Bayleys CEO Mark Macky joined Kerre Woodham to discuss everything to do with the current housing market including prices, predictions, where the demand is, and advice for first home buyers. 

Macky said that despite the recent changes in the market, for those buying and selling there shouldn't be an issue, "the good news for them though, is that, if you're buying and selling in the same market, if you sell it what the property is worth today, you're also going to buy what the property is worth today. So, you know, so it's all relative."

LISTEN ABOVE

Bayleys CEO Mark Macky joined Kerre Woodham to discuss everything to do with the current housing market including prices, predictions, where the demand is, and advice for first home buyers.&nbsp;
Macky said that despite the recent changes in the market, for those buying and selling there shouldn't be an issue, "the good news for them though, is that, if you're buying and selling in the same market, if you sell it what the property is worth today, you're also going to buy what the property is worth today.&nbsp;So, you know, so it's all relative."
LISTEN ABOVE

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

Mark Macky: Bayleys CEO explains the current housing market

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/616d3cf7-587d-49eb-8238-b4620186d158/transcript

Labour's accusing the government of secretly spending $1 billion from next year's budget. The Taxpayers' Union has chimed in too, accusing the government of political skulduggery over the billion dollars in undisclosed future spending.

It amounts to $22 million in '27, '28 before ramping up over a four year period. Heather du Plessis Allan asked the Prime Minister about it this morning and he said there's nothing to see here.

"It's not actually that super exciting to be honest, Heather, because it's an issue that blew up as we were finalising the budget. It's about an accounting provision for an existing transport related issue."
"CRL?"
"No, no, no. And it's just, but generally an accounting provision."

So an accounting provision. And if it's not the CRL, it's bound to be the ferries surely. But why can't it be disclosed?

Why, why even give Labour ammunition?

And what's better, and I ask this as a genuine question, to have a secret stash of dosh under the mattress to spend at will later on transport issues, or to promise to pay for things and then work out how you'll get the money later?

Like with Labour, they promised pay equity, which was going to cost billions and billions of dollars, school lunches, light rail.

They promised all this in 2023 and said, oh, we'll find the money later, we'll make cuts and we'll find the money. So when National came in in '23 they inherited these promises that would be difficult to withdraw from, but the money wasn't there to pay for it. 

I'm getting really, really sick of governments, successive governments and government departments using money and then using boring paragraphs to try and hide where that money's gone, given that it's our money. And given that there doesn't seem to be a single sole source of truth.

Nobody seems to agree on the figures and given that it's our money that they're spending, I really want to know.

Like you put to Labour, and I would have put it to Labour, but they're announcing their list MPs today, so that's a step. Where's your policies?

We were promised them after the budget, but maybe after the list MPs have been announced we'll see the policies.

But you know, you put to Labour, you promised pay equity, you had no idea how to pay for it. You had no idea where the money was going to come from. And they'd say, oh well, and then they'd tell us how and it would be, you know, baffle them with bullshit.

And I was just reading about the spat between the former Kāinga Ora CEO and Nicola Willis.

She accused him of paying over the odds for property to the tune of $10 million. He was outraged, denied Willis's claim, said Kāinga Ora had not offered $10 million more than the next closest bid for a property.

He told Parliament's Social Services Committee the gap had been less than $2 million, only for it to be later revealed it was more than $8 million.

And I know that's a lot of numbers I'm throwing around, but bear with me because I think this stuff matters.

I find it absolutely outrageous that the taxpayers were funding a purchase that was $2 million above the nearest commercial bid.

So your average layman puts in a bid for this property and decides that that's what they think it's worth. Kāinga Ora using our money can go as high as it wants. But instead of going $100,000 higher, which they may have done if it was an auction, if it was a closed tender process, how are they so out of touch that they would offer what he thought was $2 million more and actually turned out to be $8 million more than what private buyers were thinking the property was worth? 

And everybody, I mean this is just kind of, I only found out about it reading a story on Newsroom. I didn't know about it. That's one deal. How many others have been done like this?

I mean, is this common practice among developers that you can be $5 million, $6 million, $8 million out? I mean, I don't move in those circles, I don't know. All I know is that what that looks like is an errant disregard for the taxpayer's dollars. Our money.

What you and I get up early for, to go to work for, to pay to the government and for the government to dole out to different government departments. How the hell can you pay $8 million more than the nearest bid for one property?

One property.

Where's the accountability and the financial scrutiny? Why don't we know what the $1 billion is being set aside for? Are there commercial sensitivities? How is Labour going to fund its promises given that it left the country nearly $7 billion in deficit and now we're even worse?

I am really, really, really sick of paying taxes. I mean, we saw a lot of this where work was being duplicated or work was being done in the wrong place and oh, silly us, oops, you know, let's do it again because they've got endless money from us.

Imagine the pay you could give to nurses.

Imagine the hospitals that could be built if we weren't making these sorts of egregious, as I see it, accounting errors.

But maybe in the rarefied atmosphere of commercial development, $8 million is neither here nor there. To me it is. It really is.

It's my money and your money and I want to know what we're spending it on, looking at you National.

I want to know how we're going to fund the promises you're making, looking at you Labour. And I want to know that you're being careful and judicious with my money, looking at you every single bloody government department. Who will ensure that this sort of financial insouciance will end?

LISTEN ABOVE 

Labour's accusing the government of secretly spending $1 billion from next year's budget. The Taxpayers' Union has chimed in too, accusing the government of political skulduggery over the billion dollars in undisclosed future spending.
It amounts to $22 million in '27, '28 before ramping up over a four year period. Heather du Plessis Allan asked the Prime Minister about it this morning and he said there's nothing to see here.
"It's not actually that super exciting to be honest, Heather, because it's an issue that blew up as we were finalising the budget. It's about an accounting provision for an existing transport related issue." "CRL?" "No, no, no. And it's just, but generally an accounting provision."
So an accounting provision. And if it's not the CRL, it's bound to be the ferries surely. But why can't it be disclosed?
Why, why even give Labour ammunition?
And what's better, and I ask this as a genuine question, to have a secret stash of dosh under the mattress to spend at will later on transport issues, or to promise to pay for things and then work out how you'll get the money later?
Like with Labour, they promised pay equity, which was going to cost billions and billions of dollars, school lunches, light rail.
They promised all this in 2023 and said, oh, we'll find the money later, we'll make cuts and we'll find the money. So when National came in in '23 they inherited these promises that would be difficult to withdraw from, but the money wasn't there to pay for it.&nbsp;
I'm getting really, really sick of governments, successive governments and government departments using money and then using boring paragraphs to try and hide where that money's gone, given that it's our money. And given that there doesn't seem to be a single sole source of truth.
Nobody seems to agree on the figures and given that it's our money that they're spending, I really want to know.
Like you put to Labour, and I would have put it to Labour, but they're announcing their list MPs today, so that's a step. Where's your policies?
We were promised them after the budget, but maybe after the list MPs have been announced we'll see the policies.
But you know, you put to Labour, you promised pay equity, you had no idea how to pay for it. You had no idea where the money was going to come from. And they'd say, oh well, and then they'd tell us how and it would be, you know, baffle them with bullshit.
And I was just reading about the spat between the former Kāinga Ora CEO and Nicola Willis.
She accused him of paying over the odds for property to the tune of $10 million. He was outraged, denied Willis's claim, said Kāinga Ora had not offered $10 million more than the next closest bid for a property.
He told Parliament's Social Services Committee the gap had been less than $2 million, only for it to be later revealed it was more than $8 million.
And I know that's a lot of numbers I'm throwing around, but bear with me because I think this stuff matters.
I find it absolutely outrageous that the taxpayers were funding a purchase that was $2 million above the nearest commercial bid.
So your average layman puts in a bid for this property and decides that that's what they think it's worth. Kāinga Ora using our money can go as high as it wants. But instead of going $100,000 higher, which they may have done if it was an auction, if it was a closed tender process, how are they so out of touch that they would offer what he thought was $2 million more and actually turned out to be $8 million more than what private buyers were thinking the property was worth?&nbsp;
And everybody, I mean this is just kind of, I only found out about it reading a story on Newsroom. I didn't know about it. That's one deal. How many others have been done like this?
I mean, is this common practice among developers that you can be $5 million, $6 million, $8 million out? I mean, I don't move in those circles, I don't know. All I know is that what that looks like is an errant disregard for the taxpayer's dollars. Our money.
What you and I get up early for, to go to work for, to pay to the government and for the government to dole out to different government departments. How the hell can you pay $8 million more than the nearest bid for one property?
One property.
Where's the accountability and the financial scrutiny? Why don't we know what the $1 billion is being set aside for? Are there commercial sensitivities? How is Labour going to fund its promises given that it left the country nearly $7 billion in deficit and now we're even worse?
I am really, really, really sick of paying taxes. I mean, we saw a lot of this where work was being duplicated or work was being done in the wrong place and oh, silly us, oops, you know, let's do it again because they've got endless money from us.
Imagine the pay you could give to nurses.
Imagine the hospitals that could be built if we weren't making these sorts of egregious, as I see it, accounting errors.
But maybe in the rarefied atmosphere of commercial development, $8 million is neither here nor there. To me it is. It really is.
It's my money and your money and I want to know what we're spending it on, looking at you National.
I want to know how we're going to fund the promises you're making, looking at you Labour. And I want to know that you're being careful and judicious with my money, looking at you every single bloody government department. Who will ensure that this sort of financial insouciance will end?
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: All sides of Government have to be clearer with how they're using our money

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/af564a9b-7dd2-4384-9430-b4620177e260/transcript

It's just so infuriating when you see criminals who are given sentences that in no way reflect the heinous nature of their crime. It would be lovely, well not lovely, but it would be admirable to have faith in a justice system, not simply have to endure a legal system. 

The Aussies know how to do it. There was a particularly ghastly pack rape of a young woman who had the misfortune to be walking home from a bus stop at the wrong place at the wrong time, and a gang of young men and one woman said, “Let's go and get ourselves a Sheila". And so this pack of homeless kids assaulted her, tortured her, gang raped her and murdered her. And they were sent to prison forever, until such time as they were physically incapacitated to no longer serve as a threat to the community or until they were dead.  

The UN came galloping in and said you simply can't do that, they were children when they did this. Yeah, no. They were man enough to cause that sort of pain, harm, and damage to an innocent woman, man enough to serve the crime. They can give somebody 36 years for rape and murder because even though they're a teenager, even though they've never done anything like this before, the severity of the crime is such that they pose a threat to society – damn right they do. 

But what do we do? Here we do it differently. We believe in the inherent goodness of all people and the redemptive power of incarceration, even when there is absolutely no basis to believe that. Around 56.5% of people with previous convictions are reconvicted within two years of release. Nearly 36% end up back in prison over the same period. Now, many people who get sent to prison are unfortunate, many people learn their lesson, but for those who commit the most serious crimes, they simply don't.  

This week we learned that Carla Cardno's rapist, torturer, and murderer is set to be released from prison and nobody is allowed to know what he looks like at all. Despite the fact a review ordered by the Parole Board in 2009 found he scored highly on the psychopathy checklist measure, he's a psychopath, and his characteristics pointed to the likelihood of serious violent and sexual recidivism. That was in 2009. They said after meeting him in 2014 it was worrying that he acknowledged he had enjoyed the event and the circumstances of his crime and the control he could exercise on the child during his dreadful offending.  

And so now apparently, he's cured. He's cured of being that sick, cruel deviant that he confessed himself to be and the Parole Board now believes he's only of average risk of offending. Oh cool. Average. Brilliant. How can you go from being that sick, that wrongly wired, to cured? You can't. At least I suppose we can run him through AI and see what he looks like now I guess, have a fair idea. 

And I guess at least we know what George Starling looks like. He's a Christchurch rapist who drugged two women with sedative laced vodka. These young women were flatmates, they returned back to their flat from a party to find Starling was already at their house, somebody else had invited him round. He offered them a drink. They thought they were having a drink of vodka. When they began suffering the effects of the drugged vodka, they took themselves off to bed. He entered first one room then the other and raped both women over the course of the night. Five months later he raped a third woman. He was found guilty of the rapes in two separate trials. In the first case he was sentenced to five years, served two. In the second he was sentenced to six years, served less than two.  

Why would you bother going through a court case for that as a woman? I have the utmost respect for the women who went to the Police, who saw that he was charged and made accountable for what he'd done to them, presumably doing so hoping that by their courage they'd be able to prevent him doing it again. But the sentencing just bears no relation to what he did to them. Apparently, he's no longer a risk to the community because he understands he must get consent. Yeah. Drugging women with sedative laced vodka so he can rape them, George, does not count as consent. Shock you and call you confused, but there you go. How could you be confused about consent when it comes to that? Snaps for you George, personal growth. That's right, drugging women so you can rape them isn't consent.  

How can we have faith in a system? I mean this is just two – you could probably pull two stories from the paper as well. You could probably pull a couple of stories if you just Googled “rapist sentenced New Zealand", you would find farcical, farcical sentences given. At least I suppose he was sent to prison. We've had drunk drivers who've killed people who haven't been sent to prison. How can we have faith in a system where the punishment for serious crimes is so insignificant, so inconsistent with the severity of the crime and the damage that they have caused? 

It's just so infuriating when you see criminals who are given sentences that in no way reflect the heinous nature of their crime. It would be lovely, well not lovely, but it would be admirable to have faith in a justice system, not simply have to endure a legal system.&nbsp;
The Aussies know how to do it. There was a particularly ghastly pack rape of a young woman who had the misfortune to be walking home from a bus stop at the wrong place at the wrong time, and a gang of young men and one woman said, “Let's go and get ourselves a Sheila". And so this pack of homeless kids assaulted her, tortured her, gang raped her and murdered her. And they were sent to prison forever, until such time as they were physically incapacitated to no longer serve as a threat to the community or until they were dead. &nbsp;
The UN came galloping in and said you simply can't do that, they were children when they did this. Yeah, no. They were man enough to cause that sort of pain, harm, and damage to an innocent woman, man enough to serve the crime. They can give somebody 36 years for rape and murder because even though they're a teenager, even though they've never done anything like this before, the severity of the crime is such that they pose a threat to society – damn right they do.&nbsp;
But what do we do? Here we do it differently. We believe in the inherent goodness of all people and the redemptive power of incarceration, even when there is absolutely no basis to believe that. Around 56.5% of people with previous convictions are reconvicted within two years of release. Nearly 36% end up back in prison over the same period. Now, many people who get sent to prison are unfortunate, many people learn their lesson, but for those who commit the most serious crimes, they simply don't. &nbsp;
This week we learned that Carla Cardno's rapist, torturer, and murderer is set to be released from prison and nobody is allowed to know what he looks like at all. Despite the fact a review ordered by the Parole Board in 2009 found he scored highly on the psychopathy checklist measure, he's a psychopath, and his characteristics pointed to the likelihood of serious violent and sexual recidivism. That was in 2009. They said after meeting him in 2014 it was worrying that he acknowledged he had enjoyed the event and the circumstances of his crime and the control he could exercise on the child during his dreadful offending. &nbsp;
And so now apparently, he's cured. He's cured of being that sick, cruel deviant that he confessed himself to be and the Parole Board now believes he's only of average risk of offending. Oh cool. Average. Brilliant. How can you go from being that sick, that wrongly wired, to cured? You can't. At least I suppose we can run him through AI and see what he looks like now I guess, have a fair idea.&nbsp;
And I guess at least we know what George Starling looks like. He's a Christchurch rapist who drugged two women with sedative laced vodka. These young women were flatmates, they returned back to their flat from a party to find Starling was already at their house, somebody else had invited him round. He offered them a drink. They thought they were having a drink of vodka. When they began suffering the effects of the drugged vodka, they took themselves off to bed. He entered first one room then the other and raped both women over the course of the night. Five months later he raped a third woman. He was found guilty of the rapes in two separate trials. In the first case he was sentenced to five years, served two. In the second he was sentenced to six years, served less than two. &nbsp;
Why would you bother going through a court case for that as a woman? I have the utmost respect for the women who went to the Police, who saw that he was charged and made accountable for what he'd done to them, presumably doing so hoping that by their courage they'd be able to prevent him doing it again. But the sentencing just bears no relation to what he did to them. Apparently, he's no longer a risk to the community because he understands he must get consent. Yeah. Drugging women with sedative laced vodka so he can rape them, George, does not count as consent. Shock you and call you confused, but there you go. How could you be confused about consent when it comes to that? Snaps for you George, personal growth. That's right, drugging women so you can rape them isn't consent. &nbsp;
How can we have faith in a system? I mean this is just two – you could probably pull two stories from the paper as well. You could probably pull a couple of stories if you just Googled “rapist sentenced New Zealand", you would find farcical, farcical sentences given. At least I suppose he was sent to prison. We've had drunk drivers who've killed people who haven't been sent to prison. How can we have faith in a system where the punishment for serious crimes is so insignificant, so inconsistent with the severity of the crime and the damage that they have caused?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: How can you have faith in a system in which the punishment never matches the crime?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b89d29cb-fbb4-457e-a55a-b460000c8a28/transcript

I wanted to start today with a landmark study from Monash University. It's found that a routine arming of police officers does not lead to a spike in trigger happy coppers. In fact, after Aussie coppers were armed in the early 1990s, there was a downward trend in shooting rates. The research, which investigated 50 years of officer-involved shootings in Australia between 1970 and 2020, challenges the prevailing assumption that increased firearm availability among police inevitably results in higher rates of lethal force. And I think that assumption exists here.  

You think that by routinely arming officers, there will be more shootings. That doesn't appear to be borne out across the ditch. Police in most countries are routinely armed, but they're not in England, New Zealand, Norway, and Scotland. Guns are available, but they're not worn as of the standard uniform. And this is often due to concerns that arming officers could damage their relationship with the public or lead to a more authoritarian style of policing. The lead researcher of the study at Monash, Dr Ross Hendy, said the findings provide crucial real-world evidence for countries currently debating whether or not their police should carry guns. It was not followed by an increase in shootings. 

I find that interesting because you would imagine if it's there, you'd use it. But not necessarily so. And I think you've seen where you are going to see a damaging of the relationship between police and the public is when you have officers who are completely brainwashed and unwilling and or unable to use their own discernment, as we saw in the appalling case of Henry Nowak. An utterly appalling case. I haven't been able to watch the full video of that poor young man being handcuffed as he lay dying because once you see something, you cannot unsee it.  

American History X is a case in point. I could not – I started to watch it and then I just could not. But this is what happens when police are too intimidated, too brainwashed, too fearful to use their own critical thinking and instead rely on doctrinaire and tutelage and sitting through endless re-education classes, going from black bad, white good to white bad, black good. You cannot reduce humans to that kind of binary, primitive calculation. And that seems to be what's happened in an attempt to try and rid the British police force of any kind of racism towards minority communities. They have completely flipped it and now you have racism in reverse, which is just as damaging, just as bad. And this is the result. So that's what's going to damage relations between police and the public when police aren't able to use their own discernment and police accordingly. 

How many times do you think the police fired their guns in New Zealand? They're not routinely available, you can access them, so I would have thought maybe 100 – I don't know why. I mean, we're seeing increasingly violent crime, I would have thought maybe 100 times. No. Police discharged their firearms in just three separate events in 2024 Three! Three times! It averages about 5.5 times a year over the past 10 years. That is a phenomenally small number of times that police actually fire their weapons. When they fire them, they tend to fire them for a reason, and the result tends to be terminal. You could hardly accuse our police force of being trigger happy. The police say they're very glad that their de-escalation training is working. The presentation of firearms, sponge bullets, tasers, and batons is far more often than that. But they don't use them, they just show the offender, the person, what they've got, but they don't just pull them out and use them. That shows that they're thinking, they're discerning.  

While the Police Association has advocated for routine arming in recent times, for a long time they did not. But as policing has changed, as policemen have been shot and killed, they have called for routine arming. Politicians have been more cautious. A routine arming trial was carried out in 2019 and 2020 but not continued because the Police Commissioner of the time, Andrew Coster, said they created fear in communities. So that that didn't happen. The low rate of police firing their weapons is incredible when you consider that the firearms were pointed at police in 19 incidents over 2024 – eight times they were fired at. So they've fired at fewer criminals than criminals have fired at police.

I think if the police want to be armed, I think the stats show they have the self-restraint, they have the discernment to be able to use them. The Monash study says when it came to Aussie police, routinely arming them did not lead to an increase in use of firearms. In fact, there was a de-escalation of them. So the studies from Monash, our own statistics from New Zealand, say to me that if the police want to be armed, they’ve earned the right to bear sidearms, if that’s what they think they need to do. 

I wanted to start today with a landmark study from Monash University. It's found that a routine arming of police officers does not lead to a spike in trigger happy coppers. In fact, after Aussie coppers were armed in the early 1990s, there was a downward trend in shooting rates. The research, which investigated 50 years of officer-involved shootings in Australia between 1970 and 2020, challenges the prevailing assumption that increased firearm availability among police inevitably results in higher rates of lethal force. And I think that assumption exists here. &nbsp;
You think that by routinely arming officers, there will be more shootings. That doesn't appear to be borne out across the ditch. Police in most countries are routinely armed, but they're not in England, New Zealand, Norway, and Scotland. Guns are available, but they're not worn as of the standard uniform. And this is often due to concerns that arming officers could damage their relationship with the public or lead to a more authoritarian style of policing. The lead researcher of the study at Monash, Dr Ross Hendy, said the findings provide crucial real-world evidence for countries currently debating whether or not their police should carry guns. It was not followed by an increase in shootings.&nbsp;
I find that interesting because you would imagine if it's there, you'd use it. But not necessarily so. And I think you've seen where you are going to see a damaging of the relationship between police and the public is when you have officers who are completely brainwashed and unwilling and or unable to use their own discernment, as we saw in the appalling case of Henry Nowak. An utterly appalling case. I haven't been able to watch the full video of that poor young man being handcuffed as he lay dying because once you see something, you cannot unsee it. &nbsp;
American History X is a case in point. I could not – I started to watch it and then I just could not. But this is what happens when police are too intimidated, too brainwashed, too fearful to use their own critical thinking and instead rely on doctrinaire and tutelage and sitting through endless re-education classes, going from black bad, white good to white bad, black good. You cannot reduce humans to that kind of binary, primitive calculation. And that seems to be what's happened in an attempt to try and rid the British police force of any kind of racism towards minority communities. They have completely flipped it and now you have racism in reverse, which is just as damaging, just as bad. And this is the result. So that's what's going to damage relations between police and the public when police aren't able to use their own discernment and police accordingly.&nbsp;
How many times do you think the police fired their guns in New Zealand? They're not routinely available, you can access them, so I would have thought maybe 100 – I don't know why. I mean, we're seeing increasingly violent crime, I would have thought maybe 100 times. No. Police discharged their firearms in just three separate events in 2024 Three! Three times! It averages about 5.5 times a year over the past 10 years. That is a phenomenally small number of times that police actually fire their weapons. When they fire them, they tend to fire them for a reason, and the result tends to be terminal. You could hardly accuse our police force of being trigger happy. The police say they're very glad that their de-escalation training is working. The presentation of firearms, sponge bullets, tasers, and batons is far more often than that. But they don't use them, they just show the offender, the person, what they've got, but they don't just pull them out and use them. That shows that they're thinking, they're discerning. &nbsp;
While the Police Association has advocated for routine arming in recent times, for a long time they did not. But as policing has changed, as policemen have been shot and killed, they have called for routine arming. Politicians have been more cautious. A routine arming trial was carried out in 2019 and 2020 but not continued because the Police Commissioner of the time, Andrew Coster, said they created fear in communities. So that that didn't happen. The low rate of police firing their weapons is incredible when you consider that the firearms were pointed at police in 19 incidents over 2024 – eight times they were fired at. So they've fired at fewer criminals than criminals have fired at police.
I think if the police want to be armed, I think the stats show they have the self-restraint, they have the discernment to be able to use them. The Monash study says when it came to Aussie police, routinely arming them did not lead to an increase in use of firearms. In fact, there was a de-escalation of them. So the studies from Monash, our own statistics from New Zealand, say to me that if the police want to be armed, they’ve earned the right to bear sidearms, if that’s what they think they need to do.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: The police have earned the right to bear arms

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c4f135a1-1eee-4ba5-a37b-b45f00036d83/transcript

Mark Macky: Bayleys CEO explains the current housing market

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips