to eye, but he
was always very forthright and he didn't mind people disagreeing
with him.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
That is a superpower these days, because it seems that
often people when we disagree politically, it's almost like you
can't be friends. But I mean, that's the thing. You
We should be able to have disagreements and just carry
on you know, absolutely he'd swear at me and then
we'd just carry on. Didn't punch in the face though, No, he.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Didn't know he received that for a certain journalist.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Actually, to be honest, you look back at that foge
and here he had gone peacefully fishing in the tonguer
hero and helm and helicopter flies in. And I don't
I remember most people sort of thought. And I still remember.
I don't know whether I was a kid watching this,
but I remember thinking, even as a kid, just thinking
he asked for it. And I love the fact that
(05:38):
Rod Vaughan he could have actually he could have wiped
the blood off, but of course he left it because
it just looks so dramatic.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
And did you notice the other thing about Rod? He's
in the middle of nowhere there he's got a suit
on tie. What's journalism come to?
Speaker 2 (05:55):
No suits and ties?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
No?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Yeah, but you did you? What were your other dealings
with them?
Speaker 3 (06:04):
I wrote about his his political interventions, and you know,
of course he actually enabled Labor to win in nineteen
eighty four because he split the Conservative vote, And so
I wrote about his views and what he brought to
the table in terms of a new set of politics.
Because happened to that point. I remember we really only
had two parties and we had Social Credit, but they
(06:27):
never really got values.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Five.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
But Bob really intervened and began to I think set
the way for a new set of politics where we
began to get the diversification of the.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Vote, which under m MP would have seen him in
parlamently in Parliament. That would have been fun. It would
it would. I'm guessing you didn't know him, Shane, what
was your reaction to the news?
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Now, Look, we never met, but look at a very
colorful figure and it cast a long shadow over the country.
And look, I think there's something here is that we
can't forget that he actually grew up the State House
and nine eye college, working class and came through and
eventually became with six hundred mil at the last count,
and very wealthy and very very public figure obviously, So
(07:16):
there's kind of something there about the New Zealand story
that you can grow up in these tough situations and
get out of them and succeed.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
And I read I've read quite a bit about him
in the last day or so. But I think it
was Debraah Coddington or said that you maybe It was
her observation that to be a true friend you had
to have had a few fallings out with him.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Yes you did.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
I mean he was an old fashioned sort of chauvinist
and yet incredibly charitable of supporting the Women's refuge financially
and refugees to get qualifications, and.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Supported the arts. And you know, he was a set
of contradictions, and that the thing that got used to
go in to talk to him, and he'd have a
pipe going and there'd be smoke everywhere. You know, he
was a sort of old fashioned sort of guy. Boxing
was his thing. He loved boxing.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Yeah, I mean, as Rod Vaughan found out. I mean, actually,
the the what was it the story I saw her
that he wanted He even asked for the fire alarms
to be turned off for a couple of hours in
his building so he could smoke his pipe where he
was having some sort of function there or something. So look,
the thing is, do I mean, do we have many
of these characters left? I don't know. I don't know
(08:26):
if we do.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
We'aring a mess mess social media age and twenty four
our music, et cetera. You can't sort of get away
with some of the stuff because we're only sharing the
stories that we know, right, I'm sure there's plenty of
stuff that we don't know that that never actually came out.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Yeah, I'm I like the fact he had he had
sort of a dress code and he'd tell you if
you weren't dressed right. And I think the brown shoes
with a suit was a no no yes, Jean, no
no no. And what was it when he got assaulted
by Rod Vaughn. One of my favorite stories was when
he got sentenced.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Can he pay double?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
We've got to find a thousand dollars, he asked the judge.
Can I pay two thousand dollars?
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Tag in?
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Do it again?
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Anyway?
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Umm?
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Look one of a loss of a great character. By
the way, fun fact, there's someone in this building who
played Rob Bob Jones as a mini series about Mike Bungay.
Guess who that was? Yeah, you believe it or not.
I ran past a couple of my colleagues and they're
like really, and I showed them the photo once I've
(09:25):
been through makeup and everything, and I was surprised to
be cast. I have to say, I'm not sure I
want people digging it up. And even though this is radio.
I'm just showing that's in a very impressive That was
when I found out that I really did have a
receding hairline because I thought I got too much hair
for Bob and they combed it back. They're jelled, and
I was like, where's my hair gone? But I'm glad he.
(09:47):
I hope he never saw it because it'd be like,
who's that clown playing me? Anyway, loss of a great
New Zealander. I thought we'd tie this one in not
Soaring with the Eagles. I think maybe and probably won't
get the same sort of epitaph. But there is someone
who's probably going to have a slight political lepotaph phaps
is the mayor who's just done one term. Tory Farno
(10:08):
has pulled out of the meroral race, no surprise to anyone.
I actually don't know, you know how she gave us
up nine out of ten. I don't know how bad
a mayor or good a mayor she's been, because the
headlines that she has captured have been terrible. I don't
know whether she's been good behind the scenes or where
there's a few little gems there. I don't know how
she gives us AUP nine out of ten. Though, Paul,
(10:28):
what do you know?
Speaker 3 (10:28):
No, I don't, and I think, I mean, Shane might
know more than they do. But as far as I
can tell from the outside, Wilmington councils are pretty dysfunctional
sort of place or has been. And and then there's
the personal side, you know, the drinking, the declaration of
a HDHD that's right, yeah, yeah, So I just I
(10:49):
just don't think it's been a great run for her,
and I think she's seen a candidate come along who's
going to be stronger, and she said, Wow, I'm out
of here.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Do you think she'll get in back as a counselor
in the water?
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Yeah, I will not drink. Can I say something to him?
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Though?
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Whatever she was in terms of being an effect of politician,
she did not deserve what she got online, the vitriol
and the hate and the threats. No politician and I'm
looking at Shane here, but no politician should be facing
well anyone.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I mean, it does amaze me what people how people
manage to and I see it through just the job
I do here that it seems that if you're in
the public eye, there's people find it easy to dehumanize you.
You're just the sort of figure to be attacked as
if there is I think people are I don't know,
(11:41):
I don't know what the social media phenomenon and it's
not going to change anytime soon. But it is amazing
how people can just go all the way with the hatred,
isn't it.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (11:51):
I mean every politician, central or local will have a
lot of stories around this and it it's even happened
to me. The thing about the social media element of
it is that one attack a nice as doesn't look
that bad from the outsider, but if you get couple
of hundred of them, then it sort of builds up
on you as a decision maker and that can be
really hard to take.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Yeah. Hey, just know people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones,
but I'm going to ask you to throw a few stones.
Did you get Seriously, you cannot tell a love not
a fighter, mate? Okay, you put that to one side.
For one, you can't tell me that you guys and
council must not have been looking at Wellington going for
(12:30):
what a train wreck these guys are? Were there any
conversations around the table? No names?
Speaker 4 (12:35):
Yeah, I mean it looks a really hard place to
work sometimes and a lot of conflicts because the thing
is as an Auckland councilor we have huge political divides
across our table as well. We kind of seem to
make it work, but you know, for some of the
other councilors it can be a little bit tough from
the outside.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
But you know, I'm not there, so I guess the
thing that the Count's Wellington Council seemed to the water
problems and things, there's been quite a few balls dropped
that basic issues. How do you guys, I mean, how
do you guys keep focused on Is there someone in
the room he goes hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, this
is not achieving anything. Let's talk about fixing. I don't
(13:09):
know whatever the next.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
Job is one hundred percent. It's kind of like a
group challenging to sort of prioritize what the council does.
Because the water has really been a good example because
it's not really a sexy bit of infrastructure. It doesn't
get you back into to the next election, but it's
obviously super crucial and important. And actually Torifano did a
lot of investment in the last budget in terms of
water infrastructure, so that was a good result for her.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
But yeah, it's not sexy, but it was deferred expendit
wasn't it. It got to the point where you had
to do something. In Wellington it was falling over and
yeah one.
Speaker 4 (13:43):
Hundred percent, and you know, Sue was running down the
streets and things like that. People demand better.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Actually, the thing that amazed me was that there was
a story. I mean it did amaze me because I
thought I've missed this completely. But it was a story
about some water infrastructure that massive pipes that have been
going for kilometers through over and I can't mean what
the name of the project is, but it is a
massive piece of work. And suddenly there was this story about, oh,
here's some pipes we've been laying on the ground and
this team from overseas that's been doing all this work
(14:10):
for how long but there's been almost no talk about it.
I can't remember what it was called. But do you
know what I'm referring to?
Speaker 4 (14:15):
The central interceptor in Auckland that, Yeah, it's Central Untercestre.
It's like one point two billion dollars. It's a huge
amount but very very important if you want to swim
in the beaches in Auckland, you've got to do it.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
It's and how long is that that project? Because physically
there are some photos of the work underground and it
reminded me of the City rail Link. It just looked immense.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Oh absolutely, I mean some of the pipes in Auckland
go back, you know, one hundred years. We've got to
be fixing these kind of things. And Wellington as well
have realized that they need to get on with it
as well.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Right well, and onto other political issues and it's a
few we've got to cover off. Today. The prisoner voting
ban is to be reinstated. It's actually so basically at
the moment, the law is if you are a prisoner
sentenced to more than three years, you can't vote anyway.
And that's not changed anyway. But the law that has
changed you're in the clink for anything, even if it's
(15:07):
a shorter sentence. If you're in the clink during the election,
you cannot vote. It's going to affect only about two
or three thousand people. So to me, it just looks
like it's a signal from the government that this is
what we stand for. If you go to prison, you're
not going to vote either. And get stuffed, Shane, what
are you in.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Yeah, it's a signal that it's a kind of tough
on crime approach from the government, and you're totally right.
It doesn't affect huge amounts of people, not enough to
meaningfully sway an election, but it's kind of a signal
to the electorate on there. There's obviously been huge issues
around the human rights there wait saying you Tribunal courts
have criticized these things in the past, so you know
we need some strong justifications I think around these kind
(15:46):
of moves.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
What do you reckon, Paul, I'm trying to guess.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
No, no, no, I'm fairly neutral on this. So I
do think there is a question, as the Prime Minister said,
of rights and responsibilities, and so if you do something
bad and you're in prison, then what rights do you have. However,
the High Court ruled on this and the government appealed
and it went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme
(16:12):
Court ruled that this was a breach of human rights
not to allow these prisoners to vote.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
So how does that play out when because ultimately Parliament
can make the laws it wants to it can it
can and you get declarations and the government goes, so
what you love to see Christopher likes and do that
in press conference? You know what? I just think to that, Yeah,
I don't care.
Speaker 3 (16:37):
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Yes, to be honest, here's my I mean, I didn't
practice law for a long time, but I do know
that to get sent when I was practicing criminal law,
to get sent to prison, it's not your first rodeo
you have unless you're a murder of course, and then
you're not going to be affected by this because you're
going away for a long time. But people have been.
If you've been sent to prison for a short sentence
(16:59):
from minor offenses, it is the result of consistent, unrelenting offending.
Most people who go to the tlank for minor offenses
it's because it has you know, none of the other
stuff's worked. And I have to say, if you can't
go down to the local shop for a bottle of milk,
you can't go to the tab and make a bet,
you can't go and watch your favorite sports team and
(17:21):
guess what, you can't vote. I mean, I couldn't care less, really.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
No, Tim, can I just ask you a question, what
would you do to prepare people for once they come
out of prison. That's one of the arguments that by voting,
you were sort of re engaging with society, So.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
What would you do. Look, I don't think voting's neither
here nor there, because that's once every three years. I
didn't stick around in law long enough to have someone
come out of prison. Apparently my mum.
Speaker 4 (17:46):
Told me there's a bit too unpack in that sentence.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Then, well, I did know. I didn't stick around the
law very long at all, a couple of years. But
I do remember the first time I had someone who
was going to go to prison for social welfare fraud
and he called my home address, and I was staying
at home at the time because I've been between flats,
and my mum called out of the wind and said,
such and such wants to know what to take to
(18:09):
court tomorrow. And apparently I called out his toothbrush, but
I didn't think he was on the line at the time,
and I'm hoping she'd actually didn't pass that on. I
thought she was just anyway, look to prepare people for
coming out of prison. Look, that's why I mean everything
that we should be doing with rehabilitation and trying to
get people motivated for a job and that there is
(18:32):
life beyond present. It's a huge job. But I don't
know if the voting thing is really here or there.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
And as I say, I'm not necessary, I don't necessarily
have a strong view one way and the other. But
our recidivism rate, the reoffending rate is huge in this country.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Now, got to do this better?
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Yeah, And I don't know what. I actually don't know
what the answer to this is, because I mean, you
look at some countries which have much stronger responses to crime,
and there are some countries that don't have the same
recidivism rate. But there's a social contract that we don't
seem to have in this country where people feel that
or don't do that. That's not a good idea because
(19:09):
it's not going to go well for you. For instance,
would the same people if they're in Singapore be committing
the same offenses that they do here? Singapore is a
different set up altogether. But it's not just as simple
as saying, you know, they're very strict on crime, although
I dare say that does play a part of it,
isn't it. Do you think? I do?
Speaker 4 (19:26):
I do?
Speaker 2 (19:27):
I do? I do.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Think there are different models and it would be good
to say what works and what would work here. And
I think we do need to have a discussion about this,
I really do. I mean, it's not just about being
hard on criminals and offending. It's what we do around
to make sure that these people do not re offend.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And a lot of people bring up the Scandinavian examples. Yeah,
but the thing is, it's so easy to cheer up
and go on scanonavy they don't have this and that
these are the way they treat people and when they don't,
when they send them to prison and stuff. But there's
a completely different social constructor, isn't there in Sweden, Norway, Finland? Whatever?
What do you reckon share?
Speaker 4 (20:05):
I mean, so outing myself here. I used to work
in rehabilitation briefly, and I was a lawyer as well. Yeah,
there are reports that were produced by the previous government
which says, look, if you were to prioritize rehabilitation, if
that was your thing, then this is the kind of
model you'll do. So that stuff's all sitting on the
shelf if the government wanted to pick it up and
use it. It just kind of depends where your philosophere
(20:25):
is in terms of how we should handle the problem.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Yeah, and what genuine rehabilitation looks like and what means Yeah,
difficult to measure, isn't it right? We'll be back. We're
going to talk about a little bit about the budget.
And there's some news about vaping risks, which actually were
a bit of a surprised me because I thought it
was maybe a lot less harmless than it's turned out
to be. We'll be digging into that in just a moment.
This is the panel on the Weekend Collective and we'll
be back in this Tickets twenty seven past three Frands
(21:00):
and welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This is the
panel on Saturday, the third of May. My guests my
analyst Shane Henderson, he's Aukland counselor for the Way, Tarkaby
Ward and Paul Spoonley, a sociologist emeritus professor. He's a
bit flashed, Paul. Anyway, Hey, guys, shame will start with
you that now. Have you got any excited sort of
(21:22):
anticipation for budget twenty twenty five because I get the
feeling it's going to be more one of revealing where
Nicola has saved some money and some cuts to the
public service and next please.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Yeah, Look, I think you can be excited if you
want to pay down debt and if you want to
save some coin, because that's exactly what this budget is
and Nicola has signaled that, but it's not quite sure
where exactly yet. We're kind of still guessing.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Because they've talked up a lot about the public service
cuts that they've done, but still public service is still
massive compared to where it was five or six years ago,
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Paul.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
I don't know. Oh, okay, do you know?
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Probably, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure toim. I'm guessing.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Do you get I'm budget excited about budgets at all?
Because I'll be honest, I don't really I thought you were.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
I thought we were going to talk about the Kiwi
Saver hint. That's come out of the.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Yes and so I am what you're getting into that.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
I'm excited about that. I think she's nicol and diming
that this. I think there are much bigger issues around superannuation,
about super age eligibility means testing, the whole shebang, and
why why don't we align ourselves with Australia. In July,
the employer contribution goes up to twelve percent. We're way
(22:42):
behind the game here in terms of getting a nest
egg for when Tim's going to retire.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
I just don't think our economy has got it. It's
difficult to build that thing, and we couldn't suddenly go
twelve no, because we're just not built for that out
pay structure, our wages, et cetera. So, by the way, yes, Paul,
what we suspect she's going to do is that if
you stick basically twenty bucks a week into Kiwi Saver
(23:07):
one thousand bucks a year, the government will top that
up by another five hundred bucks a year. And it
looks like, because it costs about one point one billion,
the government's going to be out for that. I can
sort of understand why they might want to be out
of that.
Speaker 4 (23:20):
What do you reckon, Shane, Yeah, One of the wrinkles
there is that if you're a contractor, or if you're
not someone that gets that contribution from the employer, you
probably need some motivation to check some money in and
that is a motivator for a lot of people. So
you know, otherwise they probably would just leave the keys
they were stagnant.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Yeah, yeah, can I.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
The other thing that really surprised me when I was
looking at this was that they're given the number of
people who are in Keiwi save it. The number who
are not claiming the tax is enormous. It should be
not one point one billion, it should be one point
five billion if everybody claimed it. So there's there's quite
a big discount there already free money.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Basically, I'm a contractor and I don't do a hell
of a lot. We haven't been doing a hell of
a lot with the Kiwi Saver, but I do. That's
one of the things I thought, well, I'd better get
with the scheme because it's free enough ficks a weekend.
Yeah yeah, yeah, Oh well, well look at no doubt
when budget week comes out around we can get a
bit more excited about it. Now. This thing about vaping,
there's a new study that has found that vaping more
(24:16):
than doubles the risk of serious lung disease. I think
it's still a lot less dangerous than smoking. I always
got to remind ourselves of that. But I think that
we made a big mistake a long time ago not
doing what Australia has done and saying if you're a smoker,
you need to get off. Here's your prescription for the vapes.
Everyone else, No way, Shane. You can see you're nodding
(24:37):
your head there.
Speaker 4 (24:37):
One hundred percent agree there, Tim, Yeah, the Long Channel
study was quite clear. The doubles the risk of lung disease.
And you know, if you're putting stuff in your lungs
that you know you probably shouldn't, there's always going to
be a consequence to there, right.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Well, the other thing is is that it introduces to
me the chief villain. And this is not a scientific approach.
A lot of the time in life, guys, we make
our minds up about things because we get a bit
of information and we think intuitively from life experience. And
my thing is that what's nicotine incredibly a of substance.
So you're allowing this method of delivering and introducing people
(25:10):
to substance addiction that is going nowhere good. And I
think that all both governments have got this terribly wrong,
and I'm quite resentful about it.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Paul.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Yes, I agree with you, Tim, And what staggered me
was the proportion of young people fifteen to seventeen year
olds who are already vaping. So already they're on that
path to addiction. And the Australian government has now put
some serious money behind a program to try and reduce
the vaping rate in Australia. And I just think this
(25:39):
government made a big mistake by departing from that program
which was internationally recognized of reducing smoking and of allowing
vaping in.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
That's the thing, Shane, I can't understand this. It seems
bloody obvious that we shouldn't be encouraging kids towards addictive substances.
Why have both? I mean, no government has both got
wrong because we see that we're living with what we're
living with right now. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
I can't really understand why there has been government action
because you look at the statistics around young people vaping,
it's huge and some people are out there vaping and
still on the darries as well, and goodness, that's a
ticket to lung disease.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Have you you guys ever smoked in on? Hell?
Speaker 1 (26:22):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:26):
It's election yeah yeah, and I'm not I'm not admitting
to anything on.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
It didn't Inhale.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
That was the Clinton one, wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
Yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll tell you what. We'll take
a quick moment, so Paul can go just ever looking
quite sorry. Okay, so twenty three minutes to four news talks,
he'd be still amazing me. What a fantastic and interesting
(27:14):
and quirky piece of music. This is the thing from
Living Let Die. Paul McCartney and Wings welcome back to
the Weekend Collective. And my guests are Shane Henderson, he's
Auckland counselor for Way, tuckerty Ward his first time on
the show, and sociologist and emeritus professor Paul Spoonley. Now
Paul Russia, Ukraine. The ceasefire that's coming up, Sir Putin's
and outs a three day ceasefire looks like I don't
(27:37):
know if we hadn't read too much of this, because
he does sort of run with the hairs and hunt
with the hounds on this. Donald Trump has expressed some
growing impatient with efforts to reach a peace agreement. Predict
the future for us? Please, no, I can't.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
I think Putin is just unreadable and he's playing the game.
And I think he's playing Trump to be honest, and
he broke the Easter truce.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Why is it?
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Well, I think he's probably going to observe this one
because they've got that day and that's a time that
he shows off the military to the domestic audience. But
I just cannot see this guy being reliable when it
comes to agreeing and the concessions he's wanting as part
of the peace deal.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Give me everything I want. Yeah, yeah, And I don't
know what pushback he's getting from Trump. But what do
you make of it all, Shane?
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Yeah, Look, I think that's what this is kind of
all about. Writer, is trying to increase the size of
that chair when he does get to the negotiating table,
because we've seen over the past few months Russia really
stepping up those aggressive acts and trying to claim as
much territory as possible, and many people saying out there, look,
you know, he's getting ready to get around the table
and say, look, I want to keep what I've got, guys.
So this is one of the things he's doing with it.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Yeah. The thing is probably one of Trump's positive sides,
because as everyone knows, I'm not a fan of his,
but he does. I think he genuinely hates the idea
of bloodshed once it's a stop. But the problem is,
there's this equivocation, as if they're both as bad as
each other, when in fact, you know.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
There's no moral equivalence between the two. I mean, one's
been invaded, the other is the invader. It doesn't at
times seem as though Trump is prepared to concede that
Trump that Putin is the is the invader, and is
the aggressor in all of this. I just think it's
I just think it's a bit of a shit show,
to be honest.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
The other thing is that Trump came out in the
election campaign period and said, look, I'm going to end
this within twenty four hours, undred days.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
How did that go?
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Show?
Speaker 4 (29:32):
It's not gone too well?
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Well, because here's the language from the White House Press
Secretary Carolyn Levitt, who says that Trump is quote increasingly
frustrated with leaders of both countries. He wants to see
a permanent ceasefire. I wonder what effect would have if
Trump came out and said, you know what, put Ukraine
to one side. I've said my bed about then, Vladimir.
I've realized you're the problem. If you don't, then we're
(29:55):
going to back them up with every missile they need. Yes,
in fact, that is what he needs to do, isn't it?
But he won't. He is.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
But then I think Putin would probably on the on
the be aggressive. He might go nuclear, so you know,
you're just playing with fire. I don't think he would,
Oh don't you well?
Speaker 2 (30:15):
No, I mean, who knows he might be.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
No.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
I think he throws that threat out because he's worried
that we're all terrified of it.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
But we're talking about as we are. But with both
Putin and Trump, we're talking about two huge egos, and
who's going to back down. I'm just not sure that
Putin is going to back down, and so whatever he
gets thrown at him, he's going to come on and
do something which is going to be further aggression.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
Putin's been playing this game for twenty five years in power. Yeah,
it's not as fast radio.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
I reckon what they should do is they should send over.
You might you won't get the name out of context
on this, but I think what they should do is
Australia has a role to play it here diplomatically. They
need to spend send their special mushroom chef over to
cook a meal for Vladimir Putin and just Aaron Patterson,
you know the mushroom. That trial's going on.
Speaker 3 (31:06):
I don't think I'm going to comment on that one.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Go through the keeper him a boy, I tell you,
I mean in terms of trials to follow, that is
going to be fascinating to see the facts unfold. I
know we didn't have it slate of a conversation, but
we should just get Aaron Patterson to cook a nice
little meal for old Vladimir, saying it's your favorite. But
as strung enough, with some mushrooms thrown, you'll love them.
I love them anyway. Hey, look this Shorty Street. There's
(31:33):
concerns around the fortune the future, should I say Shortened Street?
Have you actually who what do you know anyone who
watches Shortened Street? Yes?
Speaker 4 (31:40):
Yeah, some of some of my older members of my
family definitely.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
And we had friends from Germany recently and they spent
quite a few months in the country. He's German, she's
Polish and they loved it. They got hooked on short
his Street. There you go. Yeah, I watch it from
time to time, don't.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
You, tim No, don't you to be honest, I don't
watch any t wren't you. I was about twenty thirty
years ago. I played I played a I played a clairvoyant,
and again I was lousy, but I was on there
for a few episodes. Actually also played an ambulance officer.
Ambulance Officer number two. This is going back a while,
(32:20):
but look at the signs. Are not good for it,
are they? No, they're not.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
And when I look at my TV of an evening,
the number of imported reality shows is really beginning to
brass me off. And they're obviously cheap, and they're able
to be played here with very little cost. I think
we need to preserve our domestic TV productions. So that's
(32:45):
my argument there. But I do notice that when you
look at the latest polling results, Shorty Streets down at
number seven, A Country Calendar, David Lomas and Endangered Species
are the top three, and they're all, you know, fifty
three five hundred thousand plus, whereas Shorty Streets down at
about one hundred and thirty thousand.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Wow, because it used to be like five six thousand.
Mind you, same with the you know, Close Up seven
Sharp and the Homes Show and all that sort of dropped.
But actually, well there is that there's been a call
from the makers of some of these reality TV shows. So,
for instance, the New Zealand version of Master Chef, the
New Zealand version of Married at First Sight our local
(33:24):
and there's been a call for it to be funded
in with the screen rebate and things like that, and
I don't know, I'm it does seem a bit tragic
if and even though I couldn't care too less than
two hoots about shortened street, it doesn't matter. I just
think it feels if it was suddenly to disappear. Yeah,
I don't know, gap Well, I'm I'm pro funding mane. Look,
(33:47):
it's I can speak from an Auckland context. It's hundreds
of jobs and hundreds of thousands of dollars the screen
industry just here in Auckland. We am looking across across
the country. It's even bigger. So you know, it's an investment.
It's not just what should be funded, no, no, but
what should be funded. So for instance, we have the
screen reit rebate for films and it attracts overseas investment
money in and all that sort of thing. But should
the local should the local version have Married at First
(34:10):
Sight or The Bachelor or whatever, should that get funding?
Because is it really adding anything to our culture?
Speaker 4 (34:17):
People like it?
Speaker 2 (34:19):
Yeah, I expecting a strong case.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
That's pretty strong. It's a democratic case.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
What's interesting here is that one, two and three Country Calendar,
David Lomas and David Species, that's what we're watching. They
should be funded.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
I tell you what, I think that there was if
somebody suggested me on talk about the other day they
thought that Country Calendar was at risk. But I think
there's no no.
Speaker 3 (34:44):
That five hundred and thirty one thousand people watch Country Calendar.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
That is fantastic and it is a great show, isn't
it It is? Yeah. Anyway, look, we'll be back in
a moment. This is the panel on news Talk zaid B.
It will be having a chat about workshire. What is
coming up next?
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Yes, the oh Prince Harry. That's right, dear old Prince
Harry's having another tantrum. So we'll be back in just
a moment. My guests are Shane Henderson and Paul Spoonley.
I'm Tim Bebridge. It's twelve minutes to four, so ray yeses,
(35:28):
welcome back to the show. There's a little bit of
a dragon with the Apple Sun and Cuba. Actually, sometimes
I can never remember who did the song, so I've
had a victory of my producer. When I actually told
her who was singing the song, She's like, you never
get this right anyway. Welcome back to the panel. My
guests are Shane Henderson, he's all con counselor for the Way,
Tarker Reward and Paul Spoonley, sociologist and emeritus professor and Lucky.
(35:49):
Last topic for today, so Prince Harry has he had
another tantrum? I guess he has to. This is where
he goes wrong. He's told the BBC he would love
a reconciliation with the royal family and it's an emotional interview.
He said he was devastated at losing a legal challenge
over his security in the UK. But then he says
the King won't speak to me because of the security
(36:12):
stuff and I just sort of think as long as
he keeps airing this stuff publicly, it's the reason that
everyone in his family is nervous of talking to him
because it's going to appear on Newsnight or something at
the Shane.
Speaker 4 (36:25):
Yeah, look, they're known for controlling the media around the
family narrative, right, so trying to use the media against
that that doesn't seem like it's ever gonna work.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
It hasn't so far. Yeah, I mean, I mean everyone's
deeply suspicious of Megan Markel, but there's probably people like
the love who or a hater. But Harry, he's got
to take responsibility for his own decisions. And this stuff's dumb,
isn't it?
Speaker 1 (36:45):
That?
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Who cares to him?
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Who cares?
Speaker 3 (36:47):
Who cares about this?
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Do you?
Speaker 2 (36:52):
I don't care?
Speaker 3 (36:53):
It's a train wreck. I think playing out in public,
isn't it.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
I think the reason we're interested, or our curiosity is
pep is because it's the very public playing out of
the sort of dispute that any family can have. But everything,
But what Harry says is the disgruntled son brother plays
out on the BBC and it's I'm not sure does
he realize that? Why don't you just quietly approach them
(37:20):
and say I'd love to talk to you rather than
play through BBC.
Speaker 4 (37:26):
Just to go and have a yarn, you know, privately
and say, look, I'm not actually going to talk to
the media about this because then they'll shut down shop.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
Do you how much sympathy do you guys think there
is for Harry and Meghan? None?
Speaker 3 (37:37):
No, no, no, people are a bit tight of it. Yeah,
and it's a sort of look at me, woe is me?
I mean, this whole thing about security. Doesn't this guy
have enough bucks in the bank to pay for security?
He's he's broken links and then he expects the British
taxpayer to pay for.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
This what I mean, his logic's wrong somehow, there is
some I do there is I have one level of sympathy,
do you for him? And the level of sympathy is
it's not a com implement But and I don't mean
it to sound so harsh, but I just think that
it's a shame that he's so stupid that he's ended
up in this situation because he obviously is a terrible
(38:16):
judge of managing relationships. Yes, and somebody's got in his
ear and thinks that writing a book that he wrote,
you know, and all that. It's just it's like he
didn't realize that there is a quick There is to
every force in nature, there's an opposite reaction. Yes, And.
Speaker 3 (38:34):
I guess the thing that does intrigue me is the
Megan factor. Does she not understand anything about the Royal
family and the Brits around this because they're not playing
a smart game there's.
Speaker 4 (38:45):
No skills there.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Eh.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
Well, well no, I think because I think her only
lens of it is through what Harry has shared with
her about his subjective view of the tragedy of his life,
and so she's bought that hook line and sinker. So
the existing royal family are perpetually the villains. And as
long as they're perpetuating that sort of myth or whatever,
(39:06):
that that truth is, let's call it. Yeah, and that's stuffed.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
And then we've got the older brother who's not putting
us foot wrong.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
So the comparisons, Charles, I think, is becoming an increasingly
popular monarch. For me, it's it's still that moment when
the you might have seen this when the black Ferns said,
do you with the girls? And I will wonder if
you'd like a hug, and he goes a hug, Yes,
why not? And I thought, I can't imagine the queen.
I'll tell you what. He won a few fans with
(39:34):
that one. Hey, thanks so much for joining us on
the panel of guys shame what's coming up on the
council and extending any scoops you can give us.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
Yeah, not necessarily a scoop, but we're doing consultation on
the future of Western Springs Stadium. Jump on AK have
your say dot Nz and share your thoughts. Aka, have
your say dot en Z.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Excellent and that's the that's what they're going to do
with Winston Springs now and Nalie Williams's ideas and all that.
That's the possibilities. Good stuff and what's keeping you out
on mischief?
Speaker 1 (39:59):
Now?
Speaker 3 (40:00):
Paul, Oh, it's a beautiful spring day here in Auckland,
as it is always and so back to the guard,
back to the good you get stuck in.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Hey, thanks so much, Dev for coming on the show. Guys.
We'll be back in just a moment the wonder If
Radio show Helen os Sullivan, she's CEO real Estate company
of the real estate side at Velocity, and we're going
to talk about what sort of property if you're going
to buy one you want to make some money out
of it. What sort of property standalone, townhouse, apartment, new, old, existing,
stay at home? What is it? We'll be talking about
(40:28):
that with Helen after the News, which is coming up
in just a three minutes to four.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk zed Be Weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from news Talk, SAIDB,
debating all the issues and more. It's the panel on
the Weekend Collective on news Talk, said B.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I know there's a body of bo's too.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Far, the part.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
I don't know you, I don't know. We don't mean
to be a part. Gotches and welcome to the Weekend
Collective this Saturday, the third of May twenty twenty five.
That's a little bit of Merlin Williams by the Waiters
New Zealand Music Month. Of course May the whole of
May's New Zealand Music Month, so we thought we'd there
was a request from one of our panelists, so I
(00:53):
will introduce you to just a moment. But as I say,
in just a moment our panel we have a new
panelist too joining us. Very exciting, so drum roll please
when you get to that moment. But looking a little
further forward to when we will also be taking your
calls after four o'clock for the one Roof radio show.
We're joined by Helen O'Sullivan. She's a CEO of real
estate at Velocity. We're going to talk about what type
(01:14):
of property if you're going to invest, is the most
profitable because we can all look at these lovely townhouses
and apartments are springing up and think, let's get into those.
But what sort of property is going to give you
the best return? And of course there's a rental return
as well, which is technically what you're supposed to be
buying it for. Otherwise technically you should be up for
the capital gains tax. But we'll dig into that a
bit more. It's a technical point, for technical point for
(01:35):
beginners there and also for the parents squad. Google Sutherland
would be joining us. He's principal psychologist at Umbrella Well
being teenage angst, when is it just teenaged ansi and
angst and depression and a crush that hasn't been mutual
and when is it something actually wrong? You have a
chat about that, and if we've got time, we'll have
to talk about this new thing of gentle parenting. What
(01:56):
is it and how has it been twisted? And don't
forget before six will be talking with Nathan Limb for
the Sports Rap, covering, among other things, the Warriors and
the Cowboys and Auckland f C. Not much in this game,
but Aukland f C Orkan De f C orkf C.
We love them. Welcome to the Weekend Collective. It is
eight past three.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Tim Beveridge on the weekend Collective called.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
News Talk. Yes, in time for our panel and no
particular order. I was thinking of the old expression something old,
something new, something borrowed, something blue. I'm not sure why
that came up, but in terms of maybe something that
is not so new. But he's the reason you can't
be new if you are a sociologist and an emeritus professor.
And I'm really just waiting for the day that I
(02:41):
can actually introduce him, his Lord, Spoony Paul Spoonley. I thought,
what's more interesting than what's more interesting than sir? Is Lord?
Speaker 3 (02:49):
I think that is it?
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yes, yes, Lord, we don't have lords these days.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
No, we don't. We don't have an upper house at all. No,
you might not have noticed that, but no, not.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Unless we're celebrating New Zealand Music Month, from which case
there's only one lord on there and a new guest
on the show. So something new you And he is
fairly he's a fairly youthful looking sort of chap but
he is. He's, among other things, he's an Auckland councilor
for the White Tuckery. He's Auckland Council Law for the
White Tuckery ward and his name is Shane Henderson. Hi Shane.
(03:18):
How are you doing?
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:18):
A fantastic How you guys? Great?
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Not too bad? So you've you've you've been keeping busy
as a White Tuckery member for the council.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Oh, absolutely made always busy. We've been talking about stadiums
pretty much the entire term, but it's been come to
coming to a head the last week and pretty huge stuff.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Excellent. You're standing for a second term, obviously, I'm well
a third term actually another term. You're you're an old pro.
Do you think Wayne's going to stand again? Isn't he? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:44):
He will stand again?
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Yeh.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
I don't know, to be honest. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
How what's survivor around the table?
Speaker 4 (03:50):
Is it?
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Do you guys? Actually? Because all we see is the
dramatic headlines and the sort of it seems that you're
actually not too bad a council despite the start was
seemed a bit I don't know, it seemed a bit
uncomfortable and Wayne, but Wayne seems to be. Everything seems
to be going all right. Is there much? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Pretty good mate, I mean in council meeting days sometimes
it can look a bit like Parliament gets a bit heated,
a bit fiery and a bit interesting. But you know,
when the lights sort of go off in that town hall,
we say gooday and have a few beers.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
And you have some excellent right, Well, good to have
you on the on the pound. Right, let's well, let's
get into the first top. And of course the big
news of yesterday one of the large big pieces of news,
where I say, was the death of Sir Bob Jones,
New Zealand night property magnate, one of New Zealand's true characters.
Paul he was, he was.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
We don't have enough of them, do we.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
No, it's like we cancel everyone who's a little bit quirky,
don't we. You knew him, didn't you.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
I did.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
I did.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
He and I didn't see eye to eye, but he
was always very forthright and he didn't mind people disagreeing
with him.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
That is a superpower these days, because it seems that
often people when we disagree politically, it's almost like you
can't be friends. But I mean, that's the thing. You
We should be able to have disagreements and just carry
on you know, absolutely he'd swear at me and then
we'd just carry on. Didn't punch in the face though, No, he.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Didn't know he received that for a certain journalist.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Actually, to be honest, you look back at that foge
and here he had gone peacefully fishing in the tonguer
hero and helm and helicopter flies in. And I don't
I remember most people sort of thought. And I still remember.
I don't know whether I was a kid watching this,
but I remember thinking, even as a kid, just thinking
he asked for it. And I love the fact that
(05:38):
Rod Vaughan he could have actually he could have wiped
the blood off, but of course he left it because
it just looks so dramatic.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
And did you notice the other thing about Rod? He's
in the middle of nowhere there he's got a suit
on tie. What's journalism come to?
Speaker 2 (05:55):
No suits and ties?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
No?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Yeah, but you did you? What were your other dealings
with them?
Speaker 3 (06:04):
I wrote about his his political interventions, and you know,
of course he actually enabled Labor to win in nineteen
eighty four because he split the Conservative vote, And so
I wrote about his views and what he brought to
the table in terms of a new set of politics.
Because happened to that point. I remember we really only
had two parties and we had Social Credit, but they
(06:27):
never really got values.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Five.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
But Bob really intervened and began to I think set
the way for a new set of politics where we
began to get the diversification of the.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Vote, which under m MP would have seen him in
parlamently in Parliament. That would have been fun. It would
it would. I'm guessing you didn't know him, Shane, what
was your reaction to the news?
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Now, Look, we never met, but look at a very
colorful figure and it cast a long shadow over the country.
And look, I think there's something here is that we
can't forget that he actually grew up the State House
and nine eye college, working class and came through and
eventually became with six hundred mil at the last count,
and very wealthy and very very public figure obviously, So
(07:16):
there's kind of something there about the New Zealand story
that you can grow up in these tough situations and
get out of them and succeed.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
And I read I've read quite a bit about him
in the last day or so. But I think it
was Debraah Coddington or said that you maybe It was
her observation that to be a true friend you had
to have had a few fallings out with him.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Yes you did.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
I mean he was an old fashioned sort of chauvinist
and yet incredibly charitable of supporting the Women's refuge financially
and refugees to get qualifications, and.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Supported the arts. And you know, he was a set
of contradictions, and that the thing that got used to
go in to talk to him, and he'd have a
pipe going and there'd be smoke everywhere. You know, he
was a sort of old fashioned sort of guy. Boxing
was his thing. He loved boxing.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Yeah, I mean, as Rod Vaughan found out. I mean, actually,
the the what was it the story I saw her
that he wanted He even asked for the fire alarms
to be turned off for a couple of hours in
his building so he could smoke his pipe where he
was having some sort of function there or something. So look,
the thing is, do I mean, do we have many
of these characters left? I don't know. I don't know
(08:26):
if we do.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
We'aring a mess mess social media age and twenty four
our music, et cetera. You can't sort of get away
with some of the stuff because we're only sharing the
stories that we know, right, I'm sure there's plenty of
stuff that we don't know that that never actually came out.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Yeah, I'm I like the fact he had he had
sort of a dress code and he'd tell you if
you weren't dressed right. And I think the brown shoes
with a suit was a no no yes, Jean, no
no no. And what was it when he got assaulted
by Rod Vaughn. One of my favorite stories was when
he got sentenced.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Can he pay double?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
We've got to find a thousand dollars, he asked the judge.
Can I pay two thousand dollars?
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Tag in?
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Do it again?
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Anyway?
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Umm?
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Look one of a loss of a great character. By
the way, fun fact, there's someone in this building who
played Rob Bob Jones as a mini series about Mike Bungay.
Guess who that was? Yeah, you believe it or not.
I ran past a couple of my colleagues and they're
like really, and I showed them the photo once I've
(09:25):
been through makeup and everything, and I was surprised to
be cast. I have to say, I'm not sure I
want people digging it up. And even though this is radio.
I'm just showing that's in a very impressive That was
when I found out that I really did have a
receding hairline because I thought I got too much hair
for Bob and they combed it back. They're jelled, and
I was like, where's my hair gone? But I'm glad he.
(09:47):
I hope he never saw it because it'd be like,
who's that clown playing me? Anyway, loss of a great
New Zealander. I thought we'd tie this one in not
Soaring with the Eagles. I think maybe and probably won't
get the same sort of epitaph. But there is someone
who's probably going to have a slight political lepotaph phaps
is the mayor who's just done one term. Tory Farno
(10:08):
has pulled out of the meroral race, no surprise to anyone.
I actually don't know, you know how she gave us
up nine out of ten. I don't know how bad
a mayor or good a mayor she's been, because the
headlines that she has captured have been terrible. I don't
know whether she's been good behind the scenes or where
there's a few little gems there. I don't know how
she gives us AUP nine out of ten. Though, Paul,
(10:28):
what do you know?
Speaker 3 (10:28):
No, I don't, and I think, I mean, Shane might
know more than they do. But as far as I
can tell from the outside, Wilmington councils are pretty dysfunctional
sort of place or has been. And and then there's
the personal side, you know, the drinking, the declaration of
a HDHD that's right, yeah, yeah, So I just I
(10:49):
just don't think it's been a great run for her,
and I think she's seen a candidate come along who's
going to be stronger, and she said, Wow, I'm out
of here.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Do you think she'll get in back as a counselor
in the water?
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Yeah, I will not drink. Can I say something to him?
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Though?
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Whatever she was in terms of being an effect of politician,
she did not deserve what she got online, the vitriol
and the hate and the threats. No politician and I'm
looking at Shane here, but no politician should be facing
well anyone.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I mean, it does amaze me what people how people
manage to and I see it through just the job
I do here that it seems that if you're in
the public eye, there's people find it easy to dehumanize you.
You're just the sort of figure to be attacked as
if there is I think people are I don't know,
(11:41):
I don't know what the social media phenomenon and it's
not going to change anytime soon. But it is amazing
how people can just go all the way with the hatred,
isn't it.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (11:51):
I mean every politician, central or local will have a
lot of stories around this and it it's even happened
to me. The thing about the social media element of
it is that one attack a nice as doesn't look
that bad from the outsider, but if you get couple
of hundred of them, then it sort of builds up
on you as a decision maker and that can be
really hard to take.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Yeah. Hey, just know people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones,
but I'm going to ask you to throw a few stones.
Did you get Seriously, you cannot tell a love not
a fighter, mate? Okay, you put that to one side.
For one, you can't tell me that you guys and
council must not have been looking at Wellington going for
(12:30):
what a train wreck these guys are? Were there any
conversations around the table? No names?
Speaker 4 (12:35):
Yeah, I mean it looks a really hard place to
work sometimes and a lot of conflicts because the thing
is as an Auckland councilor we have huge political divides
across our table as well. We kind of seem to
make it work, but you know, for some of the
other councilors it can be a little bit tough from
the outside.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
But you know, I'm not there, so I guess the
thing that the Count's Wellington Council seemed to the water
problems and things, there's been quite a few balls dropped
that basic issues. How do you guys, I mean, how
do you guys keep focused on Is there someone in
the room he goes hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, this
is not achieving anything. Let's talk about fixing. I don't
(13:09):
know whatever the next.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
Job is one hundred percent. It's kind of like a
group challenging to sort of prioritize what the council does.
Because the water has really been a good example because
it's not really a sexy bit of infrastructure. It doesn't
get you back into to the next election, but it's
obviously super crucial and important. And actually Torifano did a
lot of investment in the last budget in terms of
water infrastructure, so that was a good result for her.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
But yeah, it's not sexy, but it was deferred expendit
wasn't it. It got to the point where you had
to do something. In Wellington it was falling over and
yeah one.
Speaker 4 (13:43):
Hundred percent, and you know, Sue was running down the
streets and things like that. People demand better.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Actually, the thing that amazed me was that there was
a story. I mean it did amaze me because I
thought I've missed this completely. But it was a story
about some water infrastructure that massive pipes that have been
going for kilometers through over and I can't mean what
the name of the project is, but it is a
massive piece of work. And suddenly there was this story about, oh,
here's some pipes we've been laying on the ground and
this team from overseas that's been doing all this work
(14:10):
for how long but there's been almost no talk about it.
I can't remember what it was called. But do you
know what I'm referring to?
Speaker 4 (14:15):
The central interceptor in Auckland that, Yeah, it's Central Untercestre.
It's like one point two billion dollars. It's a huge
amount but very very important if you want to swim
in the beaches in Auckland, you've got to do it.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
It's and how long is that that project? Because physically
there are some photos of the work underground and it
reminded me of the City rail Link. It just looked immense.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Oh absolutely, I mean some of the pipes in Auckland
go back, you know, one hundred years. We've got to
be fixing these kind of things. And Wellington as well
have realized that they need to get on with it
as well.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Right well, and onto other political issues and it's a
few we've got to cover off. Today. The prisoner voting
ban is to be reinstated. It's actually so basically at
the moment, the law is if you are a prisoner
sentenced to more than three years, you can't vote anyway.
And that's not changed anyway. But the law that has
changed you're in the clink for anything, even if it's
(15:07):
a shorter sentence. If you're in the clink during the election,
you cannot vote. It's going to affect only about two
or three thousand people. So to me, it just looks
like it's a signal from the government that this is
what we stand for. If you go to prison, you're
not going to vote either. And get stuffed, Shane, what
are you in.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Yeah, it's a signal that it's a kind of tough
on crime approach from the government, and you're totally right.
It doesn't affect huge amounts of people, not enough to
meaningfully sway an election, but it's kind of a signal
to the electorate on there. There's obviously been huge issues
around the human rights there wait saying you Tribunal courts
have criticized these things in the past, so you know
we need some strong justifications I think around these kind
(15:46):
of moves.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
What do you reckon, Paul, I'm trying to guess.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
No, no, no, I'm fairly neutral on this. So I
do think there is a question, as the Prime Minister said,
of rights and responsibilities, and so if you do something
bad and you're in prison, then what rights do you have. However,
the High Court ruled on this and the government appealed
and it went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme
(16:12):
Court ruled that this was a breach of human rights
not to allow these prisoners to vote.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
So how does that play out when because ultimately Parliament
can make the laws it wants to it can it
can and you get declarations and the government goes, so
what you love to see Christopher likes and do that
in press conference? You know what? I just think to that, Yeah,
I don't care.
Speaker 3 (16:37):
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Yes, to be honest, here's my I mean, I didn't
practice law for a long time, but I do know
that to get sent when I was practicing criminal law,
to get sent to prison, it's not your first rodeo
you have unless you're a murder of course, and then
you're not going to be affected by this because you're
going away for a long time. But people have been.
If you've been sent to prison for a short sentence
(16:59):
from minor offenses, it is the result of consistent, unrelenting offending.
Most people who go to the tlank for minor offenses
it's because it has you know, none of the other
stuff's worked. And I have to say, if you can't
go down to the local shop for a bottle of milk,
you can't go to the tab and make a bet,
you can't go and watch your favorite sports team and
(17:21):
guess what, you can't vote. I mean, I couldn't care less, really.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
No, Tim, can I just ask you a question, what
would you do to prepare people for once they come
out of prison. That's one of the arguments that by voting,
you were sort of re engaging with society, So.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
What would you do. Look, I don't think voting's neither
here nor there, because that's once every three years. I
didn't stick around in law long enough to have someone
come out of prison. Apparently my mum.
Speaker 4 (17:46):
Told me there's a bit too unpack in that sentence.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Then, well, I did know. I didn't stick around the
law very long at all, a couple of years. But
I do remember the first time I had someone who
was going to go to prison for social welfare fraud
and he called my home address, and I was staying
at home at the time because I've been between flats,
and my mum called out of the wind and said,
such and such wants to know what to take to
(18:09):
court tomorrow. And apparently I called out his toothbrush, but
I didn't think he was on the line at the time,
and I'm hoping she'd actually didn't pass that on. I
thought she was just anyway, look to prepare people for
coming out of prison. Look, that's why I mean everything
that we should be doing with rehabilitation and trying to
get people motivated for a job and that there is
(18:32):
life beyond present. It's a huge job. But I don't
know if the voting thing is really here or there.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
And as I say, I'm not necessary, I don't necessarily
have a strong view one way and the other. But
our recidivism rate, the reoffending rate is huge in this country.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Now, got to do this better?
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Yeah, And I don't know what. I actually don't know
what the answer to this is, because I mean, you
look at some countries which have much stronger responses to crime,
and there are some countries that don't have the same
recidivism rate. But there's a social contract that we don't
seem to have in this country where people feel that
or don't do that. That's not a good idea because
(19:09):
it's not going to go well for you. For instance,
would the same people if they're in Singapore be committing
the same offenses that they do here? Singapore is a
different set up altogether. But it's not just as simple
as saying, you know, they're very strict on crime, although
I dare say that does play a part of it,
isn't it. Do you think? I do?
Speaker 4 (19:26):
I do?
Speaker 2 (19:27):
I do? I do.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Think there are different models and it would be good
to say what works and what would work here. And
I think we do need to have a discussion about this,
I really do. I mean, it's not just about being
hard on criminals and offending. It's what we do around
to make sure that these people do not re offend.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And a lot of people bring up the Scandinavian examples. Yeah,
but the thing is, it's so easy to cheer up
and go on scanonavy they don't have this and that
these are the way they treat people and when they don't,
when they send them to prison and stuff. But there's
a completely different social constructor, isn't there in Sweden, Norway, Finland? Whatever?
What do you reckon share?
Speaker 4 (20:05):
I mean, so outing myself here. I used to work
in rehabilitation briefly, and I was a lawyer as well. Yeah,
there are reports that were produced by the previous government
which says, look, if you were to prioritize rehabilitation, if
that was your thing, then this is the kind of
model you'll do. So that stuff's all sitting on the
shelf if the government wanted to pick it up and
use it. It just kind of depends where your philosophere
(20:25):
is in terms of how we should handle the problem.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Yeah, and what genuine rehabilitation looks like and what means Yeah,
difficult to measure, isn't it right? We'll be back. We're
going to talk about a little bit about the budget.
And there's some news about vaping risks, which actually were
a bit of a surprised me because I thought it
was maybe a lot less harmless than it's turned out
to be. We'll be digging into that in just a moment.
This is the panel on the Weekend Collective and we'll
be back in this Tickets twenty seven past three Frands
(21:00):
and welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This is the
panel on Saturday, the third of May. My guests my
analyst Shane Henderson, he's Aukland counselor for the Way, Tarkaby
Ward and Paul Spoonley, a sociologist emeritus professor. He's a
bit flashed, Paul. Anyway, Hey, guys, shame will start with
you that now. Have you got any excited sort of
(21:22):
anticipation for budget twenty twenty five because I get the
feeling it's going to be more one of revealing where
Nicola has saved some money and some cuts to the
public service and next please.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Yeah, Look, I think you can be excited if you
want to pay down debt and if you want to
save some coin, because that's exactly what this budget is
and Nicola has signaled that, but it's not quite sure
where exactly yet. We're kind of still guessing.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Because they've talked up a lot about the public service
cuts that they've done, but still public service is still
massive compared to where it was five or six years ago,
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Paul.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
I don't know. Oh, okay, do you know?
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Probably, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure toim. I'm guessing.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Do you get I'm budget excited about budgets at all?
Because I'll be honest, I don't really I thought you were.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
I thought we were going to talk about the Kiwi
Saver hint. That's come out of the.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Yes and so I am what you're getting into that.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
I'm excited about that. I think she's nicol and diming
that this. I think there are much bigger issues around superannuation,
about super age eligibility means testing, the whole shebang, and
why why don't we align ourselves with Australia. In July,
the employer contribution goes up to twelve percent. We're way
(22:42):
behind the game here in terms of getting a nest
egg for when Tim's going to retire.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
I just don't think our economy has got it. It's
difficult to build that thing, and we couldn't suddenly go
twelve no, because we're just not built for that out
pay structure, our wages, et cetera. So, by the way, yes, Paul,
what we suspect she's going to do is that if
you stick basically twenty bucks a week into Kiwi Saver
(23:07):
one thousand bucks a year, the government will top that
up by another five hundred bucks a year. And it
looks like, because it costs about one point one billion,
the government's going to be out for that. I can
sort of understand why they might want to be out
of that.
Speaker 4 (23:20):
What do you reckon, Shane, Yeah, One of the wrinkles
there is that if you're a contractor, or if you're
not someone that gets that contribution from the employer, you
probably need some motivation to check some money in and
that is a motivator for a lot of people. So
you know, otherwise they probably would just leave the keys
they were stagnant.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Yeah, yeah, can I.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
The other thing that really surprised me when I was
looking at this was that they're given the number of
people who are in Keiwi save it. The number who
are not claiming the tax is enormous. It should be
not one point one billion, it should be one point
five billion if everybody claimed it. So there's there's quite
a big discount there already free money.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Basically, I'm a contractor and I don't do a hell
of a lot. We haven't been doing a hell of
a lot with the Kiwi Saver, but I do. That's
one of the things I thought, well, I'd better get
with the scheme because it's free enough ficks a weekend.
Yeah yeah, yeah, Oh well, well look at no doubt
when budget week comes out around we can get a
bit more excited about it. Now. This thing about vaping,
there's a new study that has found that vaping more
(24:16):
than doubles the risk of serious lung disease. I think
it's still a lot less dangerous than smoking. I always
got to remind ourselves of that. But I think that
we made a big mistake a long time ago not
doing what Australia has done and saying if you're a smoker,
you need to get off. Here's your prescription for the vapes.
Everyone else, No way, Shane. You can see you're nodding
(24:37):
your head there.
Speaker 4 (24:37):
One hundred percent agree there, Tim, Yeah, the Long Channel
study was quite clear. The doubles the risk of lung disease.
And you know, if you're putting stuff in your lungs
that you know you probably shouldn't, there's always going to
be a consequence to there, right.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Well, the other thing is is that it introduces to
me the chief villain. And this is not a scientific approach.
A lot of the time in life, guys, we make
our minds up about things because we get a bit
of information and we think intuitively from life experience. And
my thing is that what's nicotine incredibly a of substance.
So you're allowing this method of delivering and introducing people
(25:10):
to substance addiction that is going nowhere good. And I
think that all both governments have got this terribly wrong,
and I'm quite resentful about it.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Paul.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Yes, I agree with you, Tim, And what staggered me
was the proportion of young people fifteen to seventeen year
olds who are already vaping. So already they're on that
path to addiction. And the Australian government has now put
some serious money behind a program to try and reduce
the vaping rate in Australia. And I just think this
(25:39):
government made a big mistake by departing from that program
which was internationally recognized of reducing smoking and of allowing
vaping in.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
That's the thing, Shane, I can't understand this. It seems
bloody obvious that we shouldn't be encouraging kids towards addictive substances.
Why have both? I mean, no government has both got
wrong because we see that we're living with what we're
living with right now. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
I can't really understand why there has been government action
because you look at the statistics around young people vaping,
it's huge and some people are out there vaping and
still on the darries as well, and goodness, that's a
ticket to lung disease.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Have you you guys ever smoked in on? Hell?
Speaker 1 (26:22):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:26):
It's election yeah yeah, and I'm not I'm not admitting
to anything on.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
It didn't Inhale.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
That was the Clinton one, wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
Yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll tell you what. We'll take
a quick moment, so Paul can go just ever looking
quite sorry. Okay, so twenty three minutes to four news talks,
he'd be still amazing me. What a fantastic and interesting
(27:14):
and quirky piece of music. This is the thing from
Living Let Die. Paul McCartney and Wings welcome back to
the Weekend Collective. And my guests are Shane Henderson, he's
Auckland counselor for Way, tuckerty Ward his first time on
the show, and sociologist and emeritus professor Paul Spoonley. Now
Paul Russia, Ukraine. The ceasefire that's coming up, Sir Putin's
and outs a three day ceasefire looks like I don't
(27:37):
know if we hadn't read too much of this, because
he does sort of run with the hairs and hunt
with the hounds on this. Donald Trump has expressed some
growing impatient with efforts to reach a peace agreement. Predict
the future for us? Please, no, I can't.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
I think Putin is just unreadable and he's playing the game.
And I think he's playing Trump to be honest, and
he broke the Easter truce.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Why is it?
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Well, I think he's probably going to observe this one
because they've got that day and that's a time that
he shows off the military to the domestic audience. But
I just cannot see this guy being reliable when it
comes to agreeing and the concessions he's wanting as part
of the peace deal.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Give me everything I want. Yeah, yeah, And I don't
know what pushback he's getting from Trump. But what do
you make of it all, Shane?
Speaker 4 (28:27):
Yeah, Look, I think that's what this is kind of
all about. Writer, is trying to increase the size of
that chair when he does get to the negotiating table,
because we've seen over the past few months Russia really
stepping up those aggressive acts and trying to claim as
much territory as possible, and many people saying out there, look,
you know, he's getting ready to get around the table
and say, look, I want to keep what I've got, guys.
So this is one of the things he's doing with it.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Yeah. The thing is probably one of Trump's positive sides,
because as everyone knows, I'm not a fan of his,
but he does. I think he genuinely hates the idea
of bloodshed once it's a stop. But the problem is,
there's this equivocation, as if they're both as bad as
each other, when in fact, you know.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
There's no moral equivalence between the two. I mean, one's
been invaded, the other is the invader. It doesn't at
times seem as though Trump is prepared to concede that
Trump that Putin is the is the invader, and is
the aggressor in all of this. I just think it's
I just think it's a bit of a shit show,
to be honest.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
The other thing is that Trump came out in the
election campaign period and said, look, I'm going to end
this within twenty four hours, undred days.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
How did that go?
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Show?
Speaker 4 (29:32):
It's not gone too well?
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Well, because here's the language from the White House Press
Secretary Carolyn Levitt, who says that Trump is quote increasingly
frustrated with leaders of both countries. He wants to see
a permanent ceasefire. I wonder what effect would have if
Trump came out and said, you know what, put Ukraine
to one side. I've said my bed about then, Vladimir.
I've realized you're the problem. If you don't, then we're
(29:55):
going to back them up with every missile they need. Yes,
in fact, that is what he needs to do, isn't it?
But he won't. He is.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
But then I think Putin would probably on the on
the be aggressive. He might go nuclear, so you know,
you're just playing with fire. I don't think he would,
Oh don't you well?
Speaker 2 (30:15):
No, I mean, who knows he might be.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
No.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
I think he throws that threat out because he's worried
that we're all terrified of it.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
But we're talking about as we are. But with both
Putin and Trump, we're talking about two huge egos, and
who's going to back down. I'm just not sure that
Putin is going to back down, and so whatever he
gets thrown at him, he's going to come on and
do something which is going to be further aggression.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
Putin's been playing this game for twenty five years in power. Yeah,
it's not as fast radio.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
I reckon what they should do is they should send over.
You might you won't get the name out of context
on this, but I think what they should do is
Australia has a role to play it here diplomatically. They
need to spend send their special mushroom chef over to
cook a meal for Vladimir Putin and just Aaron Patterson,
you know the mushroom. That trial's going on.
Speaker 3 (31:06):
I don't think I'm going to comment on that one.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Go through the keeper him a boy, I tell you,
I mean in terms of trials to follow, that is
going to be fascinating to see the facts unfold. I
know we didn't have it slate of a conversation, but
we should just get Aaron Patterson to cook a nice
little meal for old Vladimir, saying it's your favorite. But
as strung enough, with some mushrooms thrown, you'll love them.
I love them anyway. Hey, look this Shorty Street. There's
(31:33):
concerns around the fortune the future, should I say Shortened Street?
Have you actually who what do you know anyone who
watches Shortened Street? Yes?
Speaker 4 (31:40):
Yeah, some of some of my older members of my
family definitely.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
And we had friends from Germany recently and they spent
quite a few months in the country. He's German, she's
Polish and they loved it. They got hooked on short
his Street. There you go. Yeah, I watch it from
time to time, don't.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
You, tim No, don't you to be honest, I don't
watch any t wren't you. I was about twenty thirty
years ago. I played I played a I played a clairvoyant,
and again I was lousy, but I was on there
for a few episodes. Actually also played an ambulance officer.
Ambulance Officer number two. This is going back a while,
(32:20):
but look at the signs. Are not good for it,
are they? No, they're not.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
And when I look at my TV of an evening,
the number of imported reality shows is really beginning to
brass me off. And they're obviously cheap, and they're able
to be played here with very little cost. I think
we need to preserve our domestic TV productions. So that's
(32:45):
my argument there. But I do notice that when you
look at the latest polling results, Shorty Streets down at
number seven, A Country Calendar, David Lomas and Endangered Species
are the top three, and they're all, you know, fifty
three five hundred thousand plus, whereas Shorty Streets down at
about one hundred and thirty thousand.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Wow, because it used to be like five six thousand.
Mind you, same with the you know, Close Up seven
Sharp and the Homes Show and all that sort of dropped.
But actually, well there is that there's been a call
from the makers of some of these reality TV shows. So,
for instance, the New Zealand version of Master Chef, the
New Zealand version of Married at First Sight our local
(33:24):
and there's been a call for it to be funded
in with the screen rebate and things like that, and
I don't know, I'm it does seem a bit tragic
if and even though I couldn't care too less than
two hoots about shortened street, it doesn't matter. I just
think it feels if it was suddenly to disappear. Yeah,
I don't know, gap Well, I'm I'm pro funding mane. Look,
(33:47):
it's I can speak from an Auckland context. It's hundreds
of jobs and hundreds of thousands of dollars the screen
industry just here in Auckland. We am looking across across
the country. It's even bigger. So you know, it's an investment.
It's not just what should be funded, no, no, but
what should be funded. So for instance, we have the
screen reit rebate for films and it attracts overseas investment
money in and all that sort of thing. But should
the local should the local version have Married at First
(34:10):
Sight or The Bachelor or whatever, should that get funding?
Because is it really adding anything to our culture?
Speaker 4 (34:17):
People like it?
Speaker 2 (34:19):
Yeah, I expecting a strong case.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
That's pretty strong. It's a democratic case.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
What's interesting here is that one, two and three Country Calendar,
David Lomas and David Species, that's what we're watching. They
should be funded.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
I tell you what, I think that there was if
somebody suggested me on talk about the other day they
thought that Country Calendar was at risk. But I think
there's no no.
Speaker 3 (34:44):
That five hundred and thirty one thousand people watch Country Calendar.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
That is fantastic and it is a great show, isn't
it It is? Yeah. Anyway, look, we'll be back in
a moment. This is the panel on news Talk zaid B.
It will be having a chat about workshire. What is
coming up next?
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Yes, the oh Prince Harry. That's right, dear old Prince
Harry's having another tantrum. So we'll be back in just
a moment. My guests are Shane Henderson and Paul Spoonley.
I'm Tim Bebridge. It's twelve minutes to four, so ray yeses,
(35:28):
welcome back to the show. There's a little bit of
a dragon with the Apple Sun and Cuba. Actually, sometimes
I can never remember who did the song, so I've
had a victory of my producer. When I actually told
her who was singing the song, She's like, you never
get this right anyway. Welcome back to the panel. My
guests are Shane Henderson, he's all con counselor for the Way,
Tarker Reward and Paul Spoonley, sociologist and emeritus professor and Lucky.
(35:49):
Last topic for today, so Prince Harry has he had
another tantrum? I guess he has to. This is where
he goes wrong. He's told the BBC he would love
a reconciliation with the royal family and it's an emotional interview.
He said he was devastated at losing a legal challenge
over his security in the UK. But then he says
the King won't speak to me because of the security
(36:12):
stuff and I just sort of think as long as
he keeps airing this stuff publicly, it's the reason that
everyone in his family is nervous of talking to him
because it's going to appear on Newsnight or something at
the Shane.
Speaker 4 (36:25):
Yeah, look, they're known for controlling the media around the
family narrative, right, so trying to use the media against
that that doesn't seem like it's ever gonna work.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
It hasn't so far. Yeah, I mean, I mean everyone's
deeply suspicious of Megan Markel, but there's probably people like
the love who or a hater. But Harry, he's got
to take responsibility for his own decisions. And this stuff's dumb,
isn't it?
Speaker 1 (36:45):
That?
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Who cares to him?
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Who cares?
Speaker 3 (36:47):
Who cares about this?
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Do you?
Speaker 2 (36:52):
I don't care?
Speaker 3 (36:53):
It's a train wreck. I think playing out in public,
isn't it.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
I think the reason we're interested, or our curiosity is
pep is because it's the very public playing out of
the sort of dispute that any family can have. But everything,
But what Harry says is the disgruntled son brother plays
out on the BBC and it's I'm not sure does
he realize that? Why don't you just quietly approach them
(37:20):
and say I'd love to talk to you rather than
play through BBC.
Speaker 4 (37:26):
Just to go and have a yarn, you know, privately
and say, look, I'm not actually going to talk to
the media about this because then they'll shut down shop.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
Do you how much sympathy do you guys think there
is for Harry and Meghan? None?
Speaker 3 (37:37):
No, no, no, people are a bit tight of it. Yeah,
and it's a sort of look at me, woe is me?
I mean, this whole thing about security. Doesn't this guy
have enough bucks in the bank to pay for security?
He's he's broken links and then he expects the British
taxpayer to pay for.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
This what I mean, his logic's wrong somehow, there is
some I do there is I have one level of sympathy,
do you for him? And the level of sympathy is
it's not a com implement But and I don't mean
it to sound so harsh, but I just think that
it's a shame that he's so stupid that he's ended
up in this situation because he obviously is a terrible
(38:16):
judge of managing relationships. Yes, and somebody's got in his
ear and thinks that writing a book that he wrote,
you know, and all that. It's just it's like he
didn't realize that there is a quick There is to
every force in nature, there's an opposite reaction. Yes, And.
Speaker 3 (38:34):
I guess the thing that does intrigue me is the
Megan factor. Does she not understand anything about the Royal
family and the Brits around this because they're not playing
a smart game there's.
Speaker 4 (38:45):
No skills there.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Eh.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
Well, well no, I think because I think her only
lens of it is through what Harry has shared with
her about his subjective view of the tragedy of his life,
and so she's bought that hook line and sinker. So
the existing royal family are perpetually the villains. And as
long as they're perpetuating that sort of myth or whatever,
(39:06):
that that truth is, let's call it. Yeah, and that's stuffed.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
And then we've got the older brother who's not putting
us foot wrong.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
So the comparisons, Charles, I think, is becoming an increasingly
popular monarch. For me, it's it's still that moment when
the you might have seen this when the black Ferns said,
do you with the girls? And I will wonder if
you'd like a hug, and he goes a hug, Yes,
why not? And I thought, I can't imagine the queen.
I'll tell you what. He won a few fans with
(39:34):
that one. Hey, thanks so much for joining us on
the panel of guys shame what's coming up on the
council and extending any scoops you can give us.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
Yeah, not necessarily a scoop, but we're doing consultation on
the future of Western Springs Stadium. Jump on AK have
your say dot Nz and share your thoughts. Aka, have
your say dot en Z.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Excellent and that's the that's what they're going to do
with Winston Springs now and Nalie Williams's ideas and all that.
That's the possibilities. Good stuff and what's keeping you out
on mischief?
Speaker 1 (39:59):
Now?
Speaker 3 (40:00):
Paul, Oh, it's a beautiful spring day here in Auckland,
as it is always and so back to the guard,
back to the good you get stuck in.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Hey, thanks so much, Dev for coming on the show. Guys.
We'll be back in just a moment the wonder If
Radio show Helen os Sullivan, she's CEO real Estate company
of the real estate side at Velocity, and we're going
to talk about what sort of property if you're going
to buy one you want to make some money out
of it. What sort of property standalone, townhouse, apartment, new, old, existing,
stay at home? What is it? We'll be talking about
(40:28):
that with Helen after the News, which is coming up
in just a three minutes to four.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk zed Be Weekends from three pm, 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
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.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.