The Huddle: Is the proposed punishment for the Māori Party too harsh?

Tonight on The Huddle, Phil O'Reilly from Iron Duke Partners and Ali Jones from Red PR joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more! 

Is the proposed punishment for the Māori Party too harsh? Gerry Brownlee says it's severe and is suggesting Parliament can still change its mind. What do we make of this? 

Drug tests have found more workers are doing meth. Do we think we should start testing more workers, even in white collar jobs? 

A nine-year-old made headlines after being rejected from his rugby grade due to his weight. What do we think of this? Is this a safety concern?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
On the huddle with us Fillow Raley of Iron Duke
Partners and Ali Jones of read pr Hello are you
two hi?

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Ever?

Speaker 3 (00:06):
Right? So?

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Phil, what do you reckon? Is the punishment for the
Marty Party bang on too harsh or not harsh enough?

Speaker 3 (00:12):
Well, if that's what they came up with, and so
therefore I agree with it. Here's the point though, The
reason it's so harsh is not only did they not
only do they stop a vote in the Parliament in
a pretty dramatic sort of way, then they didn't really engage.
They never apologized that they were really engaged in the process.
And another thing, the whole thing's racist. And let me
give you a comparator. If I go on to a Rye,

(00:34):
then I'm expected to follow Mariy protocol and by the way,
I absolutely do, and I support that idea. It's a
fantastic idea. If I want to change that, I don't
just walk in and abuse it and say well I
don't if you comply with those rules because it was
my particular my particular ethnicity. So if the Mary Party
wants to get changes in protocol and Parliament, and I
think they've got a very good chaste, very very good

(00:55):
case to do that.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yep.

Speaker 3 (00:56):
Then they need to work through that process in a
constructive way. And that's why I think the punishments so harsh,
and that's why why you fundamentally agree with it.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
Ali Ah, I'm kind of over it. But do you
think that comparat is the new C word here that
I'm just beginning to wonder because it seems to be
used a lot. Look, I can understand what phill is
saying that there are rules they should be adhered to.
If they want to change them, there's a process to
go through. But the other thing, too is how do
we keep politics interesting and energetic and passionate but not

(01:26):
an anarchy. And it's those it's that fine line or
that line between those two things that I think we
need to look at. But yeah, look, I think I
do think it was a little harsh. I think they
probably be made an example of. And I think it's
a little harsh because it would have to be for
Jerry to suggest that, I mean, I've worked with him
over the years with the earthquake recovery in christ Church,

(01:47):
and yeah, for Jerry Browny to say he thought it
was a little harsh.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
As very ali. Maybe he softened in his old days.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
Oh I don't think so. You obviously don't know Jerry.

Speaker 3 (01:58):
You know, do you think Jerry's doing the right thing.
They'd actually allow a good debate in Parliament about I
think what a good speaker would do, because the punishment
is unprecedented, and I think Tims saying easy going to
let it whatever say about that I think is good
because it allows these arguments to come out.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
However, however, Phil, I'll give you an alternative argument on that, right,
because it's a fair point that you're making. But here's
the alternative argument. If Parliament takes his direction and waters
down the punishment and then gives them I don't know,
let's say three days, seven days, whatever, and they do
it again because they have indicated they are going to
do it again, then it's on him, isn't it, Because
then he has told Parliament you need to soften this

(02:33):
punishment and then these and it's not a deterrent and
these guys do it again.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
Well, if that's the case, then they put them out
for forty days. I mean, that's the point, right, because you've
got to have a situation where by if you want
to if you want to change the rules, you'd have
a proper debate about that in a context of fairness
and in the context of give and takes and then
move it through. And that's what's not happening here, and
I think that's why the punishment has been so.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
Yeah, you made a really interesting point there, Ali, which
is that we have to keep Parliament interesting. This is
ultimately what's going on here in a social media world.
You've got these guys acting up, doing the huker Brook,
dropping the sea bomb, David driving a truck up the
steps of Parliament. They're all doing it for social media attention,
aren't they.

Speaker 3 (03:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (03:10):
Well, I think I think the social media helped to
propel this to continue happening. Although we've got to remember
that this kind of grandstanding is not you And I
mean even before social media you might not remember that
being as young as you are. Ever they didn't, you know,
they still did this kind of stuff. So but maybe
there's an added incentive to do that now. But I mean,

(03:32):
look at Winston. Winston has been around for years. He's
been doing this kind of silly carry on for ages.
Imagine if we didn't have someone like Winston Peters in there.
We've got to have the passion even if we are
critical of it, if it's uncomfortable, and there's a degree
of reasonableness as well, But we have to have this
color and this passion in politics. Otherwise God, who would care?

Speaker 1 (03:52):
Yeah, Okay, listen, We'll take a break and come back
to you guys. Back on the huddle with Fillerali and
Ali Jones. Ali, were you surprised this drug testing at
work found TV positive.

Speaker 2 (04:01):
For p Oh, Yeah, I did. I'm kind of a
I was gonna say a bit out of touch with
all that stuff, but we regularly hear these stories when
they test the wastewater and you know, it went up
I think during COVID and so forth. But yeah, I
was really surprised. But I would like to know why
what it is that? Is it the availability of the drug.

(04:22):
Is it that the cost of the drug? Is it
why people not taking cocaine as they used to. I
believe that they used to show up in the in
the wastewater system. As far as testing people, more goes
absolutely if they're in a role, whether in charge of
machinery or you know, driving a vehicle. I haven't got
a problem with that at all.

Speaker 1 (04:39):
What about, Phil, if they're just in a role like,
for example, what about drug testing radio announcers, Because if seriously,
if one of us and it definitely isn't me, obviously,
but if one of us was on the glass pipe
and then just got a bit loose, came to work
still kind of having a hoon on it and started
just I mean, you could break all kinds of broadcasting rule.

(05:00):
There's the reputational side, which Glenn was saying to us
at the very beginning of the show, Glenn Dobson, there's
the reputational side. If you get busted and you're on
the pee or have been using the pe, how bad
that looks for your company? So, actually, Phil, is there
not an argument for any employer to do it?

Speaker 3 (05:14):
Yeah? There is. I agree with Valley that the primary
thing is health and safety. That's why you see these
really strict rules and sort of q erail and at
ports and airports and airlines and so on, because that's
where the robber really is the road and in those companies.
I was just checking with a few of my mates
of South the need to confirm this. Actually, in places
like a port, well, everybody gets tested, the guy, the

(05:34):
boss and the directors and the guys running their straddle
carriers don on that culture is everybody gets tested, right,
here's the here's the little chap. So I think, is
there is there a role to think about the wider
risk issued to say, to your point, there's a risk
that someone breaks some rules because they're you know, they're
on the on the on the on the pipe. Yes,
I think you could take that view, but you start

(05:56):
to run under a few problems because what I'm also
reliably informed is that some of the testing can be
pretty inaccurate. It can be this masking that can be
done and so on. So do you really know what
you're doing? So yeah, I agree that the testing's good.
Idea along with education, along with making sure the testing's right,
along with along by the way, having a view about

(06:16):
that testing which says, if we find you, we're going
to treat that. It's something we can we can treat,
we can help you out. We're not just going to fire,
You're not going to bullet you straight away. We're going
to work with you to try and make sure we
can get you better. And I think most employers would
we kind of buy that idea. Such a it's a
health issue as well as a safety issue, and it's
not perfect by any means, No.

Speaker 1 (06:34):
Not at all, Alie, Okay to keep the fifty four
kg kid out of the forty five kg competition.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
Do you know I put the mother lens on this
when I first saw the story, you know, I really
and look, my our son who's twenty two, used to
play rugby and he was a bit of a tall, skinny,
white kid and when he played some of the teams
that had the you know, the really big usually Polynesian boys.
We do have some Polynesian and Marti people in christ Church,
and when he would go play in teams against some

(07:01):
of those boys, I mean they were men, some of them,
and it would just really worry me. So from the
safety perspective, I do have an issue with that, But
I don't know what the rules are.

Speaker 3 (07:13):
Philly.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
You're a rugby player. Maybe if if you're if you're
a big guy and a team, does it worry you
so much if you're playing against big guys?

Speaker 3 (07:21):
I'm so useless at sport made I tell you what
I'm hoping. But when I was, when I was a boy,
back in the day, you used to have weight for
age and know it was because the challenge he was
at rugby is the contact sport, and that's where I
think you do run into issues where someone is big
either there you know, they're just bigger than normal, or
they're floud or what eeveryone might be the challenges that
they're going to crunch your kid and that kid is

(07:42):
going to get injured potentially seriously. So I think there
is a rule. I think there is a sensible rule
to say, within some limitations that if you're if you're
over the weight, you go to a bigger weight scale.
You mean you might, it's not you know. That's why
I say wait for ages. It's not just age, it's
also wake the man.

Speaker 1 (07:58):
Is your birthday?

Speaker 3 (08:00):
It is?

Speaker 1 (08:03):
And Harvey Harvey. I don't know who Harvey is, but
Harvey dobbed you in on the text machine. Do you
know who Harvey is?

Speaker 3 (08:11):
I do know Harvey. He's a carphonetic from one Ray
I know exactly.

Speaker 1 (08:16):
Happy birthday, Phil, I hope you have a lovely day
and thank you very much. Thanks hard this evening. For
more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drive, listen live to news talks.
It'd be from four pm weekdays or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio,