Kerre McIvor Mornings Podcast

So that's it then, at least until the next time. Christopher Luxon and his camp stared down the would-be challengers to his leadership, and he lives to fight another election. What happens after that is anybody's guess – win or lose. Chris Penk, the stalking horse, paid the price for calling a confidence motion, stripped of his ministerial portfolios, kicked down to the bottom of the backbenches to sit in purgatory, and he's announced he'll retire from politics at the election. There are all sorts of reckons about who he was acting for, who was really behind the coup, why it failed, and no doubt that will keep the political journos and the Wellington cabal in a lather for the next few weeks to come. But the end result is, despite all the fevered speculation, another challenge to the Prime Minister's leadership was mounted and another challenge was bested. What a sorry, sorry state of affairs. Credit to the Prime Minister for having the cojones to stare down the perfidious ne'er do wells within his own caucus. He doesn't have to do the job, he doesn't need to do the job, yet he was determined to stick it out and finish the job in his own time and in his own way. Credit too to him for keeping excellent ministers where they are doing good work, when surely a dark deep recess of his heart must wish there was still the ability to hang, draw, and quarter traitors. Would have taken a big deep breath and then move on. The ministers are doing good work for New Zealanders while undermining their boss and their party, and to be able to set aside an entirely understandable desire for vengeance shows real maturity and leadership. But where does it leave erstwhile National voters? Quite clearly the caucus is full of liars and traitors and grasping opportunists, no different I suppose to most other political parties, but it doesn't make me feel great voting for them. I know I should accept that this is politics, but why? You wouldn't put up with that in friendships, you wouldn't put up with that in your own workplace. Why do you have to accept undermining, duplicitous, two faced, pledging loyalty with one hand, hugging with one hand while the other hand holds the knife? I find it despicable. Is loyalty an old-fashioned virtue? I wouldn't have thought so. Anyway, why should people be able to get away with pledging their loyalty, telling the public, “Oh yes look, we're absolutely behind the leader," only to be found to be actively undermining both the leader and the party? And what sort of thinking are you getting if a significant cabal within National thinks it's a great idea to roll a leader who is leading a party that could form a government 90 days before the election? It hardly shows the brains trust, does it? To have a group of people going, “Hey, I know, why don't we roll the leader of our party and the Prime Minister 90 days before an election? That'll really get people on side." What a waste of time, what a waste of money and what an absolute bloody gift to Labour. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you know what? While those self-serving destructive quislings in Wellington are doing their very best to lose the election at the caucus meeting this morning, specially called, do you know who's not meeting? 40 mayors and councillors who were supposed to be attending a signing ceremony of a regional deal between the government, the Queenstown Lakes District Council, the Otago Regional Council and the Central Otago District Council. This is good work. This is perhaps not sexy work, but it's sound, sensible work that's going on, that's going to make life better for the ratepayers of these regions. It was all set to be signed at 10:30am, but now it won't because senior ministers can't attend. And why can't they attend? Because a group of traitorous idiots are attempting to roll the Prime Minister again. That just underlines how arrogant and ignorant these small minded, perfidious group of Nats are. Because they are terrified of losing their accommodation allowances, their travel allowances, their home security allowance, their jacked up Super, terrified of having to find a real job 90 days before an election. They're trying to roll a Prime Minister who at the latest poll was leading a party that was ahead and a party that had every chance of winning an election with a group of centre-right other parties. If there was any last one of us who thought that politicians were there to serve the people, surely this self-serving, self-seeking, self-aggrandising group of Nats has put that idea to the sword. If National had no chance of getting back in, if the leader of the Nats had committed an egregious crime à la McSkimming, if he'd been accused of something truly vile, then sure, get rid of him, utterly grounds for getting rid of him. But to get rid of him because he's not snazzy enough? Not glib enough? Not vibey enough, hasn't got the feels? Knows too much and wants to share it? They think Chris Bishop is snazzy? What a pack of fools. I do not know where my vote will go if the cohort of Nats within the party are stupid enough to roll their boss. If they prevail, they're people who simply cannot be trusted, their word is not good. I know men and women who can do million-dollar deals on the shake of a hand and a word. They are good people, they are sound people and they're the ones getting dicked around by these traitorous, duplicitous liars. “We back our leader," said Chris Bishop yesterday while testing the sharpness of his blade. Erica Stanford four days ago told journalists that they were interviewing their typewriters and that she's behind Luxon while the bagman Penk is alleged to have done the numbers. Ugly, ugly, ugly stuff. If Luxon prevails today, and I really hope he does, Chris Bishop should be relegated straight to the bottom of the list and consigned to history. Christopher Luxon came in and did a jolly good job of uniting a party that was a shambles. It was in absolute disarray. Simon Bridges was dumped, replaced by Todd Muller who retired hurt and then Judith Collins got the hospital pass and then into the 2020 election in which National were decimated. They had to rebuild from the ashes, and Christopher Luxon helped them do that. He might not have the jazz hands, but he had faith in good ministers, let them get on with their work, held them to account. What do they do with their renewed strength, the Nats? They disembowel themselves and eat their own entrails, which makes for really unpleasant viewing. For the lefty voters, oh, you must be thinking this is better than any Netflix drama right now. Grab the popcorn and watch it all unfold and who can blame you? This is an own goal of seismic proportions. If a small group of destructive Nats are responsible for the collapse of the centre right vote and Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and the Opportunity party gets in, we should make a new crime and charge those snivelling quislings with economic treason. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As debate continues about Luxon's political future following last week's MMP reform comments, there's growing discussion about whether a referendum is needed. In a piece in Newsroom, Otago University political commentator Dr Michael Swanson argues MMP has delivered fairer representation and coalition Governments are doing exactly what proportional representation was designed to do.He joined Kerre Woodham to outline New Zealand's possible options amid the ongoing election season. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, this Orewa development's giving fast-track consenting a very bad name, isn't it? I am absolutely gobsmacked. I am no property developer, but I would have thought you wouldn't apply to put up hundreds and hundreds of houses before you had, if you'll excuse me, your shit together, quite literally. The decision to greenlight a 1,217 home development on the outskirts of Orewa has attracted heavy criticism from the Auckland mayor, the council, local residents, and just about everybody you speak to. And deservedly so. Vineway Limited plans to build the homes, a commercial area, two neighbourhood parks, some ecological areas to tick the box, and construct a State Highway 1 interchange. All very admirable, but where's the wastewater pipes? And the water pipes full stop. Lovely to have a little ecological area where you can rediscover a sparkling skink, but what about the pipes? There isn't the capacity from Watercare to deliver water, get rid of the waste for the more than a thousand homes in the commercial space. Watercare has made it abundantly clear that it cannot connect any services to the site before 2033, potentially 2050, so why in heaven's name would you allow a housing development of this size to go ahead? We've been there, we've done that, it doesn't work. Two years ago, Watercare was trucking sewage from new housing developments while infrastructure was being built to cope with the waste. But they said two years ago this wasn't working. It was expensive, it was smelly, it was complex. So they said no, we're not going to approve any new resource consents that require an interim wastewater solution. And they did oppose this Orewa one. Back at the time they were talking about servicing Cardinal West, a housing development on a former dairy farm. There were 300 homes there, in the first stage they were planning 417 odd. There were 300 homes, and to service those 300 homes Watercare had to make 90 trips a week to remove the sewage. 90 for 300 homes. How many trips would it take to get rid of the waste from 1,217 homes? Can I remind you too, because this is why it's so incomprehensible; if this was a first where you had a housing developer saying, “Hey, I know we haven't got any pipes to connect to the water infrastructure and the wastewater infrastructure, and I know we won't get them till about 2050 but what about we truck water in and take the treated sewage away?" And if that was the first time it had been suggested, you might think, “Well, that sounds half baked, but nonetheless let's give it a go, let's not be negative Nancys, let's just, we need housing." Look at them. It doesn't work. That's why Watercare said no. And can I remind you of Auckland's Whitford Manor, described by planners as a cautionary tale of what can go wrong when developers build houses in areas where public water pipes have yet to reach. Spelling it out for the property developers out there. Over the years, every plan for a private wastewater system at Whitford Manor collapsed. A deal to pipe waste across a neighbouring golf course fell through, shock me. And a backup plan to dump it in a nearby creek was killed in the High Court by conservationists and iwi, and I don't blame them. It didn't work 150 years ago, we're still dealing with the problems of just using natural waterways to dump our crap into and our arsenic and our poisons from the factories. Look at the creeks around Grey Lynn, they're still recovering. So what in God's name are we doing in Orewa? Watercare held up Whitford Manor's failure as one of the reasons to object to other housing projects trying to build outside the public network. We've been there. We've seen that it can go wrong. Everybody's opposed to it, apart from the developers, who, you can take your ecological area and your indigenous skink and shove it up your jacksy because until you've got the infrastructure that's necessary, you're creating a recipe for disaster and you won't be clearing it up. You won't be, because like Whitford Manor you'll just go tits up and bankrupt and off you go. And guess who's left cleaning up your waste, your mess? We are, the ratepayers, the taxpayers. No, no, no, no. If this is an example of the fast-track consenting process, it's a big fat fail from me. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A developer says controversy around a housing build near Orewa in north Auckland should prompt a rethink. The 1200 home Delmore development —now fast-track-approved— can't be connected to wastewater infrastructure until at least 2033. Waste will have to be trucked out. Urban Planning Specialist Hamish Firth told Kerre Woodham it highlights a lack of support for infrastructure providers. He says we need to be getting this infrastructure into areas where housing is likely to go. However, Firth says the land has been zoned for housing since 2016 – so maybe Watercare should have planned for it in future work. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, the 111 call out and the fact that St John is absolutely under the pump and has been for quite some time and they're not expecting it to finish anytime soon. On Saturday, 2,562 calls came into the ambulance through 111 the highest number received ever in a single day. But then that was the third time the daily record had been broken in a week. Just last week, the record number of 111 calls was set, then surpassed, then surpassed, then surpassed again and they're not expecting that to go anytime soon. A mate of mine pretty much saved the life of our mutual friend. She was at her flat, suddenly stricken, like off the couch in agony. Her flatmate called 111, time was ticking by, nothing was happening. So he rang my friend Les in absolute despair and said what the hell do I do, she's in agony. Les whizzed round there and then rang the ambulance service and asked where the ambulance was. And she said I can't tell you that and he said yes you can because you've got GPS, where is the ambulance? She said I can't tell you that. And he pushed her and pushed her until finally she admitted there was no ambulance on the way, they didn't have one. But she didn't want to tell him that, I don't know why. As soon as he heard that he just hung up, he and the flatmate scooped up Soph, whizzed her to the hospital and she'd had a brain aneurysm. It was touch and go but she has made a full recovery and is back to the beautiful vibrant soul she is, but it really was touch and go. If Les hadn't pushed, they'd have sat there waiting for an ambulance and Soph would have died. There'll be a hell of a lot more stories like that out there after the past two weekends. As I said, it was a record number on Saturday, 2,562 calls, a normal day would see around 1,900 calls. According to Doug Gallagher, who's the St John Director of Ambulance Operations, not all cases need an ambulance. And he's right. After I smashed my arm into a million pieces, the next day, it was an uncomfortable night I grant you, but the next day I was still able to take a taxi from Leigh to a 24 hour medical centre on the North Shore. It wasn't a fun hour and if I'd been in an ambo perhaps I would have had some pain relief which would have been greatly appreciated, but I got it once I got to the 24 hour clinic and once there it was a completely straightforward process of them going ooh, no, I think that needs to be x rayed, oh, I think we'll go to hospital for that one, and off we went. So probably people don't need an ambulance. When something drastic happens, your first thought probably is oh I better ring an ambulance. And I suppose when I hurt my arm, I didn't even think of an ambulance because we were so far away, we were out in the seaside, at a seaside resort. And I didn't think there'd be any point in ringing an ambulance, I'd wait till the morning and get a taxi and go in from there. Possibly you could travel under your own steam. And I just wonder why people instantly think 111. As Mike said this morning when he was talking to Doug Gallagher, there are a lot of time wasters, but Doug Gallagher said well I wouldn't call them that. Wasting the time's not the term to use. I think people struggle sometimes with not being able to access the right part of the health system. But there are options there, Healthline, online GP portal, people can find those through the Health New Zealand website. I think that's the issue that people struggle to navigate the health system at times. Is that what it is? Why would the first, I mean if you don't have a vehicle and you don't have any money, and there's a few people like that, then an ambulance may well be your only option if you think it's serious. But in the first instance, what do you do? I've called the Healthline before and it's been very helpful. I did think I'd probably need to get my arm set, but I didn't need an ambulance for that. I couldn't drive, but I could take a taxi and I did have the money to take a taxi. Not everybody does. Do you think it's drummed into us to call 111 in an emergency or why is it that so many people see the ambulance as the first response? And you are asked to pay if you can when you take an ambulance, so you might as well hop in a cab or an Uber if you think there's something really wrong and needs checking out. That's a lot of calls in a day. I would love to know how many of them were absolutely essential where people may well have died if they didn't get that ambulance ride to the hospital. I'd just be interested to know what the advice is. Like Doug is saying navigate the health system, well so okay you ring Healthline and they answer pretty quickly. They might be able to give you advice. Is it just panic when something happens? Like oh my god, what do I do? They're in terrible pain, I don't know how to deal with it, I'm going to ring the ambulance rather than I'm going to ring Healthline and see if this is something I can manage myself. I'd really love to hear your experiences. I mean in my mate's case, Les's case, if he hadn't got Soph to the hospital she wouldn't be here and that's that. How many cases are like that with an ambulance or are people using it because they have no other options? And what is the medical advice? I mean if in doubt ring an ambulance, is that really the advice that St John would give? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the first episode of the 100 Years of ZB Podcast, Mike Hosking takes you through the birth of the iconic 1ZB in 1926. The episode takes you through the history of the station from 1926 until the beginning of 1987. You'll hear snippets from the iconic names - like Phil Shone, Aunt Daisy, Selwyn Toogood, Merv Smith and Marina (Jocelyn Parr). Mike Hosking will also take you back in time to the famous moments from the 1ZB Theatre in Auckland - and the radio dramas that made the station an unmissable listen. You'll also hear how 1ZB covered the big stories over that time - including the World War Two, the Wahine Disaster and the 1981 Springbok Tour. 100 Years of ZB - Celebrating a century of New Zealand's conversation. Archival audio from the collections at Ngā Taonga Sound & Vision. New episodes every Sunday on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts - powered by Newstalk ZB. LISTEN ABOVE OR BELOW IF YOU'RE LISTENING OUTSIDE OF NEW ZEALAND See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christopher Luxon says he supports having another referendum on the MMP voting system if he's re-elected as he encourages greater support for National so the party can avoid working with “some yahoo and numpty” in Cabinet. Act leader David Seymour says he's not opposed to another referendum but suggests Luxon “may not have thought through what he's saying” regarding ministers from other parties, noting the number of National ministers who had been dismissed this term. Speaking on Newstalk ZB this morning, Luxon made the statement in response to a listener who had texted in asking whether the PM would address the power held by minor parties in governing arrangements. Luxon initially pointed to the Government working towards a referendum on whether to extend government terms from three years to four, before saying he was “open” to asking voters whether they were “still supportive of MMP”. Asked if he would do so if he were Prime Minister next year, Luxon replied: “Yeah, I think I would.” He added: “I think I would because I actually think, you know, that it is quite right to check in constitutionally and say, is this the system, New Zealand, you still want? “You know, you voted for this in the 90s, we've had a check-in in the [20]10s, 20 years down the road or whatever it has been, is it still where you want to be?” Luxon went on to talk about his 20-person Cabinet, currently made up of ministers from National, Act and New Zealand First. He argued the best way to provide a “strong and stable government” was to have as many National ministers in Cabinet as possible. “When you have to form coalition governments, you don't have the same values, you don't have the same policies, you're not talking to the same people. “You try and find the common ground and I feel like I have done the best I can in two and a half years to find common ground on the economy, law and order, education and health. “I think you've got to ask the question, I feel like I've got responsible, sensible ministers delivering: Mark Mitchell, Todd McCay, Erica Stanford Nicola Willis, Simeon Brown, Chris Bishop, you know, I've got amazing people doing incredible work who take it very seriously. “The question is, I keep saying, I don't need some yahoo or numpty from some other party around that table, I can do a lot more to get the centre-right agenda, centre being the operative word, done and out the door so think about your vote, November 7, it's important.” Asked if his current coalition partners were yahoos and numpties, Luxon replied: “No, I'm just saying I can do better with National Party ministers, I think New Zealand's better served by that.” Asked by ZB host Kerre Woodham if he'd prefer Mitchell around the Cabinet table over former National MP and current NZ First candidate Michael Laws, Luxon replied: “You said it.” Act leader David Seymour defended the work of his ministers. Photo / Mark Mitchell Speaking to the Herald, Seymour said he wasn't certain whether Luxon was calling his ministers yahoos and numpties. “Who knows, I suspect that he's being a bit free-wheeling and may not have thought through what he's saying there.” Seymour noted how several National ministers had been dismissed during this term before pointing to work achieved by Act ministers, including on school attendance and reforms concerning the Holidays Act, Arms Act and the Resource Management Act. “I'm not here to start bagging other parties' ministers but I think anyone who's an objective observer would say that Act ministers have been pretty effective.” On a referendum, Seymour said he wasn't opposed but said any change would be unlikely to be implemented until the 2032 or 2035 elections and there were “more urgent problems” to address. In a statement on social media, Peters commended MMP for having “broke the stranglehold” of Labour and National on “running roughshod over our economy without social licence”. “Now that the two old parties are losing their grip on power, they want to change the electoral system to favour their falling fortunes.” Referencing the previous referendums in 1993 and 2011, Peters said people wanted different representation in Parliament than what Labour and National could provide. “The old parties' weak and inept attitude to economic sovereignty, immigration, and woke nonsense has seen people move to a party that is offering common sense, patriotism, and old-fashioned Kiwi values. “Shutting down and taking away true democratic representation from the people of New Zealand should be seen for what it is – a power grab and an ignorance for what it means to be a democracy.” Adam Pearse is the deputy political editor and part of the NZ Herald's press gallery team based at Parliament in Wellington. He has worked for NZME since 2018, reporting for the Northern Advocate in Whangārei and the Herald in Auckland. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So, the Corrections Minister has halted a $9 million plan, as you will have heard this morning, to provide Rongoa Māori healthcare in prisons, including giving prisoners traditional massages called mirimiri, after questions were asked about the programme. Mark Mitchell said, first I heard of it. But Corrections launched a procurement process for the services in all New Zealand prisons in July, after a trial was run in a couple of prisons. Seemed to work well. Rongoa is traditional Māori medicine, including herbal remedies, physical therapies, and spiritual healing. The listing from correction details the plans, including rolling out karakia, mahi wairua, and mirimiri – that's the massage therapy. But Corrections Minister Mark Mitchell told Mike Hosking this morning the massage programme has been put on pause, saying it doesn't meet his expectations. “I was unaware that there was a programme that was delivering massages, and I agree with you. I mean, that's part of it ... Probably done with the best of intentions, because, you know, our Corrections people are outstanding. Do tens of thousands of positive actions every day in terms of rehabilitation, but this did not meet my expectations. “My focus quite simply had been, Mike, on delivering rehabilitation that gave people real life skills or something that would enable them to actually get started again, reintegrate, make good decisions – things like getting a driver's license or getting them some sort of trade qualification. That is what I want done with taxpayers' money.” According to the 2004 Corrections Act, the standard of healthcare available to prisoners must be reasonably equivalent to the standard of healthcare available to the public. And Rongoa Māori is available to the public. It's delivered across primary healthcare and within community contexts across New Zealand. The number of ACC people using Rongoa Māori was 9,000 in 2024 – about 59% of them were Māori clients, 41% non-Māori. So it's a thing. It's an alternative health practice that is reasonably common within the community. I'm all for rehabilitation in our prisoners and giving people a chance, but wouldn't it be better to put the $9 million into literary programmes? Literacy, numeracy, for those that want to learn how to communicate, perhaps anger management courses so you don't beat the living bejesus out of some poor fool who's cut you off in the traffic. Mindfulness, perhaps, would give more bang for prisoner buck, I would have thought, learning how to control your stress or your temper. Or even marriage therapy, relationship counselling would give you more bang for your prisoner buck. Because from what I've been told from ex-cons, the reason they gave up offending was for family, for wives and kids. They just thought, no, more. I want to be on the outside and see my kids grow up. So maybe relationship counselling would give you more bang for buck than a good old mirimiri on a Sunday afternoon. A massage is something I book as a present to myself, as a reward to myself when I could afford it. It's not part of my ongoing healthcare. I'm sure there are aspects of Rongoa Māori that are enormously helpful, but no, I just can't see how you could possibly justify massage. That's a nice to have, not a must have. And sure it's available in the community, but it's not considered part of standard healthcare, I would have thought. It's not generally funded by primary health providers to get people back on their feet. There are so many things that people in our prisons need to be able to integrate into society before massage, I would have thought, but then I haven't been inside. Thank heavens. I haven't done anything really, even flicking back through the filo facts of sins of my past, I haven't done anything that could have put me inside. So I don't know. What do you need if you've served time to help you get back on your feet? What do you need if you go to prison, which you accept as collateral damage as part of the price of being in the gang? What do you need to divert you from that life to another? Honestly, over the many, many years I've done talk back and talked to people who've been in prison, the only thing that really does seem to work is Jesus or relationships, wanting to be with your family and wanting to see your kids grow up. wanting to be with the good person who stood by you. All the courses in the world don't seem to make a blind bit of difference. But having a purpose, either through God or through family, and the second tier would be getting a job. Having a massage every Sunday in your cell, I don't see how that's going to help. For those of you who have been there, done that, I would love to hear from you. What does work? Where should money for rehabilitation go? What programs do you think are required for those who have provided services designed to get people back on their feet, either inside prison or out? Again, given the huge menu of options we have now in terms of alternative healthcare, what works? I'm sure we wouldn't begrudge $9 million being spent on keeping people out of prison – we would get that money back in no time at all. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Unemployment's reached the highest level in 11 years. Stats NZ data shows the rate reached 5.6% in the June quarter, up from 5.3% in the March quarter. Of the 166 thousand unemployed in this year's second quarter, almost a-fifth had been without work for more than a year. Herald Business Editor at Large Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham some economists think the rate won't fall again any time soon. He says some predict it'll increase to 5.7% and hang around at high levels into next year. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As the election draws closer, many people are struggling to decide who to vote for. There's a concern that politics have become too divided, and people are becoming disillusioned with the parties they've supported in the past. At the same time, there are concerns about the more extreme views of minor parties, and the impact they have when forming coalitions. Political analyst and Director of Victoria University's Democracy Project Bryce Edwards told Kerre Woodham there's no scientific answer that will tell you who to vote for, but there are a few questions you can ask yourself to help decide. The first is to ask what the three most important issues are in your opinion, and compare each party's policies for the issues. But Edwards says you need to really separate their promises from their records and think about what they've done in the past. “Are those promises that they're putting forward this year credible ... will they be able to achieve this?” Other things to look at, he says, are personality —do they have things like integrity, honesty, or competence— and coalitions that would potentially be formed by the different parties. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A friend of mine said to me the other day, “do you have the cliff notes of Labour's policies going into the election? I haven't heard much from Chris Hipkins.” I said, “well, you haven't heard much from Chris Hipkins because he doesn't need to say much.” The best tactic for Labour right now, and they've they copped onto that very early, was to stay shtum and let National and its coalition partners do their very best to lose the election. Christopher Luxon's suck it up cupcake to business owners in Rotorua and then the subsequent apology was yet another case of him having to explain himself. “I didn't mean it like that, you know what I'm saying.” He's done it so many times before. He did it with the bottom feeders comment, he did it with the sorted comment. He doesn't mean it, but it comes across badly, it's mischaracterised, it's misrepresented, he has to explain himself, and when you're explaining, you're losing. He doesn't trust journalists because he feels he's misrepresented, mischaracterised, misspoke every time he opens his mouth, but then that makes it very difficult to get the message across that National is the best party to lead the country. Why should Hipkins open his mouth? He'll only cop flak every time he does. Far better to stay shtum. He doesn't need to say anything. And it's Luxon's inability to connect with the public. One on one, he's absolutely fine as anyone who has met him can attest. As an orator, yeah, not so much. It's costing National. I mean, look at Jacinda Ardern. She was able to sell us a whole bunch of nothing in 2017, and then during Covid was able to sell us a whole bunch of draconian, and then increasingly odd, nonsensical rules that people, a lot of people just swallowed. And that was because she had the ability to communicate and connect. It's a shame that personalities play such a big part in politics, but that's the reality. Always has been. If you go back to the fourth Labour Government, David Lange was selected, elected, voted in as a leader because he could sell incredibly divisive and game changing and society changing policies to the electorate. You had a group of people who were working very hard on completely transforming New Zealand, and he was sold to the New Zealand public as “you can trust me, nothing can go wrong while I'm in charge”, and people believed it. They would never have got away with introducing as many of the radical policies that they introduced without having a brilliant communicator at the helm. When I read Sir Ian Taylor's opinion piece in Stuff this morning, I thought, yeah, I could have written this myself, but I didn't, and I probably wouldn't have written it as well. But I am so exactly like Sir Ian Taylor, apart from the brilliant creative and millionaire bit – I'm just nodding along as I'm reading it. Like Sir Ian, for most of my life, I have been a centre left voter. Like Sir Ian, I too turned off them in Covid when their ability to deliver on the most basic of the policies became abundantly clear and that there were a bunch of numpties trying to put legislation in place. Like Sir Ian, I found National MPs were willing to listen and they were coming up with good sound policy they'd been working on in Opposition. I liked many of their would-be ministers and I really hoped that by voting centre right, we'd find a clear path through the mess that had been left behind. But then along came ACT and New Zealand First, and as Sir Ian says, and I quote, “I was left with the uncomfortable realisation that my vote had helped create a coalition increasingly shaped by minority party ideologies that ran directly against many of the things I believed in.” Amen, Sir Ian, that's exactly how I feel. I'm okay with with centre right, but with those divisive policies from ACT and now —now that it's election year— from New Zealand First, they don't sit well with me. And that's why people are looking at TOP and that's why Sir Ian says he's listening. I know their policies are ill thought out and poorly costed, but so are New Zealand First's. And if I'm going to have a difficult minor party in a coalition or sitting on the benches, I'd rather have young people there than a bunch of old men who represent self-interest and dog whistle politics. How on earth can you have Winston Peters doing a brilliant job as Foreign Affairs Minister and then he turns into a foaming racist in election year? If he was racist to his core, you'd be like, okay, well, he's a rac, but he's not. He's just appealing to racists because he knows that's where he'll get his votes. He knows that there will be a lot of people who vote for New Zealand First because they don't like others. I mean, probably as far as I'm concerned, reason will prevail. I'm doing the whichparty.nz almost weekly, which helps you sort out who to vote for. I'm looking at the ministers in the Coalition Government and comparing them to their counterparts on the left, and the vast majority of government ministers are head and shoulders above the alternative in my mind. But I do not think I have ever felt less inspired, less hopeful about an election, ever. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We opted to go with Act wanting to give teachers the legal power to remove seriously or persistently disruptive students from a classroom. Now in an election year with parties struggling to get airtime and oxygen, you have to wonder how much of this is serious policy, how much they seriously think they can get pushed through in a coalition, how much is just to generate headlines. I'd venture to suggest this falls into that category, the headline grabbing one. The party's new policy would allow teachers to send disruptive students to a supervised space and staff would be protected when using a reasonable and proportionate intervention to prevent harm or destruction of property. Corporal punishment wouldn't be allowed for all of you wanting and advocating a return to six of the best and it never did me any harm and look at me now. That's not what they're going back to. They're just saying that you'd be able to manhandle a child out of the class, shove them into a storage room with some poor underpaid teacher aide and there'd be no legal comeback. Announcing the policy in Auckland yesterday, Paul Henry, the Act candidate, said the law would give teachers clear legal protections and the power to regain order in the classroom. Let's be honest, he said, there are a lot of little shits in classrooms and we need to address that if we're going to lift education standards. Teachers need to know they're respected and they need to know the law is actually on their side. There are two things here. First, Paul Henry knew exactly what he was talking about when he called the kids LS's. No more of this woke wishy washy double speak when you vote for Act. No, no, no. Let's call a spade an effing shovel and a disruptive child a little shit. Teachers know their pupils. What teachers need is support and you know today multiple journalists said to me, but what about this, but what about this, but what about if this child's, you know, autistic or got, teachers know that. Teachers know if this child is just being a little shit and is disturbing the class or if they genuinely can't control themselves. And so what we're doing with this policy is we're giving teachers another tool and we're saying to teachers and this to me is the most important part, we are supporting you in law to manage and control your class. How humiliating must it be for teachers as they stand back and just helplessly watch people totally disturb their class and know that these good students are literally sitting by watching this nightmare happen. What are the messages being sent to those students? Look, I'm sure he's right. There are some LS's in the classroom and it's really frustrating for the children and for parents to watch valuable time and resources being spent on manipulative LS's who play the system, who go on the school trips, cause maximum disruption and then get rewarded by being the first to do the fun stuff because you're trying, the poor teachers are trying to manage the behaviour of these LS's. But the thing is when you have good teachers and principals, they know how to manage them. There were three known LS's at the grandkids' school who are no longer there. Where they've gone, no one's quite sure, but the stuffing of the uniforms and class books and reading books into the toilets, the bullying, the incredibly violent behaviour in the classroom has stopped. Not there anymore and hours and hours of teacher and classroom time has been regained every school year. There are still neurodivergent children in the school. They fit in just fine. Allowances are madefor everybody with quirks and foibles. Quirks and foibles fine, LS's not so much. But the teachers tend to know how to manage them already. And that brings me to the second point, is this something that teachers have asked for? Is Act's policy as articulated by Paul Henry something the teachers actually want? Have they demanded the right to be able to grapple an hysterical violent seven year old out of their classroom without fear of legal repercussion or do they simply want smaller classrooms, more teacher aides, more teacher training, more power to expel a child from their school, special classrooms set up to deal with children with really severe behavioural problems? Big difference across the spectrum, huge difference across the spectrum and some of the LS's I believe are not neurodivergent at all but actually just like being bad. Not many. It's really hard this election campaign given some of the pronouncements that are coming from the different political parties to sort out whether they actually believe this or whether they're doing it in a dog whistling form of electioneering and campaigning. Looking at New Zealand First and now looking at Act. Is this something the education system has been crying out for or is he just looking for headlines? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT wants teachers to have the legal power to remove disruptive students from classrooms and, in some cases, use reasonable force if they refuse to leave. The party is also proposing fines of up to $3,000 for parents who fail to address ongoing behaviour problems. They argue classroom disruption is harming student achievement and teacher retention, citing Education Review Office findings that many teachers deal with disruptive behaviour daily and lose significant teaching time managing it. President of the New Zealand Principals' Federation Jason Miles joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the proposed policy. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From good news to bad news really – a growing number of pensioners are turning to the Government's hardship support network as a last resort as the cost of living crisis grinds on. Applications for temporary additional support from New Zealand super recipients have almost tripled since 2020, rising from around about 22,000 per year to more than 61,000 in 2025. Retirement Commission research revealed to Newstalk ZB highlights older renters as one of New Zealand's most financially vulnerable groups. 80% of renters aged 65 and over are financially uncomfortable. 80%. That's up from 66% who were uncomfortable in 21/22. Mortgage free home ownership among older people has fallen from 83% to 71%, and that's going to keep declining. Many older New Zealanders have little income beyond New Zealand Super. If you're young and you're fit, you can try to find extra work to pay the bills. You can share a house and the associated costs. When you have young children, slightly more difficult. There are costs there, but you'll often scrimp and save so that the kids don't go without. You might not have any simple luxuries, but you'll make sure the kids are alright. When you're older and you've already pared things down to basic necessities, there's not much more you can do. You start running out of options and you need to rely on the largesse of the state. There's the temporary additional support – that's around $111 per week. There's the winter energy payment paid automatically from the 1st of May to the 1st of October to people on main benefits, New Zealand Super, or a veteran's pension, and you don't need to apply for that if you qualify. That gives you an extra $20.46 a week if you're on your own, $31.82 if you're a couple or have dependent children, and if that's per week, that should just about cover your power bill. The way the world is going, looking at what's happening in Europe, you might need a summer living payment as well to help pay for the air conditioning. What are the options? Even owning your own home isn't a guarantee of a comfortable retirement when you look at the rising rates, rising insurance costs, the increase in doing any kind of repairs or maintenance because houses need to be taken care of. That all impacts on the superannuitants. People tend to think of boomers as living the life. They sell the business, they sell the farm, they retire from their high paying CEO jobs, they've got the house, the bach, the investment properties, the trips overseas. And for some that is true – that is their retirement and they've worked hard and they look forward to it, and they are living the life of Riley. But that is not the reality for many of our older Kiwis. The vast majority are living on just the Super and they're crawling their way from payment to payment. Now the renters who are doing it tough, 80% of renters aged 65 and over are financially uncomfortable, they're worried. But even if you own your own home, as I say, that is no guarantee. You're worried about the roof that needs repairing or blocking off rooms so that you're basically living in one room to try and save on the heating costs. What are your options if you are owning your own home, if you're renting, what are the options other than relying on the government to top up your payments? Is this how you imagined your retirement would be? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One district is crediting its proactive programme for its top water ranking. The Water Services Authority's latest report suggests Grey District, the Far North, Queenstown, Ashburton, and Clutha councils are the worst for leakages. Meanwhile the place with the least leakages is Hauraki District Council. Mayor Toby Adams told Kerre Woodham the District has invested heavily in ensuring local dairy farms have reliable access to water. He says it wants to get it right, ensuring there are no disruptions and there is enough to go around. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The first national picture of our water networks has revealed severe and immense pressures, with an average of 31 wastewater overflows across New Zealand every single day given as an example of how it's failing. In total, about 15% of our pipes are in poor or very poor condition – and that's likely to be understating it, given that the pipes are under the ground and we only know there's a problem when there's a problem, like a sinkhole – good morning St Marys Bay, hello Wellington. Or when there's a major sewage overflow – good morning again Wellington, and looking at you, Queenstown Lakes and Herne Bay. To be fair, a lot of the wastewater overflows are on us. Absolute morons cause blockages when they put things down the loo or the sink that shouldn't go down there. No, you don't pour your fat down there, because what happens when fat sets? Blocks everything up, doesn't it? Wet wipes, honestly, and the like. Will the Government's take on Labour's Three Waters, Local Water Done Well, fix the problem? Well, even the proponent of Local Water Done Well, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown says it's going to be “a mammoth challenge”. That's like a doctor saying there'll be quite a bit of discomfort – what they mean is severe agony. When they say a mammoth challenge, that's like, we're not entirely sure we can do it, but we have to give it a bash. One of the key points, he says, the Government wanted to achieve with Local Water Done Well is making sure the entities that deliver these water services are, in essence, match fit, are financially sustainable, and have the ability to deliver, not just now, but in the years, the decades to come. There are significant challenges around infrastructure investment deficit, and we'll need to spend, on average and all things considered, around $4 billion per year over the next 10 years. Now, some have already got cracking and underway, and that was in part one of the reasons that Labour's version of Local Water Done Well, the Three Waters, received a bit of pushback. The first was that local mayors said that the Government shouldn't get their mitts on local assets. The second was that some councils had already spent a great deal of money doing the hard stuff, not just building pretty things that look great above ground, but had invested considerably in their water structures. Auckland has a very efficient, reasonably well-run department of water, if you will, Watercare, and they didn't want to hand that over to anybody in particular. And then, of course, there was the co-governance, which was very poorly sold. And even now, when we're joining into big entities so that there's more clout when it comes to borrowing and sharing and pooling of resources, Auckland's like, “well, if you haven't spent a cent, Northland, on your water, why on earth should we carry you?” And other councils are feeling much the same way. But anyone who's living near Moa Point in Wellington right now would say spend whatever it takes to get the pipes fixed. Ask anyone in Havelock North who was affected by the campylobacter outbreak there this time 10 years ago. Almost 40% of the town struck by gastro when sheep dung contaminated the town's water supply. There were four deaths, 953 notified cases. Upgrading our water system is not a “gosh, that'd be nice one day”. Upgrading our water was gosh, it would be nice one day 20 years ago. It is so overdue. The money must be spent now, and it's infrastructure that must be prioritised now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now in any recession, it's the young ones who are going to find it hardest to get jobs, and this recession is no different. Student Job Search says many students and graduates are really struggling to find jobs, part time, full time, which means they're also finding it tough to pay the rent and to put food on the table. And just looking at the story, it seems that many young people who've followed their passions are finding it the most difficult to get work. They've taken out student loans to get degrees in fields like screen production or radio, or they've done a Bachelor of Communications and then they're finding that the jobs simply aren't there, not for entry level. Or there are fears that the jobs for which the young people have qualified, taken out the student loans, worked their way through and qualified, simply won't exist in the future. Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has warned that up to half of white collar work could be automated by 2030 In this country, MB warns that young people may struggle to get onto the employment ladder as an increasing amount of entry level work is automated. The unemployment rate among New Zealand's 15 to 24 year olds currently sits at around 15% triple that of the working age population. These are young people who are looking for work. They weren't faffing around just taking a dole or a youth allowance. These are young people who want work and the unemployment rate is around 15% Research from the AI Forum in this country earlier this year showed that 45% of businesses were planning to lower their headcount due to implementing AI. So not only are they struggling to find jobs in the field that they've studied and they've graduated in, there's real concern that they're not going to get a job in 10 years from now, that job simply won't be there. There was a review of a number of go get em tiger type books in The Economist this week under the heading "Traditional career advice is failing Gen Z". Two of the books have authors who tell their readers to get out there and find a career you love, to follow your passion, nothing will make you more successful than loving what you do for a living. But the third author took the opposite approach and I think it's probably the more sensible one. He says get good at something that helps others and the passion will follow. His argument is that if you're good at your job, you'll have more leverage to do enjoyable work than if you pursue a passion and you're mediocre. Don't go for the big bucks, he cites the happiness paradox where once basic comfort and security are met, extra income yields much smaller gains in daily emotional well being. Just being wealthy isn't going to make you happy. You get to a certain tipping point where you can pay all your bills on time, have a little bit set aside for disposable income, a holiday once a year perhaps, that'll do you. Anything beyond that and it's not really worth it. He says do something where you feel valued and where your skills are in demand. Do that rather than follow your dream of becoming a professional YouTuber or a cinematographer or what have you. I have been very, very lucky to begin a job at 17 that I have loved, and I've pretty much done it on and off since I was 17 working in the media. Being a television presenter, being a radio journalist, being a writer, being a columnist, loved it. Apart from two years of COVID, but we don't need to go into that right now, not today. Absolutely loved it and feel very, very lucky to have done so. But what is your advice to your young people? Or if you are a young person who has recently graduated, how did you decide what to do? How difficult has it been trying to find a job? I mean 15% unemployment among the 15 to 24 year olds. That's a lot of young kids that are knocking on doors willing to do anything, and they are. These aren't lazy kids. They're willing to do damn near anything. They've given up working in screen production or radio or public relations, they just want a job. What's your advice? Do a bit of research and find out what jobs might be AI proof, service jobs, or do you still think it's important to tell kids to follow their passion? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A big job to hire the next float builder for the country's biggest Christmas parade. Auckland's Farmers Santa Parade's long-time elf is retiring his paintbrush - after five decades of building iconic floats. Applications are open for his replacement - requiring artistry and carpentry to take on a few new editions each year. Children's Christmas Parade Trust Chair Simon Bridges told Kerre Woodham they aren't restricting the search to just Auckland. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now it's just over three months till the election. It is a really important election. New Zealand is struggling to get back on its feet economically. A lot of Kiwis are hurting, and they've been hurting for a long, long time. And they have to decide between a party that gives them stuff, “Oh look, we've got free stuff for you," or a party that is promised to fix things, “Hey, we're in charge here," but is still in the process of fixing things and hasn't fixed a great deal yet, “Oh, it takes time.” Or even whether they should give their vote to a shiny new party, “Hi, we're from TOP," utterly unproven, has some interesting takes on taxing the rich, but hey, at least it's not National or Labour, stuff National or Labour. I'll go with that nice girl in that shiny party that may well end up taking your land off you, but hey ho, there we go, at least it's not National or Labour. There is a lot to think about. There's a lot to consider, there's a lot to discuss, there are policies to pick apart, but instead we've spent a week of the 12 weeks we have left until the election fixated on stupid, crass, dumb stuff that politicians and would be politicians say. Should be a new media segment: Dumb Stuff Politicians Say. The media and the public are to blame equally. The media gets clicks on the website and eyes on social media and calls on talkback. Makes it easy, don't even have to work for them. The public can have a knee jerk reaction, “Oh, that's shocking," and an immediate opinion, “What a terrible person," without having to do the hard work of reading through policies and analysis of policies. And as expected, it didn't take Paul Henry long to be at the centre of a row when he was the guest of Radio Hauraki yesterday morning. JEREMY WELLS: Quick game of shoot, shag, marry. Chris Luxon, Chris Hipkins, and Winston Peters. Who are you shooting? Who are you shagging? Who are you marrying? PAUL HENRY: I mean, you know, you've got to shoot Hipkins, haven't you? WELLS: Okay, so Hipkins is no more. MANAIA STEWART: There's your headline. HENRY: Yeah, I'm shagging Winston. WELLS: And you're marrying Luxon. AYESHA VERRALL: That is absolutely inappropriate and these things do have to be called out because we can't just let death threats go in our political conversation. There are nutters out there who feed off these sorts of things and one day, you know, we can be in the situation which the UK is in where members of Parliament lose their lives. Oh, Ayesha Verrall, cool your jets. That was Ayesha on with my colleague Nick Mills in Wellington when she'd learned that Paul Henry had played shoot, shag, marry on Radio Hauraki. Death threats. The righteous indignation from Labour seems a bit OTT given Chris Hipkins participated in a similar game on The Project some years ago, except then as it was called kick, kiss, or marry. In 2023 Chris Hipkins said he would kick David Seymour, kiss Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to get it over and done with quickly, and marry Te Pāti Māori co leader Rawiri Waititi. Kick David Seymour! He's advocating violence! He wants people to hurt the ACT Leader! No, he doesn't. And nor does Paul Henry want to kill Chris Hipkins. They all just participated in a dumb media game and after Albanese got caught up in the shag, marry, date, and Kylie Minogue and all the trouble he got into with that, I'm sure we'll see cross party support from politicians of every hue and every party that they never play that stupid, stupid game in the media ever again. I mean, you heard one of the Hauraki hosts saying, “Oh, there's your headline," and it was. Then you've got the National Party who have got party-wide outrage after Stuart Nash's comments on Katie Nimon and saying, “Oh, she's bloody lazy," inferring she shouldn't have taken so much maternity leave or parental leave. Now, the social media post from every Nat you've never heard of decrying the comments, and deploring them, and the like could be seen as the Nats quite rightly looking after and supporting one of their own, or it could be seen as a party-wide instruction to shriek your outrage across every media outlet because we're polling badly with women and we want to show women that we love them really, it's just that the country can't afford the pay equity legislation that Labour promised the women. We've got Shane Jones and his knee pads comments and for all his purple prose, his grandiloquence, his circumlocution, his sesquipedalian tendencies, he's just as smutty as the next guy, loves a double entendre. But really, the column inches generated and the time wasted by that comment are just grist to his mill. This is what New Zealand First thrives on: agitate and offend people, then leap back decrying them all as “wokesters” and say, “Ugh, New Zealand First is here to man up, hey! You'll be able to knee pad your way around the bloody morning tearoom when New Zealand First is in power! Hey! Don't you worry about that!" I mean, it's just nonsense. Absolute nonsense. There are columns in the newspaper, there are columns online, there are radio programs where you can discuss in detail the policies of the different parties and how they'll impact on New Zealand now and in the future. But people don't read them. We can show you the figures. And that's people. That's the audience. They click on the knee pads, they click on Katie Nimon, they click on Paul Henry and the shoot, shag, marry. They do not click on Treasury's analysis of the Green Party's tax policy – well they do, but not in as nearly the same numbers. So it's on all of us, except not really us because we do talk policy more than your average radio program and you as the audience who make us the number one rating show do read, do absorb, do analyse the policies more than the average member of the public. But honestly, given that this is one of the most important elections we've got coming up, this is what's dominated the headlines for a week. We do get the government we deserve when shoot, shag, marry is the most read column for the week with 12 weeks to go for an election. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Taxing the super-rich has been tried overseas and hasn't always worked out, one expert says. The Greens have set their wealth tax rate at 2.5%, but Treasury modelling suggests it could shrink the taxable wealth base by more than 40%. The party's own modelling puts the reduction at about 28%. Dentons tax partner Bruce Bernacchi told Kerre Woodham if introduced, we'd be only one of five countries that have it. He says in 1990 there were 12 countries in the OECD that had a wealth tax, and there are just four today. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Borrowers' pockets may feel the most impact from more regular inflation reports. From next July, Stats NZ will phase in monthly Consumer Price Index reporting on top the current quarterly reports. Statistics Minister Scott Simpson says it'll keep businesses, households, and decision-makers, like the Reserve Bank, better-informed. The Herald's Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham it will also mean interest rates can be more up-to-date. He says the Reserve Bank currently decide rates on a three-month lag. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. You do have to wonder whether Stuart Nash is employable in this country. He might have to head over to Oz and join forces with Tory Whanau – they can set up their own consultancy on what not to do if you want a job in the public eye. For those who don't know, and I can't imagine there's anyone in the country who doesn't, but let's recap: Stuart Nash has resigned as a New Zealand First candidate after yet another ill-advised reckon came back to bite him in the bum. In a late-night social media post – and therein lies the problem, I think. There is no good that comes from being out late after midnight. There is no good that comes from social media posts after 5pm. But in this case, he said the backlash over his comments had become a significant distraction, so he was resigning as the candidate for New Zealand First. He had accused National's Napier MP, Katie Nimon, of being lazy. She had taken maternity leave. He was responding to Chris Finlayson's positive comments about Nimon in Finlayson's podcast. In a late-night social media text, Nash sent the text to Finlayson and it read: “Katie took nine months off on full pay, went back for a week, then took another month off. Laziest MP I've ever come across. Nice woman, ill-suited to the rigours of being an electorate MP." In fact, Nimon had 10 weeks of parental leave and was back at work as an electorate MP. She spent six months away from Wellington but working from her electorate office. If Nash's comment was a one-off, it could perhaps, with generous interpretation, be explained away. But Nash has form. In mid-March 2023, Nash resigned as Minister of Police following revelations he asked the then Police Commissioner Andrew Coster to appeal a decision Nash felt was too light. You can't do that as a Minister – you have to remain neutral. Later in March, he made remarks on Newstalk ZB calling for a murder suspect to be imprisoned. At the time, the murder suspect was facing trial, hadn't yet been convicted. This is basic law 101 He has a law degree. He was Minister of Police. This is stuff he should know, and it just hands the opposition ammunition. Then, third strike and you're out, he contacted the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to advocate for a migrant health professional. So, ministerial interference. You can't do that. In response, Hipkins demoted Nash to the bottom of the cabinet rankings as a final warning, but declined to strip him of his remaining cabinet portfolios until it was revealed that Nash had emailed two of his donors, who were commercial property owners, about a commercial rent relief policy that cabinet was discussing, which is in direct contravention of the cabinet manual, which says you can't talk about things that are discussed around the cabinet table. It is basic stuff if you want to do the job. Basic, basic stuff. Chris Hipkins said, “Right, Nash has got to be stripped of his ministerial portfolios." He'd given him enough rope, he'd subsequently hung himself. He decided not to stand for Labour, or Labour decided not to have him, which gave him free rein to express whatever he wanted to say. And off he went onto an internet radio station, The Platform, and when asked for the definition of a woman, said it's a “person with a p***y and a pair of t***s”. He was working for a recruitment company, a serious recruitment company involving serious professionals. There might be some workplaces where that kind of thing is perfectly acceptable, but not at Robert Walters. He was shown the door forthwith, and he also resigned from the board of the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union. This is not an "oh my goodness, how on earth did that happen?" You know that he's a loose cannon. You know that he says oiky, oafish comments that are then ammunition for opposition parties. And it's his indiscretion. Why would you send a text like that to a former National MP who's a very sort of moderate, sensible person who is quite likely to take offence? If he thinks Katie Nimon is the bee's knees, he's going to be rightfully annoyed when Stuart Nash sends him a text like that in the middle of the night. What surprises me is that New Zealand First took him on in the first place. They knew he was an indiscreet oik – he was exactly what was written on the can. You got what you expected, surely. But it's his lack of judgement and his indiscretion that makes him really ill-suited to standing for any kind of public office. He can't just do a Michael Laws and go from Parliament to regional councils to Parliament. No. Indiscreet, hopeless. Heather had a hot take on it, saying that if you are an electorate MP, you have to get back to work. You shouldn't be mucking around taking as much maternity, parental leave as you're legally entitled to. If you've been elected and your name is on the door, you should be back at work straight away. I disagree with her, respectfully. Being a politician is hard work. It is a lot of travel, it's a lot of slogging around. It's not the same as being a radio host. I think if the parental leave exists, every employer, every voter knows that there is the possibility that if you employ or elect a young person of childbearing age, and that includes a man up until about —God, Mick Jagger's still churning them out, isn't he?— 80, there is a possibility they can take parental leave, male or female. I think it's really, really hard work and she was right to take the time off that she did. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the country's most influential GPs is flagging an issue with the health system's focus. Dr Bryan Betty signing off as General Practice NZ Chair this week after more than three years in the role to join the Health NZ Board. He believes New Zealand has reached a pivotal moment in how it plans and delivers healthcare. Betty told Kerre Woodham that conversations around healthcare often centre around emergency departments and hospitals, while the primary care system and general practices receive little focus. He says early intervention, and access to it, is absolutely critical going forward. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The changes to the way we vote. Voters will no longer be able to rock up on election day and register to vote thanks to a law change made last year, and Chris Hipkins isn't happy. The Labour Leader says the Electoral Commission isn't doing enough to make sure New Zealanders are enrolled to vote, and he's concerned that people will turn up on Election Day and find that their votes won't be counted because they're not on the electoral roll. In the past, they could see all the flags, think, “Oh, what's that all about?", wander into a voting station, “Oh, I'm not on the... Oh, I'd quite like to vote, I'm not on the roll." “No worries," the nice people at the voting stations would say. “We'll sign you up." So they'd be signed up, they'd be able to vote, and their vote would then be counted as a special vote. At the last election, more than half a million special votes needed to be counted. Not all of these were numpties, of course, who didn't realise that they weren't on the electoral roll, or people who'd been scooped up along with a van full of the halt, the lame, and dispossessed to come along and cast a vote, who were just told, “Look for the pretty colour and tick that box." Some of the people were in hospitals, some were on the unpublished electoral roll, some were living overseas, and just on that, allow me to clamber onto my favourite hobby horse: if you have been living overseas and you have borrowed money from the taxpayer to get your degree and you haven't paid it back, and you don't have a payment plan in place to pay it back, you shouldn't be able to vote. Overseas student loan borrowers owe us $4.5 billion, and only 23% of them are meeting their repayment obligations. If I were King or Queen, I'd be like, “Right, you miserable lot, not one of you gets the right to say how we spend taxpayer dollars until you've paid back the taxpayer dollars you've borrowed, or until you are signed up to a payment plan that ensures you will pay back what you've borrowed. If you're not on a payment plan, get stuffed, your vote doesn't count and you can't cast a vote." So that would be me, I digress, but I will still seethe quietly. The Electoral Commission has estimated that around 55,000 votes could be disallowed under the new law. Around 73,000 could have their electorate votes disallowed but their party votes counted because they were enrolled to vote but they weren't at the address listed on the roll. Labour's justice spokeswoman, Camilla Belich, spoke to Andrew Dickens on Drive last night about her concerns. “Well, we're really worried that people who just want to go along on Election Day and cast their vote will be prevented from doing that. And the Government will say, “Well, maybe they should have done it in advance," but we know that a lot of people don't think about voting until around the election period anyway, and we're worried that this will limit their ability to participate in our democracy, thus ironically affecting the government's mandate to govern. So we think that politicians should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder, and unfortunately the Government is doing the opposite.” So people don't realise they're going to be turning 18 and will need to vote? People don't check whether they're on the electoral roll before the Election? The Commission is about to launch a major awareness campaign. They will be writing to 3.6 million New Zealanders asking them to check their enrolment details are up to date and advising them of the changes that they won't be able to just rock up on Election Day. The only problem is, if your enrolment details aren't up to date, the letter's not going to reach you, is it? It seems to be a bit of a waste of time and money. And is it the Commission's job? I mean, Labour seems to think it is. It's the Commission's job to chase down every last voter in this country and offshore, take them gently by the hand, guide them through the process, and then let them loose in a voting booth. If you can't get your act together, then should your vote even count? If you owe the taxpayer $4.5 billion, should your vote count? I would have thought, and go ahead and call me a miserable old bat and a Tory-loving Fox News ZB, but it's up to you, not the Electoral Commission, to make sure you can vote. Voting is a precious, precious right, and when you've had it for so long, you probably take it for granted, but there are people dying right now for the right to vote. If you don't take it seriously and you don't treasure the right to vote, you shouldn't bloody have it. If you're just going to be bundled into a van with the halt, the lame, and the dispossessed and taken down to put a tick next to the pretty colour, should you be voting? No. Not at all. You can enrol, you can check, you can update your details online at vote.nz. Even the website couldn't be simpler: vote.nz. Or you can call a freephone number and ask for an enrolment form to be sent to you. That should be all anyone needs. Writing to 3.6 million New Zealanders – if your voting details are up to date, you don't need the letter. If your enrolment details aren't up to date, you're not going to get the letter. It seems utterly pointless and futile and hopeless. Vote.nz. If you can't manage to enrol and it's beyond you to check your details are correct, you know what? Stay home. We don't want you voting. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I have so many questions around the Government bailout of Golden Bay Cement, which is not in fact manufactured in Golden Bay, but in Northland. Fletcher owns the company and they said Golden Bay Cement operates New Zealand's only domestic cement manufacturing facility at Portland near Whangarei. It supplies nearly 60% of the cement used in New Zealand – about 95% of its output is sold domestically. Golden Bay Cement took a long hard look at the account books and participated in an independent assessment which confirmed that without support, rising costs —including carbon costs— would force the closure of the company and a shift to an import only model for cement from 2030. So in steps the Government with a $60 million payout. They say it's a specific one-time response to an exceptional set of circumstances, to keep the plant open at least through to 2040. In return, Golden Bay Cement has committed to continue producing cement at its Northland plant at least until 2040 and to invest at least 150 million through to 2040, phased over time. Finance Minister Nicola Willis told Heather du Plessis Allan last night the decision to offer a bailout was not made lightly and does not set a precedent. “We went through three steps. One, this is quite different in that it is strategically so important that you can produce cement for your domestic economy, that you're not exposed to not being able to have cement if there was an international trade disruption. Two, the financial case here is that actually this is a business that is working overall. The key thing is just that emissions cost. And three, we've set in place some really firm requirements that Golden Bay need to meet in order to get this cash with clawbacks if they don't meet those requirements. And that includes keeping production going through to at least 2040 making $150 million worth of investments in that manufacturing capability, keeping the jobs at that factory going, and having an open book exercise with us, the Government, so that we can audit that investment. So we set a very high bar, we took a very case by case approach. Believe you me, I did not want to be setting a precedent that we're going to keep doing this.” Well, yeah, you kind of have set a precedent though, haven't you? Because when you bail out one company, that's precedent. The other companies can say you've done it before, so it's a precedent. And Nicola Willis made the point that, oh, this is a thriving company, it's just that emissions cost. Yeah, about that... that's one of those questions. If it's just that emissions cost, then that's not going to change unless you change our obligation to the Paris Agreement and unless you do as other European countries have done and delay the introduction of the ETS or scrap it all together. So “just that emissions cost” is what's snookering a whole lot of New Zealand companies. Fletcher says that New Zealand manufacturers face carbon costs that importers largely avoid. They want to see a carbon border adjustment mechanism, something they say addresses the structural imbalance directly and would let the ETS work as intended without exposing domestic manufacturers like Golden Bay to ongoing domestic advantage. A CBAM would apply a carbon charge to imported goods based on the emissions generated during their production. While we're all being, hey look at us, we're being so good and we're saving the Arctic shelves and we're snookering our own companies because we believe in the greater good of the of the planet and the universe, other countries go, yeah, no, not for us. Not really. We don't buy into that whole ETS thing, so we're not going to do it. They can make their goods a whole lot cheaper on so many levels without the ETS even coming into it. Add the ETS on that, the fact that they're ignoring it completely, no wonder their goods are cheaper. So as Fletcher says, why don't we bring in the carbon border adjustment mechanism so wherever it's made in the world, you have to pay your ETS if we're all going to buy into that. How is a one-off payment going to help given the trading environment isn't changing or they've given no indication of the ETS obligations changing anytime soon? And they won't under Labour and Greens, if anything they'd go up. And if Golden Bay is so critical, why isn't Carter Holt Harvey's pulp and paper and plywood? I would have thought that was pretty critical too. Except of course they closed down and it wasn't an election year. Perhaps that's the difference. Last year Carter Holt Harvey saw the closure of Kinleith and Eves Valley sawmill with the loss of hundreds of jobs. We had the closure of Ravensdown, Smithfield, and Ruapehu. Each of these towns and regions could argue that what they made was critical to the supply chain. It was certainly critical to the economic viability of their particular region, which is not awash in situations vacant. Cameron Bagrie has called the bailout of Golden Bay corporate welfareism. Of course it is. Fletcher says it's not, the Government says it's not, but if it's taxpayer money going to an entity that can't support itself, that's welfareism. Nicola Willis might not want to set a precedent, but she has. And a one-off payment is not going to fix the problem, as Fletcher points out. We have signed up to the Paris Accord, we've said, oh yes, bring on the ETS, please let's cripple ourselves so we can maintain the moral high ground. And in the meantime, we're going to have to import goods that are made by other countries that have stuck two fingers to Paris and said we can't afford it. How does that work? How do we maintain the moral high ground by buying goods from countries that are ignoring their carbon offset obligations? We do our own companies out of business, we put people out of work, and we buy from countries that ignore the ETS. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand First had its own little party on the weekend. It's going to campaign on funding a $1 billion survey of offshore oil and gas reserves that it says would lead to the country owning its own supply and reducing power prices. Hello, 1972! However, it is unclear how many years it would take for Kiwis to feel the benefits, if any, as Winston said it was expected it could take six years just to establish a pathway forward. Party leader Winston Peters announced the policy in his speech to the faithful in Auckland as he launched New Zealand First's 2026 election campaign. Same old, same old election-kind-of bag from Winston. He attacked Labour and the India free trade deal. That's what he does in election years. He's a perfectly capable and competent Foreign Affairs Minister, dealing with all people from all parts of the world until election year. And then it's hoots, wahay, and he's off. He's perfectly capable of forming a coalition government with Labour and, despite the attacks on Labour, still could, but that's what he does in election years. Back to the oil and gas. Can we make money out of oil and gas? If we have it, we can, but proven natural gas reserves within our economic zone have fallen by roughly two-thirds since 2021. Despite nearly $2 billion invested in new well drilling since the 2018 offshore exploration ban, results have been pretty modest. So far, it's all a bit pie in the sky. Does the world still need more oil and gas? If you listen to the Greenies, no. We're all sort of pedalling our way to work on our windmill-powered velocycles, everybody's got solar panels on the roof, and we're living in a utopian paradise where everything's clean, green and renewable. But if you look at the facts and figures, if we can find oil and gas right now — in fact, even in six years — we could sell it. A story trumpeting the decline of fuel consumption in Norway — where EV sales are approaching 100% of total car sales, resulting in a fall in domestic consumption of petrol and diesel — fails to mention that while Norway's consumption of oil and gas has plummeted, it's still flogging it off to the rest of the poor schmucks who have to use oil and gas because they don't have Norway's wealth to subsidise EVs. And Norway has that wealth because it's flogging off oil and gas. They can afford to be clean and green because they're selling the stinky stuff to poorer people, which is just the way it goes for a lot of green households. You have to be really, really rich to be a Greenie, or really, really poor. Middle-class people haven't got a show. The exports haven't fallen off in recent times. And if you look at peak oil predictions, peak oil was forecast back in the 1880s in the US when the Pennsylvania oil fields were exhausted. That's it — no more oil. Well, in fact, there was. Then there was a scientific prediction of peak oil, made in 1956 by a geologist working for Shell who used actual science to predict that US domestic oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970, and that proved remarkably accurate. He then applied the model to global reserves, predicting worldwide peak oil production would occur around the year 2000. However, he wasn't taking into account that methods would change and evolve during that time. The advent of fracking and shale oil has drastically altered the dynamics. Production capacities continue to evolve as new ways of finding oil and gas emerge. And why? Because there is a market for them. I've heard a lot of people dismissing it as pie in the sky, "old man shouts at sky", and all that sort of stuff, and you can certainly accuse New Zealand First of that in many of its policies. On this one, though, well, if we can get it — and that's a big if — and if we can get it relatively inexpensively, such that we turn a profit, then there may be an argument. We could probably get oil and gas if we threw every last cent we had at getting it out there. Would it be economic? Possibly not. It's got to be economic, and it's got to be there. If it is, we'll have a market. Is it worth New Zealand Inc becoming oil prospectors? At the moment, we get around 42% back when we grant a licence. I don't think we should be in the business of prospecting ourselves. It's too risky. High risk, high return — that's not what we're about. Sell the licences, let private companies put up the money, and let's clip the ticket on the way through. I'm all good with granting the licences. The market is still there as we evolve. Look what happens when you turn off the tap abruptly. You've got businesses closing their doors, manufacturing plants shutting down, and people losing their jobs because that continuity of supply simply wasn't there. Ideology trumped pragmatism. So while we evolve towards our windmill-powered velocycles to get to work, grant the licences, but let's not go oil prospecting ourselves. Your thoughts? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rotorua's iconic Prince's Gate Archway, built in 1901, is set to be dismantled after engineers warned it could be unsafe in extreme winds, but locals and heritage advocates are pushing for the landmark to be strengthened and restored instead. However, the council says public safety comes first, but any long-term decision will need to balance heritage value, cost and practicality. Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell told Kerre Woodham that there is still a possibility to replace the structure. "So the big question that our community is asking is can we replace them? That's where we haven't made a decision yet." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Councils are reportedly signing on to new iwi partnership agreements before the Resource Management Act is replaced. In the Government's currently drafted RMA reform, councils won't be able to enter into new Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements which outline how councils and iwi work together on resource management matters. Taxpayers Union Executive Director Jordan Williams joined Kerre Woodham to discuss. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Should we be looking at banning youth from owning smartphones instead of banning them from social media? ACT Leader David Seymour has suggested that under-16s should be limited to “dumbphones” that can't access the internet, but can text and call. While not suggesting it as official policy yet, he says social media has caused anxiety, depression, self-harm, poor body image, loneliness, and declining life satisfaction. President of the New Zealand Principals' Federation, Jason Miles told Kerre Woodham he would recommend parents give their kids a dumb phone – the practical elements are appealing. However, he says, the pressure that comes with the expanding online world will always be there now, and it should be on the social media companies to keep kids safe. Miles asks why social media companies should be driving how society acts, telling Woodham that it's surely something our government, parents, and educators should be doing. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The ACT Party's not really a “ban” sort of a party. I've always thought they supported the idea of letting people go to hell in their own way. If you want to make your own decisions, fill your boots – if they're bad ones, live with the consequences. And perhaps they do still support the idea of adults going to hell in their own way, but not when it comes to kids. Leader David Seymour did not support the National Party ban getting kids off social media. They've said that's a dumb idea, there's no way you can police the internet. But what David Seymour has proposed is a total ban on smartphones for under 16-year-olds. He says Parliament could prohibit the purchase, possession, and supply of smartphones in much the same way we prohibit young people from purchasing alcohol and tobacco, and we prohibit adults from supplying minors with these substances. He's putting smartphones in the same category as tobacco and alcohol. He says teenagers are perfectly able, in his world, to have dumb phones, but given the known link between smartphones and the social media apps you can access on them and anxiety, depression, and self-harm, he says we should consider a smartphone yet another harmful substance that should only be available to adults. Now, of course, if you don't want your child to have a smartphone, you don't have to get them one. You can make your own rules in your own house for your own kids. But it's really hard to make a rule for your child that other parents don't have for their children. It's really hard too, in this day and age, to access notices at school about upcoming events, sports practices, lifts that people are offering to get your kid to training and back again. Everything's on platforms these days that you need the phones to access. There must be a way around it. We can just get the Gestetner out and get the school notices home again. There was a time where we had a perfectly functioning community and civilisation that did not have smartphones, so there must be a way to do it. And if the Government is willing to do the heavy lifting and play bad cop so you don't have to, so much the better. “I want a smartphone, everybody else has got one," says the 13-year-old. “I'm sorry, it's against the law. In the same way I can't give you alcohol or cigarettes, I can't give you a smartphone." It makes it easier if there's a ban. Of course, kids will still get them in the same way they will do workarounds if there's a ban on under 16s going onto certain social media apps. There'll be a workaround. But if the general accepted norm is that young people do not have access to smartphones until they're 16, it's just one of those things. Children, young people, don't drink until they're 18. Of course, some of them do, but the general accepted norm is that they don't. The general accepted norm is that you don't buy cigarettes for children. Could it be possible that the general accepted norm becomes young people do not get smartphones until they're 16? It doesn't seem impossible. Yes, smartphones are everywhere now, but it's not that long ago that they didn't used to be. You don't have to have them. Some people don't, some people still don't. The world can perfectly capably function without them. And certainly, in the world of a teenager, you should be able to function without them. There is no doubt that the anxiety, the bullying, the depression, the self-harm, the self-doubt has got worse. Social skills have got worse. The ability to function in the real world has got worse because you can hide away, you go through a portal into an app, through the other side, through your smartphone, and you don't have to face reality. No good has come of allowing the kids access to smartphones. There are kids as under 13 who are able to use them and accessing them. Once you see something, once you get embroiled in something beyond you, that's it. You can't unsee something, you can't unhear something. Keep the ugly, unpatrolled, unpoliced dark side of the web away from our kids until they're able to cope, they've got to build up a bit more resilience to cope. David Seymour says banning smartphones will be a lot easier than trying to police the internet, and he's right. So if you're looking for a way to protect our young people, do you go with David Seymour's total ban on smartphones for under 16s, or do you try and patrol the internet by denying them access to certain apps? I think I'd just go for the ban. Quicker, easier, simpler. Cigarettes, alcohol, smartphones – no access till you're an adult. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stop the press, the media has a new darling. Chlöe Swarbrick and the Opportunity Party can have a breather this week, a bit of downtime, because there's only one show in town and it's Paul Henry. The self-made millionaire, the former broadcaster, has thrown his hat into the political ring again. He wants to become a polly, and not just any old polly. He has no interest in sitting on the back benches, cooling his heels, learning the ropes. He is not there to shag spiders. He's made it perfectly plain that he wants to be a minister in the next coalition government. Prime Minister, hey, why not? There is no doubt when you hear him speak that he has a real passion for New Zealand and that he wants New Zealand to be a great place for his children and grandchildren, for your children and grandchildren. And there's no doubt that he's a great cheerleader for the ACT Party. “I think with ACT I can tangibly affect change. I think with ACT, it is the only party that I think can genuinely steer this country in the right direction. By right direction I mean create policies that inspire growth of our economy because our economy is perilously small, cut wasteful government spending in so many different ways, and hopefully create an environment whereby New Zealanders, I mean your introduction was spot on, where New Zealanders aren't angsting, they're not suspicious of everything all the time. I mean the thing that holds New Zealand back, because both of us travel a lot, we can both see New Zealand with a bit of perspective from offshore. What a brilliant country with extraordinary resources and potential it is. So why is it not being realised?" That was former broadcaster Paul Henry talking to broadcaster Mike Hosking this morning. Will Paul Henry have the discipline to sit through the turgid meetings and briefings that are a part of being a politician? A lot of people go into politics and they say they're going to cut red tape and they're going to get things done, and within a matter of months they end up hogtied in the corner defeated by the red tape. Paul Henry is a loose cannon – he doesn't have to do anything. He's perfectly fine where he is. He could do whatever the hell he wanted. He's very bright, he's very quick witted. These are both blessings and curses for the ACT Party. He doesn't need the gig. He has his own thoughts. It might be a libertarian party, but by crikey, once he starts speaking his own mind within Parliament, it can create issues when you have to abide by coalition rules. And of course, Paul Henry is not the ACT Party – he's one person among many. The party has broad ranging policies and very strong ideas on just about everything, and you would have to surely look at those closely. You might like Paul Henry, but you might not like the policies that come along with Paul Henry. Do celebrities make good parliamentarians? On the one hand, it brings profile to the party, especially if they've been languishing a bit, and it's fair to say that ACT has taken a back seat to New Zealand First this year in terms of column inches generated, probably even taken a back seat to the Opportunity Party this year. National's Christopher Luxon doesn't have the pizzazz, the jazz hands of Paul Henry, nor indeed does Chris Hipkins. But I don't think Labour voters would be looking to ACT as their alternate party – but who knows, stranger things have happened. When you look at former broadcasters that have gone into politics, they've done okay, I suppose. Maggie Barry's probably the best of the recent crop. She made minister, but I think it was pretty tough going. Do self-made millionaires make good MPs? John Key was a good Prime Minister. Didn't have to do the gig and when he got bored, he went. But I think it's widely agreed that he was a pretty good PM for the times. This is probably just going to be a flash in the pan. There'll be the big announcement, we got it yesterday, it's gripped the media news cycle to the extent that we're going to wrap up I think the 24 hours of, I don't know what it was really, excitement? It wasn't shock so much, but it just seemed to be wow, it sort of energized the conversation around ACT, it energized the conversation around politics. And that's got to be a good thing. Anything that gets people interested in politics, great, but it's got to go beyond one person, it's got to go beyond celebrity, it's got to go beyond face value. As I say, if you're voting for Paul Henry you have to be very careful, as people did for Winston Peters. They liked him and the party came second. So be aware that there are broad ranging policies, have a look at those before you decide oh, I like that Paul Henry, I'm going to give him a tick. And be aware too that quick witted, mercurial people who don't need the gig might not be around for a long time. It'll be a good time, but it won't be a long time. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I would like to get your feedback on whether or not we should be upgrading our warships. New Zealand's two main warships will reach the end of their working lives within about a decade, and Cabinet must decide by 2027 what should replace them. The way we're going it'd be a fleet of jet skis. The choice will shape the country's ability to help keep its trade routes open for a generation, according to retired Major General John Howard, who's a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. He argues the decision about what to buy, if to buy, deserves far more scrutiny than it's ever done before. He says almost everything New Zealand sells and buys travels by ship. About 99% of its trade, measured by volume, moves by sea: dairy, meat, fuel, machinery. We're also responsible for one of the world's largest stretches of ocean, about 4.1 million square kilometres. He says if the decision on the frigates is delayed or the wrong capability is chosen, New Zealand could spend years without a warship able to operate in contested waters alongside its allies, and the skills, the systems, and the experience behind that capability would take a generation to rebuild. If we don't have a navy and then decide that we want one, it's not going to be as simple as buying ships. You have to train up a whole generation of command structure, troops, sailors, the like. No argument from me there, but you would have to wonder why we spent $600 to $700 million on upgrades to the Te Mana and Te Kaha if they're going to be obsolete within a few years. Major General Howard retired says we are a serious maritime nation – what we decide here will show whether we intend to stay one. Now I've had no argument with his thoughts so far, but this one I would have to dispute. Can we seriously be considered a serious maritime nation if our naval fleet comprises two frigates, two support vessels, and four basically cop cars for the sea? We have of course one at the bottom of the ocean, but that was a survey ship and wouldn't have really counted. Norway, which is the same size as New Zealand, has a naval fleet of 69 vessels: submarines, frigates, corvettes, minesweepers, minehunters, you know, pick a ship, any ship, and they've got it. And sure, they are far, far richer than we are, and the Russian bear is close enough to them that they can feel its fur. But come on, a serious maritime nation does not have two warships and one survey ship at the bottom of the ocean. I can understand why we haven't made our defence and our interoperative capability a priority over recent years when we have been lucky enough to have lived in a relative state of peace and calm. But the way we are now, the way the world is now, we need to decide whether we want to be part of serious alliances and play our part or whether we just bludge off our mates, who may or may not choose to help us depending on whether they can be arsed or what we've got that they want. There'll be no guarantees. You only have to look at Europe to see what happens when you rely on another country for your defence. All of a sudden, they pull the plug and Europe is left scrambling. All of a sudden, they're having to play catch up for the past 30-odd years on their defence spending, on their defence capability, because they cannot rely on the US anymore. We don't have to have a traditional navy. It doesn't have to look like it did 50 years ago. With changes to technology, the way wars are fought, wars are won – if you could ever say that wars can be won. But the way wars and battles are fought now, you'd need different technology, different capability, but we have to do some spending surely. For those who say we don't need to, look at Europe. The US said you've done nothing for us, you haven't spent any money, look after yourselves. And now they really are playing catch up. We can stand on the shores to the beat of rhythmic drums and sing 'Give Peace a Chance' while people take what they want, and that is a valid option. Even with a fleet we could afford, we're not going to be able to repel a serious invader. But surely, we have to play our part if we want to be considered a serious maritime nation? I would consider that playing our part in an interoperative alliance. That's what we have to do, or that's what we have to make the decision on. I'm all for doing our bit and not bludging off our mates. I'd love to hear your thoughts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Defence Minister says we can't just follow Australia's footsteps as the time for replacing our two ageing warships nears. The NZ Initiative says the frigates need to retire within a decade, with complex geopolitics adding urgency. It says the replacements will impact our status as a maritime nation, and our trade routes and defence capabilities for the next generation. Minister Chris Penk told Kerre Woodham we want to be able to coordinate with Australia but have other needs. He says it might come down to cost, different capability needs, or wanting to be more active in the Antarctic, for example. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The editorial this morning goes out to all the small and medium business people. Those of you who are starting the work week looking to earn your own keep, employ some New Zealanders, pay your taxes, and provide a product or service that people want or need. You don't want luxury yachts and private jets. You just want to work hard, be rewarded fairly, have people get out of your way, not be strangled by red tape. Seems a fairly reasonable state of being. But as we know, small and medium enterprises are struggling and have been struggling for a few years now. And with an election looming, the EMA has released its election policy directives for 2026 And there are five of them: stability and certainty, wouldn't that be lovely, infrastructure and consenting, energy supply, employment legislation, and investment and innovation. Amongst its directives, the EMA highlighted what it says is a big issue for businesses: the lack of work readiness among those graduating from educational institutions. The number of those not in employment, education, or training in the 18 to 24 age bracket continues to rise. They've come out of school, they've come out of training, and nobody will take them on, nobody's willing to take a risk. There's no doubt one of the drivers behind these numbers is a reluctance by employers to hire those new faces, says the EMA. They're simply not ready for the workforce, lacking many basic skills and struggling with the simple disciplines of turning up, listening, and engaging in the workplace. So the finger's being pointed squarely at the young people and the schools and educational institutions that have trained them. On Early Edition this morning, employment lawyer Max Whitehead disagreed. He said it's not the young people, it's the businesses lacking confidence to hire right now. Young people have always been young people. We've always been a bit useless when we start in our job unless you're a rare and wonderful unicorn, you don't know the job. You might have been trained, that's not the same thing as doing and being in the job, you don't really earn your keep until a little later. So it's no use pointing the finger at the young person. Max Whitehead said it's the environment and the conditions at the moment that mean employers aren't willing to take a chance. And he also says that the corresponding lack of productivity is due to us being a nation of one or two men bands who lack the technological capability to be more productive. New Zealand's now a nation of contractors. They're just like one or one man bands or just a couple of people of employees. And they are the people that are really the core of our country. And that's where I think EMA's missing out is focusing on that, getting them on their feet again. Maybe even if some of many of our contractors worked as cooperatives and actually purchased collectively some equipment that would make them actually more productive. That would be better ideas, but that needs to be incentivised. Where do you think the issue is? If you are a one or two man band, you might have a few little young people working for you. You might have some people who've been with you for 50 or 60 years, but three, four, up to 10 employees. There's been an ongoing issue with New Zealand's lack of productivity. It's not that we don't know how to work hard. People are working hard, but they're not being as productive as they could be. Max Whitehead says we lack the technological capability that a group of like minded SMEs could get together and buy the technology, the computer programs that might be expensive, the capital that might be expensive, that you couldn't do on your own but you might be able to do as a team. I just don't think it's the young people. Everywhere I look, there are young people keeping shops, stores, businesses going over the long weekend. Without them, we'd be stuffed. And I bet there'd be a hell of a lot more young people in work if they could get it. You certainly hear of young people going around and knocking on doors and wanting to work. if you're a small, medium business operator, owner operator, are you exactly where you want to be? If you're not, what is it going to take for you to be where you want to be, to be as productive and earning as much as you want to be? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's positive movement in the club rugby refereeing stand-down in the capital. Referees will still boycott all club matches this weekend, after 19 reported incidents of verbal abuse towards Wellington whistlers, but they are working with Wellington Rugby to be back officiating the following weekend. Wellington Rugby Referees Association president Ben van Berkel says things won't change completely in a week - but they had to stand by their referees. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Both National and Labour are rolling out new solar power proposals ahead of the election, and it's clear there's mood for change. Current WorkSafe rules prohibit the use of certain plug-in solar systems because connecting solar panels directly to standard household plugs is considered a safety risk. Rewiring Aotearoa CEO Mike Casey says most political parties are getting behind new proposed energy changes and it's very exciting for the sector. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Everybody's into the solar energy now. National announced its solar energy policy last week and most people thought it was a sound idea, good common-sense idea. The party, if elected, would launch the Home Energy Fund by tweaking the Local Government Act and committing a one-off $7 million equity investment to secure a 20% shareholding in the new entity with the balance funded by participating councils. The Home Energy Fund, inspired by Local Government New Zealand's ratepayer assistance scheme, would allow property owners to obtain low interest loans secured against their property to be paid off over time through their rates over ten years. And it was intended to help fund the installation of rooftop solar and batteries, heat pumps, insulation, efficient electric appliances, and other approved energy resilience upgrades. Good common sense. However, there were a few callers and texters to the show who said, “Well, what about the renters?" And I said, “Well, surely if you are a good landlord and you want to keep good tenants, you'd put that in because that would help the tenant save money and surely that would be seen as, if the landlords had to sell the house, then it would be seen as an asset having the solar energy on the roof." Well, you don't have to worry about that now because along comes Labour with its solar energy policy. Announced yesterday, the Solar Saver policy pledges a series of initiatives aimed at boosting the use of solar, one of those being the introduction of plug in battery units, sometimes known as balcony solar, widely used in the UK and Germany. The party's pledging loans of up to $3,000 for low- and middle-income households to purchase the portable units. Perfect for renters, they can move their solar energy plug in unit when they move houses, and it's estimated that they could save about $300 to $400 a year from their power bills. But, and it is a big but, WorkSafe has prohibited the use of a particular inverter found in plug in solar systems, which means right now the systems can't be used in New Zealand. Plugging a solar panel or inverter directly into a standard three pin plug is considered illegal and a serious safety risk. Labour says “yes, well we know that and we acknowledge there'll be a hold up." They want to have major parts of the package rolled out within 12 months of being elected, but they acknowledge that's going to be an issue, and National has recognised that too. Energy Minister Simeon Brown says he's asked officials to explore what standards need to be changed to legalise the plug-in solar units. He says the principle's simple: in a country with the sunshine hours we have, Kiwi households and businesses should be able to generate their own power straight off the shelf rather than being locked out by rules that haven't kept pace with the technology. And he's quite right. We're all on board. Everybody's keen to have the solar energy and the renewables and take the load off the heavy, heavy power bills that many households are experiencing right now in the depths of winter. But as Chlöe Swarbrick says, and I'm not sure how many times I've said that phrase on this show over the years, as Chlöe Swarbrick, the leader of the Greens says, “if we're all on board, why do we have to wait until after the election to make it all happen?" Parliament can lower New Zealanders' power bills and reduce emissions before the election kicks in. Chlöe says now both the red team and the blue team have announced their support, there's no reason we can't progress on a cross-partisan agreement to do this right now. And why wouldn't we? I suppose because we haven't got many sunshine hours at the moment as we're flooding and raining and cloudy and unable to hang the washing on the line, but why wouldn't we do it now? Why do we have to wait? I mean, there is going to be the faffing around as we try and make the balcony solar units safe. We don't want to plug them all in, all enthusiastically whip out to Mitre 10 and Bunnings to get our balcony solar units, plug them all in and blow the national grid. We don't want to do that. But she has a point – we don't have to wait until after the election. A good idea is not going to get any better if it gestates for six months. Let's start making it happen now. And I really like the idea of, like, I'm heading up to the Hokianga after work, and the balcony solar units or the plug in battery unit would be perfect up there. We don't have much to run: fridge, the oven's gas, we've got a wood burner. It would be absolutely perfect. Bring it on and I'm with Chlöe Swarbrick. Make it happen now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What makes a city liveable? The Economist Intelligence Unit, which is such a grand name, has released its latest list of the most liveable cities. There are 173. Three Australian cities are in the top 10 – Melbourne third, Sydney fourth, and Adelaide eighth. For all the bad press Melbourne gets for its crime, it's doing pretty jolly well to be there in the top three. Auckland came in at 12th place, down five – one of the biggest downward movers, along with the Gulf state cities. We all know why they lost their lustre, but we haven't got a war to blame that on, have we? Wellington is out of the top 20. How are they scored? Well, they're scored out of 100 across 30 quantitative and qualitative factors, categorised into five core metrics: stability, that's worth 25% that's the prevalence of crime, the threat of terror, and military and civil conflict. So of course, poor old Damascus, that kind of skews it for Damascus and Iran, places like that. Healthcare counts for 20% the availability and quality of private and public healthcare. Culture and environment is 25%, but it's much more than how many theatres there are, it's climate, corruption levels, social and religious restrictions, access to food, drink, and sport. Education is 10%, the quality and availability of both public and private education, and infrastructure is 20%, the quality of public transport, roads, energy and water provision, telecommunications, and housing. Now, the Economist Intelligence Unit doesn't just draw up its annual list to provoke debate and to get jingoistic city dwellers to go, “No, my city's better, no, mine is." Assessing liveability, they say, helps benchmark perceptions of development levels, as well as helping companies assign hardship allowances as part of expat relocation packages. If you're being transferred to Damascus, you can use this as evidence of applying for a hefty hardship allowance. Being transferred to Copenhagen, which came first, knocking Vienna off the top of the list, be hard to argue that's going to be a hardship. How would you rank the liveability of New Zealand cities? If you've lived in a couple of New Zealand cities, two or three or four, I'd love to hear how you would rank them. Christchurch surely would have to rank highly given the rebuild, given the availability of housing, given healthcare there, given the opening of the new stadium. And there's also that intangible qualitative factor, which is the vibe of a city rebuilding. Wellington, I could have easily made a case for the best city in New Zealand a few years ago, but that really needs to get its groove back. Back in the day with the public spaces that were available, the beautiful City Square, and the library, and the Pyrmont Bridge, and the vibrancy of the nightlife, and the coolness of the arts and culture scene, combined with the fact that it was a city that was easy to get around... I would argue the climate, I enjoyed the climate. For a long time I was able to quote the fact that the Basin Reserve was able to play more days of test cricket than Eden Park. Eden Park lost more days to rain than the Basin Reserve did. That was a stat I kept up my sleeve when I was living in Wellington. But boy, that has plummeted off, and I would put the blame fairly and squarely on the successive mayors in Wellington. I think I'd go back as far as Fran Wilde and Ian McKinnon as the deputy. Since then, it's just been a bloody nightmare for Wellingtonians. Auckland. I mean, it's a big sprawling city. It's a series of interconnected villages rather than really one big city, but it's starting to get its groove back. I noticed that yesterday when I was in downtown Auckland and I saw some gorgeous young people, well-dressed, striding down the street. The shops looked great, there weren't as many empty ones, there were the public spaces that weren't filled with people who looked like they needed professional help in making their way through the day. You know, it just looked like it was starting to get back to being a real city again. Hamilton's going to have to do something about Victoria Street before you could call that a world class liveable city. But when it comes to what makes a desirable city, the Economist has its criteria: stability, prevalence of crime, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. When it comes to the cities around New Zealand, how would you rate them? I'd probably put Christchurch first, then Auckland, maybe Tauranga although it's got its issues, I'm looking at the schools as well, Timaru, Hamilton, and Wellington's got some work to do. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What would you rather? Would you rather toll roads and shiny new roads, or would you rather waiting for NZTA to put you on the list of priorities and potholes up your ying yang? New Zealand has just three toll roads right now throughout the country, and two of them are in Tauranga. There are also two more planned on Bay of Plenty roads – not surprisingly, residents are up in arms. Yes, there are workarounds for them under National Land Transport legislation. If you're going to bung a toll on a road, then a viable toll-free route must be provided, though these free detours typically add 10–20 minutes to your travel time. So you can pay and take 10–20 minutes off your journey, or don't pay and just be prepared to take a bit longer to get where you're going. Residents affected by the latest toll that is yet to be imposed —but it's imminent at the Pāpāmoa East interchange— say $3.40 is far too much for people to pay, especially those who need to use the road to get to work, especially for those on fixed incomes. Retailers say the toll will reduce the number of drivers who choose to stop at Golden Sands in Pāpāmoa. They'll just drive straight through to avoid the toll, and the shopkeepers are going to suffer. However, while Bay of Plenty residents have tolls, they do have new roads. And for many communities up and down the country, they would love the option of a tolled road. In an interview with Lloyd Burr, the Tauranga Chamber of Commerce CEO Matt Cowley said every time we get a new road, we have to pay through tolls. Now we don't disagree with them because without the tolls we'd be way down the national priority list. But he says every new state highway in New Zealand should be paying through tolls for the road and they're not. And he's right. There's a list of roads, brand new roads, where you don't have to pay tolls to travel on them. He says it should be one rule for all. He said I don't know why other regions are so anti-tolling. This Government really needs to make a stand. You want a new road, users will have to pay. It was a travesty, he says, that Transmission Gully was not tolled. In principle, every new road should be tolled. That's how it happens overseas without too much fuss. Is he right? What do you think? There are many regions that are desperately waiting for a new road, would love to see a new road, but they are so far down the list of priorities that you know it'll probably be in your grandchildren's day that the roads will be delivered. If NZTA wants to consider a new road for tolling, there has to be public consultation, the road must have a meaningful cost contribution to the road cost, deliver value for money with the infrastructure cost no more than 20% of the anticipated revenue, not result in changes to traffic volume on other roads. So when you look at the different roads around the country that have been funded but have not been tolled, you'd have to say Bay of Plenty's probably had more than its fair share, but at the same time if you look at all the different communities and regions that are desperate for a road or a bridge and haven't got one and don't look like getting one anytime soon, would you be happy to pay a toll to get it? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yes, it's election year. How can you tell? They're all coming up with policies now, aren't they, designed to appeal to their core constituency. Winston Peters played a blinder by announcing to the party faithful at a campaign meeting in Warkworth over the weekend that he wants to see voting rights reserved for citizens of this country only. If his party is returned to Parliament, he will move to reform voting rights. Current electoral law allows some non citizens to vote after 12 months continuous residence if they are lawfully in New Zealand and not required to leave by a specified date. In his speech to attendees, Peters argued that that existing standard is far too lenient. And when you look at other countries that have the same policy, I think it's Malawi, Ecuador and Chile. Certainly our neighbours Australia do not. If you're not a citizen, you don't vote in Australia. I have friends who have been in Australia for years and years and years, decades, and they can't vote unless they are citizens, and one of them recently became a citizen just so he could. He did have that right, he had children that were born there and he wanted to be able to vote so he could help inform the future of the country. Winston Peters said to general acclaim, voting in general elections should be reserved for those who have made the full legal and civic commitment to this country. Permanent residence gives people the right to live, work, study and build a life in New Zealand. Citizenship, he said, is different. It's a formal bond of allegiance, belonging, responsibility and democratic authority. New Zealand First believes that distinction should matter again. Sort of like marriage over living together, shacking up. He wants to see a marriage between people who live in New Zealand and the government of New Zealand. Okay, fair enough, but if we're going to make changes on how we vote, why stop there? I have long argued, and I'm sure you've long agreed, that there should be a basic comprehension test before people can vote. Like, really. Some of the some of the comments and the questions that you will hear leading up to elections are truly terrifying. Their vote counts the same as people who have a basic grasp of MMP and democracy and the different parties and what they stand for. Maybe a basic comprehension test? Should people be allowed to vote if they're citizens but they've lived overseas for more than 10 years? Why should they be allowed to influence the direction of the country when they don't even live here? They have no skin in the game. If you haven't made any payments on your student loan while living overseas, you shouldn't be able to vote unless you've paid it back or you've got a system in place to pay it back. Why on earth should you be able to vote when you haven't paid back your loan to the taxpayers? If you're living overseas to avoid paying tax, I can think of a few high profile businessmen, you shouldn't be able to vote either. I mean, I've got a list as long as my arm. If we're going to start talking about who can vote and who cannot, I'd go a whole lot further than just reserving the right to vote for citizens. Anyone who has chose to make their home outside of New Zealand, who hasn't been back, who has no intention of coming back, anybody who is overseas and still owes a lot of money to the New Zealand taxpayer and has no system in place to pay it back, they shouldn't be able to vote either. What does your list look like? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT wants to grant security guards more powers, with industry concerns not many would want the extra abilities The Party says police are overstretched and security staff can fill the gap - protecting retailers, transport hubs and businesses. They'd like them allowed to detain and remove people, issue exclusion notices, and use force. Security Association chief executive Gary Morrison says he doubts most security staff would want to be in that situation. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.