You wondered how long it would take for someone to work out that the injunction over Tom Phillips and the various bits and pieces we are not allowed to talk about, would be talked about.

Maybe this is widely understood. Maybe it isn't.

But an injunction, as imposed by a New Zealand court, is applicable only to New Zealand.

It was an effective mechanism in 1979, or even 1999. But post the internet, and especially social media, it borders on pointless.

So what we have post the injunction on Phillips and the various issues around his family, is everyone knows what's in it and have done from the start.

Offshore operators are spreading it about the place like no tomorrow, which led some people to raise it with the Justice Minister who is "having a look at it" as though that means anything.

But he is "not optimistic". No kidding.

Which leads to the obvious question: why go for an injunction, and also why would a judge offer an injunction knowing no one internationally is going to adhere to it?

The answer to the first question is: I don’t know. The answer to the second is: my guess is no judge wants to state the obvious by admitting defeat.

Because in turning it down, because it's pointless, you are in effect setting a precedent and every application going forward would be open to that precedent and therefore you don’t want to be the person who blew it up.

Also, do not underestimate the egos associated with the judiciary who, despite the modern world, still hold the idea that they count for something and they hold sway over the discourse of matters in their courts.

The other major issue, international outlets or not, is of course the vacuum. If you create a vacuum, it gets filled with nonsense.

I know what's in the injunction. I have been told by people who know so I know the weirdness that’s out there that isn't real, or indeed close to it.

All in all, the whole thing is a monumental mess. Gossip rules the roost.

The real story is there to be had.

It's all over the world and the judiciary might want to think about how they handle these matters going forward because the horse has bolted and the Justice Minister, I can assure you, will not be offering anything by way of solutions.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.

The All Blacks: 8/10

That was the best match of the Rugby Championship. In a competition where everyone has beaten everyone, we have seen a sign that quality rugby is on the up.

Winston Peters: 7/10

It took too long to get there but his speech in New York was logical and devoid of the emotive nonsense that has clouded too much of the debate.

The power industry reform: 4/10

The weak point for the Government this week. Not that any of it was bad because it wasn’t. But what it also wasn't was what they had built it up to be.

Jimmy Kimmel: 7/10

He's back, ratings are up, and all the stations have backed down in a sign free speech wins, which is ironic given those who shut him up pretended they liked free speech until, clearly, they didn’t.

The Ryder Cup: 2/10

Sport's low point of the week. When golf looks like WWE and Rory's Mrs is in tears, something has gone dreadfully wrong.

LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"Every three years the political goalposts move".

Indeed, we call it an election. But the quote is from the infrastructure industry.

Their report out this week tells you the usual tale – that the pipeline, or lack of it, is an issue and politics gets in the way. It holds the country back.

The Treasury report we featured this week as well tells pretty much the same story. Their report spanned out over 40 years and talks of the fear that our debt will be at 200% of GDP if we don't do something about it.

We have a lot of big picture issues that we know are issues and yet we haven't been able to crack them.

To be fair this Government has tried the big picture talk. They've announced a pretty decent pipeline of longer-term work and they have cited various countries that have a greater level of political cooperation than we do.

Certain sectors and projects are handled by independent bodies that operate between Governments; a project is agreed to and that project is not interfered with if a government changes.

This week's example gave little hope that we have the maturity to try and change the way we continue to shoot ourselves in the collective foot.

Luxon wrote to Hipkins about oil and gas exploration inquiring as to whether we can get cross party agreement.

The problem is that although exploration and applications are back open and we have $200 million of taxpayer money to get skin in the game, the fear is that no one is signing up if you don’t know the rules stay the same.

Hipkins said the letter was desperate, so that’s that then.

Which is a shame and Hipkins should know better, act better, and ask himself whether he serves the country well with such a myopic response.

No one is really a fan of oil and gas, but surely, we all agree it’s a big help between now and whenever all the windmills, solar panels and batteries are up and running.

Does he really prefer coal? Can he not see that keeping the lights on is kind of important? Can he not be a bigger person about it?

America is closed down currently because the two sides hate each other. We aren't as bad, but we could be an awful lot better.

Surely it can't be so hard to put common, economic interest beyond simple, party politics?

Surely two major so-called centre parties can't be so far apart that a basic like power supply can't be dealt with in a civil and collegial way, right?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.