June 21, 2024 • 28 mins
This week on The Highlight Reel with Simon Barnett and James Daniels is everything from granny flats to fast cars.
Why did James' driving get him in trouble with listeners?
Si and James debate sportsmanship after Rory McIlroy failed to shake Bryson DeChambeau's hand after being pipped to the title at the US Golf Open.
The pair also discuss aspirations of saving native species, and ask why our children aren't learning to swim like they used to.
All of that plus the disappointing news that avocados are bad for the environment.
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 (00:06):
You're listening to the Simon Barnett and James Daniels Afternoons
podcast from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Chats, laughs and the best calls.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
This is the highlight reel with Simon Barnett and James
Daniels howered by News Talks EDB.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Hello there, thank you for having us at your place today.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
James, you're a who get a mate and kekea mihi
kiya koto. It's a big shout out to you everyone.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
We are joined by our political editor Jason Walls, who's
finally made it in horse and carriage to Japan.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Connege.
Speaker 5 (00:37):
You are Kunichua from the Land of the Rising Sun.
Although it's pouring down with rain over here, so I'm
feeling a little bit short changed at the moment. But
you know, it's not all about me.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
No, But oh my goodness, Jason, what a rigmarole to
get there.
Speaker 5 (00:50):
I think a rigmarole is a bit of an understatement.
We were sitting there in the Papua New Guinea airport
and we were told it was only going to take
an hour to refuel, and then it was ten minutes late,
and then it was fifteen minutes late, and it was
twenty minutes late.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
And this is not my first rodeo.
Speaker 5 (01:04):
I've been on these trips before where it's broken down
and there are a few telltale signs. I looked at
some of the faces of the officials that had gone
a little bit white when they realized what was going on,
and so the head of the mission gathered us all
and told us, yep, sorry, we're going to be delayed
a little bit while we were placed a fuse. But
I kind of looked at that and thought there was
absolutely no way. It's just going to be an hour.
(01:25):
I think they're a little bit optimistic. So that turned
into seven hours, and we ended up staying in Papua
New Guinea and then heading to Brisbane and then to Japan.
And I'll tell you what, if you felt like you've
been in some awkward situations before, it's got absolutely nothing
on walking onto a plane full of people that have
had to be diverted from another country just to pick
(01:46):
you up. So there was some sheepish looking business delegation
and journalists walking onto that flight.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
I'll tell you that much. But noe.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
We arrived last night.
Speaker 5 (01:53):
We got here pretty much without any sort of issue
or delay. With the Air New Zealand flight and interestingly
Dame Terrase Walsh who's the chairwoman of Air New Zealand
and CEO of Greg Forum were on the flight as well,
and they jumped on the old drinks kite and we're
handing people out drinks and food and we're all the
way back in economy. They gave up their seat for
(02:14):
somebody else, so very nice thing for them to do.
I think they smelled a good pr opportunity on that one,
since we all picked up on that as well. No,
we we are absolutely here, No more pup in New Guinea,
nor more Australia. We're on the ground and finally ready
to go.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
The highlight reel with Simon Barnett and James Daniels.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Hughes talk said, be grannie flats These dwellings sixty meters
or less are the answer to the housing problem. Will
they be useful, will they actually serve a great purpose?
Or will they be ugly, unsatisfactory and undesirable. I know
you live in a nice house right now, but going forward,
do you think you could live in a dwelling of
(02:53):
sixty square meters?
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Yeah, when you say you could, you yeah, absolutely would
I prefer something bigger for me personally?
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Yes? Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Text tire from Stevie says, high boys read the granny flats.
Can they have a bathroom and kitchen facilities near that
is yes, Steve, they can. And that's where some people
get concerned about the drain on the sort of infrastry.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
Resources, which is why they call them resource consents. That's
what's odd about this is that they're adding all this
strain on resources. Yeah, without consent, But anyway I get
out there.
Speaker 6 (03:24):
Yosh, I work for a tiny home company, And in
no way does it actually make it easier. All it
does is make it cheaper, because what a lot of
people are forgetting is that even if you don't need
the building consent, you still have to apply for an exemption,
which still goes through a lot of the rigmarole of
(03:44):
submitting your engineering plans, how you're going to deal with
the water, so you still go through all the things
that you need to go through if you were to
have consent. All they're doing is increasing it to sixty
from the thirty. So it's just as much of a headache,
except that it's a lot cheaper. You may save a
few thousand you only pay a dollar per thousand that
(04:05):
the projects were. I'm going through a few of the
exemptions now, and I've still got to dot your eyes
and cross your t's that.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
You would have to.
Speaker 7 (04:12):
It's not actually fixing anything.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Josh, thank you very much for your thoughts. Lindsay, good
to talk to you. So you're an architectural designer.
Speaker 8 (04:19):
Yes, correct, and I have read the documents that we're
all talking about, and mainly because it also flows on
from changes that came into the industry either last year
or the year before around requirements for building consents of
up to thirty square meter lightweight buildings that don't have plumbing.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Essentially, from your perspective as an architectural designer with some
real skin in the game, do you think this is
a good solution.
Speaker 9 (04:49):
I think it's a step in the right direction here.
I mean, obviously there's going to be issues around. Councils
still need to be informed somehow, I think, because they're
going to need to know about the loading onto the
pipes and infrastructure, which the previous thirty square me to
buildings didn't really have. But I've talked in the documents
(05:10):
about that you wouldn't need a building consent on the
sixty square meter ones if you can connect into the
council system with the storm water and wastewater. But if
it's on site where you have a septic tanks or
sarche or you need to have soakals or some sort
of drainage system that has been designed, then you'd still
need a building.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Consent, but not a resource consent. No.
Speaker 9 (05:34):
Yeah, this is the confusion again. So resource content is
only if you are breaking the rules, which are your setbacks,
your maximum height. There's some councils have earthwork maximums and
that that's where it comes down to trying to control
(05:54):
what has actually been built.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Very good information, Lindsay, thanks for taking the time to
give us your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Not a problem the highlight reel.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
It is a really interesting story this and really interesting
reaction to the US Open golf and even for very
much non golfers and non sporty types, they've become embroiled
in this discussion about whether it was poor sportsmanship of
Rory not shaking Bryson de Shambeau's hand at the loss.
Rory McElroy has come out and said that was the
toughest loss of his professional career and it hurts like
(06:23):
never before. He's taken three weeks out of golf to
try and get his head together. Some say he'll probably
never be the same. That may be a bit dramatic.
This text here says Simon, he's supposed to be a
professional athlete, no excuses. What he did was pure ignorance
and bad manners and a sign of the real man.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
Similar texts says they paid a lot to be professional
and losing is part of sport. Imagine if the All
Blacks that have walked off the field after losing to
France at the ninety nine World Cup, what about Rory?
Speaker 3 (06:50):
Yeah, but that was a four year This is tenure
and an individual sport versus team. I think there's a difference,
not a ten year since the last major.
Speaker 7 (06:58):
Good a adam, Guys, James, you're like an old pinball machine.
You're out of order.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Yes, good keep talking at him.
Speaker 7 (07:05):
You know what I think. If you haven't played sport
at the very highest level, and I haven't, I've played
at regional levels, it's your life, right. You're trying to
go out there and do the best you can. You're
trying to win the damn tournament and you're basically bitterly
disappoint it. It's not bad sportsmanship. You're just trying to
process what happened, and later on you kind of reflect
and think about it and go, Okay, hang on a moment,
(07:27):
maybe I didn't handle that that well, But that's a
moment's thing, right And literally what twenty four hours later,
you know he's thought about it, he's processed it, and
he's dealt with it.
Speaker 9 (07:37):
Yeah, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (07:38):
It's just good sportsmanship. He was expected at the news
conference at the end of it all, but he didn't
front And that's the issue.
Speaker 7 (07:45):
What's he going to say at the news conference. He's
going to sit there being utterly devastated and pretty much.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
And drilled by every man and his dog.
Speaker 7 (07:53):
Yeah, yeah, exactly exactly. They're going to deal to him
even more. He's not going to say anything. It's just
a complete disaster all rounds. And if we're talking about sportsmanship,
should we have the Australian cricket team play at all?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Ordinarily ninety nine times out of one hundred, if you lose,
you should always shake your hand. That is good sportsmanship.
But I think Rory should be cut some slack here.
And he's not being online. A lot of people are
very angry at him, and I think that's doubling down.
That's there's pressure there that we can't even begin to imagine.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
No, we can't and I can't even begin to imagine
winning two million dollars for finishing second.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Yeah either, yeah, but then then, to quote Jim Carry,
I wish everybody could be rich and famous, and they
realized that wasn't the answer. When you're Rory McElroy on
those players. John Rahm just signed with Live for three
hundred million dollars. Do you think a two million dollars
tom means anything? Money doesn't mean anything to them. This
is a guy that has been waiting for ten years
for his fifth major, and with four holes to play,
(08:47):
he's two strokes up and on the eighteenth he had
less than four foot to basically win the thing.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Maybe missed it, maybe he's.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Pasted it the highlight reel.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
I read a story on the Herald website this morning
from their driven portion. So that's the kind of their
motoring section of the newspaper or online. And I always
I don't know why I enjoy that. I know nothing
about cars, but I like cars But one thing that's
caught my attention is this incessant need to publicize how
fast cars can go from nought to one hundred. So
(09:17):
there's a feature being done on the McLaren Tura Spider
and they say it's just absolute performance. And then once again,
the story goes, it can get to zero to one
hundred ks in three seconds flat, right, so that's great.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Now.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Then they go on to say and nought to two
hundred ks in just eight point four seconds, and then
they go top speed is limited to three hundred and
thirty ks, And I go, so, what like? Who cares
whether are carking? And I like fast cars. I like
them on the track, and I've had a fast car.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
That's all about how quickly you can get to the
speed limit, which might be fifty, it might be eighty,
it might be one hundred. And there are a countless
number of times that you can pull up at the
traffic lights, you look to your left or to your right,
and you see someone sitting there and they look at you,
You look at them. You know what's going on that
you're going to have a drag.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Oh you're joking at your age, You're thinking, what do
you mean.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Oh you're joking. Of course, that's the most natural thing
to do when you pull up next to someone at
the lights.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
How socially irresponsible?
Speaker 4 (10:24):
What not? You don't break the speed limit? No, I
won't go over the speed limit.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
Well, then to the speed So you're you're at the
lights and it's fifty k limit and your car can
do nought to one hundred and three seconds, we'll win,
you win, but you can't. But you can't do one
hundred so how I know? What does it matter if
you can get there in three seconds?
Speaker 4 (10:47):
It's how quickly you can get to fifty if that's
the speed limit.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
This Texas is the autobarn, Simon Youdiot, Well, we don't
live with an auto barn.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
We're not in Germany now, Dr Robarta, what was.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Your fast car? Simuss? Text is it's irrelevant what my
fast car was. It's just I had a really fast car.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
You did?
Speaker 3 (11:05):
It was a yeah, I don't like sund because people
going what to toss it?
Speaker 4 (11:09):
But I love that.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
But again it was I couldn't use it, so what
was the point? And when I did take it out
on the open road, one hundred k is the limit?
And again there's speed cameras or actual offices everywhere. I
don't want to lose my license and get to one
hundred and sixty k's and then lose my license. So
because I was, you know, responsible, I was like, well,
what do I do with this power?
Speaker 4 (11:31):
You enjoy it, that's what you do?
Speaker 3 (11:33):
And do you reckon it's a bit overrated?
Speaker 10 (11:34):
Though?
Speaker 4 (11:35):
No, no it is. I think it's really really interesting
and or important.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
I like, mistext this person's got your number. This is James.
You're a man child? Who does that?
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Yeah, pull up next to me at the traffic lights
and you'll see.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
I wait, one hundred eighty ten eighty.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
James, you're a dick.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
The highlight reel with saying James the highlight reel.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Speaker of the House Jerry Brownlee wants to boost security
for politicians while they're out in the community. And one
of the things he's suggesting, and I reckon, this is
a good idea, and it would be to give parliamentary
security guards powers to arrest and detain anybody they find
that is threatening.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
I would have thought they had those powers already, but
obviously they don't.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
No.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
In fact, he goes further and says, you know, the
parliamentary security guards, they've basically got less power than a
bouncer at a pub.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
So what about the people at the rugby grounds?
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Probably less than those two. I do take the point,
would it open Pandora's box? Would it be the thin
end of the wedge? But then at the moment you'd
have to say that worth politics being more divided than
ever globally, now is probably the time. And could you
make a case that there is more requirements for our
MPs and there would be just at a work for example,
(12:55):
and a more.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
Hey, that study that Otago University did recently that shows
that there is a need for it. Ninety eight percent
of the mp surveyed reported experiencing harassment. It's just not acceptable.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
Hello there, Craig.
Speaker 10 (13:08):
Unfortunately, it just seems to be what wy society is
at the moment. It doesn't mean it. Whether you're a
retail person or an imp to someone walking down the street,
you can get attacked. But my question is the fact
that the diplomatic squad guys are basically police officers. They
get pulled off to do the job, so highly trained
them there and I'm worried a little bit if you
give all this powers to security guards. Nothing to get
(13:29):
security guards. There's a lot of them out there who
tend to be a little what do you call a
little short man syndrome. You think they're a lot more
important than they are. And if you do give these
sort of extra rights to security guards, what extra training
do you have, because basically at the moment you can
basically do the security guard the very little training whatsoever.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
Can I just suggest to you. And also there's a
lot of texts that agree with you, Craig saying no
to the extra powers to security guards. But I'm thinking
much wider than that, because the MPs get out in
the public a lot more like if you're working in
them all you're in a supermarket, you are there, and
it's very we just know, crimes on the increase, and
it's bad luck and very unfortunate if you get an
event at your supermarket. But these are MPs that are
(14:06):
gutaly taking themselves, putting themselves in harms way by going
to the public where they make such critical decisions for
the public's well being. And some people really disagree with that.
Speaker 10 (14:16):
Well, you understand that except for the friends of mine,
who are more workers that had in life puts their throat.
Whatever're trying to get money, So trying to exchange to
them that they don't have the same situation as a
little bit hard for them.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Greg.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Do they need more powers?
Speaker 11 (14:29):
They definitely need more power because the amount of violence
and stuff like that is way.
Speaker 12 (14:35):
More than it was when we were younger. You know,
like people just aren't afraid of.
Speaker 13 (14:40):
Anything these days sort of thing.
Speaker 12 (14:42):
And I've worked in security like we did the Lord
of the Rings premiers and the King Kong premierers and
stuff like that, but you don't really have any more
power than any other person. Yeah, but I think that
giving them these powers should be attached to like a
security license that they have to renew, like a warrant
fitness or something to show that they're fit and that
(15:04):
and that way they're also accountable. If they do turn
tire and you overstep their.
Speaker 11 (15:10):
Bounds, they can lose their security license and then they
can't practice.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
That's not unreasonable, Greg, thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
The highlight reel with sign James.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Should computer monitoring be allowed by your employer just to
keep tabs on how you're going and whether you're sort
of still at the office, kind of thing, even though
you might be working from home. A lot of people
on tech say, no, it's a bridge too far. God
they Chris, hey, how are you good?
Speaker 14 (15:37):
I'm a friend's computing experts and when I get engaged
to assist with anything to do with electronic devices in
the workplace, a couple of questions I asked straight away
is that one, are they using their own device or
are they using their persons device for work based purposes?
The second question I ask is what is the acceptable
use policy around of using either devices?
Speaker 3 (16:00):
What does it matter if they're using if it's for
work their own device or a work computer.
Speaker 14 (16:05):
Well, the big thing if it's a work based computer,
they've provided it and from a reasonability.
Speaker 13 (16:12):
Perspective, the device is theirs.
Speaker 14 (16:15):
And usually the policy says only to use for work
based activities, which.
Speaker 13 (16:20):
Means they can look at it, in it, everything that's
on that machine.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Do they have that right presently, Chris? Even despite what
the privacy acts is that basically an employer has to
get the permission from the employee before computer monitoring software
is engaged.
Speaker 14 (16:35):
Well not in regards to the ownership of the device
and the policy. So if there was no policy and
they just put the sniffing device on there to see
what people are doing. Straight away, I would say that's
leaning more towards the privacy acts eraror and you shouldn't.
So there's really no expectation of privacy in a workplace.
Speaker 13 (16:54):
So for example, if you're using your.
Speaker 14 (16:56):
Top drawer and you open your drawer and you have
all your passwords to your banking in there, if somebody
from work came along and open the air drawer, they
see those passwords, what is your expectation of privacy? If
you've been provided a car, a vehicle, or equipment for
use in your business to earn your wage, should you
(17:18):
be using that for your own purposes, which technically is theft.
And I'll give you an example. I did an investigation
about three and a half years ago. I was called
in to go and make a friendsic copy of the
machine to understand what this employee was doing during their
eight hour working day. What they were doing is they
were doing stuff online. Then they would clear their case
so that web history wasn't there when you first turned
(17:39):
the computer on. But due to the forensic tools we have,
I was able to look at that and this person
was doing five.
Speaker 13 (17:45):
And a half hours a day.
Speaker 14 (17:47):
On average, shopping and looking at social websites. From an
employee contract perspective, a reasonable expectation is that you're engaged
to work usually a forty hour week with breaks and
a lunch time, which might end up about thirty seven
hours seven point five hours a week work for the employer.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
If the employer didn't get sign off in the contract
that they were able to get these computer monitored, then
they'd have no recourse with them. They couldn't do anything
with that information.
Speaker 14 (18:19):
If I come back to I think your employer. Lloyd
was on last night. He talked about contracts and policies. Yes,
so you wouldn't have this in your contract, but the policies.
For some reason, a lot of people like looking at
porn at work. I mean, stop doing it people at work?
You mean a lot of people do it a week.
They ain't done buy a signy and computer for three
(18:40):
hundred dollars and do it at home. But they do
it work because they don't want to get caught by
their wife or whatever.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Oh my gosh.
Speaker 14 (18:45):
Really there's a lot of it, far more than you,
you as nice people would understand.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
So then were their ramifications for this particular person, they
were able to set them.
Speaker 14 (18:56):
In the employment process that followed. They were accused of
stealing employee time. Wow, so they could either pay back
their wage or go somewhere else.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
So they somewhere else, Chris, in your view as a
computer forensic specialist, do you think that all employers should
have the right to monitor the computers of those that
are working from home?
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Say own it really interesting.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
Talking to you, Chris. Thank you for calling. Nice to chat. Cheers, Mate,
that is quick text Hey, Simon and James. Yes, the
boss should be able to monitor you while working from home.
After all, he or she is paying you. I have
a camera here in my loader that is there for
health and safety reasons, but it also records everything going
on in the cab. With that in mind, I'll plug
it back in now. Cheers, Cheers, guys. Love the show.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
No punchline, I didn't see it coming.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
The best moment from the week.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
This is the highlight reel with Simon Barnett and James
Daniels powered by News Talks.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
We're discussing the Conservation Minister Tama Pultucker's comments where he
suggests when it comes to some of our flora and
fauna and some of our endangered species, that it's completely
the unrealistic to expect to be able to save everyone
going forward. He's saying that is very aspirational. So you
might say that's a realistic comment, and it may well be,
but also you might look at it as almost resignation.
(20:18):
Why would you even come out and say that if
you're Tama Portaka, that looks like you're saying, hey, guys,
way too big a job here. We're not gonna be
able to save them all. So get the old minds
cracked up, get the old machines going, dig up a
bit of this and a bit up of that.
Speaker 4 (20:31):
That's another issue again, that's one of the reasons why
it's But do you think softening the ground? Yeah, I
think he is soft softening the ground. But if he's
going to focus on his on his portfolio of conservation,
then he should do something about those one thousand that
have been assessed.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
I like Tama Portaker, but I think that's an unwise
statement and even his sort of I mean, how would
he know that it's going to cost hundreds of billions
of dollars to save those species.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
It's going to cost a hell of a lot.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Yeah, but hundreds of billions is a lot.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Okay, well, just a few billion is a lot.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
I just think I think there is an element of like,
who's going to choose which ones to say? And that's
where I sort of come unstuck. I'm like, good point, hi, Rob.
Speaker 9 (21:11):
I think that the minister's absolutely onto it. He's a realist.
Speaker 15 (21:16):
There's lots of animals and the well, there's lots of
things that need to be saved. But you can't save everything.
I've been hunting around North and South Island for the
last forty years and I've never even seen one of
those snails. I've seen one of the shells, but they've
seen a live one. But there are lots of animals
that needs saving, you know, look after the bellbirds.
Speaker 13 (21:37):
And the toys and.
Speaker 15 (21:39):
The day to day wildlife that we all see and appreciate,
you know, the ones that are worth saving.
Speaker 13 (21:44):
Puts spending money on that.
Speaker 15 (21:45):
But just today people are complaining about there's not enough
money for cancer drugs. I mean, where do you draw
the line, he's spend more money on dolphins and snails,
or do you let people die?
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Or I actually think that's a valid point. Rob, I
actually genuinely do. I think that's a valid point. There
is only a certain amount of money. Rob, thank you
very much for calling Steph Aren't.
Speaker 16 (22:05):
Yeah, HI completely opposite verd of the last caller. I
think we need to stop monetizing whole species. I feel
like everything's developed over millennia in symbiosis all together, and
if we come along and we start eradicating whole species
and put the entire planet out of whack, I just
(22:26):
think we need to change our whole thinking. And I mean,
I know it's very aspirational to things like that, and
I don't know how we'd do it, but yeah, I
just can't. I don't think. I don't think you can
monetize the species.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
I'm sort of on your side here, Stefan, But that
is a valid argument. The previous caller made that. You know,
what do you tell cancer patients that don't get their
drugs funded and they die.
Speaker 4 (22:50):
We can find the money for the drugs somewhere. There's
enough money around for them to fund those cancer drugs.
I don't think it should come out of a conservation fund. Criky.
This text is something that would have an immediate effect
on the environment. Is moving feral cats into the predator list.
I reckon, that's just sensible. And cats, well, yeah, feral
cats are real and they are having a big impact
(23:13):
on the on the conservation estate. Yeah, we need a strategy.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
I feel like you can't really take out old for some.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Boots chats laughs and the best calls.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
This is the highlight reel with Simon Barnett and James
Daniels powered Budis talk.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Said be hello, Debbie, Hello, how are you?
Speaker 3 (23:32):
We're great, thanks for giving us a yell.
Speaker 17 (23:34):
Let's okay. You've had a subject I'm quite passionate about.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
Can you swim?
Speaker 17 (23:38):
I can swim? My parents that can. I actually learned
whether a guy called Tom Jones I think his name
was actually and three kings in Auckland when I was
only a little And we moved to Australia in twenty
eighteen and I sat what we call over there my
odd swim qualifications and qualified to teach kids. And we're
now living back in New Zealand and we purchased a
swim school six years ago and have been teaching kids
(24:03):
to form ever since.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Okay, how much does it cost to teacher kid to swim?
Speaker 17 (24:07):
So when we opened in twenty eighteen, we were charging
seventeen dollars fifty a lesson for a thirty minute lesson.
There one to four ratio for over three. Unfortunately, now
with no cost of living and everything else going up,
we've been hit at a small business. We're now charging
twenty three fifty, which is still pretty competitive in our area.
(24:31):
Some of the biggest centers are charging a lot more.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Now that you touched on something there a DeBie, which
is a bugbear of mine. I've noticed it, but that
sounds an amazing ratio year. I think you said one
to four, So one teacher for four kids, right maximum?
Speaker 4 (24:44):
Wow?
Speaker 3 (24:45):
And is that as age specific for that ratio over
three three year old that.
Speaker 17 (24:50):
We had done two and a half year olds, that
when they're separating from their parents, that we put them
in with a teacher. And on that note, who was
talking before about teachers. So one of my amazing teachers
that I employed, she was fifteen years old, she's now eighteen.
She's one of the most popular teachers at our center.
And don't get me wrong, I've got a great staff
(25:12):
behind me, which I think is a huge reason we're
so successful. But we put a lot of time into
training those staff. One of the biggest sort of things
that we get that people grumble about when they come
from other places is that the teachers don't correct. They're
not there my teachers at one point, and it's because
they're doing something that they love.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Debbie, is it disappointing for you then, as a person
that runs and owns a swim school, that a lot
of schools have done away with swimming sports a.
Speaker 17 (25:37):
Lot about our kids. Yeah, I think a lot of
the primary schools definitely have a lot of our kids. See,
we have them from three months old, and the caller
before was saying that her kids has been to three
different sim schools. You've definitely got a question that if
your kids aren't learning, there's something not right and it's
not necessarily your child, it's actually just passionate about it.
And our kids love coming to swimming. I've got kids,
(25:58):
you know, I'm not just saying this. They started with
us at three months. We've only been opened just over
six years. So I've got a little girl that swam
with me as a three month thol. She's six and
a half. She's swimming thirty meters freestyle, backstroke, restroke, and
she's just learning butterfly. She's six and a half.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Lovely and last thing in the six years increasing numbers
or dwindling numbers at your swim school.
Speaker 17 (26:22):
We started with one hundred kids. We're just about the
hit five seventy.
Speaker 18 (26:26):
Cheaper Poe your callers if your kids aren't learning to
shop around, Debbie, thank you very much bringing you the
best of the week.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
You're listening to the Highlight Reel with Simon Barnett and
James Daniels, powered.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
By News Talk sa'd be Let's Talk, Entertained and Lifestyle.
Emma Gleeson joins us.
Speaker 4 (26:45):
Hello, Emma, So what actually makes avocado's bad for the environment?
Speaker 10 (26:50):
What?
Speaker 19 (26:51):
Yeah, there's been some interesting research from Thomas Davies, who's
from Lancaster University about kind of looking at broadly, you know,
how bad avocada's for the environment. Obviously, they're really popular
and everyone LUNs them on their toast and smashed and quacamole,
but they're not the best plants environmentally. They're very, very thirsty,
so they're requiring average of a thousand liters of water
(27:13):
per kg, which is higher than most fruits and vegetables,
but it is less than rice, and they're also often
grown in areas of the world that are face water issues,
like Mexico, so yeah, there's water issues. There's issues around
them being a monoculture. So they used to be planted
and mixed plots and now they're grown as exports, so
they're monocultures, which obviously affixed byodiversity. There's a carbon footprint
(27:36):
to think about, which is production and transports.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
A lot of farms now feel bad.
Speaker 19 (27:41):
I know it's enough to ruin your breakfast, So like,
there aren't any easy answers to this, but what you
can do is sort of focus on fair trade and organic.
But also remember certification is not a perfect solution because
it costs money and farmers can't always afford this. And yeah,
they're not the only food with an environmental burden. Meat
has one. Everything has one.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
So coffee coffee is a nightmare and could we give
that up? That uses so much water?
Speaker 19 (28:04):
Bag almonds are very, very thirsty and never know what
this almond milk everyone's having isn't greaty this, so there's
a lot to feel guilty about. So I don't know
the solution here. I usually try and scab an avocado
when people have a tree and take some home. I
feel like that's an ethical option, but I want to
jump the fence for your veggies every day.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
No, absolutely, Emma, thank you very much. You have a
wonderful weekend.
Speaker 19 (28:29):
You have a lovely weekend, guys. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
Bye.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
For more from Simon Barnett and James Daniels afternoons, listen
live to News Talks ad Be, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Simon Barnett and James Daniels Afternoons
podcast from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Chats, laughs and the best calls.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
This is the highlight reel with Simon Barnett and James
Daniels howered by News Talks EDB.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Hello there, thank you for having us at your place today.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
James, you're a who get a mate and kekea mihi
kiya koto. It's a big shout out to you everyone.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
We are joined by our political editor Jason Walls, who's
finally made it in horse and carriage to Japan.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Connege.
Speaker 5 (00:37):
You are Kunichua from the Land of the Rising Sun.
Although it's pouring down with rain over here, so I'm
feeling a little bit short changed at the moment. But
you know, it's not all about me.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
No, But oh my goodness, Jason, what a rigmarole to
get there.
Speaker 5 (00:50):
I think a rigmarole is a bit of an understatement.
We were sitting there in the Papua New Guinea airport
and we were told it was only going to take
an hour to refuel, and then it was ten minutes late,
and then it was fifteen minutes late, and it was
twenty minutes late.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
And this is not my first rodeo.
Speaker 5 (01:04):
I've been on these trips before where it's broken down
and there are a few telltale signs. I looked at
some of the faces of the officials that had gone
a little bit white when they realized what was going on,
and so the head of the mission gathered us all
and told us, yep, sorry, we're going to be delayed
a little bit while we were placed a fuse. But
I kind of looked at that and thought there was
absolutely no way. It's just going to be an hour.
(01:25):
I think they're a little bit optimistic. So that turned
into seven hours, and we ended up staying in Papua
New Guinea and then heading to Brisbane and then to Japan.
And I'll tell you what, if you felt like you've
been in some awkward situations before, it's got absolutely nothing
on walking onto a plane full of people that have
had to be diverted from another country just to pick
(01:46):
you up. So there was some sheepish looking business delegation
and journalists walking onto that flight.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
I'll tell you that much. But noe.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
We arrived last night.
Speaker 5 (01:53):
We got here pretty much without any sort of issue
or delay. With the Air New Zealand flight and interestingly
Dame Terrase Walsh who's the chairwoman of Air New Zealand
and CEO of Greg Forum were on the flight as well,
and they jumped on the old drinks kite and we're
handing people out drinks and food and we're all the
way back in economy. They gave up their seat for
(02:14):
somebody else, so very nice thing for them to do.
I think they smelled a good pr opportunity on that one,
since we all picked up on that as well. No,
we we are absolutely here, No more pup in New Guinea,
nor more Australia. We're on the ground and finally ready
to go.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
The highlight reel with Simon Barnett and James Daniels.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Hughes talk said, be grannie flats These dwellings sixty meters
or less are the answer to the housing problem. Will
they be useful, will they actually serve a great purpose?
Or will they be ugly, unsatisfactory and undesirable. I know
you live in a nice house right now, but going forward,
do you think you could live in a dwelling of
(02:53):
sixty square meters?
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Yeah, when you say you could, you yeah, absolutely would
I prefer something bigger for me personally?
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Yes? Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Text tire from Stevie says, high boys read the granny flats.
Can they have a bathroom and kitchen facilities near that
is yes, Steve, they can. And that's where some people
get concerned about the drain on the sort of infrastry.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
Resources, which is why they call them resource consents. That's
what's odd about this is that they're adding all this
strain on resources. Yeah, without consent, But anyway I get
out there.
Speaker 6 (03:24):
Yosh, I work for a tiny home company, And in
no way does it actually make it easier. All it
does is make it cheaper, because what a lot of
people are forgetting is that even if you don't need
the building consent, you still have to apply for an exemption,
which still goes through a lot of the rigmarole of
(03:44):
submitting your engineering plans, how you're going to deal with
the water, so you still go through all the things
that you need to go through if you were to
have consent. All they're doing is increasing it to sixty
from the thirty. So it's just as much of a headache,
except that it's a lot cheaper. You may save a
few thousand you only pay a dollar per thousand that
(04:05):
the projects were. I'm going through a few of the
exemptions now, and I've still got to dot your eyes
and cross your t's that.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
You would have to.
Speaker 7 (04:12):
It's not actually fixing anything.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Josh, thank you very much for your thoughts. Lindsay, good
to talk to you. So you're an architectural designer.
Speaker 8 (04:19):
Yes, correct, and I have read the documents that we're
all talking about, and mainly because it also flows on
from changes that came into the industry either last year
or the year before around requirements for building consents of
up to thirty square meter lightweight buildings that don't have plumbing.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Essentially, from your perspective as an architectural designer with some
real skin in the game, do you think this is
a good solution.
Speaker 9 (04:49):
I think it's a step in the right direction here.
I mean, obviously there's going to be issues around. Councils
still need to be informed somehow, I think, because they're
going to need to know about the loading onto the
pipes and infrastructure, which the previous thirty square me to
buildings didn't really have. But I've talked in the documents
(05:10):
about that you wouldn't need a building consent on the
sixty square meter ones if you can connect into the
council system with the storm water and wastewater. But if
it's on site where you have a septic tanks or
sarche or you need to have soakals or some sort
of drainage system that has been designed, then you'd still
need a building.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Consent, but not a resource consent. No.
Speaker 9 (05:34):
Yeah, this is the confusion again. So resource content is
only if you are breaking the rules, which are your setbacks,
your maximum height. There's some councils have earthwork maximums and
that that's where it comes down to trying to control
(05:54):
what has actually been built.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Very good information, Lindsay, thanks for taking the time to
give us your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Not a problem the highlight reel.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
It is a really interesting story this and really interesting
reaction to the US Open golf and even for very
much non golfers and non sporty types, they've become embroiled
in this discussion about whether it was poor sportsmanship of
Rory not shaking Bryson de Shambeau's hand at the loss.
Rory McElroy has come out and said that was the
toughest loss of his professional career and it hurts like
(06:23):
never before. He's taken three weeks out of golf to
try and get his head together. Some say he'll probably
never be the same. That may be a bit dramatic.
This text here says Simon, he's supposed to be a
professional athlete, no excuses. What he did was pure ignorance
and bad manners and a sign of the real man.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
Similar texts says they paid a lot to be professional
and losing is part of sport. Imagine if the All
Blacks that have walked off the field after losing to
France at the ninety nine World Cup, what about Rory?
Speaker 3 (06:50):
Yeah, but that was a four year This is tenure
and an individual sport versus team. I think there's a difference,
not a ten year since the last major.
Speaker 7 (06:58):
Good a adam, Guys, James, you're like an old pinball machine.
You're out of order.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Yes, good keep talking at him.
Speaker 7 (07:05):
You know what I think. If you haven't played sport
at the very highest level, and I haven't, I've played
at regional levels, it's your life, right. You're trying to
go out there and do the best you can. You're
trying to win the damn tournament and you're basically bitterly
disappoint it. It's not bad sportsmanship. You're just trying to
process what happened, and later on you kind of reflect
and think about it and go, Okay, hang on a moment,
(07:27):
maybe I didn't handle that that well, But that's a
moment's thing, right And literally what twenty four hours later,
you know he's thought about it, he's processed it, and
he's dealt with it.
Speaker 9 (07:37):
Yeah, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (07:38):
It's just good sportsmanship. He was expected at the news
conference at the end of it all, but he didn't
front And that's the issue.
Speaker 7 (07:45):
What's he going to say at the news conference. He's
going to sit there being utterly devastated and pretty much.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
And drilled by every man and his dog.
Speaker 7 (07:53):
Yeah, yeah, exactly exactly. They're going to deal to him
even more. He's not going to say anything. It's just
a complete disaster all rounds. And if we're talking about sportsmanship,
should we have the Australian cricket team play at all?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Ordinarily ninety nine times out of one hundred, if you lose,
you should always shake your hand. That is good sportsmanship.
But I think Rory should be cut some slack here.
And he's not being online. A lot of people are
very angry at him, and I think that's doubling down.
That's there's pressure there that we can't even begin to imagine.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
No, we can't and I can't even begin to imagine
winning two million dollars for finishing second.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Yeah either, yeah, but then then, to quote Jim Carry,
I wish everybody could be rich and famous, and they
realized that wasn't the answer. When you're Rory McElroy on
those players. John Rahm just signed with Live for three
hundred million dollars. Do you think a two million dollars
tom means anything? Money doesn't mean anything to them. This
is a guy that has been waiting for ten years
for his fifth major, and with four holes to play,
(08:47):
he's two strokes up and on the eighteenth he had
less than four foot to basically win the thing.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Maybe missed it, maybe he's.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Pasted it the highlight reel.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
I read a story on the Herald website this morning
from their driven portion. So that's the kind of their
motoring section of the newspaper or online. And I always
I don't know why I enjoy that. I know nothing
about cars, but I like cars But one thing that's
caught my attention is this incessant need to publicize how
fast cars can go from nought to one hundred. So
(09:17):
there's a feature being done on the McLaren Tura Spider
and they say it's just absolute performance. And then once again,
the story goes, it can get to zero to one
hundred ks in three seconds flat, right, so that's great.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Now.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Then they go on to say and nought to two
hundred ks in just eight point four seconds, and then
they go top speed is limited to three hundred and
thirty ks, And I go, so, what like? Who cares
whether are carking? And I like fast cars. I like
them on the track, and I've had a fast car.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
That's all about how quickly you can get to the
speed limit, which might be fifty, it might be eighty,
it might be one hundred. And there are a countless
number of times that you can pull up at the
traffic lights, you look to your left or to your right,
and you see someone sitting there and they look at you,
You look at them. You know what's going on that
you're going to have a drag.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Oh you're joking at your age, You're thinking, what do
you mean.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Oh you're joking. Of course, that's the most natural thing
to do when you pull up next to someone at
the lights.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
How socially irresponsible?
Speaker 4 (10:24):
What not? You don't break the speed limit? No, I
won't go over the speed limit.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
Well, then to the speed So you're you're at the
lights and it's fifty k limit and your car can
do nought to one hundred and three seconds, we'll win,
you win, but you can't. But you can't do one
hundred so how I know? What does it matter if
you can get there in three seconds?
Speaker 4 (10:47):
It's how quickly you can get to fifty if that's
the speed limit.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
This Texas is the autobarn, Simon Youdiot, Well, we don't
live with an auto barn.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
We're not in Germany now, Dr Robarta, what was.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Your fast car? Simuss? Text is it's irrelevant what my
fast car was. It's just I had a really fast car.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
You did?
Speaker 3 (11:05):
It was a yeah, I don't like sund because people
going what to toss it?
Speaker 4 (11:09):
But I love that.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
But again it was I couldn't use it, so what
was the point? And when I did take it out
on the open road, one hundred k is the limit?
And again there's speed cameras or actual offices everywhere. I
don't want to lose my license and get to one
hundred and sixty k's and then lose my license. So
because I was, you know, responsible, I was like, well,
what do I do with this power?
Speaker 4 (11:31):
You enjoy it, that's what you do?
Speaker 3 (11:33):
And do you reckon it's a bit overrated?
Speaker 10 (11:34):
Though?
Speaker 4 (11:35):
No, no it is. I think it's really really interesting
and or important.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
I like, mistext this person's got your number. This is James.
You're a man child? Who does that?
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Yeah, pull up next to me at the traffic lights
and you'll see.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
I wait, one hundred eighty ten eighty.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
James, you're a dick.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
The highlight reel with saying James the highlight reel.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Speaker of the House Jerry Brownlee wants to boost security
for politicians while they're out in the community. And one
of the things he's suggesting, and I reckon, this is
a good idea, and it would be to give parliamentary
security guards powers to arrest and detain anybody they find
that is threatening.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
I would have thought they had those powers already, but
obviously they don't.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
No.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
In fact, he goes further and says, you know, the
parliamentary security guards, they've basically got less power than a
bouncer at a pub.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
So what about the people at the rugby grounds?
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Probably less than those two. I do take the point,
would it open Pandora's box? Would it be the thin
end of the wedge? But then at the moment you'd
have to say that worth politics being more divided than
ever globally, now is probably the time. And could you
make a case that there is more requirements for our
MPs and there would be just at a work for example,
(12:55):
and a more.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
Hey, that study that Otago University did recently that shows
that there is a need for it. Ninety eight percent
of the mp surveyed reported experiencing harassment. It's just not acceptable.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
Hello there, Craig.
Speaker 10 (13:08):
Unfortunately, it just seems to be what wy society is
at the moment. It doesn't mean it. Whether you're a
retail person or an imp to someone walking down the street,
you can get attacked. But my question is the fact
that the diplomatic squad guys are basically police officers. They
get pulled off to do the job, so highly trained
them there and I'm worried a little bit if you
give all this powers to security guards. Nothing to get
(13:29):
security guards. There's a lot of them out there who
tend to be a little what do you call a
little short man syndrome. You think they're a lot more
important than they are. And if you do give these
sort of extra rights to security guards, what extra training
do you have, because basically at the moment you can
basically do the security guard the very little training whatsoever.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
Can I just suggest to you. And also there's a
lot of texts that agree with you, Craig saying no
to the extra powers to security guards. But I'm thinking
much wider than that, because the MPs get out in
the public a lot more like if you're working in
them all you're in a supermarket, you are there, and
it's very we just know, crimes on the increase, and
it's bad luck and very unfortunate if you get an
event at your supermarket. But these are MPs that are
(14:06):
gutaly taking themselves, putting themselves in harms way by going
to the public where they make such critical decisions for
the public's well being. And some people really disagree with that.
Speaker 10 (14:16):
Well, you understand that except for the friends of mine,
who are more workers that had in life puts their throat.
Whatever're trying to get money, So trying to exchange to
them that they don't have the same situation as a
little bit hard for them.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Greg.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Do they need more powers?
Speaker 11 (14:29):
They definitely need more power because the amount of violence
and stuff like that is way.
Speaker 12 (14:35):
More than it was when we were younger. You know,
like people just aren't afraid of.
Speaker 13 (14:40):
Anything these days sort of thing.
Speaker 12 (14:42):
And I've worked in security like we did the Lord
of the Rings premiers and the King Kong premierers and
stuff like that, but you don't really have any more
power than any other person. Yeah, but I think that
giving them these powers should be attached to like a
security license that they have to renew, like a warrant
fitness or something to show that they're fit and that
(15:04):
and that way they're also accountable. If they do turn
tire and you overstep their.
Speaker 11 (15:10):
Bounds, they can lose their security license and then they
can't practice.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
That's not unreasonable, Greg, thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
The highlight reel with sign James.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Should computer monitoring be allowed by your employer just to
keep tabs on how you're going and whether you're sort
of still at the office, kind of thing, even though
you might be working from home. A lot of people
on tech say, no, it's a bridge too far. God
they Chris, hey, how are you good?
Speaker 14 (15:37):
I'm a friend's computing experts and when I get engaged
to assist with anything to do with electronic devices in
the workplace, a couple of questions I asked straight away
is that one, are they using their own device or
are they using their persons device for work based purposes?
The second question I ask is what is the acceptable
use policy around of using either devices?
Speaker 3 (16:00):
What does it matter if they're using if it's for
work their own device or a work computer.
Speaker 14 (16:05):
Well, the big thing if it's a work based computer,
they've provided it and from a reasonability.
Speaker 13 (16:12):
Perspective, the device is theirs.
Speaker 14 (16:15):
And usually the policy says only to use for work
based activities, which.
Speaker 13 (16:20):
Means they can look at it, in it, everything that's
on that machine.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Do they have that right presently, Chris? Even despite what
the privacy acts is that basically an employer has to
get the permission from the employee before computer monitoring software
is engaged.
Speaker 14 (16:35):
Well not in regards to the ownership of the device
and the policy. So if there was no policy and
they just put the sniffing device on there to see
what people are doing. Straight away, I would say that's
leaning more towards the privacy acts eraror and you shouldn't.
So there's really no expectation of privacy in a workplace.
Speaker 13 (16:54):
So for example, if you're using your.
Speaker 14 (16:56):
Top drawer and you open your drawer and you have
all your passwords to your banking in there, if somebody
from work came along and open the air drawer, they
see those passwords, what is your expectation of privacy? If
you've been provided a car, a vehicle, or equipment for
use in your business to earn your wage, should you
(17:18):
be using that for your own purposes, which technically is theft.
And I'll give you an example. I did an investigation
about three and a half years ago. I was called
in to go and make a friendsic copy of the
machine to understand what this employee was doing during their
eight hour working day. What they were doing is they
were doing stuff online. Then they would clear their case
so that web history wasn't there when you first turned
(17:39):
the computer on. But due to the forensic tools we have,
I was able to look at that and this person
was doing five.
Speaker 13 (17:45):
And a half hours a day.
Speaker 14 (17:47):
On average, shopping and looking at social websites. From an
employee contract perspective, a reasonable expectation is that you're engaged
to work usually a forty hour week with breaks and
a lunch time, which might end up about thirty seven
hours seven point five hours a week work for the employer.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
If the employer didn't get sign off in the contract
that they were able to get these computer monitored, then
they'd have no recourse with them. They couldn't do anything
with that information.
Speaker 14 (18:19):
If I come back to I think your employer. Lloyd
was on last night. He talked about contracts and policies. Yes,
so you wouldn't have this in your contract, but the policies.
For some reason, a lot of people like looking at
porn at work. I mean, stop doing it people at work?
You mean a lot of people do it a week.
They ain't done buy a signy and computer for three
(18:40):
hundred dollars and do it at home. But they do
it work because they don't want to get caught by
their wife or whatever.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Oh my gosh.
Speaker 14 (18:45):
Really there's a lot of it, far more than you,
you as nice people would understand.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
So then were their ramifications for this particular person, they
were able to set them.
Speaker 14 (18:56):
In the employment process that followed. They were accused of
stealing employee time. Wow, so they could either pay back
their wage or go somewhere else.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
So they somewhere else, Chris, in your view as a
computer forensic specialist, do you think that all employers should
have the right to monitor the computers of those that
are working from home?
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Say own it really interesting.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
Talking to you, Chris. Thank you for calling. Nice to chat. Cheers, Mate,
that is quick text Hey, Simon and James. Yes, the
boss should be able to monitor you while working from home.
After all, he or she is paying you. I have
a camera here in my loader that is there for
health and safety reasons, but it also records everything going
on in the cab. With that in mind, I'll plug
it back in now. Cheers, Cheers, guys. Love the show.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
No punchline, I didn't see it coming.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
The best moment from the week.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
This is the highlight reel with Simon Barnett and James
Daniels powered by News Talks.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
We're discussing the Conservation Minister Tama Pultucker's comments where he
suggests when it comes to some of our flora and
fauna and some of our endangered species, that it's completely
the unrealistic to expect to be able to save everyone
going forward. He's saying that is very aspirational. So you
might say that's a realistic comment, and it may well be,
but also you might look at it as almost resignation.
(20:18):
Why would you even come out and say that if
you're Tama Portaka, that looks like you're saying, hey, guys,
way too big a job here. We're not gonna be
able to save them all. So get the old minds
cracked up, get the old machines going, dig up a
bit of this and a bit up of that.
Speaker 4 (20:31):
That's another issue again, that's one of the reasons why
it's But do you think softening the ground? Yeah, I
think he is soft softening the ground. But if he's
going to focus on his on his portfolio of conservation,
then he should do something about those one thousand that
have been assessed.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
I like Tama Portaker, but I think that's an unwise
statement and even his sort of I mean, how would
he know that it's going to cost hundreds of billions
of dollars to save those species.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
It's going to cost a hell of a lot.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Yeah, but hundreds of billions is a lot.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Okay, well, just a few billion is a lot.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
I just think I think there is an element of like,
who's going to choose which ones to say? And that's
where I sort of come unstuck. I'm like, good point, hi, Rob.
Speaker 9 (21:11):
I think that the minister's absolutely onto it. He's a realist.
Speaker 15 (21:16):
There's lots of animals and the well, there's lots of
things that need to be saved. But you can't save everything.
I've been hunting around North and South Island for the
last forty years and I've never even seen one of
those snails. I've seen one of the shells, but they've
seen a live one. But there are lots of animals
that needs saving, you know, look after the bellbirds.
Speaker 13 (21:37):
And the toys and.
Speaker 15 (21:39):
The day to day wildlife that we all see and appreciate,
you know, the ones that are worth saving.
Speaker 13 (21:44):
Puts spending money on that.
Speaker 15 (21:45):
But just today people are complaining about there's not enough
money for cancer drugs. I mean, where do you draw
the line, he's spend more money on dolphins and snails,
or do you let people die?
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Or I actually think that's a valid point. Rob, I
actually genuinely do. I think that's a valid point. There
is only a certain amount of money. Rob, thank you
very much for calling Steph Aren't.
Speaker 16 (22:05):
Yeah, HI completely opposite verd of the last caller. I
think we need to stop monetizing whole species. I feel
like everything's developed over millennia in symbiosis all together, and
if we come along and we start eradicating whole species
and put the entire planet out of whack, I just
(22:26):
think we need to change our whole thinking. And I mean,
I know it's very aspirational to things like that, and
I don't know how we'd do it, but yeah, I
just can't. I don't think. I don't think you can
monetize the species.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
I'm sort of on your side here, Stefan, But that
is a valid argument. The previous caller made that. You know,
what do you tell cancer patients that don't get their
drugs funded and they die.
Speaker 4 (22:50):
We can find the money for the drugs somewhere. There's
enough money around for them to fund those cancer drugs.
I don't think it should come out of a conservation fund. Criky.
This text is something that would have an immediate effect
on the environment. Is moving feral cats into the predator list.
I reckon, that's just sensible. And cats, well, yeah, feral
cats are real and they are having a big impact
(23:13):
on the on the conservation estate. Yeah, we need a strategy.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
I feel like you can't really take out old for some.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Boots chats laughs and the best calls.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
This is the highlight reel with Simon Barnett and James
Daniels powered Budis talk.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Said be hello, Debbie, Hello, how are you?
Speaker 3 (23:32):
We're great, thanks for giving us a yell.
Speaker 17 (23:34):
Let's okay. You've had a subject I'm quite passionate about.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
Can you swim?
Speaker 17 (23:38):
I can swim? My parents that can. I actually learned
whether a guy called Tom Jones I think his name
was actually and three kings in Auckland when I was
only a little And we moved to Australia in twenty
eighteen and I sat what we call over there my
odd swim qualifications and qualified to teach kids. And we're
now living back in New Zealand and we purchased a
swim school six years ago and have been teaching kids
(24:03):
to form ever since.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Okay, how much does it cost to teacher kid to swim?
Speaker 17 (24:07):
So when we opened in twenty eighteen, we were charging
seventeen dollars fifty a lesson for a thirty minute lesson.
There one to four ratio for over three. Unfortunately, now
with no cost of living and everything else going up,
we've been hit at a small business. We're now charging
twenty three fifty, which is still pretty competitive in our area.
(24:31):
Some of the biggest centers are charging a lot more.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Now that you touched on something there a DeBie, which
is a bugbear of mine. I've noticed it, but that
sounds an amazing ratio year. I think you said one
to four, So one teacher for four kids, right maximum?
Speaker 4 (24:44):
Wow?
Speaker 3 (24:45):
And is that as age specific for that ratio over
three three year old that.
Speaker 17 (24:50):
We had done two and a half year olds, that
when they're separating from their parents, that we put them
in with a teacher. And on that note, who was
talking before about teachers. So one of my amazing teachers
that I employed, she was fifteen years old, she's now eighteen.
She's one of the most popular teachers at our center.
And don't get me wrong, I've got a great staff
(25:12):
behind me, which I think is a huge reason we're
so successful. But we put a lot of time into
training those staff. One of the biggest sort of things
that we get that people grumble about when they come
from other places is that the teachers don't correct. They're
not there my teachers at one point, and it's because
they're doing something that they love.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Debbie, is it disappointing for you then, as a person
that runs and owns a swim school, that a lot
of schools have done away with swimming sports a.
Speaker 17 (25:37):
Lot about our kids. Yeah, I think a lot of
the primary schools definitely have a lot of our kids. See,
we have them from three months old, and the caller
before was saying that her kids has been to three
different sim schools. You've definitely got a question that if
your kids aren't learning, there's something not right and it's
not necessarily your child, it's actually just passionate about it.
And our kids love coming to swimming. I've got kids,
(25:58):
you know, I'm not just saying this. They started with
us at three months. We've only been opened just over
six years. So I've got a little girl that swam
with me as a three month thol. She's six and
a half. She's swimming thirty meters freestyle, backstroke, restroke, and
she's just learning butterfly. She's six and a half.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Lovely and last thing in the six years increasing numbers
or dwindling numbers at your swim school.
Speaker 17 (26:22):
We started with one hundred kids. We're just about the
hit five seventy.
Speaker 18 (26:26):
Cheaper Poe your callers if your kids aren't learning to
shop around, Debbie, thank you very much bringing you the
best of the week.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
You're listening to the Highlight Reel with Simon Barnett and
James Daniels, powered.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
By News Talk sa'd be Let's Talk, Entertained and Lifestyle.
Emma Gleeson joins us.
Speaker 4 (26:45):
Hello, Emma, So what actually makes avocado's bad for the environment?
Speaker 10 (26:50):
What?
Speaker 19 (26:51):
Yeah, there's been some interesting research from Thomas Davies, who's
from Lancaster University about kind of looking at broadly, you know,
how bad avocada's for the environment. Obviously, they're really popular
and everyone LUNs them on their toast and smashed and quacamole,
but they're not the best plants environmentally. They're very, very thirsty,
so they're requiring average of a thousand liters of water
(27:13):
per kg, which is higher than most fruits and vegetables,
but it is less than rice, and they're also often
grown in areas of the world that are face water issues,
like Mexico, so yeah, there's water issues. There's issues around
them being a monoculture. So they used to be planted
and mixed plots and now they're grown as exports, so
they're monocultures, which obviously affixed byodiversity. There's a carbon footprint
(27:36):
to think about, which is production and transports.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
A lot of farms now feel bad.
Speaker 19 (27:41):
I know it's enough to ruin your breakfast, So like,
there aren't any easy answers to this, but what you
can do is sort of focus on fair trade and organic.
But also remember certification is not a perfect solution because
it costs money and farmers can't always afford this. And yeah,
they're not the only food with an environmental burden. Meat
has one. Everything has one.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
So coffee coffee is a nightmare and could we give
that up? That uses so much water?
Speaker 19 (28:04):
Bag almonds are very, very thirsty and never know what
this almond milk everyone's having isn't greaty this, so there's
a lot to feel guilty about. So I don't know
the solution here. I usually try and scab an avocado
when people have a tree and take some home. I
feel like that's an ethical option, but I want to
jump the fence for your veggies every day.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
No, absolutely, Emma, thank you very much. You have a
wonderful weekend.
Speaker 19 (28:29):
You have a lovely weekend, guys. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
Bye.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
For more from Simon Barnett and James Daniels afternoons, listen
live to News Talks ad Be, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.