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