November 22, 2024 • 40 mins
Today on The Panel, Tim Beveridge is joined by Jo McCarroll and Paul Spoonley to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.
The war in Ukraine escalates as Zelenksyy uses missiles provided by the West, new police commissioner named, gang patch ban comes into effect, and more!
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks edb.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Weindow that.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Lady said, and a very good afternoon to you, Tim
Beverage with you.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
This is the Weekend Collective on today, Saturday, the twenty
third of November. Looking forward to your company. Just shortly,
I'll be interviewing, I'll be introducing my panel, but looking
a little further ahead to the show for the one
Roof Property out Run Roof One Roof Radio show. Should
I say actually? Church joins us. We're going to talk
about the best methods of sale for your home because
obviously when the market's going gangbusters, everyone's like, oh we
(00:59):
must go auction, auction, auction. I have to say, I
don't think I look at a house that was a tender.
But we're going to talk about how do you sell
your home and what's the method you should use. Five
o'clock The Parents Squad Holly Brooker joins us. We're talking
about talking about nest and the whole empty nest syndrome.
But when should you actually sort of help your children
out of the nest? When is it time to move out?
(01:20):
Eighteen forty three anything in between eight one hundred and
eighty ten eighty will be taking a course you can
text any time. We're wrapping sport with Dean Midlachlin as
well shortly before the show ends. By the way, that
I wish that I was had Jesse's Girl does tend
to portray that my very young producer Tira has slightly
more mature taste than her age would suggest, given I
(01:42):
don't know what she is. She's somewhere in her early
mid twenties, I think, But anyway, I love a good
song to open the show with. Now time introduce my
panel first. She is editor of New Zealand Gardener magazine
and by the way, has brought me a very attractive addition.
It's the eightieth anniversary issue of New Zealand Gardener, and
(02:04):
she's also brought me the current the one from November
as well, So I'm I'm already for the gardening. I
just need to get the weeds out first.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
Joe McCarroll, Hello, Hello, How are you Taboo?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Where does tickety boo come from?
Speaker 4 (02:18):
I believe I literally said that last time I was here,
and we had the same conversation, and I'm sure a
listener texted it in. But you and I and we
got and we've both forgotten. Tyra is in the age
range where she could legitimately live at home. I don't
know if she does this, but that's the.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Old She is a young woman with a child and
quite a significant mortgage.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
I've shared on this Hi, Tya, doing well for yourself. Yes,
eighty years, she's not old enough to remember. And you
still on gardener starting because.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Who is eighty years?
Speaker 4 (02:45):
Eighty years? Eighty years this year? And we thought to
mark the significant annivers who would go back into the archives,
because I find those archives are just so fascinating, you know,
the stories, the pictures, the even things like the ads
and the recipes and the letters to the eddit I
don't really paint a picture like a social history. And
so we're telling the history of gardening in New Zealand
(03:06):
as told through the New Zealand Gardener Archive.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
So look for it wherever you get your where you
get your magazines.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
So make a lovely Christmas present, just thinking, wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
It a nice little stocking fellow, absolutely stopping for.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
The gardeners in your life.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
There we go and coveting it right now. Actually, in fact,
I think he's feeling a little left out is emeritus
professor and sociologist Paul Spoonley.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
I am feeling very left out because you are, in
fact a gardener.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
How keen are you?
Speaker 5 (03:35):
I've spent about six hours in the garden today.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Jo, I'm going to have to give him one of mine,
aren't I? I mean he's been six hours.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
In the gardens hours I mean too tired to read
a magazine at this point.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Okay, Well, if you're a little slow on the uptake
today for the topics, we'll just put it down to
six hours of gardening. Emeritus does sound very flash, doesn't it.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
It does. It's one of those weird, weird terms that
we inherited from the UK meaning lesson for retired.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Yeah, because it sounds much flasher than retired, doesn't it?
Speaker 5 (04:12):
So you thinking it doesn't apply to me?
Speaker 2 (04:14):
To you, you seem like a very you see emeritus,
very You looked very distinguished, should I say? And I think, Look,
I'll have to think about whether whether we let him
have one of these to take home, shouldn't I? Joe? Anyway,
let's get into the panel. Firstly, the Ukraine Russia conflict, Well,
(04:37):
I mean the question is whether it's going global. Putin
says that that it's going global, but of course he
does like to talk it up. He said the West
should think carefully. They've fired a medium range hypersonic missile,
and he's talked about it going global. He's big with
the threats. I sort of be honest with your I
sort of, apart from hating his guts, I sort of
(05:00):
ignore the rhetoric because it's it's typical sort of bully
is stuff. But what do you make of Paul.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Well, I'm in two minds, Tim. I think we're entering
It feels like we're entering a new stage. So they've
gone a long range but with conventional warheads, and so
is this the moment where they start and think about
using nuclear I don't know. The other thing I think
that's happening is that they're beginning to anticipate Trump's arrival
(05:27):
in the White House, and it's just looking at an
endgame and trying to to jockey for position prior to
that twentieth of January.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
I think that that is hitting up on the head.
What do you think, Joven say?
Speaker 4 (05:40):
I would agree, I would agree completely. I mean, I
think this was attempting to send a message and if
you think of this as sending a message, what were
you know, all the other missiles previously about. But they're
trying to send the message that it could be nuclear,
and that is just an optics thing. And I think
Potent and the Ukraine they both want to control the
narrative about how this is perceived in the West, and
(06:04):
that's not to advocate for Putin, but it's both of
them trying to tell the story of what is happening.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Well, I mean, I always think it's quite simple. It's
like get out of Ukraine. I mean, he talks about
of the West invade within that part of the war
as well, and they're escalating us like, sorry, you escalated
things as soon as you cross there.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
There's no logic at all. It's absolutely all about Putin's
hurt ego and maybe some kind of you know, bad
feelings about the Cold War, which they were in fact
the agent of. So you know, absolutely agree, get out
of Ukraine. But I think it's got to the point
now where they're jockeying to have the optics right when
they get to the negotiation table. And I hope, genuinely
(06:48):
hope that happens soon because this war should end.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
It's three years in counting. I mean, it's a huge,
huge cost to both countries.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Now eighteen percent of territory Russia has now of Ukraine.
And look, I think Ukraine is probably going to concede something,
but I don't know what that's going to be. I
think the one that's going to be the sticking block
when they hit the negotiations is whether they join NATO
or not. And I who knows what's going to happen,
but whether Trump can or can out do the deal.
(07:19):
And I'm not a huge fan of his, but his
unpredictability in a way, and his cabinet of TV stars,
maybe he'll pull it off. I'm I'm backing Trump to
do this because we all need it, tab don't we?
Slight Secuay.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
But in terms of Trump's various appointments, when doctor Oz
was appointed, somebody I saw posted online and they said,
this is not the odds we are celebrating this week,
And someone said, yeah, Workd's promotional budget is insane.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Of course, of course Wicked and the Land of Oz. Actually,
do you think do you think that Trump's going to
get the deal done when he eventually becomes president.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Paul Trump point two two point zero, two point zero.
It is really hard to see get yes, isn't it.
I mean, we're all sitting here Tom thinking is he
going to abide by the things he said during the
election campaign? The appointments we're still puzzling about. And then
(08:18):
what's the what's the end game for him? Is it retribution?
Is it going to get back to you know, get
back at some people and some organizations and some government departments.
It's really hard to know.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I think probably will. I think he's going to follow
through with a few things. And Elon Musk has a
department of efficiency with the other guy who I've forgotten,
Vic Cram never mind, I won't remember his name. But anyway,
we won't talk too much about it. But do you
think he's do you think he'll be able to sort out?
Do you think he will have better luck at securing
some sort of deal with Ukraine?
Speaker 4 (08:52):
I mean, I think unpredictable is the word to use,
because Trump has surprised, certainly me many times the election
the chain of events. But I do not hold out
great hope that he will bring both sides to the
table and bring this complicated conflict to a close. That
(09:17):
benefits both the people of Ukraine and the people of Russia.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
And can I just add a footnote to it, I
think Putin is a really cunning politician and put them
in the room together. I think Putin's going to come
out on the winning side, that might be, That would
be my conception.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Well, so I think the person will come out in
the losing side of the Voladimir Zelensky. Yes, but they
still have to get him to agree to things, which
is why I think probably Biden's given him permission to
use those medium range missiles far too late, of course,
and of course he's got England's what is storm shadow
missiles and things they fired. It does feel like they're
all ustling for positions. So maybe they can sit there
(09:54):
because I mean, prolonged wars not in anyone's interests in it,
and I'm pretty sure it's not really Imputin's interests. There
must be a point where is it. There must be
a point where.
Speaker 5 (10:03):
You know, I agree with Joe. I think I this
is the Cold War playing out even further, and Putin's
trying to expand the boundaries of Russia. So in the
way that he took Crimea, he's now CRIMEA. He's now
looking to take Ukraine, so eighteen percent. Is he going
to be happy with that? I'm not sure. I just
(10:24):
don't know.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
Well, the losers are the population of Ukraine and the
population of Russia who are dying so needlessly, so pointlessly
in a jockeying war of hurt ego, and I think
that is despicable. In the center, it ends the better.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
I wonder what the thinking is within that, the people
who know more about the Joint chiefs of Staff and
the military advisors to Putin's rhetoric, because it's not I mean,
the threatening of the nuclear war. I tend to think
that just the more he talks about it, I don't know.
I just I think he undermines his own credibility because
what is it, mutually assured destruction?
Speaker 4 (10:59):
I mean, well, he also runs the risk this idea
of nuclear proliferation. I mean, if a lot of other
powers get nukes, I think it really undermines any kind
of power Russia has to kind of put on the table.
You know, once we have nukes, that another range of
unstable countries.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Oh well, let's hope run don't get them anyway, Happy days. Anyway,
I think it's a bit like the whole Trump thing
in the States. I sort of just leave them to
it and keep my fingers crossed. That's my foreign policy anyway. Now,
look the new police commissioner. There are chambers who's he's
been announced, and it looks like he's getting straight into
(11:42):
his work. What do you reckon, Joe Oh.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
I think so far he seems to have quitted himself
pretty well. I mean, he had to face a really
curly question about arming police, which is a very difficult
and nuanced question that I think tends to be reduced
to a binary. But I think he has very real
tactical experience. I think when you at what he's done
(12:06):
with Interpol, it's at a very senior level and it
appears to have been very successful, and I hope he
can navigate that quite sometimes quite tricky water of managing
the relationships with governments, the relationships with a coalition government,
in particular the optics around it, which sometimes seem just
as important as the reality of it. Yeah, but I
think so far, in the few days he's been in
(12:27):
the seat.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
He's pretty popular frontline police. Of my very small poll
of people I know in the police, but I've got
a maid of mine who says, look, the frontline police
just love them.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
Yes, And can I declare something here, Tom, I work
for the previous commissioner and I'm still working for the
police in various roles, oh, goody, thank you and so no. No,
I mean, I'm in awe of the New Zealand Police.
I think the New Zealand Police do a really good
job and they've got some really smart people at the top.
I don't know Richard Chambers personally, but I've got a
(13:00):
trust in the process of appointment, and you know, when
I look at the can they're really good. So I'm
you know, I'm like Joe. I'm thinking he's I think
he's going to be okay.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Yeah, A lot of people like to have a crack
at costa. I don't. I thought there was a time
when I might have been a bit critical of him,
but he also seemed to sort of step to the
position that the new government the expectations that outlined. I
didn't think he was particularly bad police commissioner, you know,
And as much as people wanted to paint him smart guy,
(13:31):
I mean cruel nicknames, the lantern, things like that Cuddle's Coster.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
Yeah, yeah, but no, I agree with you and I
in my personal relations I found them excellent to deal with.
And what struck me as somebody who's come in to
work for the police over the last couple of years
is how political the whole arena is. You know, you're
getting scrutinized by everybody, You're being criticized by everybody, and
(13:56):
you know, I would find it really difficult to be
the Commission of the New Zealand Police. It is a
really tough gig.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
What sort of work do you have to do with him?
Speaker 5 (14:04):
Or is there all hush hush, No, No, it's it's
not hushush. I perform a number of roles, but I've
been I've been helping the police with some of their
policy and research advice. So, I mean, Andy Costa was
really keen on finding out, you know, what the evidence
was for different policies inside the police and so I
(14:25):
help them with that. And there's fifteen thousand people, it's
a really key part of New Zealand society and I
was happy to help.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
I tell you, what's a good paypacket if you're the
police Comission, isn't it? Joe? It's about seven hundred something thousand. Really, yeah,
he's the highest played civil servant in the country. I
can't still can't get my head around that. Look good
luck to him, but it does seem I would say.
Speaker 4 (14:46):
You'd probably probably I mean, that's a lot of money,
but you would probably earn it. I agree with you
a lot, Paul. I mean, I think when you're just
being criticized by everyone, yeah, you might sometimes think I'd
earn a lot less.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
And at least noise. Sorry, Joe, but the gig is
a short one. You don't have commissioners hanging around for
long time, so I guess you've got to get in.
But I think you deserve something like that.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Oh well, that's very kind of you. I'll next play negotiation.
I'll see if I see how that goes down.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
A lot of money. Why I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
I did. I did some research on what police commissioners
get around in England and in New York. But the
New York Police commission imagine how big that job is.
I think his salary from recollection was around a couple
of hundred thousand bucks US. In fact, the US Supreme
Court judges don't actually get paid as much as you
think either they are on two or three hundred thousand
a year, which we're talking about the highest court in
(15:40):
the United States. Somebody said to me, it's so the
police commissioner's corruption proof. I'm not sure. I'm quite but
it is a hell of a lot of money, isn't it.
It is Prime Minister's on about four hundred thousand. I
know how much would it how much? How much I
don't think we'll go on to how much would it
cost to for any either of us to sacrifice our
(16:01):
integrity in terms of, you know, if we were in
that position, let's not go there. But I don't know
why I mentioned it. Hey, the gang patch bans coming
to effect this week. They've been nine arrested. I see
there was a fun headline that said there were three
people done by lunchtime. I did notice that one of
the things the police did, which I thought was great,
was before it came into power into effect, they had
(16:24):
meetings with as many gang leaders around the country. And
that's one of the things that Richard Chambers has talked
about is communication. So whether or not you agree with
the law, guys, girls, this is what we're going to
be doing. What do you think of the gang patch
ban and the way it's they're getting into their work.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Well, I was interested to see some analysis of the
situation in Australia where this is modeled on the law
that was introduced in certain Australia states, and they said
it had meant that the gang patch was less visible
in those states like it absolutely had worked in that way,
but crime numbers had not fallen in any way. And
(17:00):
at that point I think you have to say that
law is not effective. It is simply dog with the
law aiming to attract a certain caliber of voter.
Speaker 5 (17:12):
I gone to no where you go, well no, no,
I agree. So the public, the public use of gang
patches is intimidating and so you're addressing that particular issue.
Are you reducing the gang numbers and offending and there
is no evidence to suggest that it would. Will gangs
(17:33):
continue what they're doing? Almost probably? I think there's a
big issue with the five oh ones. So Australia has
been exporting it's gang problem to New Zealand, which has
really changed both the numbers but also how gangs operate
in New Zealand, which is an issue that we need
to deal with. And will gang members react. And I
was at the hecor the other day and saw some
(17:55):
of the new gang insignia. So there's going to be
a bit of a bit of a tussle. I think,
are they going to keep redesigning where they are and.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
Using colors, which of course gangs already do and they're.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
Allowed to do, which is completely it's legal.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Look, I think I've sort of about fifty to fifty
on it, which is not the sort of position should
really take and talk about radio, but I'm sort of
pro if it makes people feel less intimidated in public spaces,
if it contributes to that sense, than fine. I tend
to think that it's not really going to achieve very much.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
I'm a little worried it's going to contribute to the
sense of things feeling safer while making things in no
way safer. And I'd rather.
Speaker 5 (18:35):
Think, and I want to say something on behalf of
our police here. If you get a large gang congregation
with hundreds wearing the patches, it's going to put the
police in a really difficult situation. And Paul Basham, who's
the Assistant commission who's been fronting a lot of this,
has said that the safety of the police is going
(18:56):
to have to be one of the important aspects they're
going to consider. So you know, you can just see
gangs trying to whine to put the police up, and.
Speaker 4 (19:08):
That's adversarial position. And again I'm not an apologist for
you know, the gangs are criminal organizations. But if you
commit crime, you can be you can be arrested for it.
Because crimes are against the law. You don't need another law.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
No, Look, that's I don't I don't mind them having
another tool at their disposal to make life uncomfortable for
the gangs. But I don't think it's going to make
much of a difference. It was funny enough. There was
also the freedom of speech issue and expression, but that's
why it's it is just a it's a strange one.
But look, I think in terms of enforcing it, though,
the police are making a first impression, and first impressions count.
(19:42):
If they hadn't cracked down it on day number one,
the law could have easily become a complete dog. But
instead they're going right gang pats, boom boom bomb. I
mean they have been.
Speaker 5 (19:52):
But as you've arrests, as you've pointed out to there's
been a huge investment in training up the police and
in communicating with the gangs themselves.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
Yeah, and that's that's all about good policing. So let's
see how it plays out anyway, but it probably won't
make a large difference to things, exceptably less sexy to
wear it in public from time to time. It is
twenty six and a half past three. News Talk said B.
We'll be back with the panel in just a moment, helping.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
You get on top of your busy life. Tim Beveridge
on the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
News Talk said B, Yes, and welcome back to the
Weekend Collective. This is the panel. I'm Tim Beverage. My
guests that Joe McCarrell and Paul Spoonley. I'm going to
ask you guys to dust off your engineering credentials, which
(20:40):
could be non existent I guess, but there's a case
for I just like the fact we look at different
options for things because of course all our roads are
tas or asphalt or whatever. But there's been a case
for concrete roads launched in Waikato. So there's an economic
report that shows concrete roads are well suited for high
intensity traffic, more cost effective in the long run. It's
(21:04):
worth pointing out, and so there's been a case made
for concrete roads. I think I've seen them in it
in LA and the States have got quite a few
concrete highways. Now, who wants to have first got this one? Joe,
you looked at your Pauls looked away at you.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
So we're going to go to Actually, I'm the daughter
of an engineer and one of my sisters is an engineer.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
So I feel excellent. I've got you should have told
me that before we got into a questioning whether would
have an informed opinion.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
I wouldn't say I had a particularly informed opinion, but
I do. I do think this report. I mean it
is by the industry, the concrete industry.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
Infametrics have done it, and infan Metrics are a good
research organization.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
Commit but you commission if you feel like that you
know the industry that are funding it, and that that
doesn't undermine the research. I mean, I think there's there's
there's I think concrete should be considered in some situations,
not all situations. I think you know, there's very clear
info in c TA put out which shows that you know,
it's difficult to access if you have to get to
(22:01):
services underneath because you pretty much have to, you know,
dig it all up again. And of course we're a
seismically active country, so.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
That's my reservation. Geologically, we shift around a lot more
and when concrete cracks, whereas tarsil And it's quite funny
the road that where I live and the tarsial almost
is like liquid. You can see where it's just sort
of bubbled to the side of the road and I'm like,
I'm not sure about the substrate there, but poor what
do you think?
Speaker 5 (22:27):
Well, I was I heard this on the car radio
when I was coming back on the Way Kato Expressway.
What is it about New Zealand roads that a brand
new expressway has broken up so quickly? Have you been
down the expressway lately? No, it's a nightmare. You're down
to one lane in either direction. The road surface is
a mess. They're having to completely redo it. So I
(22:48):
think there's an issue in terms of the quality of
our roads, our new roads that are being made, and
if they're seventeen percent cheaper, which is what this research suggests.
And then let's have a look at that we have
had concrete roads after the nineteen thirty one nap earthquake.
Now put in concrete roads, and the weird thing was
they were done in patches, so every so often you go,
(23:08):
don I.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Know, from traveling on the American roads, there's noisy, there's
that donk dog dog dog dog. I actually think we
have concrete roads around Talanga. Now I'm sure, listener, we'll tax.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
But now I'm thinking about there's no concrete roads somewhere
around on Birkenhead, around the north.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
Like I said that, I think there will be some
places where that is the best choice. But we should
be looking at the right choice for the situation, based
on the traffic and based on the roading situation that
we're trying to address. And I think we also should
be looking at whether or not we are putting in
roads to the standard that we need to, because I
don't know where we're falling short. But I would agree
with you, Paul, they're just they're not good enough. I've
(23:45):
drive down that Why how To Expressway quite often to
my parents were in Hamilton, and it is really piecemeal
that that road, which is brand new in terms of roads.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Yeah, actually the Greens should love it because apparently they
reduced carbon in the atmosphere. I don't know the figures
on how much. But somebody my producer was telling me
about I thought she was actually joking about hemp roads
or something, but it's some sort of manufit. I don't
know whether she is pulling my leg on it, but
apparently this is the Greens would have loved that one.
Speaker 5 (24:20):
Anyway.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Yeah, I'd like back to slot something. I guess we
can tie this. And because the argument around nuclear energy
is one that also is something that's supposed to be
a lot greener than other forms of energy production. But
the federal government in Australia's declined to join a pact
with the UK and US which is about accelerating the
(24:43):
development of civilian nuclear energy, and we've been having a
little bit of a discussion around that in New Zealand.
Short answer, do you like the idea of nuclear energy
in New Zealand? Poor? No, Why.
Speaker 5 (24:58):
Because we've got renewable energy sources that we should be harnessing,
and I don't think we're making enough of the sun
and the wind at the moment, all the tides, and
so I think there are much better, much better and
cheaper options. And I agree with the Australians. The Australians
have built three nuclear reactors. There are all four research purposes.
They've never generated electricity in Australia from nuclear the UK has,
(25:20):
and I would understand why they want to continue. But
why should a country that doesn't have a nuclear industry
designed to create electricity then choose at this point to
go into it.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
What do you reckon, Joy Well, I actually have an
opposing view. I mean, I think we are very lucky
in New Zealand to have the availability of renewable energy
that we have. Australia it has renewable energy, but not
to the same degree. And I think with today's technology,
whether or not that could be one hundred percent renewable,
I would be surprised without a massive over engineering in
terms of having capacity to have a steady available electricity source,
(25:55):
which is what we just simply demand. And I think
this is they're making an ideological decision and they're missing
out on the potential of really genuine, you know, skills
transferred building up industries. I am not pro nuclear energy, however,
it is an energy source that I don't think should
be dismissed. And in New Zealand we're lucky to be able.
(26:17):
We're in a position where we can dismiss it, well, I.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Think hundreds of thousands of tons of coal as well,
aren't we that that headline is kind of keep popping
up every year because it's great. We actually it's amazing
the amount of renewable resources, but when it fails, we
pumped the carbon out because.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
There's no tomorrow electricity the whole time. We're not going
to accept the fact it just drops out for a
day or so.
Speaker 5 (26:39):
And why did sorry, why did the government can the
Lake Onslow project? There are there were, there were plans
in the making that were designed to increase our capability
in this area, and there's been a lot of work
done in central Otago. Why why why did they can?
Speaker 2 (26:57):
It? Wasn't it just the massive amount of investment, Yes
it would, and I couldn't. I don't have that sort
of memory for it. But I'm for a lot of
people saying that was again.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
That was an ideological position rather than a decision made
for reasons of energy security or.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
Yeah. I look, that does lead on to another question,
but look, I'm not closed minded to the idea of
nuclear It's probably is going to come cheaper. But I
think it's weird that people ideologically sort of can be
opposed to it when in fact it is also potentially
an incredibly green solution.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
It's a zero emission solution. And again I'm not saying, yeah,
there's no downside. We all know the downside.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
But here's the question for you, just on the nuclear thing.
I've maybe there was a time when New Zealand was
really tied to its nuclear free status, and there's this
political ideology which would be the reason some people are going, no,
we can't have nuclear energy. But on the whole nuclear thing,
I just I've raised it a couple of times on
talk back, and a few years ago would have got
(28:02):
a different response. But recently I said, what if do
you care about our new clear free status about whether
ships come in and all that sort of stuff? And
I probably got about one person who cared about it. Still,
where are they are a lot more sort of either
sanguine or what do you think? Are you still hinged
to our nuclear free status when it comes to ships?
And of course our Australians are going to be having
nuclear subs. Are we going to say keep away? And
all that?
Speaker 5 (28:22):
I don't know, I am because it reflects our multilateral status.
We are out there to try and help in a
multilateral sense in terms of foreign policy. So it was
a statement in seventies and that, you know, when we
sent the ship to Murrooa, and then of course the
ship here in Auckland and the protest, the American ship
here in the protest. So it was a moment in
(28:44):
New Zealand history. I wondered tim whether or not there
isn't an age split in some of this, that there
are people that don't know, that don't care any longer.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Yeah, what about you, Joe.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
I When I was growing up, I was very proud
of that. I thought that was a position New Zealand took.
I felt we took it against the world and we
spoke to the world. And I think we've got a
big response from it. And I guess maybe my position
is changing a bit. I don't I wouldn't really thrill
to see nuclear powerships come here. But I begin to
(29:19):
think the situation is more complicated than just saying yes
or no.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Oh yeah, absolutely, but this is talkback. We like to
simplify thanks to a yes and.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
And for another hour.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
I'd like to think this is why we have emeritus
professors in here, so they can offer a nuanced point
of view, and of course yourself too, Joe and I
like to think I can be nuanced from time to time. Anyway,
we will be back in just a moment. This is
the panel on News Talk said B Joe mccarell and
Paul Spoonley and I guess we're going to have a
chat next about the well one of the boys from
the boot camp trial has been rearrested, but does that
(29:55):
mean it's all failure. We have a chat about that,
and also the if one star who has held up
at the airport in Texas for many hours. I think
the mistake he made was that he went through customs
in his pajamas. But that simple Google search and he
could have been released. But we'll talk about that in
just a moment. It is twenty to four News Talk SEDB.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
When it comes to the collective, it's all about you
The Weekend Collective with Tim Bebridge News Talk Sibby.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This is the panel,
my guest Joe mccarell and Paul Spirnley. By the way,
Ashley Church joining us for the one roof radio show
shortly after four o'clock, talking about the best methods of
selling your house. Now, guys, there's a couple of questions
that come out of this story. There's one of the
boys who went to the in quotation marks boot camps
has been arrested and is going to face a bunch
(30:57):
of charges. Of course, the opposition are going to seize
on this as a failure, but of course there's no
guarantee of success. What's your impression, Paul on the boot
camp saw the millet and well, let's come up with
a new name for them for a start.
Speaker 5 (31:10):
What are you suggesting to Ah, Well, you.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Can't call them rehabilitation camps, which is what we discussed.
That sounds very George.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
Orwell, it sounds sort of MENTI.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
I don't know. I haven't got one yet. But the
Children's Commissioner visited and apparently there were several She actually
mentioned that she didn't think that the military style sort
of comparisons were apt from what she saw. What do
you reckon?
Speaker 5 (31:32):
Well, I actually took some notice of the previous camps
as they were, and some of them worked and some didn't.
It actually depended upon the approach and some of them, certainly.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Oh, I'm just saying, don't sneak away from your mind
if I'm too much there, Paul, thank.
Speaker 5 (31:49):
You, thank you. And some of them took a very
inclusive approach and worked with the worked with the kids
that were there. These are troubled kids. I would have
loved to have seen the government explore other options. Outward Bound,
for example, outward Bound does superb job in terms of
troubled youth and helping kids find their identity and and
(32:13):
getting back on track. So I just wonder whether it
was a to use Joe's term before a dog whistle
during an election campaign. I actually think there are a
range of alternatives which should have been explored. One person
does not make a failure make a failure, and so
(32:33):
what I want to see is a very clear process
whereby the success or otherwise of these is evaluated. As
of day one, we've got to know that they were
to be honest, if.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
It turned around five lives out of the ten, considering
what those lives can go on and the cost of
society because they're not going there because they've just been
caught lifting a packet of jelly beans.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
This isn't someone stole a loaf of bread to feed
the hungry family. You know, these are young people who
committing serious crimes and if there is a way to
open up other potential part forward for them, I am
one hundred percent poet because the cost of society which
will be you know, will continue to grow exponentially over
the course of their lives, you know. But I I
(33:19):
mean there's a lot of noise about the boot camps.
I mean I'd be interested to see the data breakdown
of who used the term boot camp? More is it
the coalition government always at the opposition, like where is that?
Where is that optics about it being a military style
camp coming from? As you say, it's not what the
Children's Commission.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
All the words I can come up with all have
a different connotation, like an intervention sort of camp or
something sounds like you've got a drinking problem, or the
going straight camp. I don't know. I can't think the
rehabilitation sort of camp. I mean that sounds Allwellian, but
it all sounds Allwellian.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
I think the Ministry for Future Efficiencies sounds so Awellian.
How about the I mean I think that is in.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
All wall What about if they used to collect real expression?
And I'll watch my language, but sortcha s h one
t out campus. I don't know. It's almost like we
need some unstructured keiw.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
I think you're right. I think that should be opened
up to like a public competition where you know, it's something.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Like laser ki gather kids, laser key, we camp, remember
the flag laser Kwi.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
I like it.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Look another thing I just wanted to touch on before
we head to the brake. I don't know if you
guys follow the F one, the fact that Liam Lawson,
as a young New Zealander, is looking like he might
get a Red Bull contract. I started watching Drive to Survive.
I am right. I never cared about the F one
at all. I didn't understand. Now I'm right into it.
Speaker 5 (34:42):
It doesn't Drive to Survive brilliant it is. It's fantastic.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
I find it riveting because it's also about these teams
striving to just get that millisecond of speed, and the
and the pursuit of excellence and the ruthless decision making
and everything.
Speaker 5 (34:55):
Yeah, and now Liam's right up there. I mean the
way he's been sort of poking the box at some
of the other drivers. He's got, He's got an approach
and a half that that one.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Yeah, I think the talk about decision making the reason
we're talking about it, and I said text or something.
In Vegas, Yukid Sonoda is a driver who was interrogated
for three hours by US border officials. He narrowly avoided
being denied entry. I don't know he had all his
had all his papers, had his visa. But I think
his mistake was that, you know, he was in business
(35:26):
class or first class in his pajamas, and he went
through customs and his pajamas.
Speaker 4 (35:30):
And I do not think you should go through I
do not think you should go to pack and save
in your pajamas either, and a lot of people do.
But this does sound like there's something more going on.
I mean, he could have said I'm an F one driver,
and the customs officer could have I think he did
say he was an F one driver, at which point
they could have looked him up on their phone.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Look and as lot as password. It's like here for
the Las Vegas F one, my name's Yuki Sonoda, Google me,
and I imagine they were like, I think that he
obviously did something to alienate them.
Speaker 5 (36:01):
Yeah, but Joe, I suspect if he's he's come out
of first class systems. Is he's not going to be
in a onesie with a with a tiger pattern, is he?
I mean, he's.
Speaker 4 (36:10):
My imagination because that we haven't able to find any
pictures online. He's wearing little race car pajamas with because
he's a racing car driver. Does that makes sense to me?
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Possibly? Yeah? I mean you probably travel first class all
the time as an emeritus professor.
Speaker 4 (36:25):
D't with your other ameriiti, what sort of slacks do
you wear?
Speaker 5 (36:29):
I just I just wear my jeans. Thank you to him,
But I'm just intrigued by this. I'd love to see
if there's a photo of what these pajamas look like online.
And do you stop somebody coming in from a country
because they wear pajamas?
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Actually, To be honest, I think if anyone's going to
look sloppy, it's the people in first class. They are
the ones who make the least effort because they've got
nothing to prove. It's like I'm turning left when I
get on and whatever I mean standards. It's interesting there
used to be a time when the glamour of travel
and people to dress up and dress like there were
Those days are gone, you know, whereas now it's crocs,
(37:08):
pajamas or trucks.
Speaker 4 (37:10):
I actually do think that clothes and pajamas are getting
closer and closer together. The lot between them is more
and more blue.
Speaker 5 (37:18):
Tim, what have you got against crocs?
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Uh? I don't think you'd wear them to wouldn't You don't.
They're not dressing to impress.
Speaker 5 (37:26):
You've seen crocs lately. The crocs are going really up market.
They be fancy, They be fancy?
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Really? Could I wear them with my tucks?
Speaker 4 (37:34):
You put the little put the little charms on them.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
If anyone wears crocs in Parliament, I.
Speaker 4 (37:40):
Actually think someone more than in the red carpet.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
The other day they Wow, that didn't surprise me anyway.
We're going to come back in just a moment to
discuss how much a scoop of ship chips should cost,
because that is the big issue and we've been holding
it to last. So we'll be back in just a
moment nine minutes before yess, Welcome back to the Weekend Collective.
This is the panel. Umpton Beverage. Joe mccarell and Paul
Spurnley are my guests. The outrage where a four dollars
(38:07):
and fifty scoop of chips. Somebody worked out that was
a total of thirty four chips, averaging out to be
just over thirteen cents a chip. Sounds shocking? Is it shocking,
Joe mccaroll.
Speaker 4 (38:18):
What I think is shocking, Tim Beverage is these people
who go online as keyboard warriors to complain about a business.
If you have a problem with somewhere that you have
ordered food, if you think serving too small and too expensive,
freely option to you is just not to go again,
to vote with your wallet. I don't have a lot
(38:40):
of time for these people who go online. And this
woman who doesn't want to be named herself, and that
is her right, but she's making a complaint about a
real person's real business. I think hospital is doing it
tough right now. The owner has said they weigh the portions.
It looked like there were some big chips in that serving.
If you have a problem with it, you should have
gone to the owner. I think going online it's.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Yeah, I'm actually good on you, Joe. What do you reckon?
Speaker 5 (39:07):
Paul? And No, I agree with Joe. I didn't anticipate that,
but I would. But I do think that you know
when you're paying for chips. The quality and the number
is important. So I would pay four dollars fifty for
a good bunch of high quality, tasty chips.
Speaker 2 (39:23):
Here's the thing. If you break down anything you like
into mouthfuls, and let's say a chip, a couple of
chips to a mouthful. If you have a pie and
a piees cost you six seven eight dollars. How many
mouthfuls is that? Twenty fifteen, ten mouthfuls depending on how
so it's probably forty cents a byte. I mean most food,
if you buy it, break it down to per bite,
(39:44):
it's pretty expensive. So I'm sort of I think that
Actually it's the quality of the chips. Yes, And if
that chip is thirteen cents for that particular per chip,
and it's a good bunch of chips, And what did
you say, Paul? You were a thirty double fried? Ye? Double?
I mean it's worth every penny.
Speaker 5 (40:00):
But do you think Joe's story, isn't it?
Speaker 4 (40:03):
I think a really great fish and chips. I'd happily
pay for fifty for skipt chips. And if the owner said,
you know, weigh them and this is what you get,
I'd accept that. And if I wasn't happy I wouldn't
go there again because that is completely up to me.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
I'm still trying to cancel a business. Good on you,
Joe McCarroll and look, hey, thanks guys. Time is flowing
this hour. Paul Spindley, Joe McCarroll. And by the way,
if you are looking for something to stuff in your stocking,
the New Zealand Gardener eightieth anniversary issue and also November
is out. It's a beautiful looking thing. I'm going to
have to give one to Paul Job, but we'll work
that out after the MIC's go off. Okay, just in
(40:37):
Cass it comes to fifty cups. Thanks so much for
your time, guys. Astley Chops is next with the one
where've Radio shared. This is News Talk said B.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
For more from the weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk SEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks edb.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Weindow that.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Lady said, and a very good afternoon to you, Tim
Beverage with you.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
This is the Weekend Collective on today, Saturday, the twenty
third of November. Looking forward to your company. Just shortly,
I'll be interviewing, I'll be introducing my panel, but looking
a little further ahead to the show for the one
Roof Property out Run Roof One Roof Radio show. Should
I say actually? Church joins us. We're going to talk
about the best methods of sale for your home because
obviously when the market's going gangbusters, everyone's like, oh we
(00:59):
must go auction, auction, auction. I have to say, I
don't think I look at a house that was a tender.
But we're going to talk about how do you sell
your home and what's the method you should use. Five
o'clock The Parents Squad Holly Brooker joins us. We're talking
about talking about nest and the whole empty nest syndrome.
But when should you actually sort of help your children
out of the nest? When is it time to move out?
(01:20):
Eighteen forty three anything in between eight one hundred and
eighty ten eighty will be taking a course you can
text any time. We're wrapping sport with Dean Midlachlin as
well shortly before the show ends. By the way, that
I wish that I was had Jesse's Girl does tend
to portray that my very young producer Tira has slightly
more mature taste than her age would suggest, given I
(01:42):
don't know what she is. She's somewhere in her early
mid twenties, I think, But anyway, I love a good
song to open the show with. Now time introduce my
panel first. She is editor of New Zealand Gardener magazine
and by the way, has brought me a very attractive addition.
It's the eightieth anniversary issue of New Zealand Gardener, and
(02:04):
she's also brought me the current the one from November
as well, So I'm I'm already for the gardening. I
just need to get the weeds out first.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
Joe McCarroll, Hello, Hello, How are you Taboo?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Where does tickety boo come from?
Speaker 4 (02:18):
I believe I literally said that last time I was here,
and we had the same conversation, and I'm sure a
listener texted it in. But you and I and we
got and we've both forgotten. Tyra is in the age
range where she could legitimately live at home. I don't
know if she does this, but that's the.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Old She is a young woman with a child and
quite a significant mortgage.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
I've shared on this Hi, Tya, doing well for yourself. Yes,
eighty years, she's not old enough to remember. And you
still on gardener starting because.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Who is eighty years?
Speaker 4 (02:45):
Eighty years? Eighty years this year? And we thought to
mark the significant annivers who would go back into the archives,
because I find those archives are just so fascinating, you know,
the stories, the pictures, the even things like the ads
and the recipes and the letters to the eddit I
don't really paint a picture like a social history. And
so we're telling the history of gardening in New Zealand
(03:06):
as told through the New Zealand Gardener Archive.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
So look for it wherever you get your where you
get your magazines.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
So make a lovely Christmas present, just thinking, wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
It a nice little stocking fellow, absolutely stopping for.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
The gardeners in your life.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
There we go and coveting it right now. Actually, in fact,
I think he's feeling a little left out is emeritus
professor and sociologist Paul Spoonley.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
I am feeling very left out because you are, in
fact a gardener.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
How keen are you?
Speaker 5 (03:35):
I've spent about six hours in the garden today.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Jo, I'm going to have to give him one of mine,
aren't I? I mean he's been six hours.
Speaker 4 (03:44):
In the gardens hours I mean too tired to read
a magazine at this point.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Okay, Well, if you're a little slow on the uptake
today for the topics, we'll just put it down to
six hours of gardening. Emeritus does sound very flash, doesn't it.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
It does. It's one of those weird, weird terms that
we inherited from the UK meaning lesson for retired.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Yeah, because it sounds much flasher than retired, doesn't it?
Speaker 5 (04:12):
So you thinking it doesn't apply to me?
Speaker 2 (04:14):
To you, you seem like a very you see emeritus,
very You looked very distinguished, should I say? And I think, Look,
I'll have to think about whether whether we let him
have one of these to take home, shouldn't I? Joe? Anyway,
let's get into the panel. Firstly, the Ukraine Russia conflict, Well,
(04:37):
I mean the question is whether it's going global. Putin
says that that it's going global, but of course he
does like to talk it up. He said the West
should think carefully. They've fired a medium range hypersonic missile,
and he's talked about it going global. He's big with
the threats. I sort of be honest with your I
sort of, apart from hating his guts, I sort of
(05:00):
ignore the rhetoric because it's it's typical sort of bully
is stuff. But what do you make of Paul.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Well, I'm in two minds, Tim. I think we're entering
It feels like we're entering a new stage. So they've
gone a long range but with conventional warheads, and so
is this the moment where they start and think about
using nuclear I don't know. The other thing I think
that's happening is that they're beginning to anticipate Trump's arrival
(05:27):
in the White House, and it's just looking at an
endgame and trying to to jockey for position prior to
that twentieth of January.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
I think that that is hitting up on the head.
What do you think, Joven say?
Speaker 4 (05:40):
I would agree, I would agree completely. I mean, I
think this was attempting to send a message and if
you think of this as sending a message, what were
you know, all the other missiles previously about. But they're
trying to send the message that it could be nuclear,
and that is just an optics thing. And I think
Potent and the Ukraine they both want to control the
narrative about how this is perceived in the West, and
(06:04):
that's not to advocate for Putin, but it's both of
them trying to tell the story of what is happening.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Well, I mean, I always think it's quite simple. It's
like get out of Ukraine. I mean, he talks about
of the West invade within that part of the war
as well, and they're escalating us like, sorry, you escalated
things as soon as you cross there.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
There's no logic at all. It's absolutely all about Putin's
hurt ego and maybe some kind of you know, bad
feelings about the Cold War, which they were in fact
the agent of. So you know, absolutely agree, get out
of Ukraine. But I think it's got to the point
now where they're jockeying to have the optics right when
they get to the negotiation table. And I hope, genuinely
(06:48):
hope that happens soon because this war should end.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
It's three years in counting. I mean, it's a huge,
huge cost to both countries.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Now eighteen percent of territory Russia has now of Ukraine.
And look, I think Ukraine is probably going to concede something,
but I don't know what that's going to be. I
think the one that's going to be the sticking block
when they hit the negotiations is whether they join NATO
or not. And I who knows what's going to happen,
but whether Trump can or can out do the deal.
(07:19):
And I'm not a huge fan of his, but his
unpredictability in a way, and his cabinet of TV stars,
maybe he'll pull it off. I'm I'm backing Trump to
do this because we all need it, tab don't we?
Slight Secuay.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
But in terms of Trump's various appointments, when doctor Oz
was appointed, somebody I saw posted online and they said,
this is not the odds we are celebrating this week,
And someone said, yeah, Workd's promotional budget is insane.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Of course, of course Wicked and the Land of Oz. Actually,
do you think do you think that Trump's going to
get the deal done when he eventually becomes president.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Paul Trump point two two point zero, two point zero.
It is really hard to see get yes, isn't it.
I mean, we're all sitting here Tom thinking is he
going to abide by the things he said during the
election campaign? The appointments we're still puzzling about. And then
(08:18):
what's the what's the end game for him? Is it retribution?
Is it going to get back to you know, get
back at some people and some organizations and some government departments.
It's really hard to know.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I think probably will. I think he's going to follow
through with a few things. And Elon Musk has a
department of efficiency with the other guy who I've forgotten,
Vic Cram never mind, I won't remember his name. But anyway,
we won't talk too much about it. But do you
think he's do you think he'll be able to sort out?
Do you think he will have better luck at securing
some sort of deal with Ukraine?
Speaker 4 (08:52):
I mean, I think unpredictable is the word to use,
because Trump has surprised, certainly me many times the election
the chain of events. But I do not hold out
great hope that he will bring both sides to the
table and bring this complicated conflict to a close. That
(09:17):
benefits both the people of Ukraine and the people of Russia.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
And can I just add a footnote to it, I
think Putin is a really cunning politician and put them
in the room together. I think Putin's going to come
out on the winning side, that might be, That would
be my conception.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Well, so I think the person will come out in
the losing side of the Voladimir Zelensky. Yes, but they
still have to get him to agree to things, which
is why I think probably Biden's given him permission to
use those medium range missiles far too late, of course,
and of course he's got England's what is storm shadow
missiles and things they fired. It does feel like they're
all ustling for positions. So maybe they can sit there
(09:54):
because I mean, prolonged wars not in anyone's interests in it,
and I'm pretty sure it's not really Imputin's interests. There
must be a point where is it. There must be
a point where.
Speaker 5 (10:03):
You know, I agree with Joe. I think I this
is the Cold War playing out even further, and Putin's
trying to expand the boundaries of Russia. So in the
way that he took Crimea, he's now CRIMEA. He's now
looking to take Ukraine, so eighteen percent. Is he going
to be happy with that? I'm not sure. I just
(10:24):
don't know.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
Well, the losers are the population of Ukraine and the
population of Russia who are dying so needlessly, so pointlessly
in a jockeying war of hurt ego, and I think
that is despicable. In the center, it ends the better.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
I wonder what the thinking is within that, the people
who know more about the Joint chiefs of Staff and
the military advisors to Putin's rhetoric, because it's not I mean,
the threatening of the nuclear war. I tend to think
that just the more he talks about it, I don't know.
I just I think he undermines his own credibility because
what is it, mutually assured destruction?
Speaker 4 (10:59):
I mean, well, he also runs the risk this idea
of nuclear proliferation. I mean, if a lot of other
powers get nukes, I think it really undermines any kind
of power Russia has to kind of put on the table.
You know, once we have nukes, that another range of
unstable countries.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Oh well, let's hope run don't get them anyway, Happy days. Anyway,
I think it's a bit like the whole Trump thing
in the States. I sort of just leave them to
it and keep my fingers crossed. That's my foreign policy anyway. Now,
look the new police commissioner. There are chambers who's he's
been announced, and it looks like he's getting straight into
(11:42):
his work. What do you reckon, Joe Oh.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
I think so far he seems to have quitted himself
pretty well. I mean, he had to face a really
curly question about arming police, which is a very difficult
and nuanced question that I think tends to be reduced
to a binary. But I think he has very real
tactical experience. I think when you at what he's done
(12:06):
with Interpol, it's at a very senior level and it
appears to have been very successful, and I hope he
can navigate that quite sometimes quite tricky water of managing
the relationships with governments, the relationships with a coalition government,
in particular the optics around it, which sometimes seem just
as important as the reality of it. Yeah, but I
think so far, in the few days he's been in
(12:27):
the seat.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
He's pretty popular frontline police. Of my very small poll
of people I know in the police, but I've got
a maid of mine who says, look, the frontline police
just love them.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
Yes, And can I declare something here, Tom, I work
for the previous commissioner and I'm still working for the
police in various roles, oh, goody, thank you and so no. No,
I mean, I'm in awe of the New Zealand Police.
I think the New Zealand Police do a really good
job and they've got some really smart people at the top.
I don't know Richard Chambers personally, but I've got a
(13:00):
trust in the process of appointment, and you know, when
I look at the can they're really good. So I'm
you know, I'm like Joe. I'm thinking he's I think
he's going to be okay.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Yeah, A lot of people like to have a crack
at costa. I don't. I thought there was a time
when I might have been a bit critical of him,
but he also seemed to sort of step to the
position that the new government the expectations that outlined. I
didn't think he was particularly bad police commissioner, you know,
And as much as people wanted to paint him smart guy,
(13:31):
I mean cruel nicknames, the lantern, things like that Cuddle's Coster.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
Yeah, yeah, but no, I agree with you and I
in my personal relations I found them excellent to deal with.
And what struck me as somebody who's come in to
work for the police over the last couple of years
is how political the whole arena is. You know, you're
getting scrutinized by everybody, You're being criticized by everybody, and
(13:56):
you know, I would find it really difficult to be
the Commission of the New Zealand Police. It is a
really tough gig.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
What sort of work do you have to do with him?
Speaker 5 (14:04):
Or is there all hush hush, No, No, it's it's
not hushush. I perform a number of roles, but I've
been I've been helping the police with some of their
policy and research advice. So, I mean, Andy Costa was
really keen on finding out, you know, what the evidence
was for different policies inside the police and so I
(14:25):
help them with that. And there's fifteen thousand people, it's
a really key part of New Zealand society and I
was happy to help.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
I tell you, what's a good paypacket if you're the
police Comission, isn't it? Joe? It's about seven hundred something thousand. Really, yeah,
he's the highest played civil servant in the country. I
can't still can't get my head around that. Look good
luck to him, but it does seem I would say.
Speaker 4 (14:46):
You'd probably probably I mean, that's a lot of money,
but you would probably earn it. I agree with you
a lot, Paul. I mean, I think when you're just
being criticized by everyone, yeah, you might sometimes think I'd
earn a lot less.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
And at least noise. Sorry, Joe, but the gig is
a short one. You don't have commissioners hanging around for
long time, so I guess you've got to get in.
But I think you deserve something like that.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Oh well, that's very kind of you. I'll next play negotiation.
I'll see if I see how that goes down.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
A lot of money. Why I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
I did. I did some research on what police commissioners
get around in England and in New York. But the
New York Police commission imagine how big that job is.
I think his salary from recollection was around a couple
of hundred thousand bucks US. In fact, the US Supreme
Court judges don't actually get paid as much as you
think either they are on two or three hundred thousand
a year, which we're talking about the highest court in
(15:40):
the United States. Somebody said to me, it's so the
police commissioner's corruption proof. I'm not sure. I'm quite but
it is a hell of a lot of money, isn't it.
It is Prime Minister's on about four hundred thousand. I
know how much would it how much? How much I
don't think we'll go on to how much would it
cost to for any either of us to sacrifice our
(16:01):
integrity in terms of, you know, if we were in
that position, let's not go there. But I don't know
why I mentioned it. Hey, the gang patch bans coming
to effect this week. They've been nine arrested. I see
there was a fun headline that said there were three
people done by lunchtime. I did notice that one of
the things the police did, which I thought was great,
was before it came into power into effect, they had
(16:24):
meetings with as many gang leaders around the country. And
that's one of the things that Richard Chambers has talked
about is communication. So whether or not you agree with
the law, guys, girls, this is what we're going to
be doing. What do you think of the gang patch
ban and the way it's they're getting into their work.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Well, I was interested to see some analysis of the
situation in Australia where this is modeled on the law
that was introduced in certain Australia states, and they said
it had meant that the gang patch was less visible
in those states like it absolutely had worked in that way,
but crime numbers had not fallen in any way. And
(17:00):
at that point I think you have to say that
law is not effective. It is simply dog with the
law aiming to attract a certain caliber of voter.
Speaker 5 (17:12):
I gone to no where you go, well no, no,
I agree. So the public, the public use of gang
patches is intimidating and so you're addressing that particular issue.
Are you reducing the gang numbers and offending and there
is no evidence to suggest that it would. Will gangs
(17:33):
continue what they're doing? Almost probably? I think there's a
big issue with the five oh ones. So Australia has
been exporting it's gang problem to New Zealand, which has
really changed both the numbers but also how gangs operate
in New Zealand, which is an issue that we need
to deal with. And will gang members react. And I
was at the hecor the other day and saw some
(17:55):
of the new gang insignia. So there's going to be
a bit of a bit of a tussle. I think,
are they going to keep redesigning where they are and.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
Using colors, which of course gangs already do and they're.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
Allowed to do, which is completely it's legal.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Look, I think I've sort of about fifty to fifty
on it, which is not the sort of position should
really take and talk about radio, but I'm sort of
pro if it makes people feel less intimidated in public spaces,
if it contributes to that sense, than fine. I tend
to think that it's not really going to achieve very much.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
I'm a little worried it's going to contribute to the
sense of things feeling safer while making things in no
way safer. And I'd rather.
Speaker 5 (18:35):
Think, and I want to say something on behalf of
our police here. If you get a large gang congregation
with hundreds wearing the patches, it's going to put the
police in a really difficult situation. And Paul Basham, who's
the Assistant commission who's been fronting a lot of this,
has said that the safety of the police is going
(18:56):
to have to be one of the important aspects they're
going to consider. So you know, you can just see
gangs trying to whine to put the police up, and.
Speaker 4 (19:08):
That's adversarial position. And again I'm not an apologist for
you know, the gangs are criminal organizations. But if you
commit crime, you can be you can be arrested for it.
Because crimes are against the law. You don't need another law.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
No, Look, that's I don't I don't mind them having
another tool at their disposal to make life uncomfortable for
the gangs. But I don't think it's going to make
much of a difference. It was funny enough. There was
also the freedom of speech issue and expression, but that's
why it's it is just a it's a strange one.
But look, I think in terms of enforcing it, though,
the police are making a first impression, and first impressions count.
(19:42):
If they hadn't cracked down it on day number one,
the law could have easily become a complete dog. But
instead they're going right gang pats, boom boom bomb. I
mean they have been.
Speaker 5 (19:52):
But as you've arrests, as you've pointed out to there's
been a huge investment in training up the police and
in communicating with the gangs themselves.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
Yeah, and that's that's all about good policing. So let's
see how it plays out anyway, but it probably won't
make a large difference to things, exceptably less sexy to
wear it in public from time to time. It is
twenty six and a half past three. News Talk said B.
We'll be back with the panel in just a moment, helping.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
You get on top of your busy life. Tim Beveridge
on the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
News Talk said B, Yes, and welcome back to the
Weekend Collective. This is the panel. I'm Tim Beverage. My
guests that Joe McCarrell and Paul Spoonley. I'm going to
ask you guys to dust off your engineering credentials, which
(20:40):
could be non existent I guess, but there's a case
for I just like the fact we look at different
options for things because of course all our roads are
tas or asphalt or whatever. But there's been a case
for concrete roads launched in Waikato. So there's an economic
report that shows concrete roads are well suited for high
intensity traffic, more cost effective in the long run. It's
(21:04):
worth pointing out, and so there's been a case made
for concrete roads. I think I've seen them in it
in LA and the States have got quite a few
concrete highways. Now, who wants to have first got this one? Joe,
you looked at your Pauls looked away at you.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
So we're going to go to Actually, I'm the daughter
of an engineer and one of my sisters is an engineer.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
So I feel excellent. I've got you should have told
me that before we got into a questioning whether would
have an informed opinion.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
I wouldn't say I had a particularly informed opinion, but
I do. I do think this report. I mean it
is by the industry, the concrete industry.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
Infametrics have done it, and infan Metrics are a good
research organization.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
Commit but you commission if you feel like that you
know the industry that are funding it, and that that
doesn't undermine the research. I mean, I think there's there's
there's I think concrete should be considered in some situations,
not all situations. I think you know, there's very clear
info in c TA put out which shows that you know,
it's difficult to access if you have to get to
(22:01):
services underneath because you pretty much have to, you know,
dig it all up again. And of course we're a
seismically active country, so.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
That's my reservation. Geologically, we shift around a lot more
and when concrete cracks, whereas tarsil And it's quite funny
the road that where I live and the tarsial almost
is like liquid. You can see where it's just sort
of bubbled to the side of the road and I'm like,
I'm not sure about the substrate there, but poor what
do you think?
Speaker 5 (22:27):
Well, I was I heard this on the car radio
when I was coming back on the Way Kato Expressway.
What is it about New Zealand roads that a brand
new expressway has broken up so quickly? Have you been
down the expressway lately? No, it's a nightmare. You're down
to one lane in either direction. The road surface is
a mess. They're having to completely redo it. So I
(22:48):
think there's an issue in terms of the quality of
our roads, our new roads that are being made, and
if they're seventeen percent cheaper, which is what this research suggests.
And then let's have a look at that we have
had concrete roads after the nineteen thirty one nap earthquake.
Now put in concrete roads, and the weird thing was
they were done in patches, so every so often you go,
(23:08):
don I.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Know, from traveling on the American roads, there's noisy, there's
that donk dog dog dog dog. I actually think we
have concrete roads around Talanga. Now I'm sure, listener, we'll tax.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
But now I'm thinking about there's no concrete roads somewhere
around on Birkenhead, around the north.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
Like I said that, I think there will be some
places where that is the best choice. But we should
be looking at the right choice for the situation, based
on the traffic and based on the roading situation that
we're trying to address. And I think we also should
be looking at whether or not we are putting in
roads to the standard that we need to, because I
don't know where we're falling short. But I would agree
with you, Paul, they're just they're not good enough. I've
(23:45):
drive down that Why how To Expressway quite often to
my parents were in Hamilton, and it is really piecemeal
that that road, which is brand new in terms of roads.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Yeah, actually the Greens should love it because apparently they
reduced carbon in the atmosphere. I don't know the figures
on how much. But somebody my producer was telling me
about I thought she was actually joking about hemp roads
or something, but it's some sort of manufit. I don't
know whether she is pulling my leg on it, but
apparently this is the Greens would have loved that one.
Speaker 5 (24:20):
Anyway.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Yeah, I'd like back to slot something. I guess we
can tie this. And because the argument around nuclear energy
is one that also is something that's supposed to be
a lot greener than other forms of energy production. But
the federal government in Australia's declined to join a pact
with the UK and US which is about accelerating the
(24:43):
development of civilian nuclear energy, and we've been having a
little bit of a discussion around that in New Zealand.
Short answer, do you like the idea of nuclear energy
in New Zealand? Poor? No, Why.
Speaker 5 (24:58):
Because we've got renewable energy sources that we should be harnessing,
and I don't think we're making enough of the sun
and the wind at the moment, all the tides, and
so I think there are much better, much better and
cheaper options. And I agree with the Australians. The Australians
have built three nuclear reactors. There are all four research purposes.
They've never generated electricity in Australia from nuclear the UK has,
(25:20):
and I would understand why they want to continue. But
why should a country that doesn't have a nuclear industry
designed to create electricity then choose at this point to
go into it.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
What do you reckon, Joy Well, I actually have an
opposing view. I mean, I think we are very lucky
in New Zealand to have the availability of renewable energy
that we have. Australia it has renewable energy, but not
to the same degree. And I think with today's technology,
whether or not that could be one hundred percent renewable,
I would be surprised without a massive over engineering in
terms of having capacity to have a steady available electricity source,
(25:55):
which is what we just simply demand. And I think
this is they're making an ideological decision and they're missing
out on the potential of really genuine, you know, skills
transferred building up industries. I am not pro nuclear energy, however,
it is an energy source that I don't think should
be dismissed. And in New Zealand we're lucky to be able.
(26:17):
We're in a position where we can dismiss it, well, I.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Think hundreds of thousands of tons of coal as well,
aren't we that that headline is kind of keep popping
up every year because it's great. We actually it's amazing
the amount of renewable resources, but when it fails, we
pumped the carbon out because.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
There's no tomorrow electricity the whole time. We're not going
to accept the fact it just drops out for a
day or so.
Speaker 5 (26:39):
And why did sorry, why did the government can the
Lake Onslow project? There are there were, there were plans
in the making that were designed to increase our capability
in this area, and there's been a lot of work
done in central Otago. Why why why did they can?
Speaker 2 (26:57):
It? Wasn't it just the massive amount of investment, Yes
it would, and I couldn't. I don't have that sort
of memory for it. But I'm for a lot of
people saying that was again.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
That was an ideological position rather than a decision made
for reasons of energy security or.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
Yeah. I look, that does lead on to another question,
but look, I'm not closed minded to the idea of
nuclear It's probably is going to come cheaper. But I
think it's weird that people ideologically sort of can be
opposed to it when in fact it is also potentially
an incredibly green solution.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
It's a zero emission solution. And again I'm not saying, yeah,
there's no downside. We all know the downside.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
But here's the question for you, just on the nuclear thing.
I've maybe there was a time when New Zealand was
really tied to its nuclear free status, and there's this
political ideology which would be the reason some people are going, no,
we can't have nuclear energy. But on the whole nuclear thing,
I just I've raised it a couple of times on
talk back, and a few years ago would have got
(28:02):
a different response. But recently I said, what if do
you care about our new clear free status about whether
ships come in and all that sort of stuff? And
I probably got about one person who cared about it. Still,
where are they are a lot more sort of either
sanguine or what do you think? Are you still hinged
to our nuclear free status when it comes to ships?
And of course our Australians are going to be having
nuclear subs. Are we going to say keep away? And
all that?
Speaker 5 (28:22):
I don't know, I am because it reflects our multilateral status.
We are out there to try and help in a
multilateral sense in terms of foreign policy. So it was
a statement in seventies and that, you know, when we
sent the ship to Murrooa, and then of course the
ship here in Auckland and the protest, the American ship
here in the protest. So it was a moment in
(28:44):
New Zealand history. I wondered tim whether or not there
isn't an age split in some of this, that there
are people that don't know, that don't care any longer.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Yeah, what about you, Joe.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
I When I was growing up, I was very proud
of that. I thought that was a position New Zealand took.
I felt we took it against the world and we
spoke to the world. And I think we've got a
big response from it. And I guess maybe my position
is changing a bit. I don't I wouldn't really thrill
to see nuclear powerships come here. But I begin to
(29:19):
think the situation is more complicated than just saying yes
or no.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Oh yeah, absolutely, but this is talkback. We like to
simplify thanks to a yes and.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
And for another hour.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
I'd like to think this is why we have emeritus
professors in here, so they can offer a nuanced point
of view, and of course yourself too, Joe and I
like to think I can be nuanced from time to time. Anyway,
we will be back in just a moment. This is
the panel on News Talk said B Joe mccarell and
Paul Spoonley and I guess we're going to have a
chat next about the well one of the boys from
the boot camp trial has been rearrested, but does that
(29:55):
mean it's all failure. We have a chat about that,
and also the if one star who has held up
at the airport in Texas for many hours. I think
the mistake he made was that he went through customs
in his pajamas. But that simple Google search and he
could have been released. But we'll talk about that in
just a moment. It is twenty to four News Talk SEDB.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
When it comes to the collective, it's all about you
The Weekend Collective with Tim Bebridge News Talk Sibby.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Welcome back to the Weekend Collective. This is the panel,
my guest Joe mccarell and Paul Spirnley. By the way,
Ashley Church joining us for the one roof radio show
shortly after four o'clock, talking about the best methods of
selling your house. Now, guys, there's a couple of questions
that come out of this story. There's one of the
boys who went to the in quotation marks boot camps
has been arrested and is going to face a bunch
(30:57):
of charges. Of course, the opposition are going to seize
on this as a failure, but of course there's no
guarantee of success. What's your impression, Paul on the boot
camp saw the millet and well, let's come up with
a new name for them for a start.
Speaker 5 (31:10):
What are you suggesting to Ah, Well, you.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Can't call them rehabilitation camps, which is what we discussed.
That sounds very George.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
Orwell, it sounds sort of MENTI.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
I don't know. I haven't got one yet. But the
Children's Commissioner visited and apparently there were several She actually
mentioned that she didn't think that the military style sort
of comparisons were apt from what she saw. What do
you reckon?
Speaker 5 (31:32):
Well, I actually took some notice of the previous camps
as they were, and some of them worked and some didn't.
It actually depended upon the approach and some of them, certainly.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Oh, I'm just saying, don't sneak away from your mind
if I'm too much there, Paul, thank.
Speaker 5 (31:49):
You, thank you. And some of them took a very
inclusive approach and worked with the worked with the kids
that were there. These are troubled kids. I would have
loved to have seen the government explore other options. Outward Bound,
for example, outward Bound does superb job in terms of
troubled youth and helping kids find their identity and and
(32:13):
getting back on track. So I just wonder whether it
was a to use Joe's term before a dog whistle
during an election campaign. I actually think there are a
range of alternatives which should have been explored. One person
does not make a failure make a failure, and so
(32:33):
what I want to see is a very clear process
whereby the success or otherwise of these is evaluated. As
of day one, we've got to know that they were
to be honest, if.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
It turned around five lives out of the ten, considering
what those lives can go on and the cost of
society because they're not going there because they've just been
caught lifting a packet of jelly beans.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
This isn't someone stole a loaf of bread to feed
the hungry family. You know, these are young people who
committing serious crimes and if there is a way to
open up other potential part forward for them, I am
one hundred percent poet because the cost of society which
will be you know, will continue to grow exponentially over
the course of their lives, you know. But I I
(33:19):
mean there's a lot of noise about the boot camps.
I mean I'd be interested to see the data breakdown
of who used the term boot camp? More is it
the coalition government always at the opposition, like where is that?
Where is that optics about it being a military style
camp coming from? As you say, it's not what the
Children's Commission.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
All the words I can come up with all have
a different connotation, like an intervention sort of camp or
something sounds like you've got a drinking problem, or the
going straight camp. I don't know. I can't think the
rehabilitation sort of camp. I mean that sounds Allwellian, but
it all sounds Allwellian.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
I think the Ministry for Future Efficiencies sounds so Awellian.
How about the I mean I think that is in.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
All wall What about if they used to collect real expression?
And I'll watch my language, but sortcha s h one
t out campus. I don't know. It's almost like we
need some unstructured keiw.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
I think you're right. I think that should be opened
up to like a public competition where you know, it's something.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Like laser ki gather kids, laser key, we camp, remember
the flag laser Kwi.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
I like it.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Look another thing I just wanted to touch on before
we head to the brake. I don't know if you
guys follow the F one, the fact that Liam Lawson,
as a young New Zealander, is looking like he might
get a Red Bull contract. I started watching Drive to Survive.
I am right. I never cared about the F one
at all. I didn't understand. Now I'm right into it.
Speaker 5 (34:42):
It doesn't Drive to Survive brilliant it is. It's fantastic.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
I find it riveting because it's also about these teams
striving to just get that millisecond of speed, and the
and the pursuit of excellence and the ruthless decision making
and everything.
Speaker 5 (34:55):
Yeah, and now Liam's right up there. I mean the
way he's been sort of poking the box at some
of the other drivers. He's got, He's got an approach
and a half that that one.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Yeah, I think the talk about decision making the reason
we're talking about it, and I said text or something.
In Vegas, Yukid Sonoda is a driver who was interrogated
for three hours by US border officials. He narrowly avoided
being denied entry. I don't know he had all his
had all his papers, had his visa. But I think
his mistake was that, you know, he was in business
(35:26):
class or first class in his pajamas, and he went
through customs and his pajamas.
Speaker 4 (35:30):
And I do not think you should go through I
do not think you should go to pack and save
in your pajamas either, and a lot of people do.
But this does sound like there's something more going on.
I mean, he could have said I'm an F one driver,
and the customs officer could have I think he did
say he was an F one driver, at which point
they could have looked him up on their phone.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Look and as lot as password. It's like here for
the Las Vegas F one, my name's Yuki Sonoda, Google me,
and I imagine they were like, I think that he
obviously did something to alienate them.
Speaker 5 (36:01):
Yeah, but Joe, I suspect if he's he's come out
of first class systems. Is he's not going to be
in a onesie with a with a tiger pattern, is he?
I mean, he's.
Speaker 4 (36:10):
My imagination because that we haven't able to find any
pictures online. He's wearing little race car pajamas with because
he's a racing car driver. Does that makes sense to me?
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Possibly? Yeah? I mean you probably travel first class all
the time as an emeritus professor.
Speaker 4 (36:25):
D't with your other ameriiti, what sort of slacks do
you wear?
Speaker 5 (36:29):
I just I just wear my jeans. Thank you to him,
But I'm just intrigued by this. I'd love to see
if there's a photo of what these pajamas look like online.
And do you stop somebody coming in from a country
because they wear pajamas?
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Actually, To be honest, I think if anyone's going to
look sloppy, it's the people in first class. They are
the ones who make the least effort because they've got
nothing to prove. It's like I'm turning left when I
get on and whatever I mean standards. It's interesting there
used to be a time when the glamour of travel
and people to dress up and dress like there were
Those days are gone, you know, whereas now it's crocs,
(37:08):
pajamas or trucks.
Speaker 4 (37:10):
I actually do think that clothes and pajamas are getting
closer and closer together. The lot between them is more
and more blue.
Speaker 5 (37:18):
Tim, what have you got against crocs?
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Uh? I don't think you'd wear them to wouldn't You don't.
They're not dressing to impress.
Speaker 5 (37:26):
You've seen crocs lately. The crocs are going really up market.
They be fancy, They be fancy?
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Really? Could I wear them with my tucks?
Speaker 4 (37:34):
You put the little put the little charms on them.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
If anyone wears crocs in Parliament, I.
Speaker 4 (37:40):
Actually think someone more than in the red carpet.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
The other day they Wow, that didn't surprise me anyway.
We're going to come back in just a moment to
discuss how much a scoop of ship chips should cost,
because that is the big issue and we've been holding
it to last. So we'll be back in just a
moment nine minutes before yess, Welcome back to the Weekend Collective.
This is the panel. Umpton Beverage. Joe mccarell and Paul
Spurnley are my guests. The outrage where a four dollars
(38:07):
and fifty scoop of chips. Somebody worked out that was
a total of thirty four chips, averaging out to be
just over thirteen cents a chip. Sounds shocking? Is it shocking,
Joe mccaroll.
Speaker 4 (38:18):
What I think is shocking, Tim Beverage is these people
who go online as keyboard warriors to complain about a business.
If you have a problem with somewhere that you have
ordered food, if you think serving too small and too expensive,
freely option to you is just not to go again,
to vote with your wallet. I don't have a lot
(38:40):
of time for these people who go online. And this
woman who doesn't want to be named herself, and that
is her right, but she's making a complaint about a
real person's real business. I think hospital is doing it
tough right now. The owner has said they weigh the portions.
It looked like there were some big chips in that serving.
If you have a problem with it, you should have
gone to the owner. I think going online it's.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Yeah, I'm actually good on you, Joe. What do you reckon?
Speaker 5 (39:07):
Paul? And No, I agree with Joe. I didn't anticipate that,
but I would. But I do think that you know
when you're paying for chips. The quality and the number
is important. So I would pay four dollars fifty for
a good bunch of high quality, tasty chips.
Speaker 2 (39:23):
Here's the thing. If you break down anything you like
into mouthfuls, and let's say a chip, a couple of
chips to a mouthful. If you have a pie and
a piees cost you six seven eight dollars. How many
mouthfuls is that? Twenty fifteen, ten mouthfuls depending on how
so it's probably forty cents a byte. I mean most food,
if you buy it, break it down to per bite,
(39:44):
it's pretty expensive. So I'm sort of I think that
Actually it's the quality of the chips. Yes, And if
that chip is thirteen cents for that particular per chip,
and it's a good bunch of chips, And what did
you say, Paul? You were a thirty double fried? Ye? Double?
I mean it's worth every penny.
Speaker 5 (40:00):
But do you think Joe's story, isn't it?
Speaker 4 (40:03):
I think a really great fish and chips. I'd happily
pay for fifty for skipt chips. And if the owner said,
you know, weigh them and this is what you get,
I'd accept that. And if I wasn't happy I wouldn't
go there again because that is completely up to me.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
I'm still trying to cancel a business. Good on you,
Joe McCarroll and look, hey, thanks guys. Time is flowing
this hour. Paul Spindley, Joe McCarroll. And by the way,
if you are looking for something to stuff in your stocking,
the New Zealand Gardener eightieth anniversary issue and also November
is out. It's a beautiful looking thing. I'm going to
have to give one to Paul Job, but we'll work
that out after the MIC's go off. Okay, just in
(40:37):
Cass it comes to fifty cups. Thanks so much for
your time, guys. Astley Chops is next with the one
where've Radio shared. This is News Talk said B.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
For more from the weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk SEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.