May 18, 2026 • 11 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Trish Sherson from Sherson Willis PR and Child Fund CEO Josie Pagani joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
Luxon's comments about immigration have raised a few eyebrows, especially from Labour's Chris Hipkins. What do we make of this?
Winston Peters has expressed interest in buying back BNZ. Do we think this is a good idea? Will this really fix our economic issues?
Is National right to scrap 'good character' assessment for sex offenders' sentencing?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty, a name
you can trust locally and globally.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All with us this evening we have Trish Sharson of Sherson,
Willis pr and Joe Spagani Child Fund Chief Executive. High ladies,
Hello now, because you are the one working the buttons, Trash,
I see you being a little head girl reaching over
there to help Josie with her buttons.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Which is the boss that's helping out a mate?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Ye to go first?
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Who knew you had to turn the microphone on?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Do you know I've been doing it for you this
whole time? No, this whole time, I've just been she'd
been managing herself. But I've just been like an.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
I get paid to turn the button on? No, just
get paid to talk?
Speaker 4 (00:32):
Technically n less and true, doesn't it where it's the right.
We're all about personal responsibility. Turn your own nikon, division
of labor.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Okay, you go first, Tresh, B and Z. Do you
want it back?
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Absolutely not. I mean if I just think New Zealanders
be warned. We are entering the Year of Silly Sundays
that every Sunday from one political party or another to
varying direct grease. There will be nutso stuff coming out,
but you know, putting all that aside, I think that
(01:05):
there was something that happened last week that I think
is important for the election campaign. Three leaders Hipkins, Luxon,
and Peters all came to Auckland, the election battleground, and
tried to stake out the fighting ground for the election.
Luxon gave what people have said is the best speech
of his career so far, and I would agree with that.
(01:29):
Hipkins gave a speech and I think it sounded like
he was either reading meeting agenda notes or he is
waiting for the calendar invite for the election to start.
Peters got up on Sunday and he did the three
things that the others didn't do. One is he had
a villain, a symbol, and a fight. So the villain
(01:50):
is the Aussie banks, the symbol is the Bend's ed
and the fight is for economic sovereignty. And he's appealing
to those New Zealanders who think that they have lost
control of the country and Winston is the only one
to get it back.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Now.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
It is absolutely nuts policy, and I would say to
anyone who thinks that's a great idea. Just look at
how politicians have been unable to manage and run properly
the things they are responsible for, i e. Police, education, health, welfare,
look at any of the big things. It's a shamble.
(02:25):
The idea now that because politicians can't fix those tough issues,
they are going after private sector businesses is absolutely crazy.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Well said Josie. Well So, one of the things I
think politically that they did wrong at the weekend Winston
Peters in New Zealand. First was they buried what would
be a really popular policy that actually probably all of
us would agree on, which is to give one thousand
dollars key we savor to every child at birth, you know,
to invest in savings. That's something that you know, actually
(02:56):
we probably will be talking about that, whereas now we're
talking about this controversial issue do we buy back and
said one thing I would say, I heard Barry talking
to you, Heather and saying, you know, should never have been,
should never have been? You know, it was a loss.
We've had a terrible mess of it. Had to sell it. Well,
I don't think it should ever have been sold. We
(03:17):
sold it. They actually paid back that debt, and not
only did they pay it back. They paid back fifteen
percent interest on it too, so that doesn't get told.
So it wasn't a complete basket case Trish. And also
the key point I would make why I don't think
we should buy it back. I mean a it's not
for sales. So it's like me saying I want to
buy sky City. It's not for sale. But also we
(03:39):
have a bank. We have Kiwi Bank, and you know,
actually that's done really well. That's something where as a
as a as a publicly owned bank initially, and I
was there at the very beginning, and this will appare
you all, but one name we thought of for Kiwi
Bank was the People's Bank, so that you would hate that.
Were you going to have a circle, I was going
to say, Ruth Richardson, who appears to be HARKing back
(04:01):
to the dancing.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Costs, going to be sort of like a really nice
bright red.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
It's going to be read and you'd have to join
the party to have a bank account there. But yeah, no,
it's Kiwi Bank. But I think you know, to several
things the bank could do. I mean they are putting
some more capital into it. They could you know, go
put some government funds and use the government bank consider
billion dollars.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Let's say you put ten billion dollars into Kiwi Bank,
it would have such a massive impact as opposed to
what twenty twenty billion dollars to buy back.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Thirty billion dollars or the other thing. That's finally, the
other thing I say is that there's a real gap
there for Kiwibank to own being the sort of infrastructure
bank of New Zealand. The government put money into all
the Regional Bank of New Zealand. So we've got a
bank we call it Guinea Bank. Let's just make that
really really work. It's already working really well. It's one
thing the government's done that does work. Elements, or let's stop.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
I mean, when this has been in politics for a
very very very long time, and this is not an
ageous comment, but let's stop pretending that the same old
solutions from the past are going to work into the future.
There are businesses out there now working globally, and I'm
talking about the likes of the neo banks, who they
will once they come into New Zealand and they get
a foothold, they are going to deliver competition on a scale.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
It feels like thirty years ago.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Never one thing just a minute, No, that has never
been before. But to pack up on Josie's point, this
is what Winston does. He doesn't care that, you know,
the big, chunky policies aren't be debated. He cares that
he has now had twenty four hours of talkback with
his name up and lights. That's what he's doing with
(05:39):
these announcements. Let me just say on the key We
Saver point, because Heather knows I am deeply passionate about
this and have been supporting the work of Fraser winneray
on Keewy sav two point zero. The difference here is again,
this is a party that's just picked up a headline.
Oh it's the it's a key We Saver from birth.
What we need with Kiyi Saver, which apprehensive policy that's
(06:03):
thought through and that has wide support, which it does
so quickly.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
I just want to say, because I heard Ruth Richardson
talking about this and saying, oh, this is Winston being Soviet,
as if he's some kind of communist, and it was
kind of HARKing back to the dancing Cossacks of the
seventies in the National Party. But she's looking at it
through a very past lens.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Right.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
The way to look at this is we don't have
enough competition, yes, in this country, bringing under the monopoly.
So it's the banks, it's the supermarkets. And the idea
that you would do something that created more competition in
banking is a very future focused idea. It's not a
dancing Cossack idea.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Okay, guys, just take a bot all I see you
want to go again through.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
I'm just going to say one thing very quickly. No,
but how this is where this thing is illogical. On
the one hand, you're saying, buy back one Ossie Bank
to make a big New Zealand bank, and then when
you're on the supermarket debate, you're saying, break it up,
break up the one New Zealand major competitor that we have.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
All Right, we're taking a the.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty, the only truly
global brand.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Right, you're back with the hud altrition. Josie. Now, Josie,
what do you think of the scrapping of the good
character references for the sex offenders?
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Oh? Look, I get it, I get that. You know
you've got you've got victims in court who feel like
they're just being victimized all over again when they have
to hear that the person who abused such a good guy,
you know, it takes as nice to their dog, or
you know, donated to a charity. And I think the
bottom line is that people get pissed off about this
(07:34):
because the sentence should fit the crime, not the character.
And that's the problem, right, Such a good way of
putting it. Yeah, I thought so. I thought about that line.
But I do also worry about it in the same
way that you do that that they have to bes
you called it those edge cases where you have to
judges have to have some discretion to be able to say,
(07:55):
you know, actually, judges have ruined it for all of us, haven't.
They are just liberally applying the discretion. That's the problem, right,
The problem isn't the rule, and I don't. I wouldn't
want to see judges not have that ability to be
able to do a good character judgment. And of course
that you know they don't. They can ignore good character judgments.
So I think this is the wrong solution to a
(08:17):
different problem. Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Okay, what do you think, Trish.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
Well, I think it's interesting to remember that when it
comes to sexual offenders there outward good character and reputation
is often how they manage to gain trust and access
and silence from the kind of deliberate from their victims.
I don't think it should be a mitigation. I also
think on the government side, you can't overclaim what this is.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Right.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
It's a justice reform, it has not in any way
a prevention strategy, and we still need all of those
good things happening in the courts, Like the courts are
still the clogged, they're too slow. That's very hard on victims.
But I also feel that I've got an uneasy bob
(09:04):
each way on this one. It doesn't it doesn't quite
stack up for me.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Yeah, quite right. Now, what do you think, Josie. What
I've noticed, I thought this was quite interesting is a
lot of commentators aligned with the National Party and now
saying Luxeen was misinterpreted when he took this tough line
on migration. Is this business is getting annoyed and talking
to the National Party how annoyed they are, and they're
trying to soften it now.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Yeah. Also, it's just not it's not a good line
anymore to say that Luxel was misinterpreted because that's we've
seen that with the with the Iranes comments he made,
so it doesn't reflect well on him if that's If
that's his excuse, I think I think what's happening is
that national it's a tendency. Well, we've just talked about one, right,
the good character rule. They're sort of clutching at things
(09:49):
that we didn't think were particularly big problems. We might
have other problems of this justice system. It's sort of
like they've gone, you know, government should mow my boom
or something, or government should lots of little one and
now we've got this one. They've suddenly gone out on immigration,
where they've said nothing original at all. We all agree
that we want the best immigrants, and so I feel
(10:11):
like they're kind of clutching at things and really, you know,
there's nothing here that we would disagree with. Yeah, business
getting annoyed Luxelon.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
I don't know about that. I did feel uneasy when
I heard this part of the speech and the words
social cohesion number one. I don't think we've got the
data to back up. And someone writing on the weekend said,
you know, look at the IPSOS monitor pole. This is
nowhere near it. We have talked on the show about yes,
there are these issues in places like the UK, but
(10:41):
that is far more pointy and they've had huge numbers,
and I thought I would have felt much more comfortable
and confident around this being in the speech if it
was a discussion actually about what is New Zealand's population strategy,
which is a far bigger and constructive conversation, and it
(11:01):
draws everyone, and it's to your point, are we having
enough babies? It draws, and are we getting the right
people here with skills? And I was thinking about this recently.
With the way the world currently is, we are one
of the highest values countries in the world to market
ourselves to people who really want to come here. But
(11:23):
I think setting this up and putting that social cohesion
word in here, I think that's the wrong way to approach.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
We're so out of time.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
I'm sorry. We'll keep going out for more from Heather
Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live to news Talks. It'd be
from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty, a name
you can trust locally and globally.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All with us this evening we have Trish Sharson of Sherson,
Willis pr and Joe Spagani Child Fund Chief Executive. High ladies,
Hello now, because you are the one working the buttons, Trash,
I see you being a little head girl reaching over
there to help Josie with her buttons.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Which is the boss that's helping out a mate?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Ye to go first?
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Who knew you had to turn the microphone on?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Do you know I've been doing it for you this
whole time? No, this whole time, I've just been she'd
been managing herself. But I've just been like an.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
I get paid to turn the button on? No, just
get paid to talk?
Speaker 4 (00:32):
Technically n less and true, doesn't it where it's the right.
We're all about personal responsibility. Turn your own nikon, division
of labor.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Okay, you go first, Tresh, B and Z. Do you
want it back?
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Absolutely not. I mean if I just think New Zealanders
be warned. We are entering the Year of Silly Sundays
that every Sunday from one political party or another to
varying direct grease. There will be nutso stuff coming out,
but you know, putting all that aside, I think that
(01:05):
there was something that happened last week that I think
is important for the election campaign. Three leaders Hipkins, Luxon,
and Peters all came to Auckland, the election battleground, and
tried to stake out the fighting ground for the election.
Luxon gave what people have said is the best speech
of his career so far, and I would agree with that.
(01:29):
Hipkins gave a speech and I think it sounded like
he was either reading meeting agenda notes or he is
waiting for the calendar invite for the election to start.
Peters got up on Sunday and he did the three
things that the others didn't do. One is he had
a villain, a symbol, and a fight. So the villain
(01:50):
is the Aussie banks, the symbol is the Bend's ed
and the fight is for economic sovereignty. And he's appealing
to those New Zealanders who think that they have lost
control of the country and Winston is the only one
to get it back.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Now.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
It is absolutely nuts policy, and I would say to
anyone who thinks that's a great idea. Just look at
how politicians have been unable to manage and run properly
the things they are responsible for, i e. Police, education, health, welfare,
look at any of the big things. It's a shamble.
(02:25):
The idea now that because politicians can't fix those tough issues,
they are going after private sector businesses is absolutely crazy.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Well said Josie. Well So, one of the things I
think politically that they did wrong at the weekend Winston
Peters in New Zealand. First was they buried what would
be a really popular policy that actually probably all of
us would agree on, which is to give one thousand
dollars key we savor to every child at birth, you know,
to invest in savings. That's something that you know, actually
(02:56):
we probably will be talking about that, whereas now we're
talking about this controversial issue do we buy back and
said one thing I would say, I heard Barry talking
to you, Heather and saying, you know, should never have been,
should never have been? You know, it was a loss.
We've had a terrible mess of it. Had to sell it. Well,
I don't think it should ever have been sold. We
(03:17):
sold it. They actually paid back that debt, and not
only did they pay it back. They paid back fifteen
percent interest on it too, so that doesn't get told.
So it wasn't a complete basket case Trish. And also
the key point I would make why I don't think
we should buy it back. I mean a it's not
for sales. So it's like me saying I want to
buy sky City. It's not for sale. But also we
(03:39):
have a bank. We have Kiwi Bank, and you know,
actually that's done really well. That's something where as a
as a as a publicly owned bank initially, and I
was there at the very beginning, and this will appare
you all, but one name we thought of for Kiwi
Bank was the People's Bank, so that you would hate that.
Were you going to have a circle, I was going
to say, Ruth Richardson, who appears to be HARKing back
(04:01):
to the dancing.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Costs, going to be sort of like a really nice
bright red.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
It's going to be read and you'd have to join
the party to have a bank account there. But yeah, no,
it's Kiwi Bank. But I think you know, to several
things the bank could do. I mean they are putting
some more capital into it. They could you know, go
put some government funds and use the government bank consider
billion dollars.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Let's say you put ten billion dollars into Kiwi Bank,
it would have such a massive impact as opposed to
what twenty twenty billion dollars to buy back.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Thirty billion dollars or the other thing. That's finally, the
other thing I say is that there's a real gap
there for Kiwibank to own being the sort of infrastructure
bank of New Zealand. The government put money into all
the Regional Bank of New Zealand. So we've got a
bank we call it Guinea Bank. Let's just make that
really really work. It's already working really well. It's one
thing the government's done that does work. Elements, or let's stop.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
I mean, when this has been in politics for a
very very very long time, and this is not an
ageous comment, but let's stop pretending that the same old
solutions from the past are going to work into the future.
There are businesses out there now working globally, and I'm
talking about the likes of the neo banks, who they
will once they come into New Zealand and they get
a foothold, they are going to deliver competition on a scale.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
It feels like thirty years ago.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Never one thing just a minute, No, that has never
been before. But to pack up on Josie's point, this
is what Winston does. He doesn't care that, you know,
the big, chunky policies aren't be debated. He cares that
he has now had twenty four hours of talkback with
his name up and lights. That's what he's doing with
(05:39):
these announcements. Let me just say on the key We
Saver point, because Heather knows I am deeply passionate about
this and have been supporting the work of Fraser winneray
on Keewy sav two point zero. The difference here is again,
this is a party that's just picked up a headline.
Oh it's the it's a key We Saver from birth.
What we need with Kiyi Saver, which apprehensive policy that's
(06:03):
thought through and that has wide support, which it does
so quickly.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
I just want to say, because I heard Ruth Richardson
talking about this and saying, oh, this is Winston being Soviet,
as if he's some kind of communist, and it was
kind of HARKing back to the dancing Cossacks of the
seventies in the National Party. But she's looking at it
through a very past lens.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Right.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
The way to look at this is we don't have
enough competition, yes, in this country, bringing under the monopoly.
So it's the banks, it's the supermarkets. And the idea
that you would do something that created more competition in
banking is a very future focused idea. It's not a
dancing Cossack idea.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Okay, guys, just take a bot all I see you
want to go again through.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
I'm just going to say one thing very quickly. No,
but how this is where this thing is illogical. On
the one hand, you're saying, buy back one Ossie Bank
to make a big New Zealand bank, and then when
you're on the supermarket debate, you're saying, break it up,
break up the one New Zealand major competitor that we have.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
All Right, we're taking a the.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty, the only truly
global brand.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Right, you're back with the hud altrition. Josie. Now, Josie,
what do you think of the scrapping of the good
character references for the sex offenders?
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Oh? Look, I get it, I get that. You know
you've got you've got victims in court who feel like
they're just being victimized all over again when they have
to hear that the person who abused such a good guy,
you know, it takes as nice to their dog, or
you know, donated to a charity. And I think the
bottom line is that people get pissed off about this
(07:34):
because the sentence should fit the crime, not the character.
And that's the problem, right, Such a good way of
putting it. Yeah, I thought so. I thought about that line.
But I do also worry about it in the same
way that you do that that they have to bes
you called it those edge cases where you have to
judges have to have some discretion to be able to say,
(07:55):
you know, actually, judges have ruined it for all of us, haven't.
They are just liberally applying the discretion. That's the problem, right,
The problem isn't the rule, and I don't. I wouldn't
want to see judges not have that ability to be
able to do a good character judgment. And of course
that you know they don't. They can ignore good character judgments.
So I think this is the wrong solution to a
(08:17):
different problem. Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Okay, what do you think, Trish.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
Well, I think it's interesting to remember that when it
comes to sexual offenders there outward good character and reputation
is often how they manage to gain trust and access
and silence from the kind of deliberate from their victims.
I don't think it should be a mitigation. I also
think on the government side, you can't overclaim what this is.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Right.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
It's a justice reform, it has not in any way
a prevention strategy, and we still need all of those
good things happening in the courts, Like the courts are
still the clogged, they're too slow. That's very hard on victims.
But I also feel that I've got an uneasy bob
(09:04):
each way on this one. It doesn't it doesn't quite
stack up for me.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Yeah, quite right. Now, what do you think, Josie. What
I've noticed, I thought this was quite interesting is a
lot of commentators aligned with the National Party and now
saying Luxeen was misinterpreted when he took this tough line
on migration. Is this business is getting annoyed and talking
to the National Party how annoyed they are, and they're
trying to soften it now.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Yeah. Also, it's just not it's not a good line
anymore to say that Luxel was misinterpreted because that's we've
seen that with the with the Iranes comments he made,
so it doesn't reflect well on him if that's If
that's his excuse, I think I think what's happening is
that national it's a tendency. Well, we've just talked about one, right,
the good character rule. They're sort of clutching at things
(09:49):
that we didn't think were particularly big problems. We might
have other problems of this justice system. It's sort of
like they've gone, you know, government should mow my boom
or something, or government should lots of little one and
now we've got this one. They've suddenly gone out on immigration,
where they've said nothing original at all. We all agree
that we want the best immigrants, and so I feel
(10:11):
like they're kind of clutching at things and really, you know,
there's nothing here that we would disagree with. Yeah, business
getting annoyed Luxelon.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
I don't know about that. I did feel uneasy when
I heard this part of the speech and the words
social cohesion number one. I don't think we've got the
data to back up. And someone writing on the weekend said,
you know, look at the IPSOS monitor pole. This is
nowhere near it. We have talked on the show about yes,
there are these issues in places like the UK, but
(10:41):
that is far more pointy and they've had huge numbers,
and I thought I would have felt much more comfortable
and confident around this being in the speech if it
was a discussion actually about what is New Zealand's population strategy,
which is a far bigger and constructive conversation, and it
(11:01):
draws everyone, and it's to your point, are we having
enough babies? It draws, and are we getting the right
people here with skills? And I was thinking about this recently.
With the way the world currently is, we are one
of the highest values countries in the world to market
ourselves to people who really want to come here. But
(11:23):
I think setting this up and putting that social cohesion
word in here, I think that's the wrong way to approach.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
We're so out of time.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
I'm sorry. We'll keep going out for more from Heather
Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live to news Talks. It'd be
from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.