November 27, 2024 • 12 mins
THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Thursday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) ...It'll Still Be Bad/Democracy Is So Overrated/Kicking Ass and Fast Tracking/Someone Must Be to Blame/Smoking Is Like Super Addictive
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 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk SEDB. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio. Rerap.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Okay there, welcome to the Rerap. All the best bits
from the Mic Hosking breakfast on Newstalks EDB in a
sillier package. I'm Glen hat. I don't know why I'm
doing wed houses trying it didn't work. Let's move on now?
Are we going to move to four year terms? And
other interesting questions like that coming shortly? National plan with
(00:52):
emergency housing and social housing generally has that panning out
corporate liability when the back ultimately stops with the CEO
sounds expensive and why can't we stamp smoke looking out
for good? But before any of that, the economy great
(01:13):
news yesterday with their raycat right ah, but there's a
lot of other bad stuff that you need to worry about, Mike.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
When you hose down the economy in print money the
way the Reserve Bank did, it takes a lot of
petrol to start the fire again. Stephen Joyce's spot on.
As you've been saying all along, it's so hard for
business out here. It's real, and I just think there's
a massive discount. I think there's a disconnect between what
the Reserve Bank sees and what's happening in the economy.
And I think, and I increasingly worry as they try
to point out to Steve, and I think there's a
disconnect between the government and the Reserve Bank. They're stuck
(01:40):
with the Reserve Bank governor. They should have sacked them,
they couldn't or didn't, and now they're trying to busily
spring I mean, if you looked yesterday, there were two
dueling press conferences going on. I watched the Joyce not
the Joys one, the ore one. But at the same time,
Willison and Luxen were out there telling you, you know,
the economy is on it. You know, they're desperately trying
to see the good in the economy. And you can't
(02:00):
blame them. It's their economy. But it's not as good
as they make it out to be. And it's not
as good as they make it out to be because
the guy who's running the play or isn't that good.
He hasn't been that good, and he continues not to
be that good. And so they're trying to make a
silk purse out of a sow's ea, Mike, the RB
nailed it by pausing at four point three to five RBA.
(02:20):
The Australian Bank pausing at four point three five in
comparison or is a complete bloody shocker, and the economy
and households are paying the price while he swands around
on eight hundred thousand dollars a year. Ask the average Australian,
though they are not feeling too bullish themselves. They can't
afford the power bill and they can't afford to buy
a house. They are no question materially better off than
we are, but they don't see it, and that, I
(02:42):
guess is sort of an example of the politic.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
So I think basically what we've learned from mic this
week is that behind every silver lining there is a
dark cloud if you look hard enough. So that's that's
great the rewrap so we've been there seems to be
a bubbling kind of movement behind the scenes that maybe
(03:07):
we need to extend our electoral term out to four
years from three, and a few other suggestions as well.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Do read the piece in the Herald this week that
details the potential for a four year term. I started
alluding to this yesterday. It's worth reading, because it's not
as much about a four year term as it is
about the two ideas that may well get enacted this
term as part of the coalition agreement. The more complex
one is ax idea to flip the script on select
committees and essentially drive us towards a more active process
(03:35):
in which the whip has not used the way it
is now, i e. Everyone in a party has to
vote the same way. The detail is fascinating of not
a little complex, and my guess is it won't see
the light of day. Also in there is the New
Zealand first idea of a vote on a four year term,
and I guess on that is it won't see the
light of day either. Now the piece in the Herald
ends with the last survey on the matter. Sixty one
(03:55):
percent of us thought a four year term was good.
But that was back in twenty twenty. And what had
we done in twenty twenty people, well, labor fifty percent
in the election. That's right, we all went mental. Which
is not to say that a four year term isn't
a half dcent idea, but the possibility comes at the
worst time, off the back of one of the worst
governments in living Memory Labour twenty twenty through twenty twenty
(04:16):
three destroyed a lot of things. One of them, I
suspect is the idea that we want more useless people
doing more useless things for longer. There is logic on
the flip side, I mean the early key years, for example,
the Rockstar Economy years. Put a vote in then might
well have got across the line. But like a lot
of these big changes, the simple truth is there is
no right and there is no wrong. A good government
deserves longer, a poor one doesn't. But part of the
(04:39):
idea of having a more flexible mechanism whereby you aren't
frog marched into your voters and MP that's not a
bad one. Not everyone or not everything your party does
is right. You don't believe it at all, lock stock
and barrel. What's wrong with a bit of nu once?
What's wrong with giving the other guys a bit more
influenced to test the mettal of the government. It may
well lead to a slowing down of the business, I guess,
(05:00):
but sometimes that's not all bad. But as for a
binding vote on a four year term, answer me this,
what if the turnout was low, the result was close,
given its binding right, sixty percent of people turn out
and it's passed by fifty point zero one percent of
the population, so barely thirty percent of the country changed
the place dramatically. Is that democracy or is that a mistake?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Oh? Good question? What is democracy? A fantastic question. Don't
have the answer. I tried googling it, I tried googled
geminiing it, and I just got back a picture of
(05:46):
a three winged aeroplane. If you want that joke to
make sense, you're going to go and have to read
my recent review of the iPad Mini on the New
sorb Technology page. Okay, so social housing government made big
(06:06):
promises around this because labors seem to be cocking oated
up left right, set, left, right and center during their
time in office.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Have they fixed.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Everything the emergency housing situation?
Speaker 3 (06:18):
There's fewer than a thousand families living in an emergency accommodation.
This will be news to you because you haven't heard it.
Why have you heard it? Fewer than a thousand households
living in emergency housing? Is that a big drop?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yes, it is.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
How big a drop is that, Mike, Well, it's a
sixty eight percent drop since September. So by the end
of last year you had three thousand, one hundred and
forty one households. That's down to nine hundred and ninety three.
Came out of a thing called Priority one. It's fast
track policy. Households with kids were moved straight to the
top of the social housing waitlist and since then, seven
hundred and eighty six households, including sixteen hundred and eighteen
(06:50):
kids who were in emergency housing, have been placed in
social housing. So that's a policy that's working in the government.
Buy and Large has had a very good week. They
opened a police station in Auckland. These things are not
hard to solve. This is what I'm trying to tell you.
These things are not hard to solve if you're focus
and you do it right. So they opened a police
station downtown Auckland. Good idea, excellent idea. Hadn't they have
done that before because we were run by idiots. Changes
(07:11):
to the way they build social housing in this country
with charitable housing, good idea, simple idea. Sport New Zealand
big fat review into that.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Good.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Let's hope something productive comes out of that. Now we
found out there were a fewer than a thousand families
living in emergency housing under the previous government. It was
a disaster. The queue was growing. Ask the people of
wrote a Arua how that was going for them all
of a sudden, Give them twelve months and a bit
of logic and you've half got your problem solved.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Well, this is a bit concerning because I've been making
fun of the government for claiming to do kick ass
fast tracking stuff and now it looks like they actually
have been doing it, and I'm going to have to
eat my words. It's annoying.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
It's a rewrap.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Okay, So we've got a sort of a landmark ruling.
Is that what you call it? A guy in charge
of the ports has been found responsible for the death
of somebody at the port. Is this a sign of
things to come? And if it is, is it good
or bad? Is what Mike thinks.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I'm more knowledgeable about the Pike River tragedy than the
Tony Gibson Auckland court case. But out of Pike River
came the law that got Gibson yesterday as former boss
of the Port of Auckland over the death of a worker.
Now he's been found guilty, he may appeal. You would
imagine if the verdict stands and a penalty is imposed,
it would have a severe chilling effect in the world
of CEOs. Just where is the line for a boss
(08:34):
in looking after the safety of the staff beyond the
broad based and widely un understood rules we have currently
and do court cases like this now reset those boundaries
as to what you must or might do as regard
safety in a large workplace. Some workplaces are inherently dangerous,
of course because of their nature. Rules will be in place,
But how tight do those rules need to be? And
(08:55):
it's out of that sort of expectation if you think
about it, the life in general can sometimes be brought
to a sort of a standstill by the just in
case mentality work in safety driven by good intention. In
the real world, that's your potential problem and taking the
very specific responsibility right up the chain to the corner
office for a person not falling off or falling over
(09:18):
or falling into something. That's a tremendous amount of very
specific expectation I would have thought, especially in a large company,
when the numerical gap between the boss and a bloke
on the floor or a machine might be large. It's
an interesting concept I think to judicially skip any number
of people between the victim and the CEO. What I
don't know about Pike River was it was a top
(09:39):
down mess. If you were looking for blame, there was
no shortage of it to spread all about the place.
A lot of people wanted Peter Whittle, if you remember,
to pay, but that was more predicated on him being
an easy target, not because he and he alone was responsible.
How much of this new law came out of that
same mentality, Oh, I don't worry about the detail or
the fairness. Just let's look to have somebody pay. And
if that's what's driven it, is that good law or
(10:01):
a lot of potential trouble and a reason not to
be the boss.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
I think, and certainly in the case of Pike what
we learn out of that was that people want to
be able to blame somebody when bad stuff happens, and
it can't just be that bad stuff has happened and
it was nobody's fault. So in some ways it's kind
of bad luck if you end up being the person
(10:25):
that gets blamed at the end of it, because by God,
somebody better answer for it. I'm still not sure if
the people get closure from that the people left behind,
but maybe the re rat And it's never really been
completely clear who's ultimately responsible for illness and death caused
(10:47):
by smoking. There's plenty of it.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
My Casey Costello doesn't listen to advice lied to the cabinet.
What an embarrassment, no value, is no conscience. No one
voted to let kids start vaping? Blah blah blah. What
is it you want the government to do? Just do
you want the government to sleep with you as well?
Would you like them to vacuum your house? Just where
does the government begin?
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Is an get my housework done?
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I'm watching these people in the last couple of days
going and the government's not doing And at what point,
if you're a smoker, and whether you want to give
up or not is your call? At what point is
that on you versus on the government that will presumably
waive some magic wand paid for us all so you
(11:31):
can solve your own What if.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
They did come and wipe your bum for you with
your cigarettes?
Speaker 3 (11:35):
With that, I reckon that wouldn't last long because you
get embarrassed, wouldn't you you go? In case you get
out of me?
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I agree with all that up to a point. But
you know, I know somebody who's become quite ill as
a result of their lifelong smoking habit, and there's a
lot of expense somebody's paying for that. I mean, he
(12:02):
might be paying for some of it, but I suspect
the public health system is probably paying for quite a
lot of his treatment as well. And yes, it was
his responsibility. But if it's his responsibility, then it's a
bit like, you know, all the mountain bikers who keep
dislocating their shoulders and breaking their thumbs, why do we
(12:23):
have to pay for that? You know, give give one
one go and then maybe the next time you get
the bill because it was your decision after all. A
bit of a hard ass kind of a way to
finish the podcast clean. What can I say? It's it's
kick ass fast tracking Thursday here on the Rerap. We'll
(12:46):
probably be more relaxed about things tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
For more from News Talks at b listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk SEDB. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio. Rerap.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Okay there, welcome to the Rerap. All the best bits
from the Mic Hosking breakfast on Newstalks EDB in a
sillier package. I'm Glen hat. I don't know why I'm
doing wed houses trying it didn't work. Let's move on now?
Are we going to move to four year terms? And
other interesting questions like that coming shortly? National plan with
(00:52):
emergency housing and social housing generally has that panning out
corporate liability when the back ultimately stops with the CEO
sounds expensive and why can't we stamp smoke looking out
for good? But before any of that, the economy great
(01:13):
news yesterday with their raycat right ah, but there's a
lot of other bad stuff that you need to worry about, Mike.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
When you hose down the economy in print money the
way the Reserve Bank did, it takes a lot of
petrol to start the fire again. Stephen Joyce's spot on.
As you've been saying all along, it's so hard for
business out here. It's real, and I just think there's
a massive discount. I think there's a disconnect between what
the Reserve Bank sees and what's happening in the economy.
And I think, and I increasingly worry as they try
to point out to Steve, and I think there's a
disconnect between the government and the Reserve Bank. They're stuck
(01:40):
with the Reserve Bank governor. They should have sacked them,
they couldn't or didn't, and now they're trying to busily
spring I mean, if you looked yesterday, there were two
dueling press conferences going on. I watched the Joyce not
the Joys one, the ore one. But at the same time,
Willison and Luxen were out there telling you, you know,
the economy is on it. You know, they're desperately trying
to see the good in the economy. And you can't
(02:00):
blame them. It's their economy. But it's not as good
as they make it out to be. And it's not
as good as they make it out to be because
the guy who's running the play or isn't that good.
He hasn't been that good, and he continues not to
be that good. And so they're trying to make a
silk purse out of a sow's ea, Mike, the RB
nailed it by pausing at four point three to five RBA.
(02:20):
The Australian Bank pausing at four point three five in
comparison or is a complete bloody shocker, and the economy
and households are paying the price while he swands around
on eight hundred thousand dollars a year. Ask the average Australian,
though they are not feeling too bullish themselves. They can't
afford the power bill and they can't afford to buy
a house. They are no question materially better off than
we are, but they don't see it, and that, I
(02:42):
guess is sort of an example of the politic.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
So I think basically what we've learned from mic this
week is that behind every silver lining there is a
dark cloud if you look hard enough. So that's that's
great the rewrap so we've been there seems to be
a bubbling kind of movement behind the scenes that maybe
(03:07):
we need to extend our electoral term out to four
years from three, and a few other suggestions as well.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Do read the piece in the Herald this week that
details the potential for a four year term. I started
alluding to this yesterday. It's worth reading, because it's not
as much about a four year term as it is
about the two ideas that may well get enacted this
term as part of the coalition agreement. The more complex
one is ax idea to flip the script on select
committees and essentially drive us towards a more active process
(03:35):
in which the whip has not used the way it
is now, i e. Everyone in a party has to
vote the same way. The detail is fascinating of not
a little complex, and my guess is it won't see
the light of day. Also in there is the New
Zealand first idea of a vote on a four year term,
and I guess on that is it won't see the
light of day either. Now the piece in the Herald
ends with the last survey on the matter. Sixty one
(03:55):
percent of us thought a four year term was good.
But that was back in twenty twenty. And what had
we done in twenty twenty people, well, labor fifty percent
in the election. That's right, we all went mental. Which
is not to say that a four year term isn't
a half dcent idea, but the possibility comes at the
worst time, off the back of one of the worst
governments in living Memory Labour twenty twenty through twenty twenty
(04:16):
three destroyed a lot of things. One of them, I
suspect is the idea that we want more useless people
doing more useless things for longer. There is logic on
the flip side, I mean the early key years, for example,
the Rockstar Economy years. Put a vote in then might
well have got across the line. But like a lot
of these big changes, the simple truth is there is
no right and there is no wrong. A good government
deserves longer, a poor one doesn't. But part of the
(04:39):
idea of having a more flexible mechanism whereby you aren't
frog marched into your voters and MP that's not a
bad one. Not everyone or not everything your party does
is right. You don't believe it at all, lock stock
and barrel. What's wrong with a bit of nu once?
What's wrong with giving the other guys a bit more
influenced to test the mettal of the government. It may
well lead to a slowing down of the business, I guess,
(05:00):
but sometimes that's not all bad. But as for a
binding vote on a four year term, answer me this,
what if the turnout was low, the result was close,
given its binding right, sixty percent of people turn out
and it's passed by fifty point zero one percent of
the population, so barely thirty percent of the country changed
the place dramatically. Is that democracy or is that a mistake?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Oh? Good question? What is democracy? A fantastic question. Don't
have the answer. I tried googling it, I tried googled
geminiing it, and I just got back a picture of
(05:46):
a three winged aeroplane. If you want that joke to
make sense, you're going to go and have to read
my recent review of the iPad Mini on the New
sorb Technology page. Okay, so social housing government made big
(06:06):
promises around this because labors seem to be cocking oated
up left right, set, left, right and center during their
time in office.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Have they fixed.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Everything the emergency housing situation?
Speaker 3 (06:18):
There's fewer than a thousand families living in an emergency accommodation.
This will be news to you because you haven't heard it.
Why have you heard it? Fewer than a thousand households
living in emergency housing? Is that a big drop?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yes, it is.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
How big a drop is that, Mike, Well, it's a
sixty eight percent drop since September. So by the end
of last year you had three thousand, one hundred and
forty one households. That's down to nine hundred and ninety three.
Came out of a thing called Priority one. It's fast
track policy. Households with kids were moved straight to the
top of the social housing waitlist and since then, seven
hundred and eighty six households, including sixteen hundred and eighteen
(06:50):
kids who were in emergency housing, have been placed in
social housing. So that's a policy that's working in the government.
Buy and Large has had a very good week. They
opened a police station in Auckland. These things are not
hard to solve. This is what I'm trying to tell you.
These things are not hard to solve if you're focus
and you do it right. So they opened a police
station downtown Auckland. Good idea, excellent idea. Hadn't they have
done that before because we were run by idiots. Changes
(07:11):
to the way they build social housing in this country
with charitable housing, good idea, simple idea. Sport New Zealand
big fat review into that.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Good.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Let's hope something productive comes out of that. Now we
found out there were a fewer than a thousand families
living in emergency housing under the previous government. It was
a disaster. The queue was growing. Ask the people of
wrote a Arua how that was going for them all
of a sudden, Give them twelve months and a bit
of logic and you've half got your problem solved.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Well, this is a bit concerning because I've been making
fun of the government for claiming to do kick ass
fast tracking stuff and now it looks like they actually
have been doing it, and I'm going to have to
eat my words. It's annoying.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
It's a rewrap.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Okay, So we've got a sort of a landmark ruling.
Is that what you call it? A guy in charge
of the ports has been found responsible for the death
of somebody at the port. Is this a sign of
things to come? And if it is, is it good
or bad? Is what Mike thinks.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I'm more knowledgeable about the Pike River tragedy than the
Tony Gibson Auckland court case. But out of Pike River
came the law that got Gibson yesterday as former boss
of the Port of Auckland over the death of a worker.
Now he's been found guilty, he may appeal. You would
imagine if the verdict stands and a penalty is imposed,
it would have a severe chilling effect in the world
of CEOs. Just where is the line for a boss
(08:34):
in looking after the safety of the staff beyond the
broad based and widely un understood rules we have currently
and do court cases like this now reset those boundaries
as to what you must or might do as regard
safety in a large workplace. Some workplaces are inherently dangerous,
of course because of their nature. Rules will be in place,
But how tight do those rules need to be? And
(08:55):
it's out of that sort of expectation if you think
about it, the life in general can sometimes be brought
to a sort of a standstill by the just in
case mentality work in safety driven by good intention. In
the real world, that's your potential problem and taking the
very specific responsibility right up the chain to the corner
office for a person not falling off or falling over
(09:18):
or falling into something. That's a tremendous amount of very
specific expectation I would have thought, especially in a large company,
when the numerical gap between the boss and a bloke
on the floor or a machine might be large. It's
an interesting concept I think to judicially skip any number
of people between the victim and the CEO. What I
don't know about Pike River was it was a top
(09:39):
down mess. If you were looking for blame, there was
no shortage of it to spread all about the place.
A lot of people wanted Peter Whittle, if you remember,
to pay, but that was more predicated on him being
an easy target, not because he and he alone was responsible.
How much of this new law came out of that
same mentality, Oh, I don't worry about the detail or
the fairness. Just let's look to have somebody pay. And
if that's what's driven it, is that good law or
(10:01):
a lot of potential trouble and a reason not to
be the boss.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
I think, and certainly in the case of Pike what
we learn out of that was that people want to
be able to blame somebody when bad stuff happens, and
it can't just be that bad stuff has happened and
it was nobody's fault. So in some ways it's kind
of bad luck if you end up being the person
(10:25):
that gets blamed at the end of it, because by God,
somebody better answer for it. I'm still not sure if
the people get closure from that the people left behind,
but maybe the re rat And it's never really been
completely clear who's ultimately responsible for illness and death caused
(10:47):
by smoking. There's plenty of it.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
My Casey Costello doesn't listen to advice lied to the cabinet.
What an embarrassment, no value, is no conscience. No one
voted to let kids start vaping? Blah blah blah. What
is it you want the government to do? Just do
you want the government to sleep with you as well?
Would you like them to vacuum your house? Just where
does the government begin?
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Is an get my housework done?
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I'm watching these people in the last couple of days
going and the government's not doing And at what point,
if you're a smoker, and whether you want to give
up or not is your call? At what point is
that on you versus on the government that will presumably
waive some magic wand paid for us all so you
(11:31):
can solve your own What if.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
They did come and wipe your bum for you with
your cigarettes?
Speaker 3 (11:35):
With that, I reckon that wouldn't last long because you
get embarrassed, wouldn't you you go? In case you get
out of me?
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I agree with all that up to a point. But
you know, I know somebody who's become quite ill as
a result of their lifelong smoking habit, and there's a
lot of expense somebody's paying for that. I mean, he
(12:02):
might be paying for some of it, but I suspect
the public health system is probably paying for quite a
lot of his treatment as well. And yes, it was
his responsibility. But if it's his responsibility, then it's a
bit like, you know, all the mountain bikers who keep
dislocating their shoulders and breaking their thumbs, why do we
(12:23):
have to pay for that? You know, give give one
one go and then maybe the next time you get
the bill because it was your decision after all. A
bit of a hard ass kind of a way to
finish the podcast clean. What can I say? It's it's
kick ass fast tracking Thursday here on the Rerap. We'll
(12:46):
probably be more relaxed about things tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
For more from News Talks at b listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
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
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!