WEBVTT - Bryce Edwards: Helen Clark Foundation calls for tougher rules on corruption

0:00:05.761 --> 0:00:09.961
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk SEDB.

0:00:11.241 --> 0:00:20.961
<v Speaker 2>You no, yes, Welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This

0:00:21.041 --> 0:00:24.881
<v Speaker 2>is Politics Central at twenty two past three and we'll

0:00:24.921 --> 0:00:26.841
<v Speaker 2>take by the way anytime during the course of the hour.

0:00:26.841 --> 0:00:28.601
<v Speaker 2>You can text us your feedback on nine two nine

0:00:28.641 --> 0:00:31.921
<v Speaker 2>until we're taking your calls in just a moment. But first,

0:00:32.161 --> 0:00:35.721
<v Speaker 2>The Helen Clark Foundation is calling for tougher rules against

0:00:35.761 --> 0:00:40.001
<v Speaker 2>corruption after a report authored by Philip Yasbeck outlined the

0:00:40.081 --> 0:00:43.241
<v Speaker 2>levels of transparency in our government. The report says that

0:00:43.321 --> 0:00:45.641
<v Speaker 2>kiwis and naive and thinking New Zealand is safe from

0:00:45.641 --> 0:00:50.241
<v Speaker 2>corruption scene overseas. And to discuss the report, doctor Bryce Edwards,

0:00:50.321 --> 0:00:54.001
<v Speaker 2>he's political commentator from Victoria University, joins me. Now, Bryce,

0:00:54.001 --> 0:00:55.081
<v Speaker 2>good afternoon.

0:00:55.441 --> 0:00:56.121
<v Speaker 3>Hi Tim.

0:00:56.321 --> 0:00:57.321
<v Speaker 2>Have you read the report?

0:00:58.161 --> 0:01:01.441
<v Speaker 3>I have, And you know I'm pretty intericipied this. There's

0:01:01.481 --> 0:01:04.401
<v Speaker 3>nothing part cleanly new in it. This isn't new research,

0:01:04.481 --> 0:01:08.321
<v Speaker 3>but it's bringing together a lot of the existing materials

0:01:08.361 --> 0:01:11.561
<v Speaker 3>and putting a really compelling case for why the system

0:01:11.601 --> 0:01:13.921
<v Speaker 3>isn't working very well at the moment and what we

0:01:13.961 --> 0:01:17.281
<v Speaker 3>could do to improve it and bring about more transparency,

0:01:17.481 --> 0:01:18.641
<v Speaker 3>to be specific.

0:01:18.681 --> 0:01:21.561
<v Speaker 2>And it's about the perception of corruption, isn't it rather

0:01:21.601 --> 0:01:23.521
<v Speaker 2>than the reality.

0:01:23.481 --> 0:01:25.841
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, well, that's because it's hard to witch and measure

0:01:25.841 --> 0:01:29.641
<v Speaker 3>corruption by its very nature, corruption is you know, what

0:01:29.681 --> 0:01:33.081
<v Speaker 3>happens behind the scenes and people are trying to hide it.

0:01:33.321 --> 0:01:35.801
<v Speaker 3>So I mean, you can in some countries measure it

0:01:35.841 --> 0:01:40.041
<v Speaker 3>by how many people get convicted or charged with corruption,

0:01:40.441 --> 0:01:43.281
<v Speaker 3>but that is, you know, is kind of problematic because

0:01:43.321 --> 0:01:45.481
<v Speaker 3>most people get away with it.

0:01:44.361 --> 0:01:47.641
<v Speaker 2>It is quite a dramatic sort of headline. But I

0:01:47.681 --> 0:01:51.681
<v Speaker 2>looked at the international sort of rankings and we're ranked

0:01:51.721 --> 0:01:53.921
<v Speaker 2>number third for sort of cleanliness out of one hundred

0:01:53.921 --> 0:01:57.161
<v Speaker 2>and eighty countries. We've got Denmark, Finland, Norway and Singapore.

0:01:59.201 --> 0:02:01.281
<v Speaker 2>Is this report and danger of over egging it?

0:02:02.641 --> 0:02:03.281
<v Speaker 3>I don't think so.

0:02:03.441 --> 0:02:03.481
<v Speaker 1>No.

0:02:03.761 --> 0:02:07.041
<v Speaker 3>I mean, if you look at the annual Corruption Perception

0:02:07.161 --> 0:02:10.601
<v Speaker 3>Index that you're just talking about, it's shown New Zealand slipping,

0:02:10.641 --> 0:02:13.081
<v Speaker 3>and not just in the rankings, but in our score

0:02:13.161 --> 0:02:15.721
<v Speaker 3>that we get each year. And so we're headed in

0:02:15.721 --> 0:02:18.881
<v Speaker 3>the wrong direction. And you know, this is a challenge

0:02:19.121 --> 0:02:21.841
<v Speaker 3>around the world at the moment. There's growing concerns around

0:02:22.721 --> 0:02:27.481
<v Speaker 3>the influence of wealthy interests, etc. So you know, and

0:02:27.881 --> 0:02:30.361
<v Speaker 3>one of the problems is that you can be complacent.

0:02:30.601 --> 0:02:34.961
<v Speaker 3>So those countries that have the good scores sometimes end

0:02:35.041 --> 0:02:38.041
<v Speaker 3>up resting on their laurels and they start believing their

0:02:38.081 --> 0:02:40.761
<v Speaker 3>own publicity that you know, nothing can be done wrong

0:02:40.801 --> 0:02:45.121
<v Speaker 3>in this country. You know, politicians are all trustworthy, but

0:02:45.441 --> 0:02:48.801
<v Speaker 3>we start to see, you know, across the board, all

0:02:48.801 --> 0:02:52.281
<v Speaker 3>sides of politics, there are some bending of the rules,

0:02:52.281 --> 0:02:56.561
<v Speaker 3>there are some untoward things that get done, and so yeah,

0:02:56.561 --> 0:02:59.241
<v Speaker 3>I think it's important to have a reminder from this

0:02:59.361 --> 0:03:02.001
<v Speaker 3>report that you need to have a keep a close

0:03:02.081 --> 0:03:02.481
<v Speaker 3>watch on.

0:03:02.441 --> 0:03:04.801
<v Speaker 2>This sort of keep ahead of the game. What is

0:03:04.841 --> 0:03:08.041
<v Speaker 2>the what time period does the report cover because we've

0:03:08.081 --> 0:03:11.321
<v Speaker 2>got a obviously we have a national New Zealand first

0:03:11.801 --> 0:03:15.121
<v Speaker 2>at coalition. Does it cover any of that or is

0:03:15.161 --> 0:03:17.121
<v Speaker 2>it the last few years or the last ten or

0:03:17.121 --> 0:03:18.361
<v Speaker 2>twenty years? Does it sort of.

0:03:19.041 --> 0:03:23.881
<v Speaker 3>It's really looking at contemporary as in the last few decades,

0:03:23.921 --> 0:03:27.081
<v Speaker 3>so it's not pointing the finger at any particular government.

0:03:27.281 --> 0:03:31.921
<v Speaker 3>It's certainly not about the current administration. It's and in

0:03:31.961 --> 0:03:35.081
<v Speaker 3>some ways the report is very moderate and it doesn't

0:03:35.201 --> 0:03:39.321
<v Speaker 3>rarely say there's any particular politicians that you know it

0:03:39.401 --> 0:03:42.401
<v Speaker 3>tails off or anything. It's saying, it's about the rules.

0:03:42.881 --> 0:03:46.241
<v Speaker 3>It's about the laws that it's critiquing, So I think

0:03:46.281 --> 0:03:48.961
<v Speaker 3>they've been over backwards to try not to esteem any politicians.

0:03:49.801 --> 0:03:53.361
<v Speaker 2>Is there any difference between corruption within political institutions and

0:03:53.721 --> 0:03:58.001
<v Speaker 2>people who are in political positions like ministers, et cetera

0:03:58.321 --> 0:03:59.921
<v Speaker 2>versus the public service? Is it?

0:04:00.081 --> 0:04:00.201
<v Speaker 3>How?

0:04:00.561 --> 0:04:03.881
<v Speaker 2>You know, how broadly does the does the idea of

0:04:03.961 --> 0:04:05.881
<v Speaker 2>political correction correction comenta.

0:04:06.481 --> 0:04:11.761
<v Speaker 3>Look, that's a great question, and scholars don't rarely succeed

0:04:11.801 --> 0:04:14.201
<v Speaker 3>it as a different type of corruption because they're all

0:04:14.281 --> 0:04:18.001
<v Speaker 3>part of public life and they all hold authority that

0:04:18.481 --> 0:04:22.281
<v Speaker 3>is mandated by the public. Essentially, regardless of whether you

0:04:22.281 --> 0:04:25.441
<v Speaker 3>are heading a government department or you're an elected member

0:04:25.441 --> 0:04:27.881
<v Speaker 3>of the government, it's you know, it's in the public

0:04:27.961 --> 0:04:32.481
<v Speaker 3>sphere and you're you know, if you're misusing resources, you're

0:04:32.521 --> 0:04:35.241
<v Speaker 3>misusing resources, regardless of of your position.

0:04:36.041 --> 0:04:40.681
<v Speaker 2>The report talks about five areas of risk political lobbying,

0:04:41.081 --> 0:04:46.281
<v Speaker 2>donations and funding for elections, access to official information, foreign bribery,

0:04:46.401 --> 0:04:51.881
<v Speaker 2>and beneficial beneficial ownership of corporate entities. What's the one that, intuitively,

0:04:51.881 --> 0:04:53.721
<v Speaker 2>I for you, stands out the most or even just

0:04:53.761 --> 0:04:57.121
<v Speaker 2>based on what your your observations of the political establishments are.

0:04:58.001 --> 0:05:00.441
<v Speaker 3>Look, I've spent a lot of time over the last

0:05:00.481 --> 0:05:05.441
<v Speaker 3>couple of decades looking at donations and lobbying, and I

0:05:05.481 --> 0:05:08.601
<v Speaker 3>think donations don't give enough scrutiny in this country. But

0:05:09.281 --> 0:05:13.481
<v Speaker 3>I've become much more concerned about lobbying. I think that's

0:05:13.681 --> 0:05:18.121
<v Speaker 3>where those with what we interests, if you like what

0:05:18.321 --> 0:05:22.481
<v Speaker 3>the individual's businesses, or even here in go's or trade unions,

0:05:22.721 --> 0:05:29.121
<v Speaker 3>that's where the influencers. The size of money is a problem,

0:05:29.241 --> 0:05:33.041
<v Speaker 3>but it's not certainly not by comparison with other countries.

0:05:33.321 --> 0:05:36.161
<v Speaker 3>It's not that much out of control, whereas it's the

0:05:36.241 --> 0:05:39.681
<v Speaker 3>lobby and that New Zealand has actually no rules about it,

0:05:39.921 --> 0:05:41.481
<v Speaker 3>and so we're out of step with the rest of

0:05:41.521 --> 0:05:46.721
<v Speaker 3>the world. And that if you are working for the beehives,

0:05:46.921 --> 0:05:49.001
<v Speaker 3>you can leave your job and become a lobbyist the

0:05:49.001 --> 0:05:51.161
<v Speaker 3>next day and there's no rules about it. And in fact,

0:05:51.561 --> 0:05:54.841
<v Speaker 3>four out of the last five chiefs of staff in

0:05:54.881 --> 0:05:58.601
<v Speaker 3>the last Labor government where either lobbyists before or after

0:05:58.801 --> 0:06:01.401
<v Speaker 3>they were running the beehives. And it does produce a

0:06:01.401 --> 0:06:04.321
<v Speaker 3>lot of conflicts of interest, and there's no rules about that.

0:06:04.761 --> 0:06:08.041
<v Speaker 2>I guess it doesn't sound flash on the surface, but

0:06:08.081 --> 0:06:11.561
<v Speaker 2>then again, minister's diaries are readily accessible, aren't they in

0:06:11.681 --> 0:06:14.481
<v Speaker 2>terms of who's meeting with home isn't Isn't that a

0:06:14.561 --> 0:06:17.121
<v Speaker 2>big Isn't that a big, a big deal in terms

0:06:17.161 --> 0:06:18.281
<v Speaker 2>of mitigating that stuff?

0:06:18.921 --> 0:06:21.241
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I think so, and it's it's one of the

0:06:21.241 --> 0:06:24.081
<v Speaker 3>best things that the last government did in this area

0:06:24.401 --> 0:06:28.481
<v Speaker 3>is start to publish the meetings that the ministers are having.

0:06:29.441 --> 0:06:32.321
<v Speaker 3>This in my view, there's all some questions about how

0:06:32.481 --> 0:06:36.481
<v Speaker 3>robust that mechanism is, but yeah, it's definitely been helpful.

0:06:38.001 --> 0:06:41.041
<v Speaker 3>But in other countries it's a lot more detailed, especially

0:06:41.041 --> 0:06:43.961
<v Speaker 3>when it comes to when they're meet with lobbyists. We

0:06:44.041 --> 0:06:46.521
<v Speaker 3>don't really get a lot of detail. And as we saw,

0:06:46.761 --> 0:06:49.401
<v Speaker 3>you know, a couple of months ago, with Shane Jones

0:06:49.841 --> 0:06:51.961
<v Speaker 3>being found out to have you know, dinners on the

0:06:51.961 --> 0:06:55.041
<v Speaker 3>West Coast with mining bosses. You know, that was missed

0:06:55.041 --> 0:06:57.361
<v Speaker 3>out from the ministeri or diaries. So I think we

0:06:57.441 --> 0:07:00.201
<v Speaker 3>have to be careful not to rest on our lirels

0:07:00.241 --> 0:07:01.521
<v Speaker 3>with those ministerial diaries. Either.

0:07:01.841 --> 0:07:04.321
<v Speaker 2>Do you think in particular is this do you think

0:07:04.361 --> 0:07:06.521
<v Speaker 2>the report just look, let's just keep an eye on this,

0:07:06.681 --> 0:07:08.161
<v Speaker 2>or do you think that there's I mean it does

0:07:08.161 --> 0:07:11.161
<v Speaker 2>suggest that there's been opportunities for governments to do something

0:07:11.281 --> 0:07:14.241
<v Speaker 2>legislatively with this, which is probably easier said than done,

0:07:14.401 --> 0:07:17.881
<v Speaker 2>but that hasn't been done. What do you think, what

0:07:17.921 --> 0:07:19.201
<v Speaker 2>action do you think should be taken?

0:07:19.761 --> 0:07:24.201
<v Speaker 3>Well, there's like twenty seven big recommendations from this report,

0:07:24.361 --> 0:07:28.121
<v Speaker 3>and you know we all have our own views on

0:07:28.481 --> 0:07:31.281
<v Speaker 3>the correctness of those individual ones. I just think there

0:07:31.281 --> 0:07:35.401
<v Speaker 3>should be a debate about we need to have not

0:07:35.481 --> 0:07:37.881
<v Speaker 3>just politicians but the public looking at those things and

0:07:37.921 --> 0:07:41.001
<v Speaker 3>weighing them up, because all those recommendations have proms and

0:07:41.001 --> 0:07:44.161
<v Speaker 3>cons But the problem is that the politicians, I think

0:07:44.201 --> 0:07:47.121
<v Speaker 3>will want to ignore this report. I want to avoid

0:07:47.161 --> 0:07:50.081
<v Speaker 3>it because you know, politicians are like two keys. They

0:07:50.081 --> 0:07:52.161
<v Speaker 3>don't want to vote for an early Christmas.

0:07:51.721 --> 0:07:53.721
<v Speaker 2>Well because their next job could be as a lobbyist.

0:07:53.761 --> 0:07:56.681
<v Speaker 2>I guess because Christopher fin Lesson wants a stand down period,

0:07:57.321 --> 0:07:59.321
<v Speaker 2>what would you suggest, I mean a stand down period

0:07:59.321 --> 0:08:01.041
<v Speaker 2>of what a year? Six months?

0:08:02.401 --> 0:08:05.441
<v Speaker 3>There is in different countries, but yeah, I think a

0:08:05.561 --> 0:08:08.481
<v Speaker 3>year would be the minimum that you'd want that you

0:08:08.481 --> 0:08:10.961
<v Speaker 3>shouldn't be able to go from being prime minister or

0:08:11.041 --> 0:08:13.721
<v Speaker 3>running the beehive. There's a chief of staff to then

0:08:14.721 --> 0:08:17.921
<v Speaker 3>working for lobbyists dealing with the exact same policy issues,

0:08:17.961 --> 0:08:20.801
<v Speaker 3>but for a vested interest on the other side of

0:08:20.841 --> 0:08:23.681
<v Speaker 3>the fence. So yeah, I agree with Chris from Mason

0:08:24.001 --> 0:08:25.401
<v Speaker 3>that's an urgent one.

0:08:25.561 --> 0:08:27.521
<v Speaker 2>Which country do you think is nailing it when it

0:08:27.561 --> 0:08:29.641
<v Speaker 2>comes to really doing a brilliant job and where we

0:08:29.681 --> 0:08:31.401
<v Speaker 2>could just go for the easy answer and say it's

0:08:31.401 --> 0:08:35.201
<v Speaker 2>the one who's number one in the corruption index for

0:08:35.321 --> 0:08:37.481
<v Speaker 2>sort of transparency and all that. But who do you

0:08:37.561 --> 0:08:39.241
<v Speaker 2>think we should take a leaf out of.

0:08:40.081 --> 0:08:43.721
<v Speaker 3>I think Ireland's doing some really important reforms in this area,

0:08:43.801 --> 0:08:46.361
<v Speaker 3>and I think they probably lead the way in terms

0:08:46.401 --> 0:08:50.281
<v Speaker 3>of at least tightening up on lobbying and having some registers,

0:08:50.801 --> 0:08:52.881
<v Speaker 3>because I mean, if the country is different and they

0:08:52.921 --> 0:08:55.681
<v Speaker 3>have different sort of mix, whereas Ireland. Now, look it's

0:08:55.721 --> 0:08:58.721
<v Speaker 3>a similar size country to US, it has a relatively

0:08:58.761 --> 0:09:03.721
<v Speaker 3>similar sort of party system and political system. But I

0:09:03.761 --> 0:09:06.401
<v Speaker 3>mean you look at somewhere like the United States, and

0:09:06.681 --> 0:09:08.921
<v Speaker 3>what's quite interesting that the United States is they have

0:09:09.001 --> 0:09:12.681
<v Speaker 3>some of the tightest regulations in this regard. So I'm

0:09:12.681 --> 0:09:16.561
<v Speaker 3>not saying we should follow their lead, but it's of

0:09:16.561 --> 0:09:20.961
<v Speaker 3>assumed sometimes that the US is all unregulated and laissez fear,

0:09:21.321 --> 0:09:25.361
<v Speaker 3>but no, they actually have extreme regulations on lobbying, on

0:09:25.881 --> 0:09:26.801
<v Speaker 3>called money, etc.

0:09:27.041 --> 0:09:29.881
<v Speaker 2>How come they rank so poorly though they're twenty fourth

0:09:29.881 --> 0:09:32.601
<v Speaker 2>with a score of sixty nine verses US on three

0:09:32.641 --> 0:09:33.721
<v Speaker 2>on a score of eighty five.

0:09:34.481 --> 0:09:37.641
<v Speaker 3>I think there's different answers to that. And often what

0:09:37.801 --> 0:09:42.521
<v Speaker 3>happens is you have the perceptions of corruption first, and

0:09:42.561 --> 0:09:44.721
<v Speaker 3>then you have lots of rules that are made to

0:09:44.761 --> 0:09:47.481
<v Speaker 3>try and fix this. So I think the US has

0:09:47.561 --> 0:09:50.161
<v Speaker 3>had some big problems with this in the past, and

0:09:50.241 --> 0:09:53.401
<v Speaker 3>so they've tried to tidy it up and they're tightening

0:09:53.441 --> 0:09:53.961
<v Speaker 3>up things.

0:09:54.281 --> 0:09:57.001
<v Speaker 2>Just one last question, in the terms of perception, I

0:09:57.041 --> 0:10:00.241
<v Speaker 2>mean social media and conspiracy theories and all that sort

0:10:00.241 --> 0:10:03.161
<v Speaker 2>of stuff are certainly more prevalent. Do they play a

0:10:03.241 --> 0:10:05.481
<v Speaker 2>role at all in people's in this pecon in the

0:10:05.561 --> 0:10:07.961
<v Speaker 2>Perception Index and ratings?

0:10:08.441 --> 0:10:13.481
<v Speaker 3>Not really No, because Transparence International puts US together each

0:10:13.561 --> 0:10:18.001
<v Speaker 3>year and they're mostly sururveying people in business, and so

0:10:18.041 --> 0:10:21.841
<v Speaker 3>it's not the general public. It's business people, and it's

0:10:21.841 --> 0:10:24.521
<v Speaker 3>overseas business people that are dealing with New Zealand, like

0:10:25.081 --> 0:10:27.761
<v Speaker 3>trading with this country and things like that, and it's

0:10:27.921 --> 0:10:31.881
<v Speaker 3>a lot of other I don't know reports and surveys

0:10:32.041 --> 0:10:35.921
<v Speaker 3>of our our local systems working that feeds into that

0:10:35.921 --> 0:10:36.961
<v Speaker 3>that index.

0:10:37.281 --> 0:10:39.481
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, good stuff. Hey, Bryce, I really appreciate your time

0:10:39.521 --> 0:10:41.721
<v Speaker 2>this afternoon. Enjoy the rest of the day.

0:10:42.561 --> 0:10:42.801
<v Speaker 3>Cheers.

0:10:42.841 --> 0:10:46.081
<v Speaker 2>There we go. There's Bryce Edwards, political commentator from Victoria University.

0:10:46.081 --> 0:10:49.321
<v Speaker 2>Should I say doctor Bryce Edwards? And look, we're going

0:10:49.361 --> 0:10:51.001
<v Speaker 2>to do some talkback after this. We've got a bit

0:10:51.041 --> 0:10:52.601
<v Speaker 2>of time up as sleep, so time for you to

0:10:52.681 --> 0:10:54.201
<v Speaker 2>jump in on e one hundred and eighty ten eighty

0:10:54.241 --> 0:10:56.801
<v Speaker 2>in text on nine two nine two. Based on those

0:10:56.801 --> 0:10:59.241
<v Speaker 2>two interviews, first, let's just talk about the one we've

0:10:59.281 --> 0:11:01.081
<v Speaker 2>just had with Bryce. So the Hell and Clark Foundation

0:11:01.201 --> 0:11:04.441
<v Speaker 2>report calling for tougher rules against corruption after a report

0:11:04.721 --> 0:11:08.881
<v Speaker 2>claim lobbying and do nation rules needed and overhaul? Simple question,

0:11:08.921 --> 0:11:12.481
<v Speaker 2>are you actually worried about corruption in New Zealand? Because

0:11:12.961 --> 0:11:16.481
<v Speaker 2>maybe I've got my sort of blinkers on and it's interesting.

0:11:16.481 --> 0:11:18.721
<v Speaker 2>I think it's always interesting to keep having these discussions.

0:11:19.121 --> 0:11:23.641
<v Speaker 2>But still New Zealand is third in the third and

0:11:23.681 --> 0:11:28.121
<v Speaker 2>the Corruption Perceptions Index, and the company we're keeping is Denmark, Finland,

0:11:28.121 --> 0:11:31.921
<v Speaker 2>Norway and Singapore and Sweden. We often tal bang on

0:11:32.001 --> 0:11:33.841
<v Speaker 2>about we always seem to have look at the Scan

0:11:33.921 --> 0:11:35.521
<v Speaker 2>Andavian states and go, well, if we're up with them,

0:11:35.561 --> 0:11:37.401
<v Speaker 2>when then we're rocking and rolling, well we are up

0:11:37.441 --> 0:11:40.681
<v Speaker 2>with them? Or do you think this masks as Bryce's

0:11:41.601 --> 0:11:44.681
<v Speaker 2>Bryce Edwards mentioned that our points are slipping a little

0:11:44.721 --> 0:11:46.521
<v Speaker 2>bit and so it's something that we should keep an

0:11:46.481 --> 0:11:49.041
<v Speaker 2>eye on. And let's be honest, who would be comfortable with,

0:11:49.681 --> 0:11:52.841
<v Speaker 2>say a former prime minister who's just resigned or deputy

0:11:52.841 --> 0:11:56.481
<v Speaker 2>prime minister or Minister of something suddenly walking straight back

0:11:56.521 --> 0:11:59.481
<v Speaker 2>in the office where they've been inhabiting as a lobbyist.

0:11:59.681 --> 0:12:02.921
<v Speaker 2>Do you think that there is some argument there that

0:12:02.961 --> 0:12:05.841
<v Speaker 2>we should have stand down periods with Ben And more

0:12:05.881 --> 0:12:09.041
<v Speaker 2>broadly speaking, if you are worried about corruption, what's your

0:12:09.041 --> 0:12:13.001
<v Speaker 2>biggest worrying worry? Is it donations? Is it just the

0:12:13.041 --> 0:12:16.161
<v Speaker 2>way the OIA is handled, or is it foreign bribery

0:12:16.161 --> 0:12:19.841
<v Speaker 2>and influence? Because instinctively, for me, my biggest one would

0:12:19.841 --> 0:12:23.601
<v Speaker 2>be foreign influence because that's probably the one where I

0:12:23.601 --> 0:12:25.801
<v Speaker 2>don't know it'd be harder to detect. Give us a

0:12:25.801 --> 0:12:27.521
<v Speaker 2>call on eight hundred and eighty ten eighty, but also

0:12:27.641 --> 0:12:30.281
<v Speaker 2>on the on the drug and the announcement around more

0:12:30.361 --> 0:12:33.161
<v Speaker 2>drink and drugged driver is going to be tested, a

0:12:33.241 --> 0:12:36.521
<v Speaker 2>goal of three point three million tests a year announced

0:12:36.841 --> 0:12:39.361
<v Speaker 2>by Simeon Brown. I don't know if you can really

0:12:39.441 --> 0:12:42.081
<v Speaker 2>argue against that. I just guess the question is when

0:12:42.121 --> 0:12:45.601
<v Speaker 2>it comes to druged drivers, the screening for that is

0:12:45.681 --> 0:12:48.801
<v Speaker 2>more involved. How would you screen if someone's drugged or not?

0:12:48.961 --> 0:12:51.681
<v Speaker 2>That might invite some interesting comment. Actually, oh, eight one

0:12:51.721 --> 0:12:55.041
<v Speaker 2>hundred eighty ten eighty text nine two ninety two, and

0:12:55.161 --> 0:12:57.041
<v Speaker 2>let's not worry about the email. It's twenty five minutes

0:12:57.081 --> 0:12:58.161
<v Speaker 2>to four. News Talk Said B.

0:13:00.321 --> 0:13:03.121
<v Speaker 1>For more from the weekend collective, listen live to News

0:13:03.161 --> 0:13:06.801
<v Speaker 1>Talk Said B weekends from three, or follow the podcast

0:13:06.881 --> 0:13:07.801
<v Speaker 1>on iHeartRadio