Speaker 1: You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from news Talk, SAIDB,
Speaker 1: debating all the issues and more. It's the panel on
Speaker 1: the Weekend Collective on news Talk, said B. High El
Speaker 1: seven higher.
Speaker 2: Welcome, so hard.
Speaker 3: And very warm. Welcome to you, good afternoon, Welcome to
Speaker 3: the Weekend Collective for the Saturday, the fifth of April.
Speaker 3: And you can text your feedback anytime on nine two
Speaker 3: nine two or email Tim B at Newstalks ab dot
Speaker 3: cod z if you're not in a hurry. But of
Speaker 3: course we'll be looking forward to your calls later on
Speaker 3: coming up on today's show in just a moment our
Speaker 3: panel who I'll be introducing shortly, looking a little further
Speaker 3: ahead to when we will be taking your calls. As
Speaker 3: I mentioned on eight hundred eighty ten eighty for the
Speaker 3: one roof radio show, we've got Ed McKnight joining us.
Speaker 3: He's a resident economist at Opez Partners, asking the question
Speaker 3: is the golden age of property investment over? But also
Speaker 3: we might dwell in two we've got time alternative ways
Speaker 3: of getting attention for your property that's just not selling,
Speaker 3: such as I don't know a one dollar dollar reserve,
Speaker 3: dangerous game and after five o'clock for the Parents Squad.
Speaker 3: Sarah chap When joins us. She's a psychologist at Mind
Speaker 3: Works now talking about managing a household with a blended family.
Speaker 3: So all, if you've got the step kids and the
Speaker 3: blended family of children, who can tell whose kids what
Speaker 3: and what are the rules? We love your input on this.
Speaker 3: On eight hundred and eighty ten to eighty and before six,
Speaker 3: we're talking to our own superman, Christopher Reeve. He is
Speaker 3: a sports journalist with zed Mee and it's Auckland def
Speaker 3: C versus Western Sydney Wanderers. We're going to preview that
Speaker 3: as well as get his take on the upcoming qualifying
Speaker 3: rounds for the f one which of this evenings, So
Speaker 3: that is lots to get our heads around. Welcome to
Speaker 3: the Weekend Collective. It's eight minutes past.
Speaker 1: Three, entertaining and always boys. Tim Beverage on the Weekend
Speaker 1: Collective News talks that'd.
Speaker 3: Be oh yes, indeed and no particular ordership. We introduced
Speaker 3: her quite modestly as a producer and journalist. But she's
Speaker 3: I think over the course of your career, she said,
Speaker 3: her fingers and all sorts of pies, isn't she it's
Speaker 3: Irene Gardener.
Speaker 2: Hello Irene, how are you?
Speaker 4: I'm very well, thank you.
Speaker 3: That you've had a fairly eclectic You've got lots of
Speaker 3: interest seven arts and broadcasting.
Speaker 4: Journalist and TV producer by trade. But yeah, these days
Speaker 4: I do boards and things like that, and so yeah,
Speaker 4: I'm a bit of cross that I do boards.
Speaker 3: I do boards on board.
Speaker 4: That's quite that was quite bad grammar for someone claiming
Speaker 4: to a FA.
Speaker 3: Journalists boards works for me, and he is. I was
Speaker 3: just reflecting with Irene and my producer, just the insufferable
Speaker 3: youth of Brad Olsen, the CEO of in for Metrics,
Speaker 3: and I thought of you as we played that slightly
Speaker 3: groovy music, Brad, that you'd be wanting to bust some moves.
Speaker 3: But coming to us down the line from Elington, good ay, gooday.
Speaker 5: Look, I was trying to bust some moves. Although if
Speaker 5: you ask me any details about the song when it
Speaker 5: came out and who made it, I'm not sure if
Speaker 5: I'm quiet as across that detail.
Speaker 3: Possibly before you were born, I'm guessing really likely. What's
Speaker 3: everything old is new again?
Speaker 6: They know, Brad.
Speaker 2: Anyway, nice to have you guys on the show. Look,
Speaker 2: let's let's rip into it, shall we. The first thing
Speaker 2: look just a quick thing.
Speaker 3: So we've got another pole out and it's the Taxpayer
Speaker 3: Unions Union Curier pole, and it has had several poles
Speaker 3: that have been bad news for the government. But it
Speaker 3: looks like it's switched around a bit and probably, of
Speaker 3: course Labor's fallen a few points. Inexplicably, the Greens are
Speaker 3: up to eleven points. I guess maybe the needge to
Speaker 3: that pole. Now it might be a bit different. New
Speaker 3: Zealand First is up two point three to seven point
Speaker 3: four and Act up two point three to ten percent.
Speaker 2: Here's the thing.
Speaker 3: When I saw it as another pole out, I thought,
Speaker 3: oh God, who cares? I mean, who cares about poles?
Speaker 3: I don't even really believe them because I look at
Speaker 3: the results on think, how can the Greens be on
Speaker 3: eleven percent?
Speaker 4: What do you think?
Speaker 2: What's your take on the polls, brad Oh, I.
Speaker 5: Mean they are a snapshot in time, but I mean,
Speaker 5: tim if they reflected exactly what you thought then that
Speaker 5: you know it'd be just one one party in power,
Speaker 5: just simply mathematically. And I think that's the thing. It
Speaker 5: just reflects the all encompassing views of a range of
Speaker 5: New Zealanders in this case. I think normally most of
Speaker 5: the poles are about a thousand people, but there are
Speaker 5: a thousand different people every time, So looking through those numbers,
Speaker 5: I don't take a lot pole to pole in the
Speaker 5: fact that you know anyone's up one or two points,
Speaker 5: because that's within the eraror margin. The fact that Label
Speaker 5: was down four point three points, a little bit above
Speaker 5: the era margin does sort of suggest is a little
Speaker 5: bit less there for them at the moment. But the
Speaker 5: fact that National didn't go up all that much, I mean,
Speaker 5: there's been a lot in the last couple of weeks
Speaker 5: You've had, of course the Prime Minister's trip to India
Speaker 5: that was quite successful on the international front, but a
Speaker 5: lot of questions being still back at home around delivery
Speaker 5: and particularly the economy.
Speaker 6: So so I think.
Speaker 5: Realistically it's probably that you look through a couple of
Speaker 5: the poles that have been released the last couple of weeks,
Speaker 5: people are still pretty questioning of where the economy's at,
Speaker 5: but also obviously showing a bit of frustration with the
Speaker 5: opposition too. That is probably we you'd expect to be,
Speaker 5: given where we are in the political cycle, sort of Midtermish.
Speaker 2: Irene. Do you follow the poles much?
Speaker 4: Oh, yes, I'm always interested. I mean, you know, as
Speaker 4: Brad says, they're kind of a snapshot, they're a bit
Speaker 4: of a guide and they are often affected by you know,
Speaker 4: who's just had a good week, month whatever. I mean,
Speaker 4: you know, looking at the bunch of them lately, you'd
Speaker 4: have to say that, you know, the two blocks are
Speaker 4: feely even. The two main parties are fairly even. I
Speaker 4: think they actually are quite important, even though they can
Speaker 4: sometimes be wrong. I think that I think, you know,
Speaker 4: it's a read for governments to kind of, you know,
Speaker 4: realize if they're doing what the people who voted for
Speaker 4: them kind of want them to be doing or not.
Speaker 4: I mean, I know they do their own internal polling,
Speaker 4: but I think it's good that we as the public
Speaker 4: are aware of polling as well. So yeah, I think
Speaker 4: polls are okay. The ones just before the election are
Speaker 4: quite often wrong.
Speaker 3: However, Yeah, Actually, I think the thing is is that
Speaker 3: so we see this and as a headline it's been
Speaker 3: good news for the government, and then we'll see another
Speaker 3: one done by a different polster being reported in a
Speaker 3: week or two or three, and it will look completely
Speaker 3: the opposite, and we seem to have so much swaying
Speaker 3: around that I'm wondering if we still have a way
Speaker 3: to go brown on the methodology and getting consistency that,
Speaker 3: for instance, re research versus the taxpayer union pole in
Speaker 3: my memory, and I don't lock these things too hard
Speaker 3: that they always tell a different story just because they're
Speaker 3: different polsters.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean you can see that throughout different poles.
Speaker 5: I mean, to be fair, if you had the Taxpayers
Speaker 5: Union that did one a week later, you'd probably get
Speaker 5: a different result. Again, I mean just because you're calling it.
Speaker 5: You've only got a thousand people that are polled in
Speaker 5: these when we've got what five million odd New Zealanders.
Speaker 5: You will get a different view every time. But they
Speaker 5: will generally trend around the same area what we generally do.
Speaker 5: And maybe it's less about what we do with the
Speaker 5: polls and maybe how we talk about that instead of
Speaker 5: referring just to the latest snapshot whenever it might have been.
Speaker 5: What often you see a lot of informed commentators do
Speaker 5: is they'll look through the latest polls. I'll sort of
Speaker 5: average the last three to five or so and go, look,
Speaker 5: what is there A bit of a broad trend Are
Speaker 5: things trending up trending down? You don't want to sort
Speaker 5: of look at one pole and think, oh, it's definitely
Speaker 5: the absolute gold stand and all the other ones beforehand
Speaker 5: was silly. You more want to try and take a
Speaker 5: bit of that overtime vibe shift. Is there a trend
Speaker 5: up for one party or a trend down? So I
Speaker 5: think that's where often we could do a little bit
Speaker 5: better as going, hey, is this showing better things overall
Speaker 5: for the government? Is there more concerned with the opposition
Speaker 5: how the minor party is doing? But again, we're also
Speaker 5: a long way away from an election, so what does
Speaker 5: it matter.
Speaker 6: What does it do to us? Not a lot. At
Speaker 6: the moment.
Speaker 5: It just sort of keeps us broadly informed with how
Speaker 5: people are trending, and at the moment things seem to
Speaker 5: be a little bit more even Stevens than before in
Speaker 5: terms of the blocks of power.
Speaker 3: Can I just ask it as an economist as a
Speaker 3: useful guide for us, because we hardly ever when there's
Speaker 3: a poll out And mind what I know, I never
Speaker 3: noticed that anyone actually acknowledges too much. By the way,
Speaker 3: this is within the margin of eraror can you explain
Speaker 3: to us, so people can when they hear the next
Speaker 3: pole come out, they can go put it in context.
Speaker 3: What is the margin of error and how significant is
Speaker 3: it when you get a point five percent shift out
Speaker 3: of one thousand people?
Speaker 5: Yep, So I mean most of the time you do
Speaker 5: see the margin of eraror reported, but it's often not
Speaker 5: put in as much context. So the pole that came
Speaker 5: out and we're talking about at the moment a thousand
Speaker 5: people were surveyed, it's got a maximum margin of era
Speaker 5: of three point one percent. So basically the long too
Speaker 5: long don't read there is if you've got a shift
Speaker 5: above three point one percent, hey yeah, it's material. It's
Speaker 5: it's sort of big enough to actually pay a bit
Speaker 5: of attention to if it's below three point one percent.
Speaker 5: So if it's point five percent, even if it's one percent,
Speaker 5: there's a question of is it a real genuine shift
Speaker 5: or is it just a little bit of noise in
Speaker 5: the data because you ask some different people are the
Speaker 5: same questions at different time, So realistically we start to
Speaker 5: get a lot more interested when you start to see
Speaker 5: those shifts over time. That's also where the averaging comes
Speaker 5: in so usefully, though, Like if you had one party
Speaker 5: on twenty five percent, and then over the course of
Speaker 5: five to seven polls it ended up on thirty five percent.
Speaker 5: That's pretty big, So every time you saw it wouldn't
Speaker 5: necessarily mean it was better worse for otherwise, but you
Speaker 5: do want to look at that trend. So generally, what
Speaker 5: you're trying to figure out is is this actual reality
Speaker 5: a big change, something noticeable, or is it just that
Speaker 5: a few different people have been asked a slightly different question.
Speaker 3: I've got one more question, sorry that Irene will want
Speaker 3: to chip in in a second, but not on the economics.
Speaker 3: Shaking your head, is it more significant when you if
Speaker 3: you are polling four or five percent, does it mean
Speaker 3: that the shifts that your experience need to be taken
Speaker 3: with a bigger grain assault than the big parties who
Speaker 3: are getting thirty three thirty four percent each?
Speaker 5: Well, well, basically, I mean if you're you know, I
Speaker 5: think there was a report about the likes of to
Speaker 5: party madia A who increased. I think I'm just looking
Speaker 5: through the numbers here. They fell two point two to
Speaker 5: four point three. I mean that says that their support haved.
Speaker 5: I mean, really, you know, do they really whips all
Speaker 5: that much likely hood is no, they didn't. It's just
Speaker 5: you're talking pretty small numbers there. Of course, it does
Speaker 5: meta for the political calculus, because five percent is that
Speaker 5: sort of magic threshold number, and it does matter how
Speaker 5: many people you get. But yeah, you should. I mean
Speaker 5: put it this way. I think take political polls with
Speaker 5: a grain of salt generally. Don't sort of look at
Speaker 5: the last one and go it's absolute gospl and all
Speaker 5: the other ones I just disregard, sort of got to
Speaker 5: put them in the mix with everything else you see
Speaker 5: out there, How many poles have come through? What other
Speaker 5: informations are out there?
Speaker 2: Have you ever been polled?
Speaker 6: Irene?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: No, me?
Speaker 6: No you Brad, Oh no, I'm gutted. I mean I'd
Speaker 6: love to. It'd be so interesting.
Speaker 3: I'm dying to be polled for the radio survey because
Speaker 3: they'd say, who do you listen to? I'd say the
Speaker 3: Weekend Collective all day long, every time it's on. Do
Speaker 3: you listen to anyone else? No?
Speaker 6: And who are you calling? Nix? I can prep them
Speaker 6: with the romance exactly.
Speaker 3: Anyway, let's move on to well, this is an awkward
Speaker 3: story for the Navy.
Speaker 2: Of course.
Speaker 3: The man and ma nui. I don't think there's anyone's
Speaker 3: surprise here, Irene. That was human there. And as we've learned,
Speaker 3: the failure to disengage in autopilot control as the root
Speaker 3: cause of the New Zealand Navy ship running aground and sinking.
Speaker 3: What's your what's your feeling about this? The damage that
Speaker 3: does to the impression that we get of I don't know.
Speaker 2: The Navy at least.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's not great.
Speaker 2: Is it.
Speaker 6: Not great?
Speaker 2: Understand?
Speaker 3: Not good? Not good?
Speaker 4: And you know, it's been quite a serious I have
Speaker 4: a friend who's been up there working as part of
Speaker 4: a environmental missile to make sure, you know, to mitigate
Speaker 4: the potential damage there. Oh yeah, I mean I know
Speaker 4: I shouldn't on such a serious story, but there was
Speaker 4: a little part of me because part of it, yes,
Speaker 4: there was that auto part of the thing, but part
Speaker 4: of it was also an acceleration instead of a breaking incident.
Speaker 4: And I know so many people who have done that
Speaker 4: in a car. And you don't drive, so this is
Speaker 4: not you, and you think that you would do that
Speaker 4: in a fairy It's like it's kind of like no, no, no, no.
Speaker 2: No, no, no way back back back.
Speaker 3: Well, actually I think most of us would have guessed
Speaker 3: this almost because we saw it with the ferry that
Speaker 3: ran aground and the sounds. It wasn't that an autopilot
Speaker 3: thing as well, the cursored autopilot Brown.
Speaker 5: It was indeed, I mean and like like our you know,
Speaker 5: embarrassing that we did manage to speed up into a
Speaker 5: reef and then lose one hundred million dollar warship. We
Speaker 5: don't have a lot of them to start with, so,
Speaker 5: you know, losing something pretty pretty vital. I think the
Speaker 5: difficulty here, Wright, is that, like New Zealand's navy, we've
Speaker 5: got some good players, we've got some good ships, we've
Speaker 5: got some great people. But on this occasion, we just
Speaker 5: fell really really short of the mark. Why does that matter? Well,
Speaker 5: it's really hard for us to go back into the
Speaker 5: Pacific and say, hey, we're here to support you when
Speaker 5: the last time we did we sank a ship in
Speaker 5: someone else's brief. And the global sort of position here,
Speaker 5: Wright is that you know, international partners are saying, and
Speaker 5: they've started almost jokingly say it publicly, is New Zealand
Speaker 5: serious on this front? I mean, like, can we can
Speaker 5: we rely on New Zealand? So we've got to make
Speaker 5: sure that from this we take some pretty serious lessons,
Speaker 5: we do something pretty serious about it. The Navy has
Speaker 5: got to take this and move it forward and figure
Speaker 5: out what we do at the other side, because the
Speaker 5: training apparently just was an up to standard. I mean, Tim,
Speaker 5: I don't know if you've gone read the transcript, but
Speaker 5: some of the stuff that's been coming through it suggests that, look,
Speaker 5: we just weren't as in control as what we needed
Speaker 5: to be and that is a fundamental failure.
Speaker 2: Yes, it'd be interesting to see.
Speaker 3: Actually, just reminds me of the budget that's coming up,
Speaker 3: that what we're going to announce for our defense spending,
Speaker 3: because we are I think there's some pressure on us
Speaker 3: to look like we're taking it seriously. So anyway, look
Speaker 3: on to other things. The Green the story with the
Speaker 3: Greens this week with the Green MP Benjamin Doyle with
Speaker 3: appropriate inappropriate language next to photos on social media, the
Speaker 3: Greens saying that context is critical and actually they've had
Speaker 3: a bit of a caning from one of the people
Speaker 3: who broke the story, Ani O'Brien for saying, look, you
Speaker 3: know you're saying that this is normal for all of
Speaker 3: us and trying to group all people in the LGBTQI community.
Speaker 3: Here's my quick take before I go to you, Irene. Tragically,
Speaker 3: for the Greens, this is going to keep giving because
Speaker 3: if they did decide they needed to make some sort
Speaker 3: of change, they'll be the last to do it and
Speaker 3: it'll take them months and months and months.
Speaker 2: But what did you think of this whole story?
Speaker 4: Well, unlike you Tim who cruelly said earlier in the program,
Speaker 4: you couldn't understand how ten percent of New Zealand voted
Speaker 4: for the Greens, I can, because you know, mostly they're
Speaker 4: there as an environmental wing, and I think a lot
Speaker 4: of people support that. I think where they start to
Speaker 4: come acropper is when they start getting into culture wars
Speaker 4: and tribal stuff and so on and so forth, and
Speaker 4: we start to lose people. To be fair, I can
Speaker 4: see what Chloe Schwarbrick was trying to say, because it
Speaker 4: is entirely possible that this person hasn't really done anything wrong,
Speaker 4: that the post was just a bit of you know,
Speaker 4: silly lingo, so on and so forth. Hard to really know,
Speaker 4: and I think that Benjamin Doyle needs to speak well,
Speaker 4: actually address things. Was it just a silly, lighthearted comment
Speaker 4: and actually they're a good person and there's nothing to
Speaker 4: worry about or what.
Speaker 3: Well, yes, indeed, just to pick you up on one
Speaker 3: of the things that I've picked up and talked aback
Speaker 3: with people who might otherwise be Green voters is that
Speaker 3: the last thing they are is Green's at the moment,
Speaker 3: and they should rename themselves the Red Party because the
Speaker 3: environmental issues. I mean that the ghost of I picture
Speaker 3: the political ghost of James Shaw just being.
Speaker 4: And that's what you hear people saying, don't you. They say,
Speaker 4: this is not James Shaw, this is not Rod and Jeanette.
Speaker 4: Where you know where they're going, and I think it is.
Speaker 4: It is the wander over into cultural wars, tribal land.
Speaker 4: I mean, someone like myself, if they really were just
Speaker 4: the Green Party.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's the whole thing. I mean, I think
Speaker 3: a lot of us care about green issues, but it's
Speaker 3: a cry from it. But Brad, this issue is going
Speaker 3: to keep on giving because at some stage Benjamin Door
Speaker 3: is going to return to Parliament and probably play the
Speaker 3: victim card about threats and all that sort of thing,
Speaker 3: And the last thing they will do is actually address
Speaker 3: the appropriateness of those texts, which, to be clear, to
Speaker 3: people had sexualized language and with photos with children in them,
Speaker 3: including an emoji which is an emoji which is the
Speaker 3: other meaning for it as an emoji for pedophilia. So
Speaker 3: it was pretty dodgy.
Speaker 2: Sort of stuff.
Speaker 3: Anyway, they're going to keep giving, aren't they, as a
Speaker 3: gift for the newsmakers.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, look, people have asked questions. And let's
Speaker 5: be quite realistic here. If you are becoming a politician,
Speaker 5: the scrutiny is intense. The people are have elected you
Speaker 5: to represent them, they are paying your salary. That scrutiny
Speaker 5: comes through and it looks at stuff that happened even
Speaker 5: before you were a politician. I mean to say that
Speaker 5: this is sort of you know, private and shouldn't be
Speaker 5: in the public eye, or the horse has already bolted
Speaker 5: on that front. People are asking questions and I do
Speaker 5: expect that at some point Doyle will have to front
Speaker 5: up on these conversations because people are going, well, what
Speaker 5: is this all about? And let's be real if we
Speaker 5: look at other politicians out there across the spectrum, if
Speaker 5: they've done something similar or of a very different vein,
Speaker 5: but in the same sort of thing, and it appeared
Speaker 5: on their social media. I'm pretty sure that we would
Speaker 5: be hounding them for answers. Same same across the board,
Speaker 5: no matter what political party, no matter what you are
Speaker 5: the posters about or similar. There are questions that are
Speaker 5: asked and they do want to be answered.
Speaker 3: I can put it in more bluntly than that, if
Speaker 3: I posted something with a sexual reference with one of
Speaker 3: my children in the photo, I would have been gone yesterday.
Speaker 3: It'd be whatever happened to Tim Beveridge as opposed to
Speaker 3: know it would be let's be honest. But somehow they'll
Speaker 3: keep pushing back and somehow they're the victims in it all.
Speaker 5: I do think it's important to highlight that the likes
Speaker 5: of death threats in that that have been leveled against
Speaker 5: Ail are completely completely inappropriate, and that is not how
Speaker 5: we go about this conversation. The media are asking questions
Speaker 5: and that's the appropriate way to do it. But I
Speaker 5: I think also we're poorly served right when we go
Speaker 5: to either end of the distinction here. On one hand,
Speaker 5: the grains are saying that, you know, the answers can't
Speaker 5: be coming through because of the likes of death threats
Speaker 5: and similar. On the other hand, people are saying there
Speaker 5: are questions to be answered, but no one's fronting up
Speaker 5: like we do have to figure out a way how
Speaker 5: do we have a sensible conversation. There are questions that
Speaker 5: are being asked by members of the public. There is
Speaker 5: some sort of expectation for an answer or some sort
Speaker 5: of additional detail, and I don't think that just bearing
Speaker 5: it is going to do anyone particularly well, because people
Speaker 5: will continue to ask.
Speaker 3: Actually, it does amaze me the number of people who
Speaker 3: think that it's okay to offer a death threat. I mean,
Speaker 3: I hope that if there's a serious threat to me made,
Speaker 3: I hope you face the full consequences of the law.
Speaker 2: Because it's just obsaying.
Speaker 4: No, death threats are never the solution to anything.
Speaker 6: Who loves time for that?
Speaker 5: I mean honestly, who I just I really find that
Speaker 5: sort of stuff bizarre. I mean, look, I often read
Speaker 5: stuff and I don't necessarily agree with it. I mean
Speaker 5: one to even offer that level of feedback is insane
Speaker 5: in my mind. But at the same time, to include
Speaker 5: a death threat, I mean, who do these people think
Speaker 5: they are?
Speaker 3: Well, I've got I can't really answer that. Really, there's
Speaker 3: so many how do you put that in context? But anyway,
Speaker 3: that's the way some people want to respond. I'm just
Speaker 3: saying because as a talkback case, we do get some
Speaker 3: fairly horrendous stuff, and I just sometimes am amazed at
Speaker 3: the number of things that people will attribute to their
Speaker 3: own phone number and names.
Speaker 6: It's like, what you see your text machine.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'll better go and have a look at it.
Speaker 6: Oh no, no, not not this time. But I've seen
Speaker 6: the ZB text machine.
Speaker 4: There.
Speaker 5: There are lots again here, importantly, nine percent, the absolute
Speaker 5: vast majority of people have something interesting to add into
Speaker 5: the conversation, something useful, and they are doing it in
Speaker 5: the right way. It's just that very very slim group
Speaker 5: of absolute idiots bordering on criminal twits.
Speaker 3: Actually, just on a lighter note, I just think it's
Speaker 3: marvelous that we still refer to our computer system which
Speaker 3: shows our text as the text machine. It sounds very
Speaker 3: old scored, isn't it like that thinging machine that does that,
Speaker 3: you know, the one with the lights and the pictures
Speaker 3: and in the text. Yes, the computer.
Speaker 2: But anyway, there we go. That's my terminology. We use
Speaker 2: it here anyway.
Speaker 3: It's twenty six past three. Way back in just a moment,
Speaker 3: I feel my jem run.
Speaker 6: Hell the on Fleen watch for your long.
Speaker 3: Yes, welcome back to the Weekend Collective. I've a little
Speaker 3: bit of Elvis. I wanted to let that role, but
Speaker 3: I think we can only really go about twelve bars
Speaker 3: before we got a kick, and that was probably about
Speaker 3: sixteen bars.
Speaker 2: Anyway, I have a little bit of Elvis. But there
Speaker 2: we are.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the Weekend Collective. My panelists Irene Gardner and
Speaker 3: Brad Olsen. Now, guys, I am I've become such a
Speaker 3: fan off one that I'm anticipating the practice round and
Speaker 3: the qualifying rounds and the race which are this evening,
Speaker 3: and the race tomorrow with Liam Lawson with more anticipation
Speaker 3: iron than an all black match. I'm right into it.
Speaker 4: Where are you at the with the F one and
Speaker 4: Liam quite like the motor racing, and I would like
Speaker 4: quite like the motor racing. And I feel for Liam,
Speaker 4: you know, if one minute he was everything and then
Speaker 4: he was kind of nothing, and that's so hard. We're
Speaker 4: so hard on our young sports people, aren't.
Speaker 2: We well bred?
Speaker 3: Bullwork very Yeah.
Speaker 4: I have this feeling, and look, I might be proved
Speaker 4: to be completely wrong that he's going to completely come
Speaker 4: back from this completely triumph completely be a megastar at
Speaker 4: some point, whether that's now, whether it's a bit later,
Speaker 4: I mean maybe in a way, I mean you can
Speaker 4: sort of go, oh, well, on the one hand, he's
Speaker 4: still under huge pressure because now it's his whole career
Speaker 4: is on the line. But I don't know. I think
Speaker 4: maybe he's in a better spot now.
Speaker 3: Well, there has been a joke going around that max
Speaker 3: verstaff and if he went to racing ball it would
Speaker 3: be seen as a promotion because the racing balls are
Speaker 3: doing quite well.
Speaker 6: But are you into the F one Brad? Look? Can
Speaker 6: I be honest?
Speaker 5: Up until recently, I know I was it had I
Speaker 5: had no interest whatsoever, like genuinely wouldn't have known any
Speaker 5: of the players. But I have started to get into
Speaker 5: it enough that every time I see a new headline,
Speaker 5: I've got real. I've been like, look, I don't care,
Speaker 5: but I care a little bit. I just want to
Speaker 5: have a little bit.
Speaker 6: Of a look.
Speaker 5: And it has been interesting right that even in I
Speaker 5: think the practice races are for the Japanese Grand Prix,
Speaker 5: and I know that that it's pre not pricks, because
Speaker 5: that's what it looks like. Look, I really didn't care,
Speaker 5: but hate leam Mawson. He actually finished faster than the
Speaker 5: guy who that's just replaced him, So maybe this has
Speaker 5: been a good move from a blessing in disguise. As
Speaker 5: much as it has looked like a high profile tumble,
Speaker 5: I think he's actually possibly looking better out of it.
Speaker 6: I think so.
Speaker 3: And actually, if you want to get into it, Brad,
Speaker 3: I would suggest watching maybe just the last couple of
Speaker 3: series start on Netflix of Drive to Survive, because I
Speaker 3: think the thing is about the appeal Irene is that.
Speaker 2: We get.
Speaker 3: It's they're all thoughtful, intelligent people by the look of it.
Speaker 3: All the means you get around what's happening in each
Speaker 3: franchise or each within each team. Should I say, they
Speaker 3: all sort of speak relatively openly intelligently as opposed to
Speaker 3: I don't know. It's a contrast to some of the
Speaker 3: sporting codes where you go, I don't want to single
Speaker 3: out any player. The boys did a good job all that,
Speaker 3: and you get to have an insight into it and
Speaker 3: to care about I don't know. And also it's at
Speaker 3: the it's at the pinnacle of a particular sport of technology,
Speaker 3: strategy skill.
Speaker 4: What I was just going to say, it's such a
Speaker 4: high level of strategy, strategic where and I think that's
Speaker 4: why you get the smarts, you know. I mean, I
Speaker 4: don't think you can actually be a top driver without
Speaker 4: being pretty smart. And of course, see, because as you
Speaker 4: pointed out earlier, Brad is so very young, I might
Speaker 4: not know that New Zealand has a very rich history
Speaker 4: in motor racing.
Speaker 3: I think he knows. I think Brad knows. But of
Speaker 3: course the McLaren team, which is named after Blues or
Speaker 3: Bruce McLaren's I reckon, Brad, the gateway for you into
Speaker 3: this is to do an economic analysis of just whether
Speaker 3: it's actually worth owning an F one team, And we'll
Speaker 3: ask you next time you come back in. And but
Speaker 3: by then you'll be like, well this particular driver blah
Speaker 3: blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: You'll be all over it.
Speaker 5: I think I can give you that answer now, like
Speaker 5: absolutely not from a pure economic thing. But look, if
Speaker 5: I was a petrol head, I think I'd be totally
Speaker 5: into it. I mean, maybe I should watch drive to
Speaker 5: what Drive to Survive?
Speaker 2: It's called Drive to Survive.
Speaker 3: It's on Netflix, and I accidentally watched season six first
Speaker 3: or season five the last couple of here and and
Speaker 3: got right into it.
Speaker 6: This sounds like the Love Island of like car racing.
Speaker 3: Except all the people on it are genuinely at the
Speaker 3: top of their game. Sorry, but I don't even know
Speaker 3: what you're talking You're talking about one of those celebrity series.
Speaker 6: I guess, yeah, yeah, yeah, let's not get into that now.
Speaker 6: It's a whole different topic for a whole other show.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, speaking of amazing events that are going on
Speaker 3: that we're not going to be seeing, I'm sort of
Speaker 3: ambivalent a little bit about the America's Cup, whether it's
Speaker 3: here or not. Irene, but I wonder if here's the thing.
Speaker 3: A week before, Christopher Luxon said, we've become a country
Speaker 3: that says no, and you've just pointed at me, going damn,
Speaker 3: you've just stolen my thunder. And it's like, well, hey, Chris,
Speaker 3: how about we get the America's Cup here as an
Speaker 3: event to get everyone fizzing in the economy and all
Speaker 3: that computer says no, what do you reckon?
Speaker 4: I kind of tend to agree. I've always been quite
Speaker 4: supportive of America's Cup because I think as well as
Speaker 4: that it has a strong positive economic impact for New Zealand.
Speaker 4: I think it's something that we get really excited about
Speaker 4: and it makes Peel happy, and these are good things
Speaker 4: and we're good at the moment. We're a good team.
Speaker 4: You know, things are going well. I was really disappointed
Speaker 4: when the last one went offshore and to think that
Speaker 4: we had the opportunity again and if we really did
Speaker 4: just lose that for.
Speaker 2: Seventy five million apparently.
Speaker 4: Yeah, But I do think the government was in a
Speaker 4: really no win situation because I think if they had
Speaker 4: invested the money, we would have got more than that back. Yes,
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm open to being corrected by that by
Speaker 4: the actual economist in the room, but I just think
Speaker 4: in the current climate, I think they would have been
Speaker 4: so criticized for it.
Speaker 2: I think you have nailed it.
Speaker 3: I think that they they didn't have the intestinal fortitude
Speaker 3: for the political criticisms that would come their way, even
Speaker 3: if those political criticisms were maybe unfair, because they'd be like, oh,
Speaker 3: you've got enough money for your rich boys and girls sport,
Speaker 3: but you haven't got enough money for.
Speaker 4: Them of oh yeah, but we're getting more back is
Speaker 4: I mean, I have to make that argument a lot
Speaker 4: professionally because of the freebate. You get people to understand that,
Speaker 4: you know, the screen production rebate. Yes, we give some
Speaker 4: money out, but we get way more money in. And
Speaker 4: I'm constantly having to make that argument wearing that hat.
Speaker 4: And that's you know, for the government to have to
Speaker 4: make that argument on this in the current climate.
Speaker 3: Yes, because Brad, if I can bring you in in
Speaker 3: a second, so in now should I say, because you
Speaker 3: are the economists in the room. So Barcelona it generated
Speaker 3: an additional two billion New Zealand dollars one point nine billion.
Speaker 3: I gather we would to get I don't know how
Speaker 3: it works with GST, but somebody, I think the guy
Speaker 3: from the Hospitality Association said that if we pulled in.
Speaker 2: Well, I did the calculations.
Speaker 3: If we pulled in five hundred and seventy five million,
Speaker 3: seventy five million of that would generally be GST in
Speaker 3: terms of the spend that would come in, so we
Speaker 3: would only need to be a third as successful as
Speaker 3: Barcelona anyway, But your analysis, please, Well, I was going to.
Speaker 5: Say, I when you started this, you know, saying that
Speaker 5: the Prime Minister is talking about how we don't want
Speaker 5: to be a country of no I didn't realize that
Speaker 5: a country of yes meant yes, government hand me out
Speaker 5: and do it all for me in the private sector,
Speaker 5: be damned. I mean, come on, if it's that good,
Speaker 5: and it's supposedly that good, then I'm not sure why
Speaker 5: international business people were not lining up to bankroller. And
Speaker 5: if they're not, that tells me quite a lot. Maybe
Speaker 5: it's not the best.
Speaker 6: Let's be real.
Speaker 5: The last time that we had the America's Cup in
Speaker 5: New Zealand, it made a loss of our about one
Speaker 5: hundred and sixty million dollars. It made less money than
Speaker 5: we put in.
Speaker 3: But so I think you're being unfair because that was
Speaker 3: post COVID and no one could come here.
Speaker 5: Well you say that no one could come here, but
Speaker 5: we still seem to have enough to keep running it.
Speaker 5: Why did they not postpone and pause it for a
Speaker 5: couple of years. They kept going even because they had
Speaker 5: some of that good, good taxpayer money. I think it
Speaker 5: is inconceivable when the government accounts are in deficit until
Speaker 5: the twenty thirties, perhaps to be spending money on a
Speaker 5: yacht race. Is that really what the Texas are supposed
Speaker 5: to go to?
Speaker 6: Absolutely not.
Speaker 5: I couldn't give a stuff, And I think the vast
Speaker 5: majority of New Zealander is or won't.
Speaker 3: Even know it hot take. But the thing is, I mean, say,
Speaker 3: for instance, the F one in Victoria, the Victorian state
Speaker 3: government put in one hundred million Sorry what did they
Speaker 3: put in? Yeah, they put in over one hundred million
Speaker 3: Australian into it. Because these events attract business. They are
Speaker 3: like an export business. They bring money into the country. So,
Speaker 3: putting aside your mild lowing for the event, if you
Speaker 3: do generate that income, let's just make it a billion.
Speaker 3: And look, that's an optimistic you know that, even making
Speaker 3: half of what Barcelona did. But let's say we brought
Speaker 3: in enough money where the GST you made off the
Speaker 3: spend basically pay for itself. That's money we wouldn't have had.
Speaker 3: Doesn't it work like that?
Speaker 5: But that's true of just about literally everything that the
Speaker 5: government would spend on. So no matter what they put
Speaker 5: the seventy five mil on, they could do it for that,
Speaker 5: They could go and do it for a Taylor Swift concert.
Speaker 5: They could go and do it just by giving households
Speaker 5: the money and going to ask them to spend a
Speaker 5: bit more, you will still get a bit of a
Speaker 5: multiplier effect out of that government spending anyway, this is
Speaker 5: an opportunity cost The government needs all the money that's got,
Speaker 5: where is it going to best put it, and most importantly,
Speaker 5: what was it not going to fund because it had
Speaker 5: to spend that seventy five million on the America's cup
Speaker 5: Because I do really think that, yes, you'll always get
Speaker 5: people in and coming to spend for various things, especially
Speaker 5: if you subsidize it to the turn of seventy five mil.
Speaker 5: The question for me is that, well, from a government perspective,
Speaker 5: can you stand up and justify that when you're not
Speaker 5: spending on other things? And I really think for the
Speaker 5: government that this was the exact right move to say, look,
Speaker 5: we would.
Speaker 6: Love to do it.
Speaker 5: And I think importantly again, if private business want to
Speaker 5: do it, if they think it's a good enough investment,
Speaker 5: they should totally go for it. And if they don't
Speaker 5: think it's a good enough investment to run it themselves,
Speaker 5: then I'm not sure the government is somehow smarter to
Speaker 5: think they can pull it off better.
Speaker 3: I think the only the only distinction I would draw
Speaker 3: was that if you are putting money into an event
Speaker 3: where everyone participates is buying a ticket, then that would
Speaker 3: be a business, but where the money, where the benefit
Speaker 3: is benefiting in a more amorphous way an economy. It's
Speaker 3: not private. Private business don't money make money off the GST.
Speaker 3: They make money off the other activities.
Speaker 2: But you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: It's like, for instance, the government became a shareholder in
Speaker 3: Taylor Swift and said we're going to produce a taste.
Speaker 2: And we're going to clip the ticket.
Speaker 3: Well, actually, so there are people who'd say we should
Speaker 3: actually have put money in to get Taylor over here
Speaker 3: because it would have been.
Speaker 5: Huge, correct, And I still would have disagreed with that
Speaker 5: at that time. I mean, there it is a real challenge.
Speaker 5: And look, I mean this is economists. We sort of
Speaker 5: loved to go and find the worst sort of possible
Speaker 5: stance of all this stuff. But I really do think
Speaker 5: that Look, I mean there's a big question here over
Speaker 5: The big question is if you went out to every
Speaker 5: New Zealander and said, hey, if you have to pay
Speaker 5: an extra whatever for the America's Cup, would people do it?
Speaker 5: I wouldn't, And I'd much rather that people that did
Speaker 5: actually put their money in. And because at the end
Speaker 5: of the day, I really don't see that. I mean,
Speaker 5: you've already seen this go off shore once.
Speaker 6: We know as well.
Speaker 5: The only reason it was going to get going was
Speaker 5: if the government allowed an accommodation levy to come through.
Speaker 5: The government said that wasn't happening. They felt like there
Speaker 5: were so many barriers in the mix that I would
Speaker 5: have been really worried that the government would have committed
Speaker 5: this money. It wouldn't have gone quite as far. And
Speaker 5: then at the other end we would have gone, oh gosh,
Speaker 5: this made less money than we thought. Why has this
Speaker 5: happened again?
Speaker 6: And again?
Speaker 5: We have some proof here. Yes it was COVID, but
Speaker 5: there's some pretty firm proof that the cost benefit and
Speaker 5: now assistants stack up the next time. I just don't
Speaker 5: think it would do the same more differently this time.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: That was a surprise to me because I thought I'd
Speaker 3: be disagreeing with Irene on this one and agreeing with Brad.
Speaker 2: But it's the other way around.
Speaker 3: So mean, no, diary, It might be made right, but
Speaker 3: it can't be right all the time.
Speaker 4: Doesn't stack up. My assumption was that it did, but.
Speaker 3: Maybe it doesn't. We're going to get you too to
Speaker 3: discuss the film commission next time you're on together, because
Speaker 3: I'm getting this one. Anyway, we're gonna be we need
Speaker 3: to take a break. It's eighteen minutes to four news Talks.
Speaker 2: Be back and a tick.
Speaker 3: It's welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This song is
Speaker 3: the Killers. That's by request of Brad Olsen. We like
Speaker 3: to give our panelists and our guests the request. Our
Speaker 3: own hasn't put one in yet, but anyway, hey, welcome
Speaker 3: back to the Weekend Collective. As I say, I'm Tim Beverage.
Speaker 3: It's Brad Olsen, an honoring iron gardener with us. Now, Brad,
Speaker 3: we're going to go to you first on this one.
Speaker 3: The in fact, it was one of the biggest stories,
Speaker 3: but I thought we'd push it to later in the
Speaker 3: hour to give us, you know, a second wind. The
Speaker 3: Liberation Day, the tariffs of Kickton Wall Street has had
Speaker 3: the biggest fall since the COVID pandemic demic. I heard,
Speaker 3: I think one news had someone from Auckland's Business school
Speaker 3: who said that listening to Trump's reasons was like listening
Speaker 3: to a flat earther. I thought that was quite a good,
Speaker 3: strong comment from an academic.
Speaker 5: Actually, it's been a really tough couple of days to
Speaker 5: try and understand what's going on and just what the
Speaker 5: justification is behind it. I mean that the end result
Speaker 5: has been a swift and savage drop to the markets.
Speaker 5: I mean the worst day since the pandemic. As you noted,
Speaker 5: something like six six and a half trillion US and
Speaker 5: value wiped out.
Speaker 6: I mean the number of it. They're so big that
Speaker 6: you sort of can't comprehend how big those numbers are.
Speaker 6: But it's been bad.
Speaker 5: I think, in fact, the last two days it's the
Speaker 5: fourth worst day in US market history over a two
Speaker 5: day period. The only worst ones where the likes at
Speaker 5: the start of the pandemic, the GFC, and then you've
Speaker 5: got to go back to the Great Depression. I mean
Speaker 5: that this is serious stuff, and this is like artificially engineered.
Speaker 6: The tariffs. I mean, we knew they were coming.
Speaker 5: They were worse, I think than we all thought at
Speaker 5: a national at a global scale, for New Zealand, they
Speaker 5: weren't quite as bad as they could have been. That's
Speaker 5: sort of the only silver lining you can possibly come
Speaker 5: out with.
Speaker 6: But the risk of.
Speaker 5: Global growth is clear. The fact that these tariffs are
Speaker 5: big and they could well go bigger. The fact that
Speaker 5: there's now been retaliation like all around, this is a
Speaker 5: self engineered economic catastrophe. The risk now, I think from
Speaker 5: JP Morgan they've put the risk of recession out sixty
Speaker 5: percent for the US economy this year. Like this has
Speaker 5: sort of changed the economic game, and I don't think
Speaker 5: even we as economists have fully got our head around
Speaker 5: about how bad this could and is likely going to be.
Speaker 3: The thing is they seem to calculate so for the
Speaker 3: thirty four percent tariff on China, they looked at the
Speaker 3: trade deficit, divided it by the imports and came up
Speaker 3: with sixty seven percent, and half of that it had
Speaker 3: nothing to do with reciprocal tariffs.
Speaker 6: It's just exactly the looky lou stuff.
Speaker 5: You look at New Zealand right the latest report from
Speaker 5: the US Trade Representative says in twenty twenty three, New
Speaker 5: Zealand's tariff right on the US was one point nine percent.
Speaker 5: Yet that big board that the President held up in
Speaker 5: the Rose Garden said twenty percent. And we're all going,
Speaker 5: what is this? Has he included a bit of gst
Speaker 5: what's he done? And literally they've now published a series
Speaker 5: of calculations that effectively boil down to your trade deficit
Speaker 5: divided by your total trade with the US in the
Speaker 5: last period that you've got available. The crack up thing
Speaker 5: is is they've put a bunch of Greek letters in
Speaker 5: there and said, well, we chose a bunch of important
Speaker 5: parameters that basically boil down to they just equal one.
Speaker 5: So for all of the tom foolery and trickery that's
Speaker 5: gone on, the numbers boil down to there is no
Speaker 5: reciprocity in here. There's no a few tarifast will tariff you.
Speaker 5: The saying back, it's I think that the US President
Speaker 5: clearly thinks that there should be no trade deficits with
Speaker 5: the US. US should be doing all of the manufacturing,
Speaker 5: all of the trade, sending it all out there. I mean,
Speaker 5: the numbers are very hard to comprehend. But the worst
Speaker 5: thing is is that if that's the level of analysis
Speaker 5: that is coming out of the US administration at the moment,
Speaker 5: I don't think there's a lot of hope for good,
Speaker 5: long standing negotiations. This is just going to continue to happen.
Speaker 3: I thought the thing one of the other thing that
Speaker 3: stood out to me and Arena is that as the
Speaker 3: bullying of these very poor economies, forty nine percent tariff
Speaker 3: on Cambodia, forty eight percent for Laois and forty six
Speaker 3: percent for Vietnam. The word unconstionable stroke comes to mind
Speaker 3: for that rule.
Speaker 4: It's just I just don't I don't understand. I read
Speaker 4: a really good column today from an American economist basically saying,
Speaker 4: don't try and look for the method and the madness.
Speaker 4: There isn't any It's just completely idiotic. You know, none
Speaker 4: of these things will help anybody, let alone America.
Speaker 3: The problem is is he demands such loyalty from his
Speaker 3: circle of advisers that who's going to actually tell him
Speaker 3: this is a really dumb idea.
Speaker 4: And you know I heard someone that he you know,
Speaker 4: the people had got to speak saying, you know, just
Speaker 4: a very ordinary American guy from you know, smallish town
Speaker 4: talking about how wonderful it would because all the manufacturing
Speaker 4: jobs would be back in the factories and so on
Speaker 4: and so, and you know, he seemed so genuine.
Speaker 2: That's what Trump's messaging.
Speaker 4: And I just thought, oh no, that's just I don't
Speaker 4: think that's going to happen. It's just it's all just
Speaker 4: a sort of track.
Speaker 5: Really.
Speaker 2: Oh well, you know, so he doesn't like the stock market.
Speaker 4: Falling to be fair, Trump does have this weird style
Speaker 4: where he announces something truly horrendous and shocking and then
Speaker 4: he sort of walks back from it. So I wonder
Speaker 4: if there might be an element, you know, I think
Speaker 4: New Zealand is right to just sort of sit tight
Speaker 4: and you know, not react too much and just oh yeah,
Speaker 4: we'll keep see what happened, keep their heads.
Speaker 3: Down, keep fill golf out of the picture. Anyway, We'll
Speaker 3: be back in just a moment. It's nine minutes to four.
Speaker 2: Yes, and that request from Irene Gardener. That's here.
Speaker 3: It comes with my Girl from Tommy, Tom Petty and
Speaker 3: the Heartbreakers. I'm Tim Beveridge and my other panelist is
Speaker 3: Brad Olsen and Lucky last story. Guys, it's funny. I
Speaker 3: always thought Kiwi are so cute as our bird. They're
Speaker 3: so sort of likable with their long beaks and they
Speaker 3: sort of you know, trot around and anyway, there are
Speaker 3: so many at the moment. There have been a video
Speaker 3: called of a couple fighting in a Northland backyard. Actually
Speaker 3: surprises surprise as well, and not nighttime.
Speaker 2: It sort of looked like.
Speaker 3: It was dusk or daylight. But I read that was
Speaker 3: slightly jarring and comical at the same time.
Speaker 4: To say it's kei we going for If anyone hasn't
Speaker 4: seen it, do look it up because it is fantastically funny.
Speaker 4: They just look ridiculous fighting. I don't mean to be
Speaker 4: I'm going to get in trouble now for insulting our
Speaker 4: beloved nationals. Go for it. I always find Key's very
Speaker 4: weird looking because they they really look like they need
Speaker 4: something other.
Speaker 3: Than those two They look like they need arms.
Speaker 4: Don't look think they need either wings or sort of
Speaker 4: like little kangaroo type arms.
Speaker 3: Well, they do have little wings, you just don't can't
Speaker 3: see them. They've just got these little in the fight.
Speaker 4: They just look even more ridiculous because they've got nothing
Speaker 4: to really fight with. They're sort of bouncing on their
Speaker 4: two legs and beaking, and they're just the weirdest kicking
Speaker 4: dudes that ever they were.
Speaker 3: I was wondering what happens if they fall over one,
Speaker 3: but they seem to the upright, Brad. We were impressed
Speaker 3: by that video and slightly shocked that Kiwi are so
Speaker 3: aggressive to each other.
Speaker 6: I did.
Speaker 5: I mean, I thought it was quite exciting as well. Look,
Speaker 5: I'm a north under I think it shows that, you know,
Speaker 5: Jesus if you go up north and you get to
Speaker 5: see some pretty spectacular sights, and sometimes.
Speaker 6: It includes kiwi fighting in your backyard. I mean, how good.
Speaker 3: Actually, wouldn't that be amazing? Seriously to look out in
Speaker 3: your backyard and see a kiwi or two, isn't that?
Speaker 3: I think it just seems so surreal because I've always
Speaker 3: thought they're so rare and endangered, and yet there's somebody's
Speaker 3: got a water bowl out and then they're fighting over it.
Speaker 6: They are such incredible animals.
Speaker 5: I've seen the when I was on Stuart Island, you know,
Speaker 5: did of night heaving would be very quiet, and I
Speaker 5: think it's quite cool to see, you know, that there
Speaker 5: are now enough of them and we're getting there in
Speaker 5: terms of their numbers that they can fight in the backyard.
Speaker 5: They are peculiar looking creatures, That's that's sure. I feel
Speaker 5: like if they fall over, they almost just must spring
Speaker 5: back up on the hind legs and right.
Speaker 2: Again, like the Kung Fu thing.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I mean maybe eventually, hopefully this is a new tourism
Speaker 5: ed that we can start to put out.
Speaker 3: You know, I can see you doing that move on
Speaker 3: the on the dance floor when you slip over bread.
Speaker 2: Anyway.
Speaker 3: Hey, look, we haven't got time to say goodbye, except
Speaker 3: we can say goodbye. We'll be back in just a
Speaker 3: moment with the One Radio Show. Thanks Irene, Thanks Brad.
Speaker 1: Catch us own for more from the Weekend Collective. Listen
Speaker 1: live to news talks'd be weekends from three pm, or
Speaker 1: follow the podcast on iHeartRadio