August 21, 2024 • 8 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Jack Tame from ZB's Saturday Mornings and Q&A and Kiwiblog's David Farrar joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
Insurance companies are bringing in extra money - IAG posted a profit increase of 1000 percent. Whar do we make of this.
Police will be cracking down on parents who smoke in the car with their kids after three years of looking the other way - do we agree with this change? Do police need to focus on this?
Staffers in David Seymour's Ministry of Regulation earn on average $150,000 a year. Does this seem fair following all the public sector cuts?
LISTEN ABOVE
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 (00:00):
On addle Me.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
This evening got David farrer KII blogging, Curia Polster and
Jack tame Q and a host and host of Saturday
Mornings on z B. Hire you too, David, Have you
noticed your insurance going up?
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Oh? Absolutely, Look I was partly defended and partly condemned
insurance companies. I'll say that was a condemnation because this
is so struck. Many years ago, as a conference's treble ed,
Richard got up and talked about how he'd been in
director of the United States Specialist Insurance Company. They did
(00:31):
the hurricane insurance right, and he said they only had
one rule that they would never break, which is they
would own the insurer buildings that could withstand hurricanes. Remember
subs insurance companies, to a large degree, they don't want
to pay out. They are there to make profit. But
having said that, with high ag I think we're'd be
(00:53):
a bit careful when we talk about profit number sound big,
but what's their return on equity? Are a trollion dollar
company at bilgion dollar company. So I don't think we
should say IAD is necessarily profiteering there just because they're
the bumper profit. You really do have to look at
what their return on equity. But you know, let's not
(01:13):
mistake ourselves that you know, insurance companies are highly profitable, but.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
They really are. And you know, David, the jack the
thing is if if you're just talking about car insurance,
it's not a big deal, but it's your car insurance
and your house insurance, and your content insurance, and your
life insurance and your medical insurance. Before you know it,
it's going to buy hundreds of dollars.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
In a year. And it's such a profoundly unsatisfying bill.
To have to pay any bill is particularly fun. But
you know, like you know, if you you know, you
feel like, I don't know, it's time to get some
new benchips or something. You lip down to Bunnings of
the sale.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
At least you get.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Something out of it, you've got something tangible. But with
insurance it's like, ah, the goo is a grand or
three grades. So I will.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Say, because the husband nearly died last year and he'd
been paying health insurance for a really long time, I'll
tell you what that was sweet satisfaction getting all that
money back like that would have been multiple hundreds of
thousands of dollars that play.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Out, not that we were obviously wishing your husband to
have to go through that. Yes, yes, yes, I mean
and certainly, look if my house were the burn down
or something like that, I'm sure I'd be very grateful.
And I'm not disputing the utility of insurance companies. I
think to David's point, though, it is actually very difficult
for those of us on the outside to look at
a baseline figure like that profit and assess whether or
(02:30):
not it's accessive or not, right, especially if you put
it in the context of the last couple of years.
I mean, let's go and have a look at the
profits from you know, the year of the Auckland floods
and you know, and the storm heading the stormhading the
east coast the North Island. Yeah, yeah, relative to relative
to this years, right, So you know, it is pretty
difficult to try and assess that. But yeah, certainly, if
(02:52):
we're not seeing some sort of premium relief in the
next year or two, I think a lot of people
be pretty frustrated.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Yeah, Hey, David, what do you reckon about the police
cracking down on the stupid parents smoking with the kids
in the cars? Is that really a priority?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Well, I think they should be doing warnings at le
I don't think you charging finding parents for being, let's
be blunt, bad parents. You know, I really can't think
why any parents would expose they could to secondhand smoke.
But I think YO clogging up court time worth actual
(03:26):
charges isn't the best way. But most parents, you would hope,
would respond to an official caution from the police. So
I think that's what they should be doing.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
The Huddle with New Zealand Southby's international realty unparalleled reach
and results.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Back on the Huddles, Jack Nam, David Farajack, what do
you reckon?
Speaker 3 (03:45):
I reckon if you are the kind of parent who
is prepared to smoke with your children in a confined space,
you are probably the kind of parent isn't going to
really give a toss if the police find you. I
just wonder if they should do what they did that
they used to do with seat belts, you know, every
now and then they do a bit of a blitz, yeah,
and then publicize that they get all the newspaper photographers
(04:06):
down there, and you know, all people using their cell phones.
What you need is for fifty people to be stung
on a weekend for smoking or vaping with their kids
in the car. Put it on the page of the Herald,
and then you should.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Be right for a while.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
But do you know what, it's so interesting. But it's
interesting you raise that point because I don't even know
if there would be fifty I mean, really, honestly, do
parents still do this?
Speaker 3 (04:23):
I don't think I've ever seen it. No, since they bann,
I honestly don't think I think I've ever seen it.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
I mean, it just.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Seems I just cannot imagine being a parent and doing
that with a child in the car. I suppose some
people might say that vaping is different, but obviously the
law doesn't distinguish. Yeah, I just can't imagine it.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Have you ever seen it, David?
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I haven't. I think all three of us would be
surprised that we're out of touch with segments.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Okay, okay, I'm going to take that in the spirit
of middle tea.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Go yeah, yeah, you.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Weren't trying to be horrible, and so we're going to
forgive you. Forgive you for that. David, Listen, are you
at all offended that Nicole McKee is a gun obvioust
turned MP rewriting gun laws? Is this a problem?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
To you, no, because she doesn't rewrite them. Anything goes
through cabinet. Obviously she has an interest with her background there,
that's why she got the portfolio. But you know, any
significant changes always goes through a caliborative process, probably will
involve the three party leaders. So I don't see it
(05:26):
as a big issue, and you know she will be
far from the only person. You know, you've had education
unionists have become education ministers.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Yeah, so Jack, to that point, how is this different
from for example, Michael Wood, senior union organizer becoming the
workplace Relations minister or Andrew Hogard federated farmer's boss becoming
the Sociate Agriculture Minister.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
I think you guys are absolutely right, and that there
are just lots of people who come from advocating for
certain interests bday, like collective interests or you know, explicit
court interests in the private sector or public sector, who
then come into roles in Parliamentose. I suppose the question
is really around process, right And to David's point, you know,
(06:10):
to consider the criticism from the Police Union of last
week of Police Association of last week, you would think
that if you came from a public position as a
as a as a gun industry or gun lobby spokesperson,
then you would do everything in your power to at
least include people who might be on the other side
of an argument when it came to changing stuff. And look,
(06:31):
I mean, I'm sure that the minister will contest that
she and the police, you know she has involved police,
and that you know, the police union are unnecessarily raising concerns.
But I would have thought that's a really good way
around it. If there's to be any question over your
neutrality in creating those laws, you really want to make
sure that you include organizations and voices from a wide
(06:53):
range of perspectives.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Yeah, but I think that's a fair point, very quickly
from both of you. David, do you think that David
Seymour is in a little bit of trouble here for
being the cut the waiste, slash and burn through the
public sector guy, and then it turns out he's building
a ministry that's now four times the size of the
Productivity Commission it replaced.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I don't think the problem is the size of it,
but the efforts salary of one hundred and fifty thousand, Yeah,
did surprise me, because lot many public stuments are one
hundred and fifty found now, but for that to be
the average, that just does seem quite high for me.
You know, if you're an optimist, you might say, well,
they're getting the top people, and they're going to do
(07:32):
a great job, and they're going to get rid of
some stupid regulations. But we haven't seen that yet. All
we've seen is the cost. So the effort is going
to be on that they actually have to deliver Otherwise, people,
I guess what are we getting by paying all this done?
Speaker 2 (07:47):
And Jack, I always think there's nothing worse than a hypocrite.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Yeah, of course, this is the thing that repulses everyone
about politicians and all strips, right, Hypocrisy is the thing
that really riles us. Now, I'm not saying this that
David Seymour is being hypocrit just yet. I think you
guys are right. The proof of the pudding is in
the eating. I was personally surprised at the at the
size of the ministry. I'm not saying it's necessarily a
bad thing, but yeah, those those salaries do seem on
(08:13):
the higher side. So you know, it just puts all
the more pressure on this on this new ministry to
actually have some really significant tangible outcome, it.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Better cut a lot out of everybody else to justify
its existence. Guys, thank you very much, David Farrah, Jack
t Mar Huddle.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
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
On addle Me.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
This evening got David farrer KII blogging, Curia Polster and
Jack tame Q and a host and host of Saturday
Mornings on z B. Hire you too, David, Have you
noticed your insurance going up?
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Oh? Absolutely, Look I was partly defended and partly condemned
insurance companies. I'll say that was a condemnation because this
is so struck. Many years ago, as a conference's treble ed,
Richard got up and talked about how he'd been in
director of the United States Specialist Insurance Company. They did
(00:31):
the hurricane insurance right, and he said they only had
one rule that they would never break, which is they
would own the insurer buildings that could withstand hurricanes. Remember
subs insurance companies, to a large degree, they don't want
to pay out. They are there to make profit. But
having said that, with high ag I think we're'd be
(00:53):
a bit careful when we talk about profit number sound big,
but what's their return on equity? Are a trollion dollar
company at bilgion dollar company. So I don't think we
should say IAD is necessarily profiteering there just because they're
the bumper profit. You really do have to look at
what their return on equity. But you know, let's not
(01:13):
mistake ourselves that you know, insurance companies are highly profitable, but.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
They really are. And you know, David, the jack the
thing is if if you're just talking about car insurance,
it's not a big deal, but it's your car insurance
and your house insurance, and your content insurance, and your
life insurance and your medical insurance. Before you know it,
it's going to buy hundreds of dollars.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
In a year. And it's such a profoundly unsatisfying bill.
To have to pay any bill is particularly fun. But
you know, like you know, if you you know, you
feel like, I don't know, it's time to get some
new benchips or something. You lip down to Bunnings of
the sale.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
At least you get.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Something out of it, you've got something tangible. But with
insurance it's like, ah, the goo is a grand or
three grades. So I will.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Say, because the husband nearly died last year and he'd
been paying health insurance for a really long time, I'll
tell you what that was sweet satisfaction getting all that
money back like that would have been multiple hundreds of
thousands of dollars that play.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Out, not that we were obviously wishing your husband to
have to go through that. Yes, yes, yes, I mean
and certainly, look if my house were the burn down
or something like that, I'm sure I'd be very grateful.
And I'm not disputing the utility of insurance companies. I
think to David's point, though, it is actually very difficult
for those of us on the outside to look at
a baseline figure like that profit and assess whether or
(02:30):
not it's accessive or not, right, especially if you put
it in the context of the last couple of years.
I mean, let's go and have a look at the
profits from you know, the year of the Auckland floods
and you know, and the storm heading the stormhading the
east coast the North Island. Yeah, yeah, relative to relative
to this years, right, So you know, it is pretty
difficult to try and assess that. But yeah, certainly, if
(02:52):
we're not seeing some sort of premium relief in the
next year or two, I think a lot of people
be pretty frustrated.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Yeah, Hey, David, what do you reckon about the police
cracking down on the stupid parents smoking with the kids
in the cars? Is that really a priority?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Well, I think they should be doing warnings at le
I don't think you charging finding parents for being, let's
be blunt, bad parents. You know, I really can't think
why any parents would expose they could to secondhand smoke.
But I think YO clogging up court time worth actual
(03:26):
charges isn't the best way. But most parents, you would hope,
would respond to an official caution from the police. So
I think that's what they should be doing.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
The Huddle with New Zealand Southby's international realty unparalleled reach
and results.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Back on the Huddles, Jack Nam, David Farajack, what do
you reckon?
Speaker 3 (03:45):
I reckon if you are the kind of parent who
is prepared to smoke with your children in a confined space,
you are probably the kind of parent isn't going to
really give a toss if the police find you. I
just wonder if they should do what they did that
they used to do with seat belts, you know, every
now and then they do a bit of a blitz, yeah,
and then publicize that they get all the newspaper photographers
(04:06):
down there, and you know, all people using their cell phones.
What you need is for fifty people to be stung
on a weekend for smoking or vaping with their kids
in the car. Put it on the page of the Herald,
and then you should.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Be right for a while.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
But do you know what, it's so interesting. But it's
interesting you raise that point because I don't even know
if there would be fifty I mean, really, honestly, do
parents still do this?
Speaker 3 (04:23):
I don't think I've ever seen it. No, since they bann,
I honestly don't think I think I've ever seen it.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
I mean, it just.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Seems I just cannot imagine being a parent and doing
that with a child in the car. I suppose some
people might say that vaping is different, but obviously the
law doesn't distinguish. Yeah, I just can't imagine it.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Have you ever seen it, David?
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I haven't. I think all three of us would be
surprised that we're out of touch with segments.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Okay, okay, I'm going to take that in the spirit
of middle tea.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Go yeah, yeah, you.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Weren't trying to be horrible, and so we're going to
forgive you. Forgive you for that. David, Listen, are you
at all offended that Nicole McKee is a gun obvioust
turned MP rewriting gun laws? Is this a problem?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
To you, no, because she doesn't rewrite them. Anything goes
through cabinet. Obviously she has an interest with her background there,
that's why she got the portfolio. But you know, any
significant changes always goes through a caliborative process, probably will
involve the three party leaders. So I don't see it
(05:26):
as a big issue, and you know she will be
far from the only person. You know, you've had education
unionists have become education ministers.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Yeah, so Jack, to that point, how is this different
from for example, Michael Wood, senior union organizer becoming the
workplace Relations minister or Andrew Hogard federated farmer's boss becoming
the Sociate Agriculture Minister.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
I think you guys are absolutely right, and that there
are just lots of people who come from advocating for
certain interests bday, like collective interests or you know, explicit
court interests in the private sector or public sector, who
then come into roles in Parliamentose. I suppose the question
is really around process, right And to David's point, you know,
(06:10):
to consider the criticism from the Police Union of last
week of Police Association of last week, you would think
that if you came from a public position as a
as a as a gun industry or gun lobby spokesperson,
then you would do everything in your power to at
least include people who might be on the other side
of an argument when it came to changing stuff. And look,
(06:31):
I mean, I'm sure that the minister will contest that
she and the police, you know she has involved police,
and that you know, the police union are unnecessarily raising concerns.
But I would have thought that's a really good way
around it. If there's to be any question over your
neutrality in creating those laws, you really want to make
sure that you include organizations and voices from a wide
(06:53):
range of perspectives.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Yeah, but I think that's a fair point, very quickly
from both of you. David, do you think that David
Seymour is in a little bit of trouble here for
being the cut the waiste, slash and burn through the
public sector guy, and then it turns out he's building
a ministry that's now four times the size of the
Productivity Commission it replaced.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I don't think the problem is the size of it,
but the efforts salary of one hundred and fifty thousand, Yeah,
did surprise me, because lot many public stuments are one
hundred and fifty found now, but for that to be
the average, that just does seem quite high for me.
You know, if you're an optimist, you might say, well,
they're getting the top people, and they're going to do
(07:32):
a great job, and they're going to get rid of
some stupid regulations. But we haven't seen that yet. All
we've seen is the cost. So the effort is going
to be on that they actually have to deliver Otherwise, people,
I guess what are we getting by paying all this done?
Speaker 2 (07:47):
And Jack, I always think there's nothing worse than a hypocrite.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
Yeah, of course, this is the thing that repulses everyone
about politicians and all strips, right, Hypocrisy is the thing
that really riles us. Now, I'm not saying this that
David Seymour is being hypocrit just yet. I think you
guys are right. The proof of the pudding is in
the eating. I was personally surprised at the at the
size of the ministry. I'm not saying it's necessarily a
bad thing, but yeah, those those salaries do seem on
(08:13):
the higher side. So you know, it just puts all
the more pressure on this on this new ministry to
actually have some really significant tangible outcome, it.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Better cut a lot out of everybody else to justify
its existence. Guys, thank you very much, David Farrah, Jack
t Mar Huddle.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
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
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.