S1: Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to the greatest
S1: NZ live political podcast in the world. The working group,
S1: hosted by beloved left wing broadcaster Comrade Bomber Bradbury, with
S1: the best political panel in New Zealand media reviewing the week,
S1: setting the agenda, avoiding defamation. The working group is brought
S1: to you by Gravity Credit Management. When the weight of
S1: capitalism is becoming the event horizon of an imploding black hole,
S1: call zero 800 gravity and our team will get blood
S1: out of a stone. That's zero 800 gravity. This is
S1: the working group.
S2: Kia Ora Aotearoa. I'm your host, the editor of the
S2: daily blog, Martyn Bradbury. Hashtag socialism, hashtag solidarity. Hashtag chip
S2: is doing his best, I suppose. QAnon, anti-vaxxer, incel, free
S2: market lunatics to the right of me. Insufferably humorless, middle
S2: class woke cancellation lynch mobs were left to me. And
S2: here I am, dear listener, stuck in the radical middle
S2: with you. This is the working group, New Zealand's best
S2: and greatest weekly political podcast that isn't funded by New
S2: Zealand on air. Text working to 3598. For all show
S2: updates and subscribe to our Rover. YouTube and Facebook pages.
S2: Joining me tonight to discuss the big issues is the
S2: greatest political panel in New Zealand broadcasting history. Our first
S2: panelists pronouns are mine and believes marriage is between a
S2: man and his property. He demands the jackboot of the
S2: state is removed from the throats of Big tobacco, big
S2: polluters and monstrous corporations, and put on the throats of
S2: the biggest threats to capitalism like beneficiaries, the homeless and
S2: hungry children. The libertarian liquidator, the controller of capitalism, the
S2: 18th most important heteronormative white cis male columnist staff, the
S2: honorary ambassador from Israel. Damien. All tax is theft. Grant.
S2: Kia ora comrade, welcome back to the show. One word
S2: to describe the week, please, Sir Keir. Well, it's spring,
S2: isn't it?
S3: First day of spring. So now what? Third day of spring.
S3: It's feeling good. The daffodils are out. I'm feeling frisky.
S3: You're looking good. Let's go.
S2: Baby Lamb's ready to roast. Our next panelist has actual
S2: integrity and is a real journalist. And shouldn't be on
S2: any panel with Damien Grant. And sure as Christ shouldn't
S2: be anywhere near a Marxist like me, the best business
S2: journalist in New Zealand, which has nothing to do with
S2: the fact that there are only five business journalists in
S2: New Zealand. The burning insight and brilliant oversight of business
S2: desk journalist Maria Slade. Welcome back to the show. Kia ora.
S2: One word to describe the week, please. Hi.
S4: Did I to Kingy Tewatia. Beautiful. It's been a big week.
S4: And can I just say, I have never seen catering
S4: on the scale that they do at Turangawaewae. Can you
S4: imagine how many potatoes have been peeled this week? It's astounding.
S2: And last but certainly not least, he's the Maori for
S2: all seasons, media tycoon, businessman, U.N. chairperson, New Zealand Maori Council.
S2: Sledge hammer where he goes, sparks fly. He's the working
S2: class hammer and the sickle friend of the downtrodden, enemy
S2: to the racist. The one, the only Matthew Tukaki called
S2: a comrade. Welcome back to the show. Good to be
S2: with you, bomber. One word to describe the week, please, sir. Harassment, zero. Well,
S2: I think the days.
S5: Of harassment from the rights of Maori are over. And
S5: I think the the tangi at Turangawaewae is evidence of that. Because,
S5: as Tuheitia once said, only a few weeks ago, there
S5: is room in Kotahitanga for everyone.
S2: Amen. Let's get into this evening's issue. Issue one Simeon
S2: Brown's $32.9 billion road policy. Sensible infrastructure or sexual fantasy
S2: issue two insolvencies up plus outgoing Treasury warnings. How bad
S2: will the economy get? Issue three Comanchero crackdown versus gang
S2: patch ban an issue for tonight? No toast or tea
S2: for new mums. Plus, we'll have a final word at
S2: the end of the show where each panelist can sound
S2: off to see who will breach broadcasting standards this week.
S3: Not again.
S2: It'll still be hurting from last week. Let's kick things
S2: off tonight with issue one. Simeon Brown announced a $32.9
S2: billion road policy, which has immediately come into criticism for
S2: slashing public transport, slashing cycling ways, slashing walking paths while
S2: blowing billions on roads that empower the trucking industry who
S2: just happen to be best mates with, you guessed it,
S2: the National Party. Maria. The report shows a massive looming
S2: funding gap of around $6 billion a year for transport,
S2: with barely half the government's project worth being affordable, requiring
S2: pipes to fill that gap that locks in decades of
S2: future transport budgets to repay them. Many won't happen because
S2: it's too costly with not enough sector capacity. Isn't it
S2: time for us as a country to bring back the
S2: Ministry of Works and build it ourselves? Thoughts?
S4: I don't think that'll solve the problem. Why? I kind
S4: of admire the National Party for coming out with this one, because,
S4: you know, you could buy an awful lot of cancer
S4: drugs with, with that money that they are committing to roads.
S4: Yes you would.
S2: That's a big call. But you're right.
S4: But having said that, look, I do think we need
S4: some of these projects, you know, particularly in some of
S4: the more provincial areas, like, you know, the Burundians, for example.
S4: And every time you get a bit of heavy rain
S4: down the Hawke's Bay, you know, Gisborne gets cut off
S4: now kind of thing virtually. You can't go on like this.
S4: You just economies just cannot survive. Like like in Gisborne,
S4: for example, where the leader brand company have got a huge,
S4: big salad farm that was funded by the Provincial Growth Fund,
S4: I might add. They want to try and develop an
S4: industry there on the back of, you know, their salad growing,
S4: you know, efforts. But if they can't get the product out,
S4: you know, how can you do it? So yes, we
S4: need more security of infrastructure in that regard, I do believe.
S2: Follow up question will the parents picking the kids up
S2: from school stuck in gridlock, see any difference after this?
S4: Well, it sounds like a lot of those projects there's three, four,
S4: five years away yet, so no is the short answer.
S2: Uh, Matthew, Minister Brown says Kiwis rejected Labor's phantom projects,
S2: slower speed limits and infestation of speed bumps to justify
S2: this infrastructure spend. But doesn't weaponising our impatience by lifting
S2: speeds everywhere lead to vastly more deaths?
S5: Well, I mean, the obvious answer to that, in my view,
S5: is yes. But coming back to the point about about
S5: we need infrastructure in this country. We do. I think
S5: the transport plan by the government is short sighted to
S5: the point where actually, number one, who's going to pay
S5: for it? When are they going to pay for it
S5: and or by when? Rather are they going to pay
S5: for it? And where's other transportation infrastructure that's required? Where's rail?
S5: Where's our airport infrastructure to handle? What is our one
S5: of our largest export receipts, which is inbound tourism. But
S5: they're putting up the levy on that for $100 per
S5: per ticketed price sort of nonsense. That's right. So you've
S5: got all this other sort of stuff going on. I
S5: think it's short termism. I would rather have a discussion
S5: in order to pay for this sort of stuff longer term,
S5: because these, these big projects, roading or otherwise, they don't
S5: just happen within a single term of government. It spans
S5: multiple governments. All you have to do is have a
S5: look at the debacle that is Transmission Gully over more
S5: than half a century. I think it is. And the
S5: other thing too is should should they bring back the
S5: Ministry of Works? Yes. You know, why not? I mean,
S5: those little yellow cars were there for a reason. They
S5: did God's work. And as for all those parents picking
S5: up their kids. Well, maybe you want to carpool to
S5: make your lives a little bit easier than driving around
S5: in your four wheel drives, picking your snotty little rags
S5: up from from private schools in Ponsonby, because I think,
S5: quite frankly, we pander to that sort of glitterati set
S5: when trying to inform public infrastructure. And it hasn't worked
S5: in other countries. It sure as heck won't. Or maybe
S5: it worked in Sweden, I don't know. Um, but can
S5: we have a discussion about how to pay for all
S5: this stuff?
S2: Follow up question. Our subsidization of public transport was supposed
S2: to be an emission reducing tactic as well. So by
S2: cutting public transport and cycleways and walkways, it will produce
S2: more emissions that are feeding the climate change extremes, which
S2: we're watching now, burn our country. Isn't there a counterproductive
S2: feedback loop if all it is, is roads, roads, roads?
S5: I think the right wing bomber have an allergic reaction
S5: to anything that has the words public and transport in
S5: the same sentence, and that's the problem. It's an ideological
S5: set of haw haw and nonsense that these who is
S5: on the right have got to sort out.
S3: So what was the public transport that the previous government met.
S3: They had six years. What was the what was the
S3: big public transport for?
S5: First of all, other than.
S3: Other than I-rex?
S5: Well, well, well, yeah. I mean at some point you
S5: guys are going to have to get over your, your
S5: BuzzFeed sort of nonsense when it comes to I-rex. At
S5: some point we've got to maintain.
S3: I will concede I was conceding a point. I know,
S3: I know, but I was.
S5: Reinforcing your point. I was reinforcing it lovingly. So I
S5: don't want to hoot on you.
S3: So I don't, I don't I. There you go.
S5: Somebody had to go first. Somebody I've been.
S3: I've been I've been called worse by better.
S2: Um.
S3: But what? So you're saying that the National have an
S3: allergy to public transport? What was the public transport?
S5: I said I said the.
S3: Past.
S5: Administration. I said the right don't put words in my mouth.
S5: Otherwise you will be hooting this evening. No.
S2: No.
S5: What I, what I, what I said was what I
S5: said was the right has an affliction, an allergic reaction
S5: to to the words public and transport in the same sentence.
S5: And I'll give you an example of one of the
S5: things that the last government did, and I think works
S5: really well, is to psychologically change New Zealanders mindset that
S5: you don't have to be sitting in traffic. If only
S5: you jumped on public transport. So the subsidisation of fees
S5: and all the rest of it, that that's a more
S5: a longer term play. But they did it. Where is
S5: the the rights play in trying to campaign for that
S5: sort of stuff to motivate a change in our transportation habits?
S2: Uh, Damien, the best part about this report, I thought
S2: were points 48, 49 and 50.
S3: Are good points. Yes.
S2: Where they argue that emissions don't need to be considered
S2: for giant state highways because spending money on them doesn't
S2: necessarily mean they will get built. That was their argument.
S2: Is this level of sophistry the sort of trickery we
S2: should be celebrating in social policy?
S3: Nobody cares about climate change. I don't care about climate change.
S6: See, that's.
S5: An indictable statement.
S3: I don't care about climate change.
S5: You don't? But everybody but everybody else does.
S3: No they don't. People absolutely do not care about climate change.
S3: And you can see that in their patterns of behaviour.
S3: People continue to fly.
S5: Sorry, sorry. But isn't it a broad, broad statement, too
S5: broad to say that everybody doesn't believe in climate change?
S5: I do. So that's not that's not.
S3: What I said. Don't put words in my mouth. But
S3: you did.
S5: Let's play the tape back.
S3: Not play the tape back. I said that people don't care,
S3: don't care, don't care.
S2: They might believe in it, but I don't care.
S3: So there's there's there's there's a big there's a big difference.
S3: So that was the stroke talking. So I, I, I
S3: accept that climate change that an increase in carbon increases um,
S3: climate extremes. I don't care about it because the solutions
S3: being imposed are socialist are create far more greater harm.
S3: The effectively what happens when you introduce solutions to climate
S3: change is that you grind the poor further and further
S3: into the dust. A climate change policies only really affect
S3: the poor. They do not affect the wealthy. If I
S3: have to pay $700 to go to Australia as opposed
S3: to 600 or 800, I don't. I don't care. That
S3: doesn't really affect me. But when you put a price
S3: on carbon for people who are driving fuel inefficient cars
S3: trying to get their kids to school, you slap an
S3: extra 20% on. You feel virtuous about that because I'm
S3: doing something for climate change, but you're not doing anything
S3: for climate change. What you are doing is you are
S3: making life harder for the most marginal people in the community.
S3: Whilst you feel good about yourself. Those people out there
S3: trying to get their kids to school to put food
S3: on the table there. That's their priorities. Not this middle
S3: class sophistry about climate change.
S5: The Boston bomber opened that bottom drawer. Give this man
S5: the Socialist Certificate of the century. Follow up.
S4: Question. Almost socialist.
S2: Follow up question. Helen Clark has accused.
S3: I care about the living standards of of of the
S3: poor and working class, because they need to be.
S2: Able to clean his chimneys for God's sakes. Right. And
S2: and I.
S3: Believe that the economic policies pursued by this Marxist over
S3: here do exactly the reverse. But my trains.
S2: Run on time. My trains run on time. Yes, because.
S3: You have one train a day. Yeah. The the the
S3: the the the the effect of climate change policy, Matthew,
S3: is to make the poor poorer. And if you want to,
S3: the reality is that we're not doing any we're not
S3: going to achieve anything in climate reduction because the Chinese
S3: are building coal plants.
S5: We're we're in public or social or economic policy. Does
S5: anything carry that statement that climate change policy or. Sorry,
S5: forgive me, I might get the wording a bit wrong. Uh,
S5: that that climate change policy hurts the poor.
S3: What happens when you put a price on carbon for
S3: for petrol?
S5: Well, petrol prices invariably go up.
S3: Okay. And do you think I care about the increase
S3: in petrol prices, do you think? Do you think a
S3: change in petrol prices significantly affects my quality of life?
S3: Or Maria's quality of life, or your quality of life? Well,
S3: I would never put words.
S5: In his mouth, but.
S3: But do you think it. Do you think an increase
S3: in the petrol price, the cost of running your car,
S3: if it goes from 70 to $90 a week, do
S3: you think that has an impact for the most marginal
S3: members of our community?
S4: But Damien, I interviewed the owner of a solar panels
S4: business yesterday. And which one? A like for solar. And
S4: he John Harmon owner John Harmon.
S3: He's a he's a he's a really good man. He
S3: is a.
S4: Very good man. Very interesting man. He is a you know,
S4: an advocate for solar. He believes that's the answer to
S4: a large number of our electricity and power problems. He
S4: owns a solar panel business. But he said at the
S4: moment his customers are early adopters and rich greenies. Yes,
S4: because no one else can afford it. It's to put
S4: a proper system in on your house. Probably costs 15 $20,000,
S4: particularly if you're going to put in a battery, which
S4: is what you really want. Yes. And he said, why
S4: is the government. Not subsidizing solar panels? Why are we
S4: not putting them in on the roofs of car parks
S4: and shopping malls and creating.
S2: State.
S4: Wide? Does our government not have that policy? So my
S4: question being, if our government were to bring in a
S4: policy like that to encourage wholesale adoption of solar panels,
S4: would that not help poor people?
S3: Um, I would need to I'd need to run it through.
S3: But fundamentally, you need to look at the real cost
S3: of doing that.
S2: So but not the environmental cost of all the destruction
S2: that happens. Just the real cost.
S3: No, because whatever we do in New Zealand has no,
S3: no fundamental impact on the environment. But let's say you
S3: go there and you say, all right, we are going
S3: to spend our subsidised, say, $20,000 putting solar panels on
S3: a whole bunch of houses. And remember, it's people who
S3: live in relatively wealthy houses that can afford or are
S3: going to get those subsidies if you are living in, like,
S3: the same apartments downtown, right? That's where I'm quite often
S3: poor people live in substandard housing or overcrowded housing. Um,
S3: they're not always living in standalone units, are often living
S3: in apartment complexes. But let's just let's just put the
S3: other side of the equation, because this is where I
S3: think a lot of these economics fall down. So you say,
S3: all right, we're going to invest x number X number
S3: of billion dollars doing all of these things. So at
S3: the end of that what have we actually done. We
S3: still have a whole bunch of houses getting electricity, which
S3: is what we had at the start of the process.
S3: But we have we have effectively done a huge, great
S3: big hole in the ground. We're not increasing our productivity.
S3: We're not increasing the amount of economic activity that happens
S3: in the country. All we are doing is we are
S3: swapping our electricity generation from, um, source X to source Y.
S3: And in the process of doing that, we lower the.
S2: Price of the cost. You'd lower the price of the
S2: cost are.
S3: Adding a huge amount of debt. We're going to have
S3: to pay for that through higher taxes, through increased borrowing, but.
S2: You lower the price of the electricity.
S3: There is a no. Not necessarily. Yes. Because.
S2: Because there is.
S3: Capital. Because there is a because. Because here's here's the thing, bomber.
S3: If you think about this, if, if the capital cost
S3: of putting that equipment on there was free, then yes,
S3: you would be lowering the cost of, of electricity. But
S3: the capital cost is not free.
S2: But but here's the thing you're not seeing. Here's the
S2: thing you're not seeing. When you generate excess power, it
S2: goes back to the grid for them to use it.
S2: So you're creating you're creating more electricity.
S3: That is that is true. But that is only that
S3: only has a positive impact if you assume that there
S3: is no capital cost. My question is, before you can
S3: answer Maria's question, this is a good or a bad
S3: thing for the poor. You need to say, all right,
S3: what is the what is the counterfactual? What is the
S3: economic cost? costs. What are we not doing that we
S3: could otherwise?
S5: But, Damien, it's not a counterfactual. You make a series
S5: of very broad based statements with very little in fact
S5: or evidence to back it up, to be frank. Give
S5: me an example. I'll give you an example. The number
S5: of so-called poor people living like cattle in in very
S5: small plots. I did not know they were not the
S5: specific words, but that's how I interpreted the words, because
S5: that's what.
S3: But is that not true?
S5: No, it's not true. It's not true.
S3: Poor people are more likely to live in substandard accommodation
S3: and high density areas than so defined.
S5: So do me a favor. Define poor versus wealthy. Because
S5: in this country, some of the most poorest people in
S5: our country are not living on benefits. They are the
S5: middle classes who themselves would like to see, I imagine
S5: a subsidy for some sort of cheaper electricity alternative, because
S5: their bills are just as bad as everybody else. So
S5: just who is poor in New Zealand today?
S3: My my my my my my statement was that if
S3: you have a subsidy for solar on people's houses, but you.
S5: Keep on Yeah, but you keep on referring to poor people. Yes.
S5: So who's poor?
S3: It is. It is. As well. Bummer. Obviously you're more
S3: likely another.
S5: Broad based.
S3: Likely another.
S5: Broad based statement.
S3: Not likely. More. More likely that. Well, I think it's
S3: a if you're going to take advantage of a solar
S3: panel on your house, you have to own a house.
S3: If you're living in an apartment. Now, there are some
S3: quite nice apartments that didn't exist ten years ago, to
S3: be fair, but you are. If you are living in
S3: a house, you are and you own the house, you
S3: are more likely to be wealthier than somebody who is
S3: living in. I'm sorry.
S2: That's again another untrue statement.
S5: What's untrue? Solar panels are not just for private or
S5: home ownership or home accommodation. They are for businesses. I mean,
S5: the biggest landowner, the biggest building property owner in the country.
S5: You've said to an entirely separate. No no no no
S5: no we're talking. So I deal in factual not counterfactuals. So.
S5: No no no no no no no I'm not changing
S5: the topic. I'm. saying to you that you're factually wrong
S5: in the statements that you are making. You haven't demonstrated because, well,
S5: because you don't let me. You keep on interrupting me.
S5: I feel I feel that I'm no longer just a
S5: stroke victim. I'm waiting for the baseball bat now where
S5: I can't have a voice. But anyway, that's coming. That's coming. Right. So.
S5: So my point is, the largest single property owner in
S5: the country remains the crown. So what can we do
S5: with Crown assets to provide, say for example, sustainable technology
S5: like solar panels or otherwise on Crown buildings, including the
S5: state House asset base, which, by the way, is being
S5: stripped away by the REITs in favor of what we
S5: call now social housing, where the asset doesn't stay on
S5: our books. But that's a whole nother discussion. You're right.
S5: I just changed the topic there. However, coming back to it.
S3: So so so the original question that Maria posed was
S3: would putting solar panels having a subsidy for solar panels
S3: help the poor? And my response to that was, that
S3: is not a question you can answer easily until you
S3: know the capital cost of putting.
S5: The convenience bomb.
S2: Right wing.
S3: And what is what is what is the what is
S3: the counterfactual? If you're going to spend a dollar in
S3: one area, you are not spending a dollar somewhere else.
S3: And so if we're going to spend however many tax.
S2: Breaks, those damn.
S3: Tax breaks, tens of billions of dollars putting solar subsidies on, on, on, on,
S3: effectively middle class and wealthy people's houses, is that going
S3: to help?
S5: I'm glad you put middle class in there now.
S2: Well I yeah quick round. I don't I don't I
S2: don't want, I don't want to I don't want to
S2: hoot in anyone but quick round. 68% of road deaths
S2: are on are on rural roads. 77% of roads go
S2: through rural areas. In Northland, three out of four road
S2: deaths were in rural areas, and road crashes cost 9.7
S2: billion inches 2021. That's 4% of total GDP. Won't lifting
S2: speed rates under the guise of increasing productivity be paid
S2: in rural lives. Damien. Grant.
S3: No.
S2: Maria.
S4: Yes, probably.
S5: Oh, without a doubt. Including the fact that we do
S5: very little in prevention. Let's have a talk about Assisi
S5: in a future time.
S2: A 71% of those online agree, comrades, we.
S3: If we if we could just ask Maria and and
S3: Matthew if we if we reduced the speed limit down
S3: to 20km an hour, would that not save lives?
S2: Yes it would.
S4: What do you mean? Where are you talking like?
S2: Well, everywhere.
S3: Every 20km around the country. It would.
S2: Of course, it would.
S3: Not save.
S2: Lives. Of course it would.
S4: Well, if you can enforce it, probably. Yes it could.
S3: So. And you would agree with that.
S5: Matthew, I would say to you, my counterfactual to you
S5: would be this more investment in public transport would invariably
S5: and inevitably save lives. Okay. That was bring back kiwi roads.
S3: So so the an answer to the to the question.
S3: Oh sorry. Wouldn't it would an increase in the um, um,
S3: increasing the speed limit. It does kill um, results in
S3: more deaths. Yes, probably it will. But if that's your
S3: if you're going to say, well, we're going to take
S3: a policy that reduces the deaths. And that's the only
S3: policy consideration that Maria, you, you are you are allowing
S3: 300 people to die. 300 fathers, mothers, children's daughters. Their
S3: lives have been crushed, snuffed out just like that. The
S3: argument that just because we're increasing the speed limit, some
S3: people are going to die is not an argument not
S3: to do it. If that's your.
S2: Evidence, if it's social policy, that just makes zero sense.
S3: If that's if your if your policy prescription is, we
S3: must pursue a policy that reduces the death toll and
S3: that is the only policy consideration, then we can get
S3: to the zero death toll as Michael Wood was producing.
S3: But there will be a there will be a very
S3: high economic cost. And neither of you two are prepared
S3: to wear that cost because neither of you believe in
S3: setting the road limit down to 20.
S5: So that's impractical. I just love it when our males
S5: tell Ahmadi that what to believe in. I didn't realize
S5: it still happened.
S2: Now you know what Putin feels like. Comrades, we must
S2: move on to issue two. Following business sentiment last week
S2: that showed 20% believing they will go to the wall
S2: before the end of the year. Data released this week
S2: shows the number of insolvencies for New Zealand companies was
S2: in the highest in eight years. This is the same
S2: week that the outgoing Treasury head doctor, uh McLeish, calls
S2: for a capital gains tax and slashing super. How bad
S2: is New Zealand economy going to get and when is
S2: it going to get better? Matthew. Outgoing Treasury head doctor
S2: McLeish has criticised the government for not willing to embark
S2: upon unpopular changes like capital gains and super reform. And
S2: seeing as we as a nation, seeing as we are
S2: a nation that can only sell houses to each other
S2: as we retire and call that wealth creation? Who in
S2: the political spectrum will be brave enough to take those
S2: challenges on?
S5: I think the advice from the outgoing secretary is interesting,
S5: but interesting is a word that I use cautiously. Given
S5: this government is afraid of taking the advice of the
S5: senior officials, advisers and bureaucrats. She's said some things going
S5: out the door. I'm more interested in seeing what they're
S5: going to do in terms of her replacement and how
S5: that's all going to work out. I think it's. Look,
S5: I've never thought it's good just to have your musings
S5: as you go out the door when you're in the chair.
S5: You push for the solution to the problem. You don't.
S5: You don't burn the house down on the way out
S5: the door. So to be honest. Yeah. Follow up question
S5: should there be a capital gains tax? Absolutely. There should
S5: be a CGT. Absolutely. Without a shadow borrow.
S4: A Damian phrase here. Jump on in. Everybody agrees there
S4: should be a capital gains tax. Everybody does.
S2: I'm right here. I am saying it to his face.
S2: You're saying it to his face. I don't think we're getting.
S5: Canceled this week.
S4: I think it's true. I do believe that most people
S4: believe that you speak to tax partners, you speak to economists,
S4: you speak to anybody. Really? Except maybe Damien. Damien? Yes.
S4: And we all know we should have one. It's like,
S4: you know, we know we should take the medicine, but
S4: nobody wants to swallow it.
S3: Yes, but you see, the beautiful thing about a capital
S3: gains tax is that I don't trust only the middle
S3: class will pay it. Eric Watson is not going to
S3: pay a capital gains tax. There is no there is
S3: no way you can devise a capital gains tax that
S3: will that will capture the the super wealthy. And let's
S3: not forget where when you impose a capital gains tax
S3: on a, on a, on a jurisdiction like New Zealand,
S3: you are going to capture those people who can't move
S3: their wealth overseas. And that's the middle class and the
S3: upper middle class. So you can smack them. But anybody
S3: else who has the ability to move their capital offshore
S3: moves their capital offshore.
S2: So when we implement the capital gains tax we also
S2: have to stop flight. I agree with you. I agree with.
S5: You. This is the issue. This is the issue with this.
S5: And it's been a thread of conversation throughout this evening
S5: so far. Yes, we're starting this them and us sort
S5: of narrative once again. It's like it's like the culture
S5: wars are back. Well, I mean you say, you know,
S5: it's the middle class, you're going to punch them or
S5: you didn't say exactly. I don't.
S3: I don't want to punch them. But then there's Eric Watson.
S5: When did Eric Watson become a you know, so so
S5: I think what we've got to have my point is
S5: we've got to have policy, tax policy, economic policy, transportation
S5: policy that sustains longer than a three year term of well,
S5: let's let's.
S2: Talk about that math. What's that got to do with everything?
S5: Everything.
S3: Because you are you are making some allegation about me saying,
S3: you know, them and us. So I need a lawyer.
S3: How how does that how does that dovetail into what
S3: you just said?
S5: What I was suggesting is that before, when we started
S5: this conversation this evening, there was no mention of the
S5: middle class. I'm glad to see they've emerged again. Like
S5: a like a rainbow through the clouds.
S2: Matthew, this. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the
S2: fourth Labour government's neoliberal experiment, and Roger Douglas free market
S2: fantasies are Kiwis to politically gun shy for radical economic overhauls.
S2: In the shadow of that.
S5: My personal view is New Zealanders are exhausted and tired
S5: of ongoing, consistent and sustained disruption to their lives for
S5: for the 80s and 90s the 2000. And even today,
S5: it's like we're a guinea pig for economic social policy globally.
S5: And it's got to stop. We need we need to
S5: have a break and have a cup of tea. Can
S5: we all just calm down and at least let policy
S5: begin to embed so we can figure out, so what's
S5: a capital.
S3: Gains tax then you're saying on the one hand oh
S3: we've got to have a cup of tea. And on
S3: the other hand says ha ha ha, we're going to
S3: have a.
S2: Capital gains tax.
S5: Well, because the capital gains tax has been a discussion
S5: going on in this country for many years, and no
S5: one's got the the nuts, to be frank, to do it.
S2: Okay.
S3: So do you want do you want a cup of tea, Matthew.
S3: And we're going to have. Or do you want to
S3: have radical economics? Both.
S2: He wants both, goddamn it.
S5: Because I wouldn't mind a gin right about now because.
S3: You know, I mean, pick, pick, pick a lane.
S2: Damien. Between April and June, there were 700 insolvencies reported,
S2: up 23% from the first quarter of the year and 36%
S2: higher than the same period a year ago, according to
S2: the latest BWA Insolvency Quarterly Market report.
S3: BW Brian William and Associates. Yes, you.
S2: Are a liquidator.
S3: Who's a good man. What are your thoughts.
S2: From the coalface? You've got you are facing it every
S2: week now.
S3: Yes, I am too. I got two comments. Yep. One
S3: of them is that the number, the level of bank
S3: receiverships is suspiciously low. What do you mean? You're not
S3: seeing a lot of them.
S4: It's the IRD, isn't it?
S3: It's the IRD. It is the IOD that is driving
S3: the insolvency. You have a look at the Gazette, and
S3: you can see the level of applications by the revenue
S3: to liquidate. Now, the Inland Revenue Department stopped enforcing debts
S3: about April May 2020. They've had a couple of fits
S3: and starts where they've got active again. And but it's
S3: only really since maybe April this year. They've really started to, to,
S3: to crank things up. And so we know that the
S3: idea is sitting on somewhere like 6 to $6.5 billion
S3: worth of unpaid tax arrears is my suspicion that the
S3: the figure is a lot more than that. They just
S3: write off all the debt that's over about five years old.
S3: So I think we that's that is what's driving the
S3: level of insolvency. So it will be it will be
S3: a mistake to assume that the spike in insolvencies is
S3: driven by underlying economic factors. It's driven largely by increased
S3: enforcement by the revenue.
S2: Where do you think that's going to go for the future?
S3: Well, that's up to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Right, right.
S4: But that's because these problems have been going on for
S4: a long time, like some of these businesses have obviously
S4: been suffering for a while, and they've been kicking the
S4: can down the road and, you know, maybe paying off
S4: a bit of tax here and there. And now it's
S4: kind of come to a head. So it isn't entirely
S4: not to do with the economy though, is it?
S3: Um, yes and no. So there's been. If the revenue,
S3: you always have a situation where you're going to have 5%
S3: of the companies in some form of economic trouble, that's
S3: the whole nature of economy. That's the Schumpeter's destruction model.
S3: So and you want, you know, you want people to
S3: get into business and with the expectation that 5 or 10%
S3: will come unstuck reasonably quickly. Um, so that's I think
S3: and if the revenue does nothing for three years or
S3: effectively nothing, which is what's where we're in when they
S3: decide to play catch up, we could be in boom
S3: economic times and you would still see this spike in
S3: in And insolvencies. And so I'm, I'm a little bit
S3: wary when I. And and that's why I said at
S3: the start that the the lack of bank insolvencies bank
S3: receiverships is telling because you're not seeing those large systemic
S3: failures happening. Now, that's possibly because the banks are doing
S3: more workouts. They're possibly the banks are gun shy because
S3: some of the the Commerce Commission stuff that's coming out. Um,
S3: but I think it's possibly because they're not having a
S3: large number of impaired debts at that level.
S5: Can I ask you a question? Should we review the
S5: Insolvency Act? Is it 2006? Should we review.
S3: It? That's the personal insolvency. Yeah. Um, um, that's a
S3: big question. There are, um, there are aspects of the
S3: Companies Act that I think are wrong. And I know
S3: that Minister Bailey is working on that at the moment.
S3: My my personal view is that the the official assignee
S3: Is relatively inactive, but it's important to understand that the
S3: official Assignee is the government department that looks after bankruptcies.
S3: Their worldview is that they they are not there to
S3: hound the the debtor, the insolvent. Their job is to
S3: protect the bankrupt from angry creditors. And I think by
S3: and large, they do a good job on that. And
S3: liquidation is somewhat different. In a liquidation you want a
S3: liquidator who will investigate the affairs of the company. And
S3: what you have in the insolvency industry at the moment
S3: is you have a regime whereby the the insolvency the
S3: Companies Act rewards liquidators who are inactive. The the our profession,
S3: the insolvency profession, the liquidation profession is dominated by a
S3: number of small firms who have a reputation for being inactive.
S3: And those firms get the majority of the work.
S5: Okay.
S2: Maria. Research out last week showed 77% of businesses believe
S2: the current economy was having more of a detrimental impact
S2: on their business than Covid and the GFC. As a
S2: business journalist, how tough is it out there for companies
S2: right now?
S4: It is tough, there's no doubt about that. But if
S4: you look at a lot of the underlying numbers, it's
S4: not as bad. It's not catastrophic, right? For example, there's
S4: a company called Credit Works who do data. They're a
S4: credit bureau for the construction industry primarily, although they do
S4: other sectors as well. And if you drill down into
S4: their data, yes, all the sales are down. Um, but
S4: it depends which bits you look at. For example, the
S4: beginning of the sort of construction phase of building a
S4: house is digging the drains and laying the concrete. So
S4: therefore concrete is quite a sort of harbinger, if you like. And,
S4: and concrete sales are not down as much as all that. Oh, right.
S4: They are down but not right. They've sort of gone. Yeah.
S4: Not boom. This is radio. Sorry. That wasn't very descriptive
S4: was it? Um, we got.
S3: We got the sound effect.
S4: Yeah. So, so yes, it's bad, but not that bad. Right.
S4: And again, with the Centrex data that came out this week. Yes,
S4: liquidations are up, as we saw, but maybe for, you know,
S4: all kinds of reasons. But consumer um, consumer defaults were
S4: actually it had slowed off a wee bit. Right. So
S4: it's not great, but it's not absolutely terrible. And it's
S4: not as bad as the GFC.
S2: In your opinion, is the OCR drop enough to restore
S2: economic faith?
S4: Not yet. No. Right. Um, it's a little bit of a,
S4: you know, the wind turning. But we're going to need
S4: a few more cuts before it really has an impact.
S4: And again, it will take quite a while to flow through.
S2: Quick round to you all. When will Adrian Orr get
S2: a knighthood for services to unemployment. Damien Grant.
S3: I you know it's coming.
S2: You know it's coming. How are you going to celebrate?
S3: No, Adrian. Actually, no. Nicola Willis probably if Nicola Willis
S3: gets another term. Yeah. Thanks to the malfeasance of Adrian.
S3: Or maybe she might get a knighthood. Right.
S2: When? When? When is he getting a knighthood?
S4: Over Damien's dead body.
S3: I think Adrian Hoare might like to organise that. Matthew.
S5: Well, I'm sending him a Christmas card.
S2: 61% say no way. Uh, comrades, we must have a
S2: word from our sponsor.
S3: Our sponsor is Gravity Credit management. I was chatting to
S3: Andrew today. Andrew's had a win on a couple of
S3: large files, and so he is particularly excited. He's quite
S3: upbeat when things go his way. Um, but as credit,
S3: somebody in the, um, debt collection business, he's even a
S3: bit when things don't go his way. Uh, but Andrew nonetheless,
S3: as he likes to point out, he's sitting on a
S3: small pot of cash. He's a bit like, um, Uncle
S3: Scrooge sitting in there looking at all that money, and
S3: he wants to give. Well, he doesn't want to give
S3: it away. He wants to buy your old ledgers. If
S3: you have an accounts receivable book, people sitting out there
S3: at 180 days that are not paying. Call Andrew on 800. Gravity.
S3: got a gravity credit. Jonesy and Andrew will be delighted
S3: to take your call, and he may even pay you
S3: some money for some old ledgers.
S2: Comrades, we must move on to issue three. Over the week,
S2: every patched member of the Comancheros gang in Christchurch was arrested.
S2: When the government quietly, while the government quietly included in
S2: the facetious gang bang patch legislation, search and surveillance powers
S2: that are more police state than human rights respecting democracy.
S2: This podcast. I'm not sure why. More than any other show,
S2: has been at the forefront of explaining what has been
S2: happening in the underworld since the invasion of the 501 seconds,
S2: who have brought a level of violence and criminal sophistication
S2: that makes our domestic gangs look like disorganized crime. We
S2: had a situation while Labour was in power, where the
S2: GCSB and Sis were picking up international communications between 500
S2: and 1 syndicates and cartels, but this intelligence was not
S2: being sent to domestic cops in New Zealand to action.
S2: Instead that Intel was going up the intelligence chain of
S2: command to the NSA and our Australian spy counterparts, Maria.
S2: This level of crackdown could only be occurring if the
S2: spy agencies of New Zealand were helping domestic cops with Intel.
S2: What do you think has been the turning point here?
S2: Cartels having influence in New Zealand, or, as the Financial
S2: Times pointed out in a recent exposé last week, the
S2: Chinese using Shadow Mirror banking services here in Auckland. This
S2: seems to have become a national interest security interest.
S4: Well, there's a whole lot of questions in there. I
S4: work with Jared Savage at the New Zealand Herald. Great
S4: man has made a bit of a career out of
S4: following the gangs. Totally. I ran into him in the
S4: newsroom the other day and I said, you know, how's
S4: it going with the gangs? And he said, well, look,
S4: it's just clickbait. We keep writing about it because people
S4: keep reading it. And I think, you know, very briefly, obviously,
S4: with the effect that the 501 and the importation of
S4: these very serious gangs, it's completely changed the landscape here
S4: in New Zealand. And the New Zealand Police have just
S4: simply had to catch up, I would say. Yeah, it's
S4: not my expert area, but it sounds like they are.
S4: They're just getting a lot more sophisticated and tackling this
S4: much more sophisticated crime. But it's sort of a side
S4: point I would make is that people do get quite
S4: obsessed with the gangs. And yes, we have had an
S4: increased problem and increased gun violence, etc., but it's there's
S4: not that many gang members out there, you know, they're
S4: mostly shooting each other, which again, not cool, not good.
S4: But people get a bit obsessed with it. Yeah. And
S4: on the whole idea of banning gang patches, well, that's
S4: just ridiculous. It's just ridiculous. It's impossible to enforce. It
S4: won't make any difference. It just aggravates people. You know?
S4: I don't even know why we're talking about it. Really?
S2: Damian, a point of myth in America sells for $5.
S2: It sells for $100 in New Zealand. This is why
S2: we're seeing a spike in gang violence and soaring importation.
S2: Can a state win a war on drugs?
S3: $5, you say?
S2: It's $5 in. In America, they sell it. It's $5
S2: a point, but here it's $100. That's a markup.
S3: Maybe we should do a working group special from Colombia. Francisco,
S3: I think, you know, those are. Those are some. That's
S3: some good margin. That's.
S2: Well, that's. And that's why that's why it's coming here.
S2: But a can a state with a war on drugs.
S3: How much how much profit are you? Actually I'll work
S3: this out. It's about half $1 million swallowing a condom.
S3: So it's like there is just. No, no, seriously.
S2: You do that recreationally.
S3: I did, I.
S5: I would stay at home.
S3: Damien, I worked I worked that out to try and
S3: to an answer to your question. Martin, is there a.
S5: Graphic that shows you swallowing a condom? That's.
S3: You'll just have to imagine that on your own. I
S3: do in the.
S2: Shower now.
S3: You know. Now you.
S5: Can't. I can't unsee see that now.
S3: You'll. You'll be praying for a second stroke to stop.
S3: To stop.
S5: The imagery, you have to use the word stroke and
S5: condom in the same.
S2: Paragraph. Gentlemen. So we need Hooton back.
S3: When you consider when you consider that that is the
S3: amount of margin that that that a drug mule could.
S3: So let's say the drug mule gets 20% of that.
S3: So it's $100,000 for taking a trip to Bali or
S3: wherever it is. When the profit margins are that high,
S3: then no, you can't remember. In Bali, the Indonesians shot,
S3: I think, nine, uh, young Australians and an utterly pointless
S3: exercise when the consequence for dealing drugs is that the
S3: state will take a 29 year old man, ignore the
S3: protestations of his mother, and put a bullet in his
S3: chest and do it publicly. And that has no dent
S3: in the drug trade, then? No, the state can't win
S3: a war on drugs either. The last time I smoked
S3: a joint, no, God, I was, I was, I was
S3: living in state accommodation in Turangi, where the state had
S3: complete control over my life. They controlled the prison. Where? Yes, where,
S3: where I slept, what I ate, what I did, who
S3: I could talk to. And the state was unable, and
S3: in fact, agents of the state actively conspired to ensure
S3: that I had access to alcohol and access to cannabis.
S3: There is simply no way. Now, in an environment where
S3: the state can lock you up, the state still cannot
S3: control access to drugs. Then no bomber. The answer to
S3: your question is no. And the reason why you've got
S3: the commissioners and the 501 and the headhunters, and you
S3: just have a look at the news stories today. There's
S3: some guy from the Hells Hell's Angels, 450 kilos of meth.
S3: There's some guy from the Headhunters having 14.8. Wayne Doyle,
S3: $14.8 million worth of his assets were being taken by
S3: the state. Almost certainly the product of crime when the
S3: rewards for criminal activity are so huge. When you consider
S3: that a totalitarian state is required to stop the drug trade,
S3: and even then it probably can't work, we should just stop.
S2: Matthew, what do we do now? We've arrested everyone. Unemployment
S2: is 4.6%, but over 9% for Maori and 8.5% for Pasifika.
S2: Where are the jobs to give people hope for alternatives
S2: to crime?
S5: Just. Just before we get there, this business with drugs.
S5: We have a problem in the Pacific. That's where that's
S5: where we have a problem. We have a problem in
S5: Tonga and Samoa as new entry points for drugs that
S5: are largely precursors coming in from China. Let's just face it.
S5: And if you have a look at the Security Intelligence
S5: briefing released by the Sis, I think it is today,
S5: you'll get to see a lot of that. I think also,
S5: we've got a change in the way that gangs have
S5: been constructed in Aotearoa. So we used to have discussions
S5: about the Black Power and the Mongrel Mob. Now we're
S5: having discussions about the Comancheros, the Mexican cartels that have
S5: never gone away. Yes, we have never as a as
S5: a global community or law enforcement had the jump on
S5: destroying the cartels as much as you put into it.
S5: I mean, take Colombia, for example. Any number of South
S5: American countries, and yet the trade still goes on. My
S5: biggest concern is our backyard and what's going on in
S5: the Pacific. And when I talk about trying to encroaching
S5: through development and economic development and funding and investment into
S5: the South Pacific, think about the workforce that's going with
S5: that money that some of that workforce, I dare say,
S5: if you inquired and investigated it a little bit more
S5: and peered underneath the covers, you would see where the
S5: importation is coming from.
S3: So you think we can win a war on drugs.
S5: No, I'm saying what we need to do as a
S5: country through law enforcement is beef up our surveillance and
S5: intelligence activities. We are a country that should be able
S5: to protect our borders. Instead of cutting the intelligence teams
S5: at immigration and all these other places and governments.
S3: What is what is the purpose of beefing up the
S3: security as you're as you're saying.
S5: More surveillance of the incoming threat of drugs, because ultimately,
S5: drugs that arrive in our country that can be stopped
S5: are going to have a detrimental effect not only to
S5: our individual New Zealanders, but our economy, the health system,
S5: to mayor, to mayor, to mayor.
S3: So, but but I ask you the question, can we
S3: win the war on drugs.
S5: As New Zealand, as a small country with with borders
S5: that we can surveil? Yes, I believe we can.
S3: Okay. So what is what what do you think would
S3: be required when, as I pointed out, a drug, a drug.
S2: Can I just say drug? The answer to this a drug.
S3: A drug mule, a drug mule can can bring in
S3: half $1 million worth of cocaine inside their body. How?
S3: Without doing full strips body invasive searches of everybody. That's
S3: that's the how how are you going to.
S2: So that's the other.
S5: Way you think about these things. That's not how it
S5: actually works, though. Um, what we've got to do is
S5: cut the supply chains. And at the moment the supply
S5: chain is coming through the Pacific, and it's building and
S5: getting bigger and bigger and bigger. We've got to be
S5: able to support the Pacific island nations, to be able
S5: to enforce their laws, their borders, and so on and
S5: so forth. We've got fishing vessels coming over the borders
S5: into into economic zones. Not for fish. They're bringing other
S5: crap with them. So we need to beef up that. Now,
S5: it's not true that just because you swallow a condom,
S5: that's the importation of drugs into this country. That's not
S5: how it's working.
S3: But that is but that but that is an effective
S3: way of bringing it in. You can bring it in
S3: on a ship. You take a.
S5: Boat, that's where it's coming in. It's coming in, it's
S5: coming in through our ports. It's coming in through our
S5: our supply lines. That's where we need to focus our effort,
S5: to be frank.
S3: Do you do you have any idea how many.
S2: Do you.
S3: Have? Any idea how many containers arrive at the port
S3: are actively searched by customs? Minimal, right? Minimal. So.
S5: And but why is that, Damian?
S3: And because the. If you were to say. All right,
S3: we are to in order to stop the drugs coming
S3: in because an awful large percentage of the drugs are
S3: coming in through containers. And so people are bringing stuff
S3: in on, on, on the containers and they and you
S3: might have a DVD and there's a part of the
S3: DVD that's welded in. You've got a bit of drugs
S3: in there, right? The only way to find that drug
S3: is to break apart the DVD. To get it, the
S3: you would need to search every single container you would
S3: need to the the. It's not practical. The degree of
S3: cost involved to effectively supervise the border is astronomical and
S3: economically catastrophic. So I, I think you are enjoying your
S3: willing suspension of disbelief if you believe that the state
S3: has the capacity it does to stop importing drugs, and
S3: even if the state could do it, Matthew, that would
S3: be a state and a society that you would not
S3: want to live in.
S2: Valid point. Counter perspective. The way you'd go about winning
S2: the war on drugs, I think, is that you acknowledge
S2: it's a it's an actual working market, right. Who is
S2: able to bring all of this drugs in and how
S2: is it being done? Well, the Financial Times was really
S2: clear that a lot of these Chinese shadow banking mirror
S2: organizations have set the infrastructure up so that 501 syndicates
S2: can take money here in New Zealand and pay the
S2: cartel over there. So if you're looking at how you
S2: catch those buggers out, you've got to focus on the
S2: surveillance element of of of the Chinese banking shadow community
S2: here in Auckland. So that would be your first thing.
S2: The second thing is that you would legalise cannabis. Hear
S2: me out. The profit margin from cannabis. $100 million could
S2: go into drug rehabilitation. Now, we only currently spend $10
S2: million a year on, on on drug rehabilitation. That's not
S2: enough to get someone off meth, right? If you are
S2: able to use taxation from a legalized cannabis market, you
S2: could you could fund the rehabilitation programs, because the reason
S2: that $100 that that point is $100 here and only
S2: $5 in America is because of the demand for it here, right?
S2: It's a demand issue. You cut down the demand by
S2: actually funding proper rehabilitation programs. Let's, let's.
S3: Let's come back to a more fundamental question. So, Matthew,
S3: let's let's say you could stop drugs. My question to
S3: you is why? What what is the benefit of stopping
S3: people taking methamphetamine?
S4: Can I just leap in here? Because I was about
S4: to ask that very question, Damien. So you would not
S4: do anything. You would just let society be and people
S4: smoke Myth or whatever it is to their heart's content.
S4: Is that how you see it?
S2: Hearts explode.
S3: Um, well, in my libertarian Paradise, yes, but we don't
S3: live in a libertarian Paradise. The. To answer my own question,
S3: the problem we have with methamphetamine is the problem we
S3: had with with synthetic cannabis. When synthetic ketamine was being
S3: manufactured by commercial operations, it was manufactured, and there were
S3: company directors who cared about personal liability and the quality
S3: of the product that made you sick. And it wasn't
S3: good for you. But nobody died from taking synthetic ketamine
S3: when it was legal. When when the when these drugs
S3: are illegal, then you start getting poor quality stuff. You
S3: get stuff that's that people don't know what they're buying.
S3: There is no market signal. And so what happens is
S3: that somebody, somebody's child takes synthetic cannabis or some other,
S3: you know, fentanyl or whatever. They get sick and they die.
S3: The reason why they died is because they are they
S3: are consuming an unsafe product that is untested with no
S3: market power behind it. And then the natural reaction of
S3: that parent and that community is to say we must
S3: ban the drugs because the drugs is what's happening, but
S3: that's a mistake. The reason why it's like if you
S3: drink moonshine, you're going to get sick because moonshine is
S3: manufactured at the back of a garage somewhere. If you
S3: are drinking alcohol manufactured by lion, Nathan or whatever, okay,
S3: it's still not good for you necessarily, but you're not
S3: going to get poisoned because Lion Nathan care about their. No,
S3: but you.
S4: Could develop an addiction and cause a great deal of
S4: harm to your family.
S3: But you do that. Okay, so let's let's just let's.
S5: Just do that because it's legal.
S3: Let's let's just say that with that with with that
S3: addiction thing. Right. So, so heroin is heroin is the classic, uh,
S3: if you are taking medical grade heroin, you can take
S3: medical grade heroin for year after year after year. It's
S3: not good for you. It's not great for your mental health.
S3: But but you can do that. The reason why people
S3: spiral so quickly is they're not taking medical grade heroin,
S3: they are injecting themselves with heroin or.
S2: Any.
S3: Other stuff that gets sucked down into it. And so
S3: what what we do is we have a look at
S3: somebody who is taking, who is consuming an unsafe product
S3: manufactured in the market, where there is no brand equity,
S3: where there was no reputational effects, and that person gets
S3: very sick. And our role as a society is we
S3: say we we must impose the most severe consequences we have,
S3: including lining young men up against the wall and pulling
S3: lead on them because we want to stop that person
S3: getting sick. And my reaction is, if you if you say,
S3: all right, we know I've got an 11 year old boy,
S3: I know he's going to take drugs at some point. Right?
S3: I am deluding myself if I think that he doesn't
S3: when he does, and so will your daughter and so
S3: will your children. Our children are going to take drugs
S3: if you have children. Understand this. At some point in
S3: their lives they are going to consume drugs. And when
S3: they do, I hope that that person takes drugs that
S3: is manufactured by somebody who was responsible. And here's the
S3: here's the headline. The Comancheros are not responsible. They don't
S3: care about the life of your child. They are not
S3: interested in the welfare of their consumers. But Merck Sharp
S3: and Dohme is.
S5: The problem that I have with everything you've just said
S5: is twofold. Number one, I do not believe that open,
S5: unfettered market dictation of drugs and class A drugs in
S5: particular in any country, is a viable option to explore
S5: for these reasons. Number one, drugs kill and drugs don't
S5: only kill the person who's taking them. Potentially, it kills
S5: the people around them, the loved ones domestic violence, throwing
S5: their kids up against walls and meth induced comas. It's
S5: completely unacceptable. And I think we've got to stop trying
S5: to play economics with this sort of nonsense where we say, oh,
S5: let the market dictate, let the market produce high quality,
S5: really good drugs so people don't die as often or whatever.
S5: When also, it's also a wrong narrative to suggest that
S5: we're like Indonesia and we're going to line people up
S5: against walls and shoot them for whatever, um, crime. I
S5: don't think it was a Bali. I don't think it
S5: was nine of them. I think it was two of
S5: them that were ultimately executed. Anyway, coming back to the point,
S5: the point I was trying to make is that drugs
S5: in this country kill people, and often they kill the innocent.
S5: And so just to legalize it, to say, oh, we'll
S5: take care of that problem. That's not how it works, gentlemen.
S5: That is not how it works.
S3: Are you more likely if if you are going to
S3: take heroin, are you more likely to get sick and
S3: from heroin manufactured by the Comancheros or heroin manufactured? I
S3: don't know.
S5: Because I wouldn't take I don't know because I would
S5: not take heroin. However, how many, how.
S3: Many, how many, how many, how many.
S2: Galleries allow it, don't they?
S3: How many? I don't know how many. How many documented
S3: cases were there of people dying from synthetic cannabis when
S3: it was legal. Pick a number between 0 and 1.
S3: So I believe.
S5: It was zero.
S3: Okay. How many people died from taking synthetic cannabis when
S3: it was? When it was when it. When Peter Dunn
S3: lost his nerve and made it illegal?
S5: I do not know the answer to the question.
S3: However, it's about it's about. It's about 60. Right. And
S3: and that right there, Matthew. That that's the answer. That's
S3: what I'm trying to get across. We are not.
S5: Talking about synthetic cannabis. We know you're wanting to talk
S5: about class A drugs that have a significant detrimental effect
S5: on not only our society but our lives.
S3: What is more detrimental than death?
S4: There was a dairy owner in Henderson who was murdered
S4: by a 14 year old who was completely off his
S4: brain on synthetics. So that's probably a number you didn't count.
S3: But hold on. But was he was he out of
S3: was he out of his brain on synthetic cannabis before
S3: or after synthetic cannabis was made illegal?
S4: I don't know, but he was a 14 year old
S4: that was addicted.
S2: It's something it's something that that's.
S3: But that but that right there is is is. So
S3: the answer to my question there was so important because
S3: what what we what we're seeing is we we have
S3: a 14 year old committing a violent crime on, on,
S3: on synthetic cannabis. And so our reaction is we need
S3: to ban synthetic cannabis, since the synthetic cannabis example is
S3: so powerful because it shows what happens when the state says,
S3: we are going to take a product that people are
S3: going to consume, our children will consume drugs. We don't
S3: want to admit that fact, but it's true. And and
S3: if your child consumes synthetic cannabis made by a by
S3: a pharmaceutical company, you might pick them up from the,
S3: from the hospital. And that's bad, as.
S5: I did with cannabis as I.
S3: Did with cannabis.
S5: I would campaign wholeheartedly against the legalization of class A
S5: drugs in this country, because I think it's the easy
S5: option that we take when we don't want to face
S5: the reality of what it's like to fight against these, these, these,
S5: these meth induced class.
S2: But class B and class C should definitely be legalized. Okay. Comrades,
S2: we must move on to issue four. We must move
S2: on to issue four. Hold on.
S3: No, we have no time. The.
S2: Are we out? Yes. We got.
S3: Five minutes.
S2: Okay. Very quickly. The government this week. The government this
S2: week embarked upon a U-turn. So sharp and so quick.
S2: You would have missed it if you blinked with new
S2: mums in Wellington, had the budget for a cup of
S2: tea and a slice of toast after being giving birth.
S2: Dumped because of cost cutting measures. Damien, other than you,
S2: what sort of arsehole cuts the toast budget for mums
S2: who have just given birth?
S3: Um, they should be given toast by the family members.
S3: I don't know, of.
S2: Course I knew that, Maria, as these sorts of nasty
S2: surprises are these sorts of nasty surprises of cuts going
S2: to keep coming up from a public service who have
S2: got no interest in helping the government.
S4: I think it was all a big misunderstanding, and a
S4: couple of rounds of toast are not going to save
S4: the health service.
S2: Uh, Matthew.
S5: I ballooned over a long period of time. If a
S5: pregnant woman wants something, give.
S2: It to her.
S6: I mean, preach, preach. Yeah.
S2: We're gonna wrap the show. Final word. Damien grant. I've
S2: been looking.
S3: At the odd situation of Gloriavale being debanked. My libertarian
S3: instinct is that the BNZ doesn't want a bank gloriavale.
S3: And they should not be obligated to. Um, but the
S3: more I think about it, we don't have a free
S3: market for banking. Banking is a highly regulated environment. If
S3: there was one bank controlled by the state, I would
S3: say that that bank would have no choice. They would
S3: have to offer everybody banking services. So we're somewhere between
S3: free banking and a banking monopoly. So I'm starting to
S3: come down to the view that maybe, um, the BNZ
S3: should allow Gloriavale to bank. Maria.
S2: Final word.
S4: I was sat in the High Court on Monday morning
S4: as part of an application to get the interim receiver's
S4: report in the Duval. Yes, management. We are awaiting the
S4: judge's decision on that. I think that report should be
S4: released for. I think Damien thinks it should be released too,
S4: but for different reasons. He he thinks statutory management has
S4: gone too far. I think they probably had very good
S4: reason to, but I agree that we need to know why.
S4: We need to know why they brought them in.
S2: Matthew.
S5: Final word. I think my final word is kotahitanga. I
S5: said at the beginning, I said at the end there
S5: is room in Kotahitanga for everyone. And I think with
S5: the passing of the Maori king, it's an opportunity for
S5: us to reflect on all these different debates that end
S5: in silliness and madness. I've always said, and I'll maintain,
S5: we are a country that's stronger together. Kotahitanga is the
S5: answer to that. So let's just get on the same
S5: waka and start pedaling. Preach.
S2: Any final word? Damien? Uh, we.
S3: Would like to thank our two guests. Sorry, I was just, um.
S3: I don't have the, um. I think I know yours
S3: at Slade Iving, which is, um, a lovely shout out
S3: to your husband, If you like what Maria has got
S3: to say, you can catch Maria at the Herald, NZME
S3: and Matthew Tukaki. Um, it's always a pleasure to have
S3: you on, son. I'm disappointed you were so wrong on drugs,
S3: but that's that's okay. If you like what Matthew's got
S3: to say, you can catch him at, uh, at weightier news.
S3: And your Twitter handle is at.
S5: Matt, about to change to the mighty George Clooney. The mighty.
S3: George Clooney. All right, bomber, you've got 55 minutes.
S2: Panel. Loved, uh, panel loved Matthew. And, uh, Maria came
S2: a quick second. Thank you, comrades, to my final word
S2: this week. This month, we collectively enter the September effect
S2: heading into Wall Street's crash zone. Historically, Wall Street has
S2: had three of its largest meltdowns in September and October.
S2: But commentators argue the stock market isn't suffering from irrational
S2: exuberance this time, and that the Fed's promise of a
S2: rate cut will keep markets happy. But chip maker Nvidia
S2: shows signs of dangerous, irrational exuberance. And while the fed
S2: has promised a rates cut, the geopolitical tensions this time
S2: around with the possibility of a Trump election in November,
S2: means that every bad faith actor from Putin to Iran
S2: to she wants to cause external pressures, so an October
S2: shock can't be ruled out. Now he is done with
S2: the weather. That was the working Group, New Zealand's number
S2: one weekly political podcast, not funded by New Zealand on air.
S2: We'll see you Tuesday next week. Kia ora and cat. Bye.
S1: Well, that was New Zealand's greatest weekly political podcast, the
S1: working Group. Not one minute of this show was funded
S1: by New Zealand on air. Nope. No. Creamy. Public broadcasting
S1: money for us. That was the working group.