Five million dollars is being injected to revitalise one of Auckland's longest-standing shopping locations.

The private capital will be used to overhaul the historic Queens Arcade, turning it into a boutique luxury retail precinct.

Construction at the lower Queen Street site will begin in April and is due for completion in November.

Queens Arcade Property Manager Ian Wright told Kerre Woodham the project has been over two years in the making, but they believe the timing is absolutely right.

He says there’s a lot of positive things happening in the CBD – foot traffic is returning, the new convention centre has opened, the CRL is opening soon, and cruise ships are still coming in.

LISTEN ABOVE 

Five million dollars is being injected to revitalise one of Auckland's longest-standing shopping locations.
The private capital will be used to overhaul the historic Queens Arcade, turning it into a boutique luxury retail precinct.
Construction at the lower Queen Street site will begin in April and is due for completion in November.
Queens Arcade Property Manager Ian Wright told Kerre Woodham the project has been over two years in the making, but they believe the timing is absolutely right.
He says there’s a lot of positive things happening in the CBD – foot traffic is returning, the new convention centre has opened, the CRL is opening soon, and cruise ships are still coming in.
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Ian Wright: Queens Arcade Property Manager on the revitalisation of the shopping centre

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4b43bee7-e9cc-4ee5-8f21-b3f30183ab4e/transcript

An ACT MP is looking to improve and extend the End of Life Choice Act. 

Todd Stephenson has proposed a member’s bill that would incorporate all 25 of the recommendations made by the Ministry of Health in their review of the Act.  

He wants to restore the original intent of David Seymour’s earlier bill, addressing the “overly restrictive” six-month prognosis requirement.  

Stephenson told Kerre Woodham some elements of the Act are working really well, but there are others, such as the six-month requirement, that aren’t working and aren’t taking into account some people’s circumstances.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

An ACT MP is looking to improve and extend the End of Life Choice Act.&nbsp;
Todd Stephenson has proposed a member’s bill that would incorporate all 25 of the recommendations made by the Ministry of Health in their review of the Act. &nbsp;
He wants to restore the original intent of David Seymour’s earlier bill, addressing the “overly restrictive” six-month prognosis requirement. &nbsp;
Stephenson told Kerre Woodham some elements of the Act are working really well, but there are others, such as the six-month requirement, that aren’t working and aren’t taking into account some people’s circumstances. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Todd Stephenson: ACT MP on his member's bill that would improve and extend the End of Life Choice Act

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b4217459-b38c-40de-a9c9-b3f400073c38/transcript

Act MP Todd Stephenson has been looking to improve and extend the End of Life Bill since around August of last year. His new bill, for which he's seeking support across the House or has his fingers crossed it'll be drawn from the ballot, would incorporate every single recommendation made by the Ministry of Health's review into the End of Life Choice Act. He wants to restore the original intent of David Seymour's earlier member's bill by addressing what he calls the overly restrictive six-month prognosis requirement.  

So along with the recommendations, he wants to see the End of Life Bill extended. He says the narrow threshold has excluded people with terminal diagnoses who are suffering intolerably despite being in an irreversible decline. They are not going to get better. It's just going to take them a very long time to die. His new and improved bill would replace the arbitrary cutoff at six months with a test that reflects what he calls medical reality, recognising that death doesn't always follow a calendar.  

The review into the Act, which was released at the end of 2024 found that the Act was working pretty much as it was intended. More than 2,400 people had requested an assisted death at the time of the review. More than 970 had received an assisted death since the Act came into force on the 7th of November in 2021. There were some minor tweaks that could be made and those would be incorporated into Todd Stephenson's bill, but overall, the review found that the bill was achieving its primary purpose.  

However, a report out today from Alex Penk, who is the CEO of Ethos, a registered charity that offers advice, advocacy and education to promote the rights of conscience, religion and belief, says the law already goes too far and certainly does not need to be extended. The report, Penk's report, says assisted dying is already highly controversial. He says most doctors don't want to be involved. I can certainly believe that some doctors would not want to be involved, but I'd be interested to know if that is in fact correct. There would be a range of views across the medical profession when it comes to assisted dying, just as there is in the general population. I can understand some who would not want a bar of it and some who would be happy and see it as a as a generous service.  

Penk says the bill would introduce euthanasia for long term conditions and disabilities like chronic heart conditions, frailty, diabetes, renal failure, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease. He says this would force doctors and care facilities into more conscience conflicts. He says doctors have to use ethical judgment all the time, but the bill sends a message they're just supposed to do what the State tells them and there'll be a real risk it'll force ethically minded people out of medicine. I cannot see it as the State dictating. How is the State dictating? The State has put a framework in place to ensure that it's only the person who wants assisted dying who can make that request. They have to go through hoops before they can be granted that request. It's not automatic. There are really strict criteria and doctors don't have to administer end of life injections or however it is they do it – I'm assuming it's injections. They don't have to perform the act that would take a life. They can say, No, I don't believe in it. I would rather save a life than end it. Not for me. I'll give you the name of a doctor who does believe in it."  

So how is the State dictating? It's not telling doctors they must kill their patients. It's not telling people they must die if they have a long-term degenerative disease. As far as I'm aware, it's about a person's choice. And on the ethics side of thing, why is it ethical to keep a person alive when they don't want to be, but they don't fit that six-month criteria? Alex Penk is perfectly within his rights to choose not to take an early exit. Doctors are perfectly within their rights to say they'd rather save lives than end them. And I want to continue to have the right and have it improved to be able to call it quits when there is no longer any value for me to be here. 

Act MP Todd Stephenson has been looking to improve and extend the End of Life Bill since around August of last year. His new bill, for which he's seeking support across the House or has his fingers crossed it'll be drawn from the ballot, would incorporate every single recommendation made by the Ministry of Health's review into the End of Life Choice Act. He wants to restore the original intent of David Seymour's earlier member's bill by addressing what he calls the overly restrictive six-month prognosis requirement. &nbsp;
So along with the recommendations, he wants to see the End of Life Bill extended. He says the narrow threshold has excluded people with terminal diagnoses who are suffering intolerably despite being in an irreversible decline. They are not going to get better. It's just going to take them a very long time to die. His new and improved bill would replace the arbitrary cutoff at six months with a test that reflects what he calls medical reality, recognising that death doesn't always follow a calendar. &nbsp;
The review into the Act, which was released at the end of 2024 found that the Act was working pretty much as it was intended. More than 2,400 people had requested an assisted death at the time of the review. More than 970 had received an assisted death since the Act came into force on the 7th of November in 2021. There were some minor tweaks that could be made and those would be incorporated into Todd Stephenson's bill, but overall, the review found that the bill was achieving its primary purpose. &nbsp;
However, a report out today from Alex Penk, who is the CEO of Ethos, a registered charity that offers advice, advocacy and education to promote the rights of conscience, religion and belief, says the law already goes too far and certainly does not need to be extended. The report, Penk's report, says assisted dying is already highly controversial. He says most doctors don't want to be involved. I can certainly believe that some doctors would not want to be involved, but I'd be interested to know if that is in fact correct. There would be a range of views across the medical profession when it comes to assisted dying, just as there is in the general population. I can understand some who would not want a bar of it and some who would be happy and see it as a as a generous service. &nbsp;
Penk says the bill would introduce euthanasia for long term conditions and disabilities like chronic heart conditions, frailty, diabetes, renal failure, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease. He says this would force doctors and care facilities into more conscience conflicts. He says doctors have to use ethical judgment all the time, but the bill sends a message they're just supposed to do what the State tells them and there'll be a real risk it'll force ethically minded people out of medicine. I cannot see it as the State dictating. How is the State dictating? The State has put a framework in place to ensure that it's only the person who wants assisted dying who can make that request. They have to go through hoops before they can be granted that request. It's not automatic. There are really strict criteria and doctors don't have to administer end of life injections or however it is they do it – I'm assuming it's injections. They don't have to perform the act that would take a life. They can say, No, I don't believe in it. I would rather save a life than end it. Not for me. I'll give you the name of a doctor who does believe in it." &nbsp;
So how is the State dictating? It's not telling doctors they must kill their patients. It's not telling people they must die if they have a long-term degenerative disease. As far as I'm aware, it's about a person's choice. And on the ethics side of thing, why is it ethical to keep a person alive when they don't want to be, but they don't fit that six-month criteria? Alex Penk is perfectly within his rights to choose not to take an early exit. Doctors are perfectly within their rights to say they'd rather save lives than end them. And I want to continue to have the right and have it improved to be able to call it quits when there is no longer any value for me to be here.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Does the End of Life Act need amending?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/eb6af1db-1021-42d4-8a78-b3f400028ff0/transcript

We thought we'd start with Eden Park given that the number of concerts allowed annually at the Auckland stadium will almost triple. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, and Nick Sautner, CEO of Eden Park, among others, confirmed the details of a State of Origin fixture at a press conference at Eden Park this morning, along with the news that Eden Park will host up to 12 large concerts, 20 medium sized concerts per year on any day without having to go through the hoops of resource consent. At the moment, they can host 12 concerts and they can't be from more than six different artists or acts. So Ed Sheeran does two nights or the Hot Wheels does two days, but it can only be six artists or acts. Nighttime sport will also be allowed on any day including Sundays as long as the games finish by 10 30 And the first State of Origin match outside Australia in 40 years. That must have taken some negotiating. It is a lot and it's very exciting for Auckland and indeed for New Zealand. It's expected the State of O will attract more than 10,000 international visitors from Australia and when they come, they spend. The changes to Eden Park's rules and settings follow an investigation into whether the current rules for the park as set down under the Auckland Unitary Plan are limiting economic growth. And Chris Bishop said the investigation had found that, well, yes indeed, the rules are overly restrictive, out of step with modern stadium use, and are directly constraining economic activity. Eden Park CEO Nick Sautner says Eden Park has shown it's more than capable of hosting big events and he's pleased the government's giving them the opportunity to make the most of the stadium.

This weekend we've got the Edinburgh Tattoo. The Premier of Queensland came out yesterday and said $39 million of economic benefit. Jehovah's Witness delivered 3.5 million visitors to Auckland and New Zealand. So we are a strategic asset for New Zealand and a community asset for Auckland. I do want to acknowledge the community. We have over 97% support. This has been about engaging with the community, transparency, and also careful event management.

Yes, so you can understand why he's excited. You can understand why a lot of promoters, festival goers, sports fans are excited. But I do feel for the residents who bought their homes in the area knowing what the rules were at the time they bought the houses. Now they have seen the rules change. But so many people around the country have seen their neighbourhoods change around them. They are not isolated in this. People who bought a home with a lovely house next door, one careful set of neighbours, all of a sudden it's a great big housing development and where there was one house there are now 12 That is a big change for a neighbourhood. Nothing stays the same. It makes absolutely no sense to have a stadium that is only used a few times a year. And I'd go further and say it's immoral to have that amount of land, prime land in the inner city, being underutilised. If you are not going to use it as a stadium, then have the trust give it over to the government and build a Kāinga Ora housing development, put more people into homes in a prime position next to work, near play. You can't have a stadium sitting there doing nothing. That makes no sense at all. And if you've got a motivated trust and a motivated CEO that wants to do as much as they possibly can, and they have contorted themselves trying to come up with different ways to make use of the stadium. Art in the Park, beautiful event, not a traditional use for a sports stadium, but a successful one. There are so many ways to use the stadium. I accept that there will be much more disruption for those who have bought there, and for those who bought when the rules were what they were, I can understand why you'd be a bit grumpy. Nick says 97% of the community's on board, which is a pretty good stat if that is so. You can't hold back that kind of economic growth, that kind of success, that kind of feel good atmosphere because 3% of the neighbourhood's grumpy and doesn't want to share. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. If your neighbourhood has changed and the rules have changed around you, can you understand the concerns that a few of the residents might have? For those who live in and around the area, is it going to be a win for you if you're a business? If you're a resident, can you put up with it for the sake of the wider good?

LISTEN ABOVE

We thought we'd start with Eden Park given that the number of concerts allowed annually at the Auckland stadium will almost triple. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, and Nick Sautner, CEO of Eden Park, among others, confirmed the details of a State of Origin fixture at a press conference at Eden Park this morning, along with the news that Eden Park will host up to 12 large concerts, 20 medium sized concerts per year on any day without having to go through the hoops of resource consent. At the moment, they can host 12 concerts and they can't be from more than six different artists or acts. So Ed Sheeran does two nights or the Hot Wheels does two days, but it can only be six artists or acts. Nighttime sport will also be allowed on any day including Sundays as long as the games finish by 10 30 And the first State of Origin match outside Australia in 40 years. That must have taken some negotiating. It is a lot and it's very exciting for Auckland and indeed for New Zealand. It's expected the State of O will attract more than 10,000 international visitors from Australia and when they come, they spend. The changes to Eden Park's rules and settings follow an investigation into whether the current rules for the park as set down under the Auckland Unitary Plan are limiting economic growth. And Chris Bishop said the investigation had found that, well, yes indeed, the rules are overly restrictive, out of step with modern stadium use, and are directly constraining economic activity. Eden Park CEO Nick Sautner says Eden Park has shown it's more than capable of hosting big events and he's pleased the government's giving them the opportunity to make the most of the stadium.
This weekend we've got the Edinburgh Tattoo. The Premier of Queensland came out yesterday and said $39 million of economic benefit. Jehovah's Witness delivered 3.5 million visitors to Auckland and New Zealand. So we are a strategic asset for New Zealand and a community asset for Auckland. I do want to acknowledge the community. We have over 97% support. This has been about engaging with the community, transparency, and also careful event management.
Yes, so you can understand why he's excited. You can understand why a lot of promoters, festival goers, sports fans are excited. But I do feel for the residents who bought their homes in the area knowing what the rules were at the time they bought the houses. Now they have seen the rules change. But so many people around the country have seen their neighbourhoods change around them. They are not isolated in this. People who bought a home with a lovely house next door, one careful set of neighbours, all of a sudden it's a great big housing development and where there was one house there are now 12 That is a big change for a neighbourhood. Nothing stays the same. It makes absolutely no sense to have a stadium that is only used a few times a year. And I'd go further and say it's immoral to have that amount of land, prime land in the inner city, being underutilised. If you are not going to use it as a stadium, then have the trust give it over to the government and build a Kāinga Ora housing development, put more people into homes in a prime position next to work, near play. You can't have a stadium sitting there doing nothing. That makes no sense at all. And if you've got a motivated trust and a motivated CEO that wants to do as much as they possibly can, and they have contorted themselves trying to come up with different ways to make use of the stadium. Art in the Park, beautiful event, not a traditional use for a sports stadium, but a successful one. There are so many ways to use the stadium. I accept that there will be much more disruption for those who have bought there, and for those who bought when the rules were what they were, I can understand why you'd be a bit grumpy. Nick says 97% of the community's on board, which is a pretty good stat if that is so. You can't hold back that kind of economic growth, that kind of success, that kind of feel good atmosphere because 3% of the neighbourhood's grumpy and doesn't want to share. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. If your neighbourhood has changed and the rules have changed around you, can you understand the concerns that a few of the residents might have? For those who live in and around the area, is it going to be a win for you if you're a business? If you're a resident, can you put up with it for the sake of the wider good?
LISTEN ABOVE

Kerre Woodham: Can locals put up with the extra noise from Eden Park?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/40b63ed8-8170-4d96-973e-b3f201802cfa/transcript

Ian Wright: Queens Arcade Property Manager on the revitalisation of the shopping centre

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips