Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right on the huddle of us this evening. We've
got Tris Sharson of Sheerson Willis PR and Joe Spagani
of Child Fund CEO. There, Hello you too. I love Josie.
I'm going to go with the Minister saying get on
with it to the landlords as being about the extent
of the three. I mean, this is this is not real.
I mean, this is not really a threat, is it.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
You mean with the healthy homes? Yeah, but I mean
look that the standards have since they've been in since
twenty nineteen, They've had six years to get up to speed,
and I think they have actually improved a lot of homes.
Those standards that when they came in I was just
so overhearing the words yes, warm, healthy homes. It was
like the sort of mantra that was dis haunting me
(00:40):
in my dreams. But I do think it has done
something and just putting the pressure on for a lot
of those thirty three percent houses and rental houses in
New Zealand are still moldy. That's pretty bad, but it's
much better than it was. And it's mostly that those
things right, the black mold, the cold and people in
all don't necessarily realize just how dire some of that
(01:02):
rental property was. But I do worry that it's it
has policy has driven a lot of people out of
the rental market, and there is less supply. So we've
got to focus on the fact that, Okay, new buildings
will be well, will be consented, and we'll have all
of this stuff and be warm, healthy, warm buildings whatever homes.
(01:23):
And maybe this is a slow, painful process of kind
of driving all the old wooden houses out that that
are never going to comply our home. I live in
a wooden house. We can't. We can't put the insulation
in the ceiling.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
It's very drafting.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
I couldn't I.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Live in a house it doesn't comply. Trish, does your
wooden house comply?
Speaker 3 (01:43):
It certainly would not. I think all great points that
that Josie's made that this is a it's been a
very big change, and in any sector, there are always
those who will get on into it. There are laggards,
and that's why you know there are there will be
(02:04):
there should be enforcement around meeting those standards, and probably
what you'll start to see there'll be a few high
profile and force remind yep to exactly right to remind
the laggers that that it's not cool. And I think
in our heads we can all think of the places
like you say, like Duned and some of the student
(02:25):
rentals around places like Wellington particularly that won't come up
to scratch. So there will need to be enforcements so
that those who are lagging behind do get it. But
also over time, if you're think about what's happening in
the Auckland market, now, you have got an oversupply of nice,
newly built sort of townhouses in a range of price ranges.
(02:48):
So I think that land wars will also face some
competitive market pressure because there will be tenants who can
look around and go, well, I'm not going to go
in the house of the black mold. I'm going to
go in the brand new house the double glazing if
I can afford it.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
Yes, right, you're back of the hut. Altricious and Josepiginatrisha.
I want to talk about I care, but first I
just want to talk really quickly about the law and
order changes that we've had. Do you think a coward
punch that results in somebody dying should see that person
who threw the punch lumped with a life sentence.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Yes, I do. Why because I think it's well known,
well it should be well known by now what damage
this type of thing can do. And there is no
excuse in my view for throwing a punch like that
and then being able to get away when there are
(03:42):
very extreme, if not life threatening, consequences. And I think
we've got to get tougher on that stuff.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Yeah, what do you reckon, Josie?
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Well, the problem with this idea, I mean, no one
but a psychopath would disagree that someone who's punching someone
who's trying to stop them bleeding and save their lives.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
No different thing different, not my first offenders, not the
first offenders. The coward punch. Right, So you're standing there
and somebody punches you in the back of your head,
you don't see it coming, You fall on the ground,
don't brace die?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Well yes, okay, So the problem with that is, and
I think you said this earlier, Heather, that if you
stab someone you have an intent to murder them. If
you're in a fight and you do a coward punch,
you know that basically knocks someone out and kills them,
you haven't intended to kill them. You've had a fight.
So whether that's the same as someone actually knocking on
(04:29):
the door and shooting someone or stabbing them with a knife,
I'm not sure, but you know, I do think those
are different than the intent matters.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
My argument, actually, Josie, was that it's exactly the same thing,
because if you people who stab each other don't actually
always intend to kill, but it results in death, and
we treat it right, We treat it like, well, well,
you mean, you kill them, so there you go, you know,
And I wonder if the same is true of the
coward punch. I mean, you can no one can argue
nowadays that we don't know the effect of all the
(05:01):
most the worst case scenario, if you punch somebody in
the back of the head.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
That's right, But I do think you have to take
circumstances into account. So there'll be some you know, vicious
idiot who, whether he is using a knife, a baseball
bat or his fist, is setting out to really, you know,
hurt or kill someone. And then there's someone who's drunk
in a barroom Barel and someone you know punches someone
and they hit their head and they're dead. I think
(05:26):
that's where you know, I worry when politicians start taking
discretion away from judges to such an extent that the
common sense thing where you look at a circumstance and
you go, hold on a minute. This person has to
take the consequences, but they're not the same as the vicious,
violent thug that's set out to kill someone with whatever,
wapping fist all knife.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Yeap, okay, now, Trish, can you explain what I want
to hear is an argument for why we need to
have these things in that IKEA consent that allow mana
fina with so much access.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
Can you look if you're looking for me to mount
that argument, you have come to the rule most in
Heather what I what I what I think is fantastic here.
I am sorry for I care that they've had to
go through this, but I think these are the types
of examples that are critical for councils and particularly the
(06:23):
government to keep hearing right now because if we are
going out and advertising to the world, which we absolutely
need to, and the government is doing that, we want
big companies and foreign direct investment in New Zealand. This
is the kind of crap that has to be sorted
out because there is nothing that makes those the big
(06:44):
money guys, you know, put across beside you faster than going.
We have no certainty if we turn up with a
bag of money and want to make a big investment here,
but we have no certainty over how long it's going
to take for us to get through what should be
a relatively simple process.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Okay, now, Josie, you can either have a crack at
that argument for why Manafena will need that kind of access,
or you can mount the argument for why Auckland Council
has completely lost its mind to give this kind of access.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
I'm going to do the latter, Oka Heather, obviously, because
I think the culture we're trying to change here is
not to say, oh, you know, don't do a Katakia,
don't do a puor Frey. The culture we're trying to
change here is the consultation culture. It's a virus in
the RMA, and it's a virus in the way that
we do development, where we think you're doing the right
(07:36):
thing if you consult for god knows how long. I mean,
I live on Coveredy Road. We've just spent six years
consulting on the name of the road. So the problem
we've got here is this sort of consultation class, right,
And I think it's also the everything Bagel approach to development,
where you go right in the lab form of government housing.
(07:58):
And if you're going to build houses, well, you've got
to have unionized labor, you've got to use local suppliers,
you've got to have gender diversity, and you can make
a case for all of those things, but you have
to prioritize. And in this case, the problem New Zealand
has is lack of competition in supermarkets in retail, and
the idea that IQ we would delay another player coming
(08:19):
into the market is nuts. So the priority here is competition.
So then you have to go right not in everything Bagel.
We are going to sacrifice some things. We're going to
shorten the consultation and actually, you know, the consultation culture
is the biggest problem that we've got.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
And after six years, what's the name of the road
going to be?
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Main road? Main road?
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Main road?
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Thank you, Thank you very much appreciated that consultation went well.
Joe Spagani and trishus and our art of this evening.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive listen live to
news talks.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio