The Huddle: Do we need to rethink heritage?

Tonight on The Huddle, Ali Jones from Red PR and Ali Jones from Maxim Institute joined in on a discussion about the following issue of the day - and more!

Minister Chris Bishop has given the green light for the demolishing of the Gordon Wilson Flats after stripping them of their heritage status. What do we make of this?

Why do we think most of Gen Z aren't interested in pursuing leadership positions anymore? Do they lack ambition?

Is it fair to allow employers to sack highly paid workers without the proper process?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
On the huddle with me this evening, Allie Jones of
Red pr and Tim Wilson of the Maximums. She'd hire
you too are a term Hi Heather, Hello Ali? Now
have you seen that building? And on a scale of
one to hideous, where do you see it?

Speaker 2 (00:13):
I give it hideous? Yeah. But look, I don't think
I agree with Ken. I don't think you can be
destroying the buildings because they don't look the way you
want them to look. We know that in christ Church,
you know we It was a different situation with the
earth quakes, but the then Minister for Canterbury Recovery, Jerry Brownley,
wanted to destroy or get rid of a whole lot
of these types of buildings. He famously called them old

(00:36):
dungers and using his extraordinary powers, managed to remove them.
So and I heard what Ken said there, and I
do think the trade off is key. And when you
look at what's happening with our cathedral at the moment,
we've been sitting around and talking about that for ten
years and nothing's happened. This building has sat there for
so long, been and I saw cost a huge amount
of money. The space is needed and it needs to

(00:58):
be designed. You know to more more and standards for
student accommodation. I think the trade off is a good one.

Speaker 3 (01:03):
And what do you think, Tim Well, I've got I
actually share of you with Allian Ken. But for I've
got to say that, can we roll the tape back?
Like ugly isn't beautiful? Ugly is horrid? All right, let's
just agree on that. So let's roll that back. I
say we leave them. There is a reminder of how
lame now they were built in nineteen fifty nine, but

(01:24):
that's basically the sixties. Their tedious rectangular asbestos and huge
prison cells fressed up as brutalism, free love and fate
call some decades were actually lamer than others. If you
forget history, you're doomed to repeat it. Leave the tombstones, aloft.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
I feel like you're being deeply unfair to the sixties,
because the sixties had some really cool things going.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
On, not just shuck.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
No.

Speaker 3 (01:47):
But I think you know what the problem is here too.
The problem is we're actually so desperate for heritage we'll say, oh,
look at this, you know. The city council, the Welling
City Council last year tried to classify a mid century
oil tank as heritage. I mean, we we've got to find.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
Some better heroge make an excellent point now, Allie. I'm
not offended by the swearing that happened happened today in
the Silly Committee because a couple of reasons. I think
number one, it wasn't of the sea bomb level, and
number two it was it was just swearing out loud.
It wasn't describing somebody. What do you think?

Speaker 3 (02:22):
Well?

Speaker 2 (02:22):
Was it even out loud? This struck me as being
like being back in high school. It's the biggest laugh
I've had all day. You know, you've got duncan web,
but yeah, can you imagine it?

Speaker 3 (02:32):
Or where?

Speaker 2 (02:33):
What did you just say?

Speaker 1 (02:34):
No?

Speaker 2 (02:34):
No, go on, tell us all say it again.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
You know.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
It's like picking the note up and making him read
it out. So that was the first thing I thought of.
It sounded like a game. I mean, Seymour even smirked
when he got told about this. I heard that he
thought it was quite funny. I had said both those
things over and over again in meetings, accompanied sometimes by
eye rolling. So I'm not saying that it's actually a
good thing to do. But come on, no one heard it.

(02:57):
Didn't someone tell on them, wouldn't on Deeba.

Speaker 1 (03:00):
Rough Yes, Deba Russell got told on this isn't I mean?
And this? I want your take on this. You're you're
a very good conservative, very good Christian, so tell me
what you think.

Speaker 3 (03:11):
I'm actually a very poor Catholic. But then so are
a lot of us. I actually, you know, I've got
the controversial view that adulthood is about self control. We
don't value in continents at one end of the body,
why should we value it at the other end of
the body. And can I just say we had a problem.
I think we should introduce a swear jar for Parliament
at NK every time you get caught you can actually

(03:33):
use that money to buy heritage buildings rather than designate
that the heritage buildings can prevent other people from using them.
Problem solved.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
You're full of it today, you are love it.

Speaker 1 (03:43):
Oh he's just he's you know what, He's at a
quiet day. He's been sitting there thinking what can I
say to wind? People?

Speaker 2 (03:48):
Are no.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
Not I do? I mean? I actually I used to
be an enthusiastic swearer and once I stopped, the foul
taste left my mouth.

Speaker 2 (03:57):
I encourage I listen to this on a buckhead.

Speaker 3 (04:03):
I've got I've got to actually, you know what, there's
a bucket of heritage ging a role.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
Okay, stop, we'll take a break just to get them
to calm down for a minute, and then we'll come
back quarter two. Right, you're back with the huddle. I
got Alie Jones and Tim Wilson. Tim, now, how weird
do you think this plan?

Speaker 3 (04:21):
Is?

Speaker 1 (04:21):
That act has to make it easy for bosses to
fire staff who earned one hundred and eighty thousand dollars plus.

Speaker 3 (04:27):
Yeah, look, I was listened to what you said earlier.
In terms of one hundred and eighty thousands, not that much,
but the average the average wage in New Zealands is
seventy three K. It's seventy six in Orphan, which is
what you'd expect. So this is actually double plus. And
it's interesting the way it's been presented because it's like workers'
rights being impinged. But I wonder if you're on one

(04:48):
hundred and eighty k whether you're still a worker. I
don't think Marks or Lennon would have said that it's
happened in Australia and where it leads.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
To huge amounts of litigation.

Speaker 3 (04:57):
Well, an important key. We employment lawyer who's crossed a
guy called Salmon sal Money says that it allows employers
and employees to have more frank conversations. And look, if
you're on higher pay, you should be subject to higher standards.
And if it gives some flexibility for young people to
step up, then I'm all for it.

Speaker 1 (05:15):
Oh wow, that's not what I know at all, and
I know I totally disagree.

Speaker 2 (05:21):
If anything has got me wound up today, this is it.
Laws are there for a reason. I don't know why
we're becoming fixated on what people earn here as a
reason to apply laws. I mean, there's no reason why
people treated badly where a personal breevance or PG would
be successful, should be precluded from seeking justice and taking

(05:42):
out a PG just because of what they earn. I'm
absolutely gobsmacked by this. What's going to be next? We're
going to put laws in place depending on what color
you hair and eyes are as well the money and
what you earn has got nothing to do with people
being treated badly, or rather their desire and the law
wanting them to be treated fairly.

Speaker 1 (06:01):
Tim, how do you respond?

Speaker 3 (06:03):
Yeah, Look, you do make a fair point, Ellie and
and I agree people should be treated fairly at all points.
But I do think that salary is something that does
define in a sense the role, and I think that
the possibility of flexibility. And if it's inhibiting workplace culture,
and there's a suggestion that it's provoked more open conversations

(06:27):
in Australia between employers and employees, what.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
Could improversations be. Would they be your fire, Yeah, you
suck your fired?

Speaker 3 (06:34):
Gone by the zono, I think you can jump in.
My understanding from what the employment lawyer was saying was
that they allow you to get to deal with issues
a lot sooner. So it's not like, oh, we go
to our because it's going to end up in this
litigation and there'll be a PG. We actually stay in
our stay in our lanes and we don't, you know,
we legalize it in some way.

Speaker 2 (06:56):
So I've got an example term if I can jump in,
of some who was earning over two hundred k Australian
treated appallingly in her workplace, had been there for twelve years.
And I know this is a one off example, but
she was treated so badly that when she did leave,
it was counted as constructive dismissal. She's now on an insurance.
They've got an insurance system there where you can continue

(07:17):
to be paid if the employer is found to be
in breach of the rules and you can't return to work.
Now she wouldn't get absolutely nothing if that had happened
under these rules. And I go back to that point
again that if someone is being treated badly, if the
employer is breaching the law, then regardless of what you're earning,
you should have the protection of those laws. Communication is

(07:40):
there regardless of the law, and maybe the workplace culture
needs looking at, not the employment law. I'm gobsmacked by
some of this discussion.

Speaker 1 (07:47):
Because I'll tell you what the common theme here may
well be. I mean, remember, this is law, tim that
is designed to protect, to some extent, the employee from
bad bosses. Right, it doesn't matter when you're earning. Your
boss can still say be a bad boss.

Speaker 3 (08:02):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I look, I completely get that.

Speaker 1 (08:05):
And are you starting to change your mind just to
weep it.

Speaker 3 (08:09):
I think I need to see. I need to see
what the legislation actually looks like.

Speaker 1 (08:13):
Oh yes, it's the retreat and too. I need to
read the legislation.

Speaker 3 (08:17):
I need to actually read the footnotes, so before I
can form.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
I tell you what. I'll tell you what. Tim, Stay
tuned because after six we're going to talk to Jennifer Mills,
whos an employment lawyer, and maybe she'll change, maybe you
get some information from her. I appreciate both of you
coming on this evening. Thank you very much, Ellie Jones
and Tim Wilson our huddle, it's eight away from six.

Speaker 3 (08:37):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio