Kerre McIvor Mornings Podcast

While I was away over Easter and then another week, I was not a slave to the news cycle. I opted out for a while because I figured the insanity would still be here when I came back on duty and I was right. The Straits of Hormuz are still closed, Trump is still threatening to obliterate Iran. New Zealand homes are still being flooded, roads are still being closed in weather events, they're just in different parts of the country. And political commentators are still saying Christopher Luxon is a dead man walking. When he came in for his weekly chat with Mike this morning, the Prime Minister didn't sound as exasperated as I thought he might. I thought he'd be getting so fed up with it. He was very calm and seemed to understand I suppose a bit why the questions were being asked. He said when it came to the dissent within his own party he thought there were about five grumpy backbenchers who were the root cause of all the grumblings, who would lose their jobs if they got their wish and saw him rolled because New Zealand voters in the past have not responded well when sitting Prime Ministers are dumped if you look at David Lange and Geoffrey Palmer and Jim Bolger. New Zealand voters don't like that. So the backbenchers might be the turkeys voting for an early Christmas or an early Thanksgiving depending on which part of the country you're in. When it came to the polls, Christopher Luxon said well which one do you believe? That's the problem. I've seen polls in a given week where I've had one that has us at 36 one that would have us at 30 just a couple months ago. So you can get bounced around by polls and I listen to it to a degree, but at the end of the day the public do not want me fixated on that. We've seen examples in the Australian election where polls were all over the place. So you've got to listen to it because there's some genuinely good feedback in there about what you need to do better, which is good. Perfectly reasonable. I don't think I would have been as reasonable. Must be so frustrating. But look, if some New Zealanders think a Labour Greens Te Pāti Māori coalition would get the Straits of Hormuz open tomorrow and gas prices down, well good luck to them. They probably believe in unicorns and they probably still believe in Santa. And the polls are starting to trigger oppositional defiance in some people I've been talking to. They can work a number of different ways. They can be informative for voters, they can give parties feedback about their performance or perceived performance as Christopher Luxon was saying. But Grant Duncan from the Public Policy Institute at the University of Auckland was writing in The Conversation and they can be unhelpful when framed by media in sensationalist or biased ways. Ya reckon? He says people should be left to make up their own minds about which candidate or party best represents them rather than view an election as a contest narrated in terms of who's up and who's down. And I think people do, I think people do start to look at the polls and go don't tell me what to think or do. He says in the end we should read the polls and the media critically, check for example who's done the survey, who's sponsored it, what the methodology was, and he says remember that they don't predict future outcomes, they're only looking at past trends, they're a snapshot in time of what happened before. He says they can also, you can't even take anything from the polls like oh well with everybody saying Labour Greens and Te Pāti Māori are going to win, which was almost like coughing up a furball but there we go. If you see a poll saying that you might think 'oh well better tick them, I'll go with the winner'. Or you might think 'oh well I better give a tick to the centre right, I'll go for the underdog'. Or you might think it's a foregone conclusion and not vote at all. So, as Grant's saying, you can't even take anything from what voters will do from the polls. If you look at the US presidential election it was neck and neck up until the actual result, which was not. And when you look at our past elections, the polls at this time of the year did not get it right in the lead up to the election. They massively overestimated National support and underestimated the sort of support that Labour would get. So the polls in a way are a media construct. They're sponsored by media organisations, the media organisations have their names in them and it helps generate a headline. Bang, kapow, wham as Mikey Sherman might say on 1News. They're feeding themselves. We all have a vote, we all have different views about how best this country should be run, we all have a view about the sort of priorities a government should have and we'll be able to exercise our democratic right later in the year. Are the polls going to make a blind bit of difference to you? We're not allowed to publish polls on polling day. In European countries there's a blackout on polls a little bit earlier than that. Quite frankly I'd like to see a moratorium on them for three years. I'm sick to death of them. It's a bit like the weather news, you know, in a way I want to be informed, I want to know where the storm is coming and when it's supposed to be hitting, but once a day, not every minute of every hour because otherwise you just become inured to the news that they're supposed to be giving you. I'd like to know perhaps once a day, but turning it into a media circus I don't think is very helpful. And it's the same with the polls. In the end you get a bit of oppositional defiance and stick one finger and say 'I'll vote exactly how I want to vote thank you very much and all of the hype in the world is not going to make me change my mind'.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The story that has made the front page of the Herald this morning and dominated the conversation was the leadership of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. He is facing what party insiders describe as “the most difficult fortnight of his leadership”, with growing speculation about his support within National's caucus as Parliament returns next week. Sources say that the whip, Stuart Smith, tried to present Christopher Luxon with evidence that caucus backing for his leadership had weakened. He tried to do that before Easter, but Christopher Luxon did not want to hear this. They did not have the meeting. It's understood those who believe Luxon should step aside might act in the next two weeks, although a formal leadership challenge or confidence vote is still seen as unlikely. Instead, the preferred option amongst critics appears to be having a good old chat with Christopher Luxon with evidence of his diminished support within his caucus, and that might prompt him to resign or step aside and bring about a change of leader. Now, if that doesn't happen, a challenge could follow, but there's no declared challenger at this stage. All of this is at a critical time. Parliament's back for a short sitting block before recessing again ahead of the Budget. Here comes the Budget. Political analysts say removing a Prime Minister during the Budget period risks destabilising the Government. So it's this next fortnight or not, because after that we're into Budget time and that would be even worse for National. National Minister Chris Bishop, who has been widely rumoured as a potential contender, was on the radio with Mike Hosking this morning. He came on to talk about the changes to the Warrants of Fitness, but instead he got a little surprise of talk of a coup. Chris Bishop described the situation as “untidy and unhelpful”. He said there's no leadership challenge underway, and he said he will not be the National leader before the election. But the general consensus to that interview was that he was being a little shifty, and he knows a lot more than he was letting on. How could he not know the feeling in the caucus? He's around there the whole time. How could he not know that three guys had actually come to Thomas Coughlan? But he claimed he didn't. Furthermore, can I just remind you that Chris Bishop is scheduled for an interview with Jack Tame on Q&A on Sunday, so you know this issue is going to continue bubbling away. Behind the scenes, tensions were already evident before Parliament recessed. We reported, everybody reported, that Christopher Luxon faced pressure from within caucus during the final sitting week and he ended up reshuffling the party, hopefully to stabilise it, but look at this, it's still rumbling on. When party whip Stuart Smith got ghosted by Christopher Luxon, he ended up raising all his concerns with deputy leader Nicola Willis instead. We've got a poll out right now and those numbers are adding to the pressure. National is currently sitting well below Labour and another major poll is due next week. So, all eyes are now on the coming days and how Christopher Luxon and his senior colleagues respond. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bunnings have begun rolling out facial recognition technology in its New Zealand stores, saying it's needed to protect staff and customers because violent incidents continue to rise, despite the fact we've got tough on crime, and we've had a bit of a crackdown. The first two stores to switch on the facial recognition technology are in Te Rapa and Hamilton South, both in the Waikato, but a nationwide rollout is planned. The company says the technology will help identify serious repeat offenders, it will reduce theft, and they do this after what they say is a sharp increase in threatening behaviour. Now this whole thing has taken forever for Bunnings. In Australia, Bunnings fought for four years to get permission to do this. There were courts involved, there were tribunals involved, there was a lot of controversy, and a four-year battle. Here, for Bunnings, it's only taken six months because Foodstuffs had already got approval from the Privacy Commissioner, so the hard work was done. But even so, six months for Bunnings to finally roll out a little bit of facial recognition in their stores. They worked hard at it, they've been taking privacy guidance. The Foodstuffs trial last year scanned 225 million faces and they deleted all the images within a minute, but there were concerns at the time about misidentification and bias and the need for strong safeguards, so Bunnings worked away at all of this. They hired a Māori digital sovereignty expert —who knew such a thing existed or was even needed— to make sure cultural considerations are built in. There is bilingual signage for the facial recognition, and if you think you've been wrongly identified as a bad guy, there are clear pathways for you to object to all of this. But you know, all this kafuffle about getting the permission shows all of us that there are still a load of people in this world who do not like the idea. There's more issues to come, but are you worried about the rise and rise and rise of facial recognition technology? Or do you have no problem with it because it's a tool to fight crime? Now all of this reminds me of debates I used to listen to on when Leighton Smith used to do this show. And he would do a show and it's all about freedom and liberty, and people would come on and say, “Oh, there's no problem, no problem at all, mate. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." And Leighton would say, “Yes, but bit by bit, little by little, our personal freedom and liberty is being stripped and replaced by an all-powerful state monitoring our every step and then controlling the way we behave. It's the threat of Big Brother." But the difference now that time has passed, it's not actually the state that's doing all the facial recognition, it's the corporate world. So it's not the state, it's the corporates, and the corporates seem to want to know every little thing about us. Your phone is monitoring where you are, what you do, what you look at, it's telling you what to think. And I get tired of being told what I should be listening to next by Spotify because they've looked at what I've listened to before and said, “well, this is you," and I go, “well, actually, I'm a broader, wider person than that, and stop bothering me." I'm tired of my car telling me how to drive, “your tyres are a little flat, would you like to check into the service centre?" No, I would not. I don't have the time right now. Would you shut up, car? I'm trying to drive. Facial recognition technology, do you have any problem with it? And I know you do because look how long it's taken to get approval and how many people have had conniptions about it and had worries about it, and the Privacy Commissioner has spent millions on it just investigating this sort of thing. Is this the rise and rise of Big Brother, or is this necessary as we fight crime? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I want to start off with the Bendigo-Ophir mine near Cromwell, and the question is should it get fast track approval? The Australian company Santana Minerals has applied to build four open pits in the Dunstan Range near Cromwell, the largest of which would be one kilometre long and 300 metres deep, and it's alongside a two kilometre long tailings storage dam which would stay there forever. The company says the project follows the most significant gold discovery in New Zealand for 40 years. There's always been gold there in the Bendigo around Welshtown, but they've found more. The company says it will generate $6 billion in revenue and more than $1 billion in taxes and some royalties, and 357 direct jobs in the Cromwell region. It's up for fast track and the fast-track panel has until October the 29th to make its decision. Yesterday, it was reported that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Mr Simon Upton, has come up with a report to the panel and it's issued a stark warning about the mine. He reckons that if the fast-track panel can't receive independent assurance that the project's environmental risks can be mitigated, he says the application should be declined. Simon's submission to the panel, which was reported by Mike White in The Post yesterday, arrives as the debate intensifies. And we've all heard about Sam Neill, the actor. He gave an interview to the Guardian over the weekend and that's given the whole thing a whole international profile. So it's all on. So what is Simon really worried about? Simon's primary concerns are water and earthquakes. This proposed tailings storage facility, which I told you is two kilometres long, would hold what he describes as large quantities of potentially hazardous mining residues in the headwaters of one of New Zealand's largest river systems and in an area which is very susceptible to very large earthquakes. He's worried about the seepage into the groundwater, and he noted that Santana Minerals' own experts could not give certain assurances that any leakage could be entirely prevented. And he says the leachate coming out of the tailings facility could continue for decades and even centuries after the mine closes. Simon was also troubled by all the imprecise language in Santana's application, citing the objective that contamination caused by the operation is appropriately remediated or managed, and he says well that's a bit airy-fairy isn't it? What does appropriately mean in this context? He said that's anyone's guess. He says the risks of acid mine drainage and tailings failures are arguably greater in New Zealand than elsewhere else, given the country's seismic exposure. And he's not wrong, there was a map actually published the other day of all the seismic events around the world and the two most seismically active places in the entire globe is New Zealand and Japan. Little red dots everywhere. We shake an awful lot. And Simon says if what happens if things do not go to plan, that is my concern. And he says we have only one opportunity to get it right and in his opinion, we shouldn't give the Bendigo Ophir mine near Cromwell fast-track approval. And then of course there's Sam Neill, Sir Sam, we know he doesn't want it. So he gave an interview to the Guardian over the weekend, and he was very careful to come across not as an anti-mining zealot. His quote was “I'm not against mining, I'm just against this mine." Of course he's a winemaker, he's grown Pinot in his two paddocks label in the region for 30 years. His family has been in Central Otago for 150 years. He has global influence because he's a global actor. He's his concern also extends beyond just this mine because he says Santana hold permits over a vast surrounding area and this could set off a chain reaction. He says there'll be mining all around us. He's even made a little documentary on the issue, it's called Into the Dunstan Mountains and you can find that on YouTube if you want to watch it. This Santana project has created deep divisions in the community, however, there's a lot of support. Supporters are represented by a Facebook group. That Facebook group has 8,500 members and they say look at the economic relief, look at those jobs, all 357 direct ones and all the subsequent jobs from money that flows through the region. And they say our region is under financial pressure, we need the jobs and we need a little bit of dink coming through the economy. But opponents like Sam and former Prime Minister Helen Clark warn that the fast-track law has little regard for the environment, and they're concerned this mine will destroy threatened plants, scar a unique landscape and pollute the land and water. And they say New Zealand will not get all the economic benefits because Santana is an Australian company, so the profits go there. The royalties are low but yes there will be jobs, and we'll get the GST and the tax from that. But is it enough to stick in four big four big mines, a couple of big dams, including a tailings dam that's a kilometre long and full of all sorts of poisonous minerals, in a seismic area where if there was a big quake and the dam burst the water would flow straight down into Lake Dunstan and then of course into the Clutha and then all over Otago Southland. Wow, there's good arguments on both sides don't you think? Which side do you stand on? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A community split in Central Otago as the fast-track panel considers a gold-mine proposal from Australian company, Bendigo-Ophir. Santana Minerals estimates it could extract $4.4 billion of gold from hills above the Clutha River with open pit and underground mining Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton warns it has considerable environmental risk. Local mayor Tamah Alley told Andrew Dickens people feel strongly. She says many are pro-mining and want the jobs and money, but others are vehemently opposed. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let's talk about something that is very crucial to our economy and that's the India Free Trade Deal. We are an exporter. We live because of what we export from the farms and in particular free trade deals help. So New Zealand's major exporters turned up the pressure on Parliament yesterday, urging all political parties to support the country's proposed free trade agreement with India. 28 exporters and industry groups including Federated Farmers, Zespri, Seafood New Zealand, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, they all signed an open letter organised by Business New Zealand and they described this free trade agreement as a strategic necessity for New Zealand's economic security. Remember the Government confirmed that negotiations with India wrapped up way back in December, but they still need sign off. Support from Winston Peters and New Zealand First has been withheld, largely over immigration concerns. What's in this deal that could allow even more immigrants from India to come here, and will they be able to drag a whole lot of their family with them? That's all been disputed in many ways, but it's enough to turn Winston off the deal. That means the Government now needs Labour's backing to pass the deal and Labour says, well we don't know the deal. We don't know all the deal. We're still waiting for key details before making a decision. So they're withholding their support as well. So now the Government has a negotiated free trade deal, but it doesn't have the numbers in Parliament to pass it, so that's a roadblock. Business New Zealand chief executive Catherine Rich says bipartisan support, support from all the political parties is essential for New Zealand's long term trade stability. She argues that with global protectionism all over the place, supply chain uncertainty all over the place, we need access to India, which is expected to become the world's third largest economy by 2030. There's a lot of business there, there's a lot of money and here we're given a foray into it. She says this is vital for exporters across horticulture, meat, seafood, wine, honey, wood products, technology, and services. That's a lot of our economy. Export New Zealand executive director Joshua Tan says the deal would be a major win for the wider economy and he warns that delays could leave New Zealand exporters at a disadvantage because India's doing other trade agreements, including with the European Union and some of the stuff that they've given to us, they won't give to us, they will give to someone else because they're canny negotiators. They say sign this and to sign it quick, here's a couple of things that'll be in your favour, but if you don't sign it, we'll take those away, we'll give them to somebody else. So we're being held under the gun. The Meat Industry Association, who also signed the letter, says the agreement would remove a 30% tariff on sheep meat and deliver gains for wool and pharmaceuticals and blood products. Nathan Guy's the chair there, he says New Zealand's primary sector needs this deal more than ever. This letter, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has criticised it. He says it's breathtaking that businesses would endorse an agreement without seeing the full text. He says they're wanting us to sign a contract blindfolded. Winston says his office has asked Business New Zealand and Catherine Rich whether the signatories have actually read the agreement and claims that they have not received a clear answer. Meanwhile, what's Labour up to, eh? Labour leader Chris Hipkins says his party recognises of course the potential benefits of a free trade deal like this for exporters, but he says the Government must address what he calls issues and inconsistencies before Labour can commit its support. He says that Labour's been seeking clarification for nearly two months, so if they've been asking for two months, how come they haven't got that clarification? Do you think National's trying to hide something? Is there something in there? I don't know. But for now, the India Free Trade Agreement remains uncertain, exporters are calling for urgency, New Zealand First demands transparency, and Labour is waiting for answers. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Midday today, our time, is the deadline set by President Trump for the reopening of the Straits of Hormuz. Failure to do so will apparently be punished by a widespread bombing campaign on civilian targets in Iran. Of course, for all of us, this is a bit worrying and a little bit horrifying. I had been saying around the office today, welcome to the end of civilization. I said that to Murray Kirkness, the editor of the Herald, and he said, not all civilizations, Andrew, and that's true. Iran is facing the gun. The threat on civilian targets appears to be the very definition of a war crime, but it seems as though the President doesn't care, as he thunders at the mullahs from his warm and cozy lectern safe in Washington. Iranian civilization will die at 8pm Eastern Standard Time if they don't comply. That's not my words. That's not me summarizing what the President said, that's what the President said. That's one of the weird aspects of the past two days – the President's language. There has been no stirring patriotic defence of liberty and democracy, and that we have a higher cause to pursue. There has been no grave, hushed tones outlining the scale of events that have deserved a mission that has been called Epic Fury. No, what we've had is an 80-year-old perma-tanned man in a boxy suit sitting at a lectern calling his opponents crazy bastards and promising an end of civilisation day. It's like a third-rate war movie. It's the product of a man who's spent 10,000 days watching bad reality TV and not a statesman who's studied leadership through the ages. I've never heard anyone say anything like this ever before. Not even crazy guys like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un. They don't say stuff this crazy. This is pretty crazy. I actually find the President's intemperate language to be quite off-putting, but maybe some find it refreshing. And maybe it's something that people have waited to hear for a long time because we've been battling against this Iranian regime for 47 long years. I don't know, you tell me. The President's language over the last two days, does that worry, scare, and horrify you? Or do you go, no, we need a strong man and finally people are saying what needs to be said? Meanwhile, the so-called crazy bastards, Iran, who indeed are utterly loathsome people and a dreadful regime, they seem to be taking it like a martyr, putting their people in harm's way as human shields, turning the other cheek, almost wanting the worst to happen so that the world might see them as the victims of a lunatic, not that they have been lunatics for 47 years and deserve some retribution. They haven't railed with bad language, all they said is President Trump is deluded. They seem to be the grown-ups in the room, but that seems weird because we know they are evil, crazy bastards. The world is used to Trump's bargaining methods. He starts hard and high and then he negotiates down. He's done it enough for the term taco to be created: TACO is an acronym for Trump Always Chickens Out. Will he chicken out today? Realizing that he's been threatening – I think this is the third threat he's made to Iran. So how many times can you cry wolf before you feel forced and obligated to do what many people think could be quite unthinkable? Are we three hours away from a cataclysmic attack on a sovereign nation by the United States of America? And if the worst does happen, one question that has not been discussed is how will Iran react? If this was happening to you, if America came and took out the Auckland Harbour Bridge, how would you want to react to this situation? Would you set up a human shield, turn the other cheek, and go, oh yeah, look at that, he's crazy, and take the hit? How will Iran react? The so-called home of terrorism, which isn't this why this has all happened? It's ended up being framed as a battle for the Strait of Hormuz, but remember, this all happened because Israel and the United States wanted to remove a regime. It was regime change. It was to get rid of the crazy pastors to save the women and children of Iran – that's what the conflict is actually about. Now they've transmogrified it into being all about opening up the Strait of Hormuz, but that's a symptom. That's not the actual cause of the illness, of the antagonism between the two sides. That's a symptom of it. So, how would Iran react? They are the so-called home of terrorism. They've had 47 years to prepare for this conflict. I would presume they have terror cells everywhere. Do you think that if this happens today at midday and bridges get taken out and power plants get taken out and Iranian civilians get wiped out, do you think Iran's just going to sit there and say, told you so? Or do you think it could cause a new age of terrorism? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A major new Australian study tracking more than 270,000 children has found that long hours in childcare — especially more than 40 hours a week — are linked with a higher risk of children struggling with social competence and emotional maturity by the time they reach school. And that makes total sense, doesn't it? That's because they basically go into a school system – they're being educated, they're being taught how to read, maybe they're being taught how to write, maybe they're being taught maths. But are they being taught how to socially interact within a community? Something that parents are very, very good at – educators, not so much. The research, released by the federal Department of Education, matched childcare, health, and census data with assessments from teachers across five key developmental areas. It found that as weekly childcare hours increased beyond 30, so did the likelihood of developmental vulnerability. Children in more than 40 hours had the highest risk. But it's not all one-sided. The study also found that childcare can be beneficial for language, cognitive skills, communication, and general knowledge. And for children from disadvantaged backgrounds — including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, single-parent families, and children with a language background other than English — formal childcare was associated with better outcomes across all domains. Quality mattered too. Children attending higher-rated centres had a lower risk of developmental vulnerability, while lower-quality care increased that risk. So they say you need strong, stable relationships with good educators, and they say the problem with early childcare education in Australia, and here in New Zealand, is high staff turnover. If you're turning over your staff all the time because people get hacked off and they move on, it contributes to poor social and emotional outcomes. So in Australia, they're actually expanding childcare subsidies. They realise that two income families are the norm now – that's the only way you can afford to do it. They're looking at alternatives, they're looking at vouchers, looking at income splitting. And they're looking at extended parental leave so the parents can actually stay there and look after the kids for longer, rather than putting them in the care of an early childcare centre. Advocacy groups have come out and say, well, if you're worries about this, you can't just reduce your hours, but what we really have to do is improve the quality. So here's a question for you: how do you make sure that we've got good early child care, quality in the sector? The sector in Australia is under pressure – there's been abuse allegations, there's workplace shortages. The Government says its pay rise for educators and new funding for not-for-profit centres aim to lift quality and stabilise staffing, but it ain't working yet. The study reinforces that preschool remains strongly beneficial but also highlights that childcare isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, and that the quality of care, and the amount of time children spend in it, both matter. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New technology promises to speed up the process in checking for skin cancer, and it's set to take the pressure off the health system. Skinscape 360's new full-body scanner is one of just 115 of its type in the world and uses 92 cameras to take an instant 3D snapshot of a patient in order to quickly flag anything of concern. Dermoscopist Clare Gunn says this technology isn't covered by insurance yet - but they're hoping to change that to help as many Kiwis as they can. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I want to start with the story of Jacquie Kidd. Jacquie's a former nurse who's spent more than 20 years researching Māori health inequities. She is the AUT professor of Māori health and she is now facing her own terminal cancer diagnosis. She's got a touch of the bowel cancer, which has now spread to her lungs. She is 62 years of age. Since she's found out about this cancer, she's penned a memoir called ‘Ngākaurua: My experience of cancer, identity and racism in Aotearoa'. Because of her work, obviously she's concentrated in her memoir and in her thoughts on how hard it is for Māori to get screened, how important it is for Māori to get screened for cancer. She's written that the system is too complex and that Māori also loathe to investigate symptoms because they don't want to be a burden to their whānau. While all of her work means that she is concentrating on the issues for Māori, there is one particular sentence in her story that rang true for me, for all New Zealanders. She said there is a magical age of 60 when free screening begins in New Zealand. Jacquie first thought that something was wrong with her when she was 58 years of age, so she went along to her doctor and said, look, I'm not right, can I get some of this free screening? And he said, there's no way you'll get it. And he just said no. He only relented when she said, look, I've got health insurance that will pay for it. And he went, oh okay, off you go, you know, go and find out about it. Guess what? She found out about it. She had it. Now, this is a question we've dealt with before. We've seen the free bowel screening eligibility test age lowered from 60 to 58 now. However, that came too late for Jacquie to get a free screening test, so she had to pay for it herself. The question is, do we have some magical age, some limit of 60 before we start caring about people's health? What is the situation in New Zealand? Well, New Zealand has three national screening programmes with defined free screening age ranges. So the first is cervical cancer. We have free screening available for Māori aged between 25 and 69 and for everybody else from 30. From 30 you can get screened for cervical cancer. Why there is a difference, I don't know, but we'll talk about that later. Breast cancer, there are free mammograms every two years for people with breasts who want to get it checked. And I can say with breasts because you can get breast cancer if you're a man as well, but how many men go for a breast cancer screening service? But you get a free mammogram every two years if you've got breasts, if you're aged between 45 to 69. And of course, bowel cancer, which I've already mentioned, free home test kit every two years for men and women from 58 to 74 – why you can stop at 74 I don't know. Of course that change to 58 might have helped Jacquie if it came in earlier. The thing about that, that's what we're doing now. How does that compare with overseas? In Europe and Australia, free screening for cervical cancer starts for everyone from the age of 25. For breast cancer screening, that starts at the age of 40 in the States and in Australia, compared to 45 here. And for bowel and colorectal cancer, Australia starts free screening at 50 while we start at 58. And looking at all the figures that I managed to pull out, on average, wealthy countries worldwide start free screening for cancer earlier than here in New Zealand. And not only that, they screen for more types of cancer too. So my question for you is how important is screening and why is our medical community not pushing for screening to come in sooner? Why did Jacquie go along to her doctor and say, I'd like to have the screening right now, and he says, well they won't give you a free one, and he tried to put her off? Why did that happen? She was 58 Apparently, there's a magical age of 60 when people start to worry about you. Are they not pushing this purely because of cost? Most found their symptoms in their early 50s, but all were diagnosed purely because they had health insurance, which is all well and good if you can afford that. But on the question of the cost to the state of the screening programmes, you've got to remember that the later you're diagnosed, the more expensive your treatment becomes. So earlier diagnosis means a greater chance of success, obviously, but it also means for the state that more late-stage cancers do not become a burden. And the treatment for cancer is hideously expensive, isn't it? And everybody who's being treated takes up a hospital bed. Again, that's a burden to the state. Is it more expensive to start free screening later in age than it is to start it earlier in age? And how do you feel about this? Is it time to move the perception in this country of the magical age of 60 being when things might start falling apart to something younger? And could I even suggest 50? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An ACT MP is questioning the spending of taxpayer money on a football match. The Government's supporting a clash between English Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur and Auckland FC at Eden Park as part of its $70 million Major Events package. ACT MP Todd Stephenson is asking why the match is being subsidised by taxpayers, when neither club is a charity and both are backed by billionaires. He told Andrew Dickens he's had a lot of feedback from people in the tourism and hospitality sectors, as well as local councils, asking for a better process around the fund, as they believe there could be better uses of taxpayer money. As Stephenson understands it, the current system has MBIE seeking out what they think will be a hot gig and then reaching out to the organisation, instead of asking people to come forward. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here we are in the middle of autumn, or is it the start of another winter of discontent? Because April the 1st is the time of scheduled price increases. All sorts of things are going up. The minimum wage goes up today, putting more pressure on small businesses. Thank you very much, at a time of pressure anyway, you're going to have to spend more on your wage bill. Meanwhile, the ACC earners' levy is going up to $1.75 for every $100 you earn from today. That is up from $1.57, up 11%. So you'll be paying 11% more of your wage into ACC than you were before. That is up to a limit of $156,000 or something like that. It's going to hit us all. But the one you're probably going to feel the most and the one that's getting the headlines today is your electricity bill. Electricity bills are rising nationwide. Line charges are increasing again from today. Average households will see a bill increasing by about $5 more every month. There's no single price increase. What households will actually see on their power bill will vary a lot depending on where you live, what plan you're on, and what retailer you're with. Some householders will see a small increase, some will see a large increase. Some are going to be hit by an extra $20 a month. Times that by 12 and see if you can afford that right now. Just a quick reminder, there are about 28 different lines companies in New Zealand. They all have their own lines charges, so this is why the prices change depending on where you are. Why you will pay in some cases $5 extra a month, that's the average, you might pay less than that, but you might pay up to $20 a month more for your line charges. There will be also a 5 to 10% increase in power bills this year anyway because of, you know, power. And that's on top of the 12% we saw last year. So all this you have to say is terrible timing. We're in an energy crisis when it comes to fossil fuels, that's already raging. So this just does not feel fair, does it? However, the Commerce Commission yesterday said the power price increase is justified. They need the money to improve the lines so that you can get the power into your house. So it's one of these scheduled increases that isn't dependent on the overall economy or how New Zealand Inc is doing, it's just things cost more. Terrible, terrible timing. The Commerce Commission yesterday said the power price increase is justified, but the Chair of the Commission said a little bit more. He said he hoped that something like electricity suppliers being split into generators and retailers would happen to create more competition. This is the quote from him: He said it's really important for us with our competition hat on to make sure that something a little bit like this happens, the splitting of the gentailers, so that the generators are not favouring their own retail arm when they're selling electricity, so that they can end out selling electricity at the lowest rate, the most competitive rate. Splitting the gentailers was announced as Winston's election policy this year. Now it's getting support from the Commerce Commission. So my question for you could be, should all political parties now accept that this is probably a good idea and crack on with it, and would you like to see that happen? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"It's the economy, stupid," is a catchphrase that means the primary concern of American voters is the state of the American economy and how that economy affects their personal finances. It was a phrase coined by a strategist in Bill Clinton's successful presidential campaign, and it's pretty much what Christopher Luxon campaigned on in 2023. The Labour Government were, and I paraphrase, incompetent economic vandals who had done incalculable damage to the New Zealand economy and only by electing a National Party into government could New Zealand's fortunes be restored. That was pretty much the narrative going into ‘23. Add to that a little bit of light law and order and education and you had the election campaign. Three years on we're heading into another election, and the economic headlines are grim. Example: ASB economists have joined Westpac in forecasting that the economy will contract in the second quarter of the year. Households are only just starting to feel some relief according to ASB's chief economist Nick Tuffley. Higher fuel prices are now squeezing budgets again. That pressure will be felt right across the economy. Here's another headline: Finance Minister Nicola Willis has revealed inflation is set to go much higher this year and sit outside the Reserve Bank's target band of 1 to 3%. Here's another: Prospects for a recovery in the labour market this year appear to have dimmed with any decline in the unemployment rate looking more like a story for next year. Infometrics said any signs the economy was starting to recover would most likely be put on hold. Here's another: Wattie's factory closures, boss blames soaring manufacturing costs. Contrast that with Christopher Luxon back in 2023 and his bullish promises that help was on the way, first when he was speaking to me in July. “It's going to be a big turnaround job because I think actually we've got a great country but a lot of it is going to be pretty decayed by the time we get there in terms of health, education, housing, the economy, law and order. But that's why I've got my team working on that right now because when we get there, we're not forming steering review, you know we had what was it, 230 working groups to do reviews of stuff. We're going to be ready to go on day one and we're going to have to move at 100ks an hour. “So we will have to be really, really clear about the things that we need to transform and actually step up and change a lot and it is going to be education, it is going to be healthcare, it is going to have to be the economy, making sure we're making every dollar count and get a payback for it.” And this was Christopher Luxon in November: “I don't want people to give up hope. You know, we can actually get to a better and a different place from where we sit today, but we do have to go to work now and we have to go sort out the challenges and we have to realise the opportunities we've got in front of us, and we have to be straight up about it and get it done and get the country turned around.” Hmm. Have they? No. They won't be able to campaign on that. Is some of it due to external forces like the fuel crisis? Absolutely. But there were no caveats in the promise that things would turn around and things would get better. Could Labour have done any better? Hell no. I mean they'd already shown they can't cope in a crisis other than throwing money around and locking people up. They simply have no answers. Thank God they're not the government right now otherwise we'd all be working from home and homeschooling the kids because of the fuel crisis or strong winds. But when you look at the polls and you wonder to yourself how on earth could anyone possibly see Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori as a viable government, what you're seeing are voters who were promised much and have yet to see the delivery. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand First is ramping up its campaigning with an election fast approaching. They announced that if they have any say in the matter, if they form any part of a government, half of all mining royalties will go to the region from whence it came rather than head straight into the treasury coffers in Wellington. New Zealand First says it will build up wealth and infrastructure in the regions allowing for future development rather than having the money spent across wider national projects, so flood mitigation in Westport rather than four lane highways north of Auckland. I really like that idea. The funds would be directed to things like water services, flood protection, energy generation, tourism and transport to enable housing development in areas of high minerals industry growth and critical infrastructure projects, according to the party statement. As I say, I like the idea. What's not to like? The West Coast Regional Council has the smallest operating budget and fewest staff of any regional authority, yet it's facing huge costs for specialised protection works such as those in the Karamea and Punakaiki ratings district. With a population of just under 35,000 and only 20 to 25,000 of those being ratepayers, there's not a lot of money coming in to do essential work and yet they're generating a huge amount of income. Why should they not share in the proceeds? We don't get a huge amount from mining royalties compared to what it generates, 250 million last year, but it's all relative. Imagine tens of million into the West Coast, it would make the world of difference to the people and the land. It is really only fair when you think about it that the region that supplies the raw materials and the workers gets a bit more of the proceeds as Jamie Cleine, former mayor of Buller and now a New Zealand First candidate, told Ryan Bridge this morning. One of the issues the West Coast has, small population base, huge geographic area and and like most of New Zealand, massive infrastructure needs and ability to pay, affordability, all of those things are affecting our region. So it's high time that the minerals royalty scheme gets a bit of a shake up and to hear that there's appetite, New Zealand First are certainly campaigning on 50% of those royalties coming back to the regions where the minerals are coming from is music to my ears. Alongside that of course is, you know, we've got an industry that wants to ramp up and a lot of that requires civil infrastructure to be to be put in ahead of time to facilitate building and accommodating all of the, you know, the wave of workforce that are coming. And so an ability to do that and make sense to focus that on the areas where the growth's going to occur in the mineral sector. So, yeah, makes sense, doesn't it? However, and there's always a however, generally with most good ideas there's a however. You're only going to get, this is what Ryan referenced on Early Edition this morning as well, we're only going to get royalties if we're mining, if we're digging the stuff out of the ground and selling it overseas. Last year mining contributed 2.83 billion to New Zealand's GDP. So, you know, it's worth exploring, it's worth investigating. We think that. But we'll only get investment in mining if we get a bipartisan agreement from our main parties. It is absolutely pointless for any mining company to invest huge amounts of money in this country only to be told to get out and stay out by an incoming government. They're not going to invest. They're not going to take that risk until they know that they can be here for enough time to make a profit. It's got to work for them, it's got to work for us. So this is all very well and good, New Zealand First saying, Yes, let's put half of the royalties back into the regions from whence they came." Couldn't agree more. It will do wonders for all of New Zealand. Quite agree. It's only fair and right. Absolutely. But we have to have the confidence, we have to have the guarantee before mining companies will invest here, otherwise 50% of nothing is nothing. Love to get your thoughts on this. I mean, it is hard to disagree with the concept, isn't it, that 50% of the royalties go back to the regions, to Hauraki, to the West Coast. But why would you invest here when there is uncertainty? The thing investors love more than anything is certainty in an uncertain world. And if they think that a Labour Greens Te Pāti Māori coalition is going to send them packing, they're not going to commit millions and millions and millions of dollars. So what chance do you think we have of getting a bipartisan agreement? This country needs money. We need to sell what we've got so that we can invest in the schools and the hospitals and the public health system and and the like. Yes, we can make cuts and we should be making cuts in some areas, means testing the super and the like, but they're unpopular to voters. We also need to grow the economy and what we've got are minerals and resources. But there's a strong and vocal lobby group that doesn't want to sell those off. They want to leave the ground pristine as and as it is, which is fine, but then you have to accept that we can't have all the luxuries that come with living in a first world. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The former Prime Minister, the former Health Minister, the leader of the Labour Party has to go. His position is simply untenable. Chris Hipkins has consistently maintained he never received advice telling him there was a risk involved in requiring 12 to 17-year-olds to have a second Covid vaccination. As the Herald headline says this morning, a Cabinet paper shows otherwise. Derek Cheng's story shows that the Covid Vaccine Technical Advisory Group told the Health Ministry in November that younger age groups are more at risk than older age groups of myocarditis after a second dose. They said one dose was still worth it based on early data, catching Covid-19 presented an even greater risk of myocarditis. Consideration should be given to permitting younger people 18 and under who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the education mandate. So that was from the Covid Vaccine Technical Advisory Group, they gave that advice to Sir Ashley Bloomfield. That information was passed on. Chris Hipkins says don't know, don't recall, didn't see it. Health Minister Simeon Brown says those protestations do not stand up under scrutiny. “The paper trail proves that he did know and the question is what did he do when he did know? And if the answer to that is nothing, well then the reality is there were 12 to 17-year-olds who there was known risk around a second dose, and nothing was done.” And that's what I want to know. Like when National Party Minister Simon Watts told Ryan Bridge today that as a parent of a teenager, he was upset he didn't have all the information. And that's it, as parents you want to know about the potential risks of any vaccine. “You sort of get paid to read your Cabinet papers, don't you? I can't remember, that doesn't cut it. If he had the advice, he didn't read it or he didn't review it, you've got to own it. He was in charge, he's accountable.” Absolutely. And that's why he has to go. Hipkins says look, we had to make tough decisions under extraordinary pressure and a rapidly changing environment. Of course he did. But New Zealanders surely expect their Minister of Health during a public health crisis to stay abreast of changing information, to stay abreast of data and advice around vaccines, especially when people were concerned about a nationwide vaccination programme, about the fact that we couldn't do anything, go anywhere until we were all vaccinated up the ying yang. When people had concerns about how quickly the vaccines were being developed and you know, I read what I read around the research around that and was happy enough to take the risk. Other people, all people wanted to know was the information, and I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the Minister of Health to be on top of all that. As for his claim that the Government made numerous efforts to communicate safety issues around myocarditis and pericarditis, that is absolute BS. Can you recall on any occasion when the pulpit of truth illuminated any concerns whatsoever around the vaccines? I mean, I might have missed it. I was in my own world of pain and misery and going quietly insane myself, but I may have missed it. But I would really love to hear from parents of teenagers, did at any time did you hear any concerns? Anybody who did dare raise questions was cast out as a Covid denier, they were everyone was lumped into one, ‘oh watch this YouTube video, that'll open your eyes'. You were all cast into one box. If you were a parent of a teenager, you might have been listening more closely because it was more relevant to you. Chris Hipkins claims when he was Minister of Health he did not see information around potential health risks around vaccinating teenagers. So he's either incompetent or he's a liar. Either way, he cannot stay on. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I doubt there'll be many people out on the water —certainly not in the upper North Island on the East Coast— but the next time you go out, let me know what the catch is like. The Government's done a U-turn on minimum size limits for commercial fishers, but that's not enough for fishing advocacy groups. They want the Government to kill the Fisheries Amendment Bill entirely. They say it's not doing enough to protect our fish stocks. Meanwhile, Seafood New Zealand says it's ironic that the change has resulted in an outcome that's not great for the environment and doesn't provide the incentive to avoid catching small fish. So when the advocacy groups and the commercial fishers are not happy, you'd have to wonder at the point of the bill. The Fisheries Amendment Bill as drafted would have ditched most commercial size limits, effectively allowing commercial vessels to land and sell baby fish if they can, including snapper and tarakihi. Recreational fishers said this is madness, the changes would decimate future populations. Other people say, well, it's a bit more complicated than that. Catching the big fish, they're the ones that have the babies. So nobody's happy. Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has argued that the change would prevent wastage, but after public outcry was forced into a major U-turn over his plans. He says, hey ho, it's democracy in action and isn't that good to see. But still, no one is happy. Sam Woolford from LegaSea told Mike Hosking this morning that the fight is not over. “No, it's definitely not over and I think that's the really important thing is that there's actually some really nefarious stuff still in the legislation. They want to remove judicial reviews or make it really hard for public to get involved in public consultation. They're still going to legalize dumping and discarding of fish at sea. So even if they catch those undersized fish, they're still going to be legally allowed to dump them.” Well, quite. Seafood New Zealand Chief Executive Lisa Futschek told Radio New Zealand she was disappointed because the proposal would have strengthened the incentives for commercial fishers to avoid catching small fish. She says we don't want to catch small fish. Our processors don't want to process small fish. This proposal would have provided incentives not to catch small fish. She said the change would have meant those catching small fish would have needed to balance that fish against their quotas. They would have had to pay for it. As it turns out, removing that clause means the status quo remains. That is, fishers that catch small fish return them to the sea and don't pay for it. So is it time to go back to the drawing board? If everyone thinks the bill is a dog and isn't addressing the real issues, everybody within their own particular lobby group or advocacy group is saying no, it doesn't address the issues. The environmental groups, the commercial fishers, the recreational fishers, maybe it's time to tear it up and start again. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A commercial fisherman is aiming to clear up some misconceptions around the industry in the wake of the Government's controversial Fisheries Amendment policy. The Government yesterday U-turned on one clause, which would've eased the minimum fish size limits for commercial companies. Doug Saunders-Loder, the President of the NZ Federation of Commercial Fishermen, told Kerre Woodham they're unfortunately in a situation in which they've been poor at educating the public over the years on how the industry works. He says it does them no good at all to be operating in a space where they're destroying the livelihood they create. Saunders-Loder told Woodham they have people catching fish in whatever way they can, all at a level that is nothing more than responsible and working under a fisheries management system that is world-leading. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Education Minister's pressing ahead with a major overhaul of NCEA, scrapping the current system and replacing it entirely. Cabinet's signed off on a move to subject-based assessments in Years 12 and 13. The first changes will roll out from 2028, when NCEA Level One will be axed altogether. Erica Stanford says English and Maths will be compulsory for all Year 11 students under the new model, and is seeking more information on making Science compulsory in Year 11. She told Kerre Woodham she believes the work they've done in implementing the new system has set them up for success and longevity. Stanford says they put in the work to understand what the sector and parents thought so they could accurately highlight the problems with the system, and build a curriculum and qualification that works. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So help is on the way from the Government, as expected. The announcement came around 12:30pm yesterday. Thought it might be too late, because according to Donald Trump, “me and the Ayatollah are going to be controlling the Straits of Hormuz”. Be open very soon, he says. Well, that's good, isn't it? But in the meantime, while we wait for that to eventuate, Donald Trump and the Ayatollah cutting the ribbon over the Straits of Hormuz, 140,000 New Zealand families with kids will receive an extra $50 per week through the boost in the in-work tax credit. Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis outlined the support package at Parliament yesterday. They said there will be some people who'll be disappointed, but it's a responsible decision that avoids hiking inflation, which the Reserve Bank Governor was warning about yesterday. The increase will begin from April 7th and it'll be paid weekly or fortnightly, depending on when people are paid. There'll be 143,000 families receiving it, as well as about 14,000 families who'll receive the credit but not as much – it'll be an abated rate. Beneficiaries and superannuitants won't receive the boost. The Government says, well, your payments are going to be adjusted from April 1st as per normal, so you'll be getting slightly more anyway. The in-work tax credit is a payment to families with dependent children where at least one parent is in paid employment and neither parent receives a main benefit from Work and Income. The cutoff for receiving the tax credit is around $89,000 of annual family income for a family with one child, $112,000 for a family with two children, $135,000 for a family with three. The added payment will last for one year or until the price of 91 octane petrol drops below $3 a litre for four consecutive weeks. It'll be estimated to cost around $373 million for the year, and Willis has promised the cost will be met within the government's operating allowance. So there you have it; that's the detail. It's pretty much as we expected, isn't it? And it's not perfect. There'll be some who feel overlooked and left out, others who'll say, you're all going soft, suck it up, put your head down, get through it like we used to, stop spending money on coffees and Netflix and you'll be fine. And others like me who see it more as a morale booster than an income booster. An acknowledgement that there have been tough times for the past five years and that many young families who are in the lower income because of where they are at their stage in life have been literally paying the price for the failings of well-paid public servants who made decisions that impacted on them and had absolutely no impact on the decision makers. When the going got tough, they took the money and they ran – they're sitting pretty now, thanks very much. And in the meantime, the reverberations and the repercussions and the ramifications of the decisions they made are literally being paid for by young Kiwi families. As the Finance Minister told Mike Hosking this morning, although they don't know the vehicular or transport circumstances of each individual low-income family, they know they'll be feeling the pinch from increased fuel prices across the board. “You are right that those families' circumstances will vary, but regardless of their circumstances, they will be facing increasing costs and many of them will be car users and many of them will experience other price pressures. In terms of diesel users, yes, we are very conscious that diesel prices have gone up massively. They're a huge input for our agricultural, manufacturing, industrial industries. The challenge we have there, Mike, is our number one goal is to make sure those industries have enough diesel to keep going, because that's what would do the most harm to the economy in terms of jobs and incomes. And so it would be wrong for us to be sending a price signal down now by reducing the price of diesel when actually, in future, if worst case scenarios played out, we might be having to preserve our supply of diesel. So that's what we're very focused on.” Which is a fair point. Lowering the price of diesel, allowing for a spend up on the diesel, is probably not a sensible thing if we have to bring in rationing. So I'd really very much like to get your feedback on this. As far as I see it, it's a morale booster. It's like, hang in there. Things are getting better. Things were getting better, just, and then along comes the attack on Iran and the tightening up of the Straits of Hormuz and the tightening up of the fuel supply, which is absolutely essential not just to the Western world, but to the entire world at the moment. It'll be over quickly or it won't. Hopefully it will. It won't last forever. The Reserve Bank Governor said she sees it hopefully as temporary and that good times are a coming. We've been promised them for so long we probably, we're probably a bit cynical. But the good times are coming, they are improving. This, I see, is a morale booster to those who are doing the hardest, doing it the toughest, who don't have the wiggle room, who don't have the disposable income, and I'm okay with that. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If Trump's envoys weren't talking to Iranian officials, who the hell were they talking to? When you get older, you expect that you can make more sense of the world, but I've got to be honest here, I am struggling to make sense of anything. I was reading the headlines at about 5 this morning. Trump talking about the good and productive talks having been conducted by special envoy Steve Witkoff, his son in law Jared Kushner. There'll be no nukes. No, the Iranians have said, yep, absolutely, we'll open the Straits of Hormuz and there's no nukes. So that's good. It's a great way to start the day, until you then read that Iran's Parliamentary Speaker says, um, no, no talks have happened. It's all fake news. Normally, you could understand perhaps that talks have taken place and that people might take different messages out of the discussions or things might be highlighted and others glossed over to show respective countries in good light. But in this case, they're saying it didn't happen at all. Got to admit, that was a head scratcher. Whether the talks happened or not, Trump's announcement that somebody had talked to somebody on Truth Social led to a US stock market rally and global oil prices to drop as fears were assuaged that Trump would now not go ahead with his threat to bomb Iranian nuclear power facilities. Who knows? Honestly, who knows what's true and what is not? There's very little we can do. We don't even, we can't even begin to speculate as to who might have been talking to whom. In the meantime, here at the bottom end of the world, as we deal with the fallout and wait for sanity to prevail, the Government's expected to announce a support package for families today with an emphasis on low to middle income households and working families with children. The emphasis is on low to middle income. It's also on temporary support, so that temporary, timely, targeted support. If you are in a low to middle income household, if you are working parents with children, do you welcome such support? Is it right and proper that the focus be on working families rather than all and sundry? I tend to think it is. Is it right and proper that any such support is offered at all? I know there are grave fears from some that this is just another Covid situation where money is being sprayed everywhere. That is not the case. There are no payments being made to everybody. Remember the payments that were made to dead people? The IRD said and Treasury said, I don't think this is a very good idea. No, no, let's just dole out the money. There were Covid payments made to businesses on a high trust model. Payments were made to everybody under a certain income at one point. Remember those? Even to dead people. We're not doing that. This is not what it's about. It's about targeted assistance for working families who are having to pay through the nose at the pump to get to work, to get the kids to school. And all of those who say, well, we weathered stock market crises and the global financial crisis. Yep, sure you did. High interest rates. Absolutely you did. But this is coming on five years of just knock after knock after knock after knock for people trying to do the right thing. So I'm okay with it. It's not normally something I would advocate, but in this instance, I think it is necessary for all those workers who are absolutely essential, who have to live out of the main centres because of the cost of housing, who don't have public transport to be able to get from point A to point B, who need to get their kids to school, who just want to be able to go to work and earn enough to look after themselves and their family. A little bit of targeted assistance out of the enormous extra tax money that's coming in from the government's fuel tax is fine by me. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's edition of Fuel Watch, the Green Party is offering its votes to the National Party to get on with passing what the Greens call a sensible and urgent fossil fuel crisis relief package. And you know what, it is quite sensible. They're not suggesting a horse and cart for every home - that's sensible. With the Greens and National's combined 63 votes, the Greens say you don't need any other political party to get this through. Their proposed package includes making public transport free for users, not forever, just while the Straits of Hormuz are compromised, a relief payment for low income people or people who live rurally to help meet additional transport costs, a windfall profits tax to prevent corporate price gouging, that's particularly Green, I think you'd be fair to say, reversing changes to school bus eligibility and routes, temporary expansion of eligibility for school buses, reversing the government's intended reduction in total mobility support for disabled people, and increasing the mileage rates to the 23,000 care and support workers to meet their actual travel costs, which we discussed the other day. Now, none of these are particularly silly, are they? Chlöe Swarbrick, the Green Party co leader, says New Zealanders expect politicians to do everything we can to support people through this immediate crisis and to minimise future vulnerability by reducing fossil fuel dependence. And she's not wrong. You know, normally we would probably be able to weather this particular storm. It won't last forever, there'll be a resolution one way or the other. And, normally families would be able to accommodate this, but it's been five years of scrimping and saving and compromising for many, many working families. You know, they've had to cope with inflation and increases in mortgage payments or rents, increased food costs, increased insurance, increased rates, things that you simply cannot compromise on. These are things you have to have, they're not nice-to-haves, they're must-haves, and it's been tough going. And for many families, this is like the straw that breaks the camel's back. It wouldn't be forever, the sort of relief they're talking about. It wouldn't be, I suppose they'd quite like to see, you know, public transport being free forever, but you know, I think that's not what they've said. They've said that there are people right now who are hurting, who cannot, cannot make any further compromises in their budgets, and they need assistance. I don't think there's a lot wrong with what they're suggesting. I know this coalition government, quite rightly, is wary of throwing money out to all and sundry, as we saw with the Covid spend up, but I'm absolutely certain they have the tools and the philosophy to target assistance where it should be targeted, as the Prime Minister bangs on, you know, timely, targeted, and temporary. So that's precisely what the Greens are suggesting. Nicola Willis, the Finance Minister, has ruled out across the board price cuts, fair enough, not everybody does need support. We grabbed the PM on his way out after chatting to Mike and said, well come on, what about the Greens? And he said, "yes, yes, yes, we're already working on some of these measures", but all very well and good. The people who need support needed it last week, not yes, yes, yes, we're working on it, you know, in the future. People need it now to get to work. And people are willing to use the buses. I don't know what's happening in your city, but in Auckland, it recorded its busiest day on public transport in seven years, and that was last Tuesday. 7,000 more trips than the previous busiest day, which was two weeks ago. So people are, are feeling it. And if they can make alternative transport arrangements, they will. And if they find, through trying out public transport, that it actually works for them, that's got to benefit everybody. The road users, public transport, people's pockets. Just because the Greens suggest something, I don't think it should be dismissed or snorted at, you take every suggestion on its merits, and in this particular case, I think the Greens have got a point. I note that their targeted assistance didn't cover the food producers, and I think they could probably do with a break. I think John talked about that when he was doing the show. You know, and they may well be able to get through this without having to hoick the prices up too much. I suppose it's a bit much to expect the Greens to offer targeted assistance to food producers. They seem to think we should all be breatharians, but does this cover off the Green's suggestion, the public transport free for users for a certain amount of time, a relief payment for low income people or people who live rurally, increasing the mileage rates for the care and support workers? I don't see that as being particularly egregiously extravagant or silly or nonsensical. These are the people who need help, who need it now, and who need that help while the oil prices are going through the roof and consequently the price at the pump is going through the roof. There's only so much people can take, and they've taken a lot, these working families, for the last five to six years. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Green Party is offering its support to National to fast-track a fossil fuel relief package, bypasssing other parties with their combined 63 votes. The proposal includes three months of free public transport, a windfall tax on fuel companies, and targeted payments for rural and low-income earners. The Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick told Kerre Woodham, "we have put a sensible and urgent fossil fuel crisis relief package on the table, and we're really willing and able to work with the National Party to make it happen." LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

To me, what is news is the fact that there are so many people who are working vital jobs, who are doing incredibly important work like our home support workers, and they are really struggling because of the petrol prices. That to me is news, and that to me is something we can do something about. That is going to impact us all as petrol prices surge past three bucks a litre. Sky appears to be the limit. It's going to impact all of us, even the EV drivers who'll end up paying more for anything that's delivered by road. But it's the people like the home support workers who rely on their own cars and fuel to visit their clients that you worry about. It's particularly tough. Their union, E tū, is urging the Minister of Health to step in and increase the mileage reimbursement rate for home support workers. There is a review scheduled of travel payments before the 20th of May, but for many that'll be too late. Home support workers are currently reimbursed at 63.5 cents per kilometre, averaged to 3.8kms per visit regardless of the actual distance, unless they reach a specific threshold. The rate was last increased in 2022 – things are vastly different now. Workers receive nothing towards vehicle registration, warrant, servicing, tyres, or insurance, all of which they must cover themselves. Freight companies have contracts that enable them to hedge their fuel costs, but of course home support workers don't. At what point is it actually costing you to go to work? There was a text a few days ago from, I think it was a St John trainer, but they were a person who taught CPR and they have to wander around with a dummy to do the CPR on and said they couldn't catch the bus, but I felt that if you put the dummy next to you on the bus then you wouldn't have to sit next to someone you didn't want to. Thought that would be a useful shield. But they were saying they have to go city to city, Auckland to Hamilton, Auckland to Tauranga. At what point does it cost you to go to work? At what point do you say I simply cannot afford to do this? And there are so many workers who need their cars to either do the job, as in our home support carers, or to get to work. You're living somewhere where the rent is cheaper or the cost of a home is cheaper, but you have to drive a long way to get to your actual place of work. In this week's edition of Fuel Watch, I'm asking at what point do you think ‘I simply cannot afford to do my job any longer or to get to work any longer'? Have you reached that point yet? I mean we're past $3, I think, at one of the cheapest fuel stations, this was for 95 though, it was $3.26. Hitting $4 is not beyond the realm of possibility. At what point are you going to go I can't do this anymore? E tū are saying the Government, the Minister of Health, needs to step in and help out the home support workers whose work is vital. Without them you would have people in wards, in hospitals, clogging them up. You need to have that continuum of care starting with GPs working your way through to the home support workers. They're a vital part of the chain. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Political appointments are being scrutinised after the resignation of KiwiRail director Scott O'Donnell due to conflicts of interest. Political analyst Bryce Edwards described the appointment as a “farce”, and the result of a broken system and “rotten governance.” O'Donnell is a major player in the trucking and transport sector, and some of the ten companies he's involved in supply services to KiwiRail – though a management plan was put in place to mitigate that. While he doesn't think there should be a rule against political appointments, Edwards told Kerre Woodham that there needs to be better processes and more scrutiny. He says at the moment, any government of the day can get away with whatever they want. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What I found more outrageous on the internet yesterday was yet another example of this country's propensity for doling out jobs for the boys and indeed the girls. Every political party does it, every government does it, rewards the party faithful and their generous donors and backers with cushy sinecures. Grafter-in-chief would have to be Trevor Mallard's posting to Dublin – although would it? Because there are plenty of other opportunities to point the finger. Look at Simon Bridges, the ex-National Party leader was appointed as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency, Waka Kotahi, in March 24. There are many, many examples of political cronyism. And in the latest one, a KiwiRail director has quit the board two years early after only a couple of months in the role. That's not the news. What is news is that he was appointed to the board at all given his conflict of interest. Scott O'Donnell is a big player in trucking and freight. And given some of the 10 companies he's involved with supply services to KiwiRail, what on earth was he doing being made a director of KiwiRail? The conflicts required Treasury to put a management plan in place. The conflict of interest mitigation plan contained seven measures to manage conflicts, including recusing himself from board meeting discussions where there was a conflict of interest. It was simply unsustainable. He was being paid to do a job that he simply could not do because of the conflicts of interest. He ended up leaving meetings early and missing agenda items and, you know, became apparent that this wasn't going to work. He'll be stepping down next week and thanked for his service. But he should never ever have been appointed in the first place. So not only are there existing conflicts of interest, he's one of four directors of HW Richardson's Transport Tapunui, which donated $20,000 to New Zealand First in July 2024. The company's also involved in a project that recently received a government regional infrastructure loan, Shane Jones slush fund of $8 million. And then he's appointed by Winston to the board of KiwiRail. It's just another example and it's so common that it barely registered. I mean, I have to give credit to Radio New Zealand who were following this all the way through and BusinessDesk pointing it out going, No, no, no, this isn't good, this isn't right, this doesn't work. Do we have so few people in this country of five million who can do governance jobs and chief executive jobs that we have to accept there'll only be one or two degrees of separation, if that? That there is always going to be a conflict? If you think of the five million of us, how many of us could do a chief executive job or be on a board, take a director's role on a board? Look at the yawning vacancies that we have for our major companies, with a new one with Fonterra now. I mean, Miles Hurrell could walk into about 20 jobs in this country right now, either in sports governance or in business. There are so few people able to do the job. Do we have to accept that there is going to be a conflict of interest in just about every single appointment made? Do more of us have to put up our hands and do the directors' courses so that you can find maybe somebody somewhere who doesn't, hasn't made a donation or hasn't worked or hasn't been a politician who can then do the job? Or are we just simply too small? How we haven't appeared on the dirt list of corruption is beyond me. It shows either a really, really principled closed doors approach to business in this country, being able to separate your different business interests and focus on them solely and leave everything at the door when you go in, or we just haven't uncovered it yet. I'd really love to see an end of the appointments of jobs for the girls and the boys, but then who would do the job when you look at the vacancies that exist right now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage is removing the Ngā Tapuwae Heritage Trails website for Gallipoli and the Western Front in what Historian Chris Pugsley believes is a cost cutting measure and a result of firing historians. Pugsley spoke to Kerre Woodham, slamming the move. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How about that petrol, eh? I filled up on Thursday, as usual, that's my usual day. Just the car, no jerry cans, no oil drums, thanks very much, and I thought to myself, $2.95 - she's getting up there. Bargain now, looking at the pumps. Our colleague Kylie, who has to travel north most weekends, reckons she paid an extra $80 above what she would normally pay for her weekend tikitouring. The boss and Helen desperately need to fill up their cans so they can mow their lawns, but they're too scared to take their cans to the petrol station in case they go, "crippers, you're crazy, you're hoarding petrol." The CEO of one of New Zealand's largest independent fuel suppliers says there is no need for people to panic buy fuel as motorists fret about the rising prices. Petrol stations across the country are seeing a surge of drivers filling up, and the petrol prices will keep climbing. And you'd have to wonder how much of that is passing on the real cost, how much of that is opportunistic. 91's tipped over the $3 a litre mark in some areas because of the conflict in the Middle East. US President Donald Trump is calling for countries to send ships to secure the Strait of Hormuz, which is effectively closed as Iran launches attacks to halt maritime traffic. Around 20% of the world's oil consumption usually passes through the strait. Even the most ardent of Trump supporters, and I know there are a lot and, you know, you have your reasons, but even the most ardent of Trump supporters surely would have to concede he's no Sun Tzu, is he? For those who don't know, Sun Tzu was an ancient Chinese military general and strategist. He lived about 500 BC, and his book, The Art of War, described as a profound text about military strategy and philosophy, has endured from 500 years BC to now. The lessons are still being taught today. Don't think we're going to see the US President's thoughts on military strategy enduring for the ages. Even forgiving him using military excursion when I'm pretty sure he means military incursion. I was a bit perplexed about that excursion. That's normally, you know, a trip down to Hamilton for Homegrown, that's an excursion, but we all choose wrong words and malaprop from time to time and that's okay. But, not knowing the size of Iran's navy or musing aloud or kind of forgetting how big it was, I mean, that's a classic. Military strategist knows the importance of your enemy's strengths and weaknesses. And sending out an SOS to help keep the Strait of Hormuz open might have been a better idea to have a coalition of the willing and able sorted before attacking Iran, rather than doing it on the fly and saying, "hey, is there any frigates out there?" But whatever. I'm not attempting to effect regime change in the Middle East, he is, and presumably there is somebody advising him. As it is, the European nations have said, "thanks, but no thanks." France is not a country at war today, thanks very much. At this point, there's no question of sending any vessels to the Strait of Hormuz, says France. And Germany says that we'll only get security for the Strait of Hormuz if there's a negotiated solution. The UK's considering all options. I mean, they could decide, Keir Starmer could decide something one day and flip flop on it on the next. They don't seem to have a very coherent strategy there. So it's all a bit of a mess, really. You're better off being in Hamilton at Homegrown or Eden Park watching the footy ... but when it comes to the fuel, where it's actually affecting us, has the price of petrol changed your habits? Or are you just putting up with it and thinking, sighing heavily and thinking, oh well, it is what it is until such time as there is a resolution? Have you decided to forgo trips? Have you decided to forgo a tikitour of the South Island, perhaps, or a tikitour of the North? Is it impacting the decision making yet? I know that there are some people who are buying fuel and storing it, and do be careful with your insurance, as people have said time and time again. But there are also people buying fuel because this is the time of year when they do, as our farmers told us. This is normally what we're doing. It's harvest, you know, there's still haymaking going, there's harvesting, fertiliser's being put down. It's just that people haven't noticed before that they're filling up large amounts of diesel to take out onto the farm. But because there is a renewed interest and focus on people buying gas and diesel and fuel at the pumps, everybody's noticing and thinking it's stockpiling. Has it changed what you're doing right now? Are you looking at having to increase your prices, because the oil companies have not been, their profits are soaring, but they have not been slow in passing on the extra costs? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Women are still underrepresented in the trades. Despite employing more than 300,000 people, women only make up around 16% of those working in the construction sector. Chair of construction firm Naylor Love, Jackie Lloyd is interested in seeing more women enter the industry and play a role in leading it as well. Auckland Plumbers Group's Hera Eruera is one of only fifteen certified female plumbers in New Zealand, and told Kerre Woodham that the sector's still a bit of an old boys' club. When she first came across Auckland Plumbers Group, Director Andrew Durrans was one of the few people looking to take on a female apprentice. “All the other companies that I had gone to, they were just not wanting to have a bar of it,” Eruera said . The stigma of plumbing being a “dirty job” may also be keeping women away from the trade, and while some elements can be, that's not all they deal with. “It's such a huge variety – you've got your hot water systems, you've got all your piping systems, guttering, spouting, roofing. We've also got gas fitting, draining.” “It's just a huge variety and it's not always a dirty job like what most people would think it is, and it's quite enjoyable as well." LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we thought it would be Fuel Friday because we haven't really touched on the oil crisis so far, have we? I filled up at my local on the way to work and it was certainly more expensive than it was last week, but nowhere near the heights we've reached previously. Back in the day I had to give up driving the Club Sport, which was a beast of a car —loved that car— when fuel topped $3 a litre. I loved her, but I couldn't afford to keep her. There's a lot of things like that really. With the war in Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, the only tankers going through are the most tenacious or those with a death wish as they attempt to negotiate the waters. I mean, there is oil getting through, but it seems to be a, ‘well, let's give it a bash' rather than with any kind of certainty. So, one of the main sources of oil and fertiliser has, in effect, been blocked and Iran's doubling down on that. They're just going to shut up shop and that will be that. The whole world is looking at their country's respective fuel gauges, wondering if they have enough in the tank to see them through the conflict. Ministers here have joined forces and are getting advice on how, well the relevant ministers are joining forces for a special advisory group and getting advice on how low fuel supplies have to go before the Government should introduce demand measures such as reducing the amount of petrol people can buy or only allowing fuel outlets to open on alternate days. So instead of car-less days, we'd have petrol-less days, appealing to people's better natures and saying please only travel if you absolutely have to. We have about 50 days supply including what we have in the country and what's on its way here, which hopefully will not be diverted to other countries. Shane Jones was on with Heather du Plessis Allan last night and when she said what about other countries? Can't they just divert it? Can't they tell the oil companies come on, we're a bigger customer and we should be able to have that oil that's heading down to that tiny little island nation at the bottom of the world? And he said they were hoping the strength of the contracts they had with the various oil companies would be sufficient to withstand that sort of pressure from other countries to in effect hijack our shipments. The Associate Energy Minister told her the Government had asked officials to come up with all sorts of contingency plans and yes, car-less days were included in the briefing, but they weren't a likely option. SJ: No, it's too early to identify any specific intervention. I mean, perhaps this thing's all over in a week, who knows? But the reality is. HDPA: But why are you taking advice on it if you're not seriously considering it? SJ: Well, no, Kiwis expect their government to be proactive. Kiwis expect us to deal with the fact that other countries are hoarding their fuel. They're introducing export restrictions. So what we need to do is ensure that we've exhaustively looked at every option so if things do deteriorate and we make decisions, they're made on the basis of quality information, not some grasshopper attitude. I thought he answered that pretty well and you know, of course car-less days makes great headlines and that seems to have been dominating the media over the last 24 hours, but I thought Shane Jones was quite right. They're looking at every single option that's on the table and they're weighing the relative merits of each option, which makes sense. So those of you with EVs, I don't know if you feel like you'd like to join the discussion, feel free. It probably doesn't have much to do with you as we all pile into the petrol station and try to get the petrol on the specials days, everybody refreshing their Gaspy, seeing which petrol station in your neighbourhood has the cheapest petrol. But it's so much more than that. It's more than just the petrol in the car to get us from point A to point B. It's the petrol within the supply chain and the diesel within the supply chain to get our goods around the country. It's the growers and their fertiliser and the farmers and their diesel stocks. How are you feeling? It's very easy to whip yourself up into a panic and a frenzy, but it is sensible to be prepared. You don't have to panic, but you can, I would have thought, certainly be prepared if you can. There was a petrol special on at my local service station so I filled up on the way to work and got the 95 for $2.88, which I was relatively happy about – who knows what it will be next week. And while I'm not in the habit of Sunday drives, I probably won't start them until this particular conflict is over. I think we can take sensible measures as your average commuter-consumer without panicking. If you're dependent on fuel for your work, like farmers, like growers, like Uber drivers, it might be a different story. There might be a higher level of fuel anxiety and if so, I'd love to hear from you. You know, have you been here before? Do you have reserves of your own? Probably not the Uber drivers, but perhaps the farmers might and the growers might. When it comes to the fertiliser, will you have enough? I suppose going into winter, I don't know enough about farming cycles, but would you be using fertiliser now anyway or would that be more a spring thing? The narrative is that it's not over yet despite what Donald Trump is saying. Iran is saying they're going to double down when it comes to closing off the Strait of Hormuz and basically hoping to strangle the enemy as they call them, whoever they perceive the enemy to be. We are a tiny country at the bottom of the world. We're going to have to get by and make do and we're just simply not used to doing that, not even during Covid I don't think. Where's your level of fuel anxiety, fertiliser anxiety, diesel anxiety at and what do you think the most sensible measure would be if we have to start looking at reducing the amount of fuel, diesel, fertiliser we consume in this country? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For nine months now, the Public Service Commission has been negotiating with the primary school teachers union over pay and conditions. Every other union in the education sector has settled, but not the NZEI Te Riu Roa. There have been strikes, there have been rejected pay offers, in some cases offers haven't even been presented to union members to vote on, and there have been accusations of bad faith from both sides. In interviews, the Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche has sounded increasingly grumpy and frustrated, and when he spoke to Mike Hosking last week, he said that he was exploring options, looking for a way to offer non-union teachers, about a third of the primary teacher workforce, a pay increase so they didn't have to wait for the union to find an offer acceptable. And now he has, as he explained to Heather du Plessis Allan last night. BR: There are 10,000 non-unionised teachers who have been deprived of a settlement. In the normal course of events, we would have kept going with the NZEI, and we are still keeping going with them, but I got to the point where I could no longer justify withholding an offer. So they, the non-union members, have the option now of accepting or not accepting. I don't think it impacts at all on our good faith bargaining and our strong commitment to reach a settlement with NZEI. HDPA: Is it lawful? BR: Of course, but it is risky and that's playing out now. But this is a question of equity. Why would somebody who's not in the union be deprived of being able to benefit from something? They're under no obligation to accept it, I fully respect that, but 10,000 people where I can make their lives better and get greater stability is worth doing. So that was what Sir Brian Roche was doing, looking at the legality of it, whether they could do it. He's found a way that they can, and he says it's risky because he fears the unions will kick off. They'll go hardline, they'll take the strikes and go all sort of waterfront union on it. The union says it will cause a division, but as Education Minister Erica Stanford told Mike Hosking this morning, she thinks it's fair and reasonable that nearly a third of primary school teachers who are not part of the union should be offered a contract now so that they can receive the pay increases now that the government has already offered. ES: I know that the unions, of course they're not happy with it, and they're trying to say, look, it's causing division. But I would say there's already division. A third of their workforce are not in a union, you know, and if they seriously think it's about division, they should ask themselves why a third of the workforce don't want anything to do with them. Interesting. This will equate to approximately 50 to 76 bucks every week, which is not inconsiderable. And it's pay that teachers could be receiving already, were they not impacted by the ongoing holdout from the union. They would say that it's the Government's failure to meet their perfectly reasonable demands, so there'll be stories from both sides. But good on the Public Service Commission. I mean, if unions want to keep going because they believe they can get a better deal for their union members, that's what their members pay their dues for, that they want to get the best possible conditions for their members, fine, fill your boots, keep going. But if I was a non-union teacher, I'd be getting more and more brassed off. It's not just the parents and young people too who are fed up with the ongoing negotiations and ongoing industrial action. Plenty of teachers are too, if the text traffic is anything to go by. A number of teachers told me they were only in the union for the legal protection it afforded them. They certainly didn't agree with the hardline stance being taken by negotiators. Will it cause friction? More friction than there already is in the staffroom when you have some teachers earning more while others are having to wait for their union to settle? I mean, when we were talking about the waterfront workers' strike lockout depending on which side you're on, there were people who would cross the street to avoid scabs, you know, in Huntly or Otahuhu and different parts of the country. Those old resentments lingered and lingered and lingered. Surely we're beyond that now. You shouldn't have to join a union to be able to negotiate fair pay and conditions, and I wouldn't have thought teachers particularly would need one. They know their worth, they're articulate. Why would you need a union per se? I bet, as a number of them said, they're only there for the legal protection. If there was a way of insuring yourself privately for a reasonable fee against malicious lawsuits, then perhaps there'd be no need for the union at all. How many of you belong to unions and why? Do you see the benefit it brings you? How many of you would like to be in a union and how many of you are perfectly confident that you can negotiate the best pay and conditions for you? I'd be really interested to hear from those of you who benefit from union membership and whether you think in this particular case there is going to be friction. I don't think, like if the NZEI can negotiate better conditions for their members, I don't think the non-union staff should get that. Like if you get non-contact time, whatever it is you're holding out on, you know, the non-union members shouldn't necessarily get that. You didn't want to join the union, you wanted to accept the pay offer, that's what you were concerned about, fine, fill your boots, you go for it. But if the union members say no, it's about the conditions, not the pay, and they get better conditions, I don't necessarily think that the non-union members should get it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand's economic response to the Covid pandemic is under scrutiny. The second phase of the Covid Inquiry found New Zealand's overall pandemic response effective, but some restrictions went too far, and the Government moved too slowly in some areas. It highlights our Covid increase on health spending was one of the OECD's largest. ANZ Chief Economist Sharon Zollner told Kerre Woodham that debt is likely going to be permanently higher, and we have a lot of medium-term fiscal challenges as a result. She says in broad terms, we've used up two crises worth of buffer for a single crisis. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Comparisons are being drawn between New Zealand's approach to Covid, and Sweden's. The findings of the second phase of the Covid Inquiry were released yesterday, and the response was found to be broadly effective, but slow to adapt and poorly communicated. It also found some mandates to be overly restrictive, and the Auckland lockdown went on too long. In Sweden, they had a less restrictive approach, focused on keeping life moving as normal as much as possible. Cato Institute Senior Fellow Johan Norberg told Kerre Woodham that the population voluntarily engaged in social distancing and reducing travel, and so they only felt the need to briefly enforce limitations when a new wave hit in 2020. He says the focus was on normalcy, as they didn't know what would happen next, but they knew it would be a bad idea to hurt themselves further by shutting down schools and the economy. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We all seem to be suffering from Long Covid. It's lingering as the findings of the second phase of the Covid-19 response inquiry were released yesterday. And what its findings were pretty much depends on what media you read. According to RNZ, it found the Government's response was effective but late and not communicated well enough to people. From Newsroom: ‘Lockdown, vaccine decisions considered and appropriate, Royal Commission'. So looking at that headline, you'd think nothing to see here, no criticisms, excellent, well done. ‘Covid-19 inquiry commission criticises length of Auckland lockdown and government spending' – that's from the New Zealand Herald. Maybe read it yourself and see what you think. It's on publicly available on websites. There are video explainers, there are findings there. See for yourself. If you were anti-the infantilisation of the country, as I was, you will read it and wonder why the commission was so temperate in its findings. If you believed the Government was your saviour and without their instructions you would have died, you will read the excuses and the findings and nod along and say, “Yes, didn't we do well?" The second phase of the inquiry tested whether the Government took a balanced approach and found overall it largely did, but said the public was not brought on board —maybe they didn't want to be on board, maybe they could start to see through the nonsense— and the public must be brought on board in the next pandemic. One of the 24 recommendations made yesterday said that there should be more open decision making in future around the impacts on people's isolation, health, and incomes. And that's really, really important because surely, we must be allowed to question decisions, we must be able to debate them and argue against them without being considered treasonous or a conspiracy theorist or a granny killer. Look what happened when then leader of the National Party Simon Bridges grilled Ashley Bloomfield over the Ministry of Health's decision-making transparency and data at the Covid Response Select Committee hearing. In effect, just by daring to question the Director General of Health, just by asking him some tough questions, he lost his job. Cost him the job as leader of the National Party. We have to be able to question and debate, even if the decisions are ultimately the Government's based on the best possible advice. The report confirmed, as reported at the time, that the Auckland lockdown in late 2021 went on six days longer than recommended by Ashley Bloomfield. I think Aucklanders would argue it went on six weeks longer than it should have, but hey ho, there we go. That's what they found. It also found that advice from health experts that under 18s in work shouldn't be mandated to have two vaccine doses because of the risk of cardiac myocarditis wasn't followed. Another finding was that the Auckland Northland border stayed in place over the 2021/22 Christmas period when it was advised it could be reopened. There was also criticism of the then Labour Government's economic approach, saying policies around stimulus and inflation became unaligned from mid ‘21. For unaligned, I'd have put unhinged, but again, hey ho, it's their report. And that was despite the best advice from Treasury that spending must be temperate, timely, and targeted. The people of New Zealand are now vulnerable for at least the next 40 years to another shock, another pandemic, an earthquake. We're built on the shaky isles, you know, there's bound to be another, and we are now really vulnerable because too much money was not just spent but wasted by the previous Labour Government. And it's not just Treasury or the Inquiry that have pointed the finger at Labour for their financial sloppiness. Auditor General John Ryan, as he was then, heavily criticised the $15 billion infrastructure spend up during the pandemic. He said he decided to look at the funding because of the scale of the investment and the potential intergenerational impacts. His criticism and list of failings by officials and ministers are many. This is from a man who could ask the hard questions and get the answers that he needed to get, unlike journos who had to go through the OIA to get any kind of answers to any pertinent questions. They were far too busy saving lives to give answers to genuine questions around lockdowns, around vaccinations, around mandates and the like. But even with the hard data in front of them, Chris Hipkins and the like just recycle the “it's hard to be sorry when you've saved lives" trope. The inquiry finishes: “These lessons do not detract from the overall success of the pandemic response. Indeed, our findings, lessons, and recommendations are offered in the hope that they will assist decision makers to be as successful in fighting a pandemic in the future." Well, with what you know now, do you believe that the response was a success? Do you believe that when all is said and done and you look at other countries and they've done their reports, it was a success? I'll be talking to an economic policy analyst from Sweden, I spoke to him before the show and we'll be playing that next hour. They've conducted a rigorous review of their response and, you know, given the choice next time, I think that's the one we should be following. And certainly, Europe would be looking long and hard at it. Despite Sweden coming under so much criticism and heavy fire for having a light touch and open policy, they had the lowest death rate amongst all the European countries. So, there are alternatives, there are options. This is not the way, the truth, and the light. And I don't think it's treasonous or misogynist or conspiracy theoretical to say there is another way of doing things and, do you know what, it might actually be better.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government is doing its bit to protect children from themselves by banning the use of smartphones during the school day and by moving to bring in legislation restricting social media use for children under 16. The schools are doing their bit, although it's more mopping up than prevention, by bringing in counsellors to help children, some as young as eight, who've been exposed to extreme online content. The question is what are parents doing to protect their own children? Teachers talk about hearing students discussing their gaming exploits late into the night and doom scrolling TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram, repeating objectionable things they've heard online that they don't really understand. I'm not in the position of having to deal with young ones and smartphones, not in terms of setting the rules. The young ones in my house, the just-turned-nine year old and seven year old, love using my phone to look at videos or to add music to their playlists on Spotify, so I've put controls on the phone, but then we couldn't get some of Eminem's stuff, so we had to go for the radio edit version of Eminem. And that's fine, we work around that, but I have put controls on the phone just in case. It's not them looking for it, it's the accidental discovery of things that you cannot unsee. But I don't have to set the rules around how many hours they can have and when they can view it – that's for their parents to do. But surely, and that's the way it works in our house, you set limits on what the kids can access, how much time they have to access it, when they can access it, and if they break those rules, their rights are rescinded. That hasn't happened yet, but they're not old enough I suppose to go looking for trouble. But surely that's the way it works. It always has worked. You set the rules and if the children break the rules, then there are consequences for that. Or has parenting suddenly been turned on its head since the year 2020? Why on earth should schools have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counsellors to mitigate the harm children have exposed themselves to outside of school hours when they're supposed to be under parental supervision? One parent talked about getting up to go to the loo in the middle of the night and seeing the light behind the closed bedroom door – their daughter was on the phone at 1am. That's not the school's problem if she has access to material she finds harmful or if she's been exposed to material that's disturbed her. When you're looking at the amount of money that schools say they're having to spend because the kids are so upset and beside themselves, surely that money could be better spent on activities or resources for the school that all children could enjoy, rather than have it spent on a small number of traumatised late night scrollers. I'd really love to know what the rules are, what rules you've set. According to the Greens, it's pointless putting any kind of restrictions on children and social media use. Pointless having legislation around it because the kids will just get around any restrictions placed on them by the government. But as a parent, can you say that you have put protections in place that work, that you have got rules in place for your house that work, or has the whole concept of parenting as I understood it completely and utterly changed, that there are no rules and there are no consequences? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shipping prices could soon be rising for cheap online stores like Shein and Temu. Changes from next month will add fees and levies to small parcels crossing the border, making them fairer and helping cover Customs costs. It should save taxpayers $70 million in parcel subsidies. Customs Minister Casey Costello told Kerre Woodham Mornings border control can't cope with the more than 24 million packages entering New Zealand each year. She says the relationship between retailer and couriers may need changing, and could increase the price of some goods. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was a glorious weekend. Somewhat marred when I read this story from Anna Leask in yesterday's New Zealand Herald. I really had to I really had to reset myself after reading this. Anna writes, urgent calls for change are mounting after a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and a raft of prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe. Which it didn't. Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Chantal McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes. All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders. Men who were released under supervision and conditions designed to keep the public safe. Nathan Boulter murdered Chantal McDonald in front of her kids, 13 days after he was released from prison where he'd been sent after terrorising, abusing, and kidnapping other women. In 2022 Juliana Herrera was murdered by a convicted rapist, Joseph Brider. He'd been released on parole 72 days before he crept into her house while she was sleeping and subjected her to a prolonged sexual and physical assault before stabbing her to death. And Nicole Tuxford was murdered by Paul Pounamu Tainui, otherwise known as Paul Russell Wilson, who was on parole for the earlier rape and murder of his girlfriend. The girlfriend he'd previously killed had told her mother it was just a matter of time before she ended up dead. She knew he was going to kill her. She knew he was going to do it sooner or later, and he did, and then he was sent to prison, and then he did it again. After each woman's murder, Corrections mounted a review. Corrections confirmed it communicated and worked with police and others in a multi agency group to monitor the parolees' risk and compliance with their conditions. Clearly they haven't learned any lessons. Not after the first one, not after the second, not after the third. There'll be a fourth and a fifth. And primarily, primarily it's because these men have been given sentences where they have to come out eventually. And then it's on Corrections to try and monitor them, and they can't be monitored. They have shown through their actions that they cannot be rehabilitated, if they could be habilitated at all. If they were given preventive detention, we, the community and women in particular, wouldn't have to worry. Have a look at Australia. You know, they are not considered a particularly backward, primitive society. You wouldn't think of Australia and think, oh yeah, but they're nutters, you know, they chop people's hands off in the square. No, they don't do that. But what they do do, is keep the community safe. A man who raped and killed an international student was sentenced to 30 years minimum jail term. The Crown appealed that because they said despite the fact he was 20 at the time of the attack, that he pleaded guilty, he had no criminal record and had not premeditated the offence, the Crown said its sheer violence meant the safety of the community needed to be placed above the limited prospect of him being rehabilitated when he was released. They argued the minimum 30 year sentence was manifestly inadequate for a 20 year old who pleaded guilty, who'd never had a history of criminal offending. And what do our judges do? Nine years, 10 years, 12 years for people with long, documented histories of violence and abuse. Another one, Derek Barrett, 32 initially sentenced to at least 34 years in jail in 2017 in Sydney for killing his 26 year old niece who was boarding with him and his wife at the time. It's 46 years. That's what the judge handed out, 46 years, and he's eligible for parole in 34 He probably won't get it because they found out later he'd done all sorts of unspeakable things when they found a USB. That's what that's how much the courts in Australia value the lives of women. Innocent women who have their lives completely and utterly destroyed in prolonged assaults by men who are very, very sick. Now, in our case, over the ditch in New Zealand, we knew these men were sick. They'd shown they were sick. They'd shown they had absolutely no interest in rehabilitation, and they'd been recalled to jail a number of times for assaults against women before they murdered again. Had our judges applied the same consideration in sentencing these men with their proven history, the other two in Australia had never put a foot wrong that anybody had found out about. They might have been deviant creeps in their in their private life, hadn't commit you know, they hadn't shown to the judges that they'd done anything wrong. These ones have. Join the dots. Could we make it any clearer? All three of those women named in Anna's article and many, many other women would still be alive today if we applied the sort of sentencing that Australian judges think is perfectly reasonable to apply to monsters who are sick and depraved and see women as a means of satisfaction. What will it take for our judges to hand down sentences to offenders that truly reflect the horror of their crimes. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Over the weekend, a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe. Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Shantelle McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes. All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders. Professor Emeritus in Sociology at University of Canterbury and Criminologist Greg Newbold joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the importance of NZ courts cracking down on violent crime, including a call to issue 'life without parole' sentences. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An explosive poll shows National has reached its lowest result since forming a Government, as Labour climbs ahead. The Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll has Labour on 34.4% as National drops six points behind to 28.4%. The Greens are on 10.5%, with NZ First trailing slightly on 9.7%, ACT on 7.5%, and Te Pati Māori on 3.2%. Director of Sherson Willis, Trish Sherson told Kerre Woodham the poll is a warning light. She says 28% isn't a death certificate, but it does indicate that National has a connection problem as well as a numbers problem. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The medicinal cannabis industry could be worth billions of dollars to the country in the not-so-distant future, if regulation's improved. ACT leader David Seymour says he's looking at further improvements to speed up processing for exports of the plant. He's open to improving regulation domestically as well. Co-founder of NUBU Pharmaceuticals Mark Dye told Kerre Woodham New Zealand was one of the first countries to start cultivating cannabis for medical use. He says the sooner we lean into it, and back it, the sooner New Zealand could become known one of the best cannabis growing regions in the world. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When I heard David Seymour talking up the potential of New Zealand's medicinal cannabis industry, I was immediately transported to a world where the Far North was once again a thriving powerhouse of the New Zealand economy, as it used to be. Where bright young people could get meaningful jobs without having to leave home, where once again New Zealand's brilliant scientists combined with primary producers, just as they do in agriculture, to innovate and disrupt. Now, I realise I was getting a little ahead of myself, but only a bit. The medicinal cannabis export business is growing. A Ministry of Health paper released under the Official Information Act showed we exported more than a tonne of cannabis flower in 2024. That document was obtained by Newstalk ZB and showed that was more than double the 485.6 kilograms exported in 2023 So, you know, there is potential for growth there. I had the pleasure of visiting ANTG's cannabis growing facility in Armidale in New South Wales towards the end of last year. I had no idea what I was expecting to see when I went to see a cannabis growing lab, but it was just like visiting a high-level medical research lab, which is what it is. It's not a couple of old stoners growing some weed in the back garden. The security is military level. The level of hygiene and sanitation is exactly as you'd expect to see in a medical laboratory. Before you go in to where the bud has been dried and then is taken off the plant and put into the sterilised capsules to be sent off to its buyers, you have to go into a hermetically sealed room and then you have to put on outerwear and outer shoes and masks and then you can only go through one at a time. You're not allowed to pick anything up or put anything in your pocket. When you come back, you have to take off your outerwear. Like, it's the full rig. It's a full operation, as it should be. There's an entire research branch where you've got young graduates and young doctorate young people going through their doctorates working on they're either working in medicine, alternative therapies, horticulture, so there's a wide range of skills where they've been given research grants to either come up with ways of alleviating common conditions, get more out of the plant itself, find new ways of growing that are more that need less electricity or, you know, less of the anyway, it was amazing. I can't even begin to explain what I saw. Unless you've seen it, you probably unless you have been to something like this, you probably wouldn't appreciate the level of sophistication, the level of technology, the level of security that goes into exporting cannabis. We're so used to seeing cannabis as a way of gangs making money and people being sent to jail and it being something dirty and underhand. It's a complete reset of your thinking when you see it in this particular setting and this particular environment. In an interview, Seymour noted that people have said the industry could be the new high value export similar to New Zealand's wine industry. He said medicinal cannabis is some people's drug of choice and they're prepared to pay a lot of money for it. New Zealand could become, just as we are with wine, a high value powerhouse. He said the Government was looking to give exporters more permanent licenses to reduce red tape and bureaucracy and saw the rise in exports as a positive for the New Zealand economy. We need to get money into the country. Not everybody likes this stuff, but there is definitely a market for it, Seymour said. I would venture to suggest that not everybody likes the idea of cannabis being sold as a recreational drug. Some people really don't like that. Some people don't like the stuff because it's gang currency. Some people don't like the stuff because there are turf wars over it. But that's illegal cannabis. What we're talking about is medicinal cannabis, which is a whole universe away from the underhand drug dealing that goes on and is undertaken by gangs. This is next level with doctors, with scientists, with horticulturalists, with exporters putting their back into it and turning it into a billion-dollar industry. I think Seymour's quite right. I think we need to get absolutely in behind it and the very areas that would grow it best, where the investment should be, are the areas that need the jobs and the economic boost the most. The place I visited in New South Wales is just one of many, but is in a small rural area. Their primary industry appears to be private schools where farmers' daughters can take themselves and their ponies and be educated. And apart from that, it's medicinal cannabis. And it keeps really bright young minds in the district. There's a university there and the really bright ones get the research grants to be able to stay and work on cures for epilepsy and irritable bowel syndrome. There's a whole range of things they're working on. So I'm all for it. I see a golden future or a green-gold future. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'd be getting seriously brassed off if I was a primary school teacher, especially if I was a non-union primary school teacher. The NZEI has been in protracted negotiations with the Public Service Commissioner and the Government over pay and conditions. Every other teaching union has negotiated its own deal for its teachers, its principals, and its support staff, but not the NZEI. The Treaty of Waitangi was a big sticking point for them for a while, but according to Sir Brian Roche, who was on with Mike Hosking this morning, that's no longer the major roadblock it has been. At the moment, primary teachers are teaching the new curriculum, and it's amazing. I've seen the homework books. If you've got little ones in your house, primary school students in your house, you will have seen them too. It's your building block stuff. The kids are responding to it because the teachers are presenting it well. They're doing the job already. They're presenting the curriculum, and in my case, I can see that they're doing it well. The children are engaged, they're excited. The older siblings are like, “why didn't we get these books? Why didn't we have these?" They feel like they've missed out, and to a certain extent they have. A whole generation of kids has missed out. So they're doing a great job, but they're not getting paid for it because the NZEI is holding out. They're refusing to budge on the pay and conditions negotiations. They chose not to present the latest offer to its members, so the primary teachers couldn't even decide for themselves whether this was a deal they could accept or not. Sir Brian Roche, the Public Service Commissioner, sounds increasingly brassed off. He told Mike Hosking this morning that there is no question that the union works hard for its members, but he does wonder whether the union's acting in the best interests of teachers by failing to even inform its members of the conditions of the latest offer. “They work very hard for their union members. There's no question about that and provide a range of services. But on this particular issue, I find it deeply frustrating that our offers are not being put directly to their members.” Why would you not? Members of the union have now rejected three proposed settlements. An offer agreed in December was comparable to what secondary teachers accepted last year, but ultimately, when the union took it back to its members, they didn't ratify it. Teachers know there are no lump sums or back pay available in this bargaining round, according to Sir Brian, so every week without settlement is money the teachers aren't receiving – between $50 and $76 per week. What exactly is it? What is it that the unions find so repugnant that they cannot bring themselves to even bring it to their members? And if you are a union member, do you accept that your delegates are qualified to make the decisions on your behalf? Do you trust that they will do right by you? Surely, you'd want to see what was being offered, wouldn't you? Or is that what you pay your union dues for? Sir Brian says that he's looking at a way to present the pay and conditions offer to non-union teachers. We've been trying to find how many non-union teachers there are. Apparently that's secret squirrel stuff and it's buried deep – not even AI has the answer to how many non union members of NZEI there are. We're trying to find out. So if you're a non union member, you'd be getting even more frustrated. Apparently, he's bound by confidentiality agreements where he can't present to the non-union members what he's presenting to the union. But he says he's looking for workarounds on that to allow the non-union members to get on and get that extra money in their pockets right now for the work they're doing right now, and many of them are doing really well right now. Presumably primary teachers are in the classroom teaching, doing what they do best, so they can't respond. Maybe there's a few home with, you know, head colds or what have you for whatever reason. But I would love to hear your view on whether your union is doing right by you, whether you're like, “Absolutely, hold fast, stay firm, don't give in to the government overlords on this one." But if you are a union member, do you feel that your delegates do right by you? Are you getting value for money from the dues that are deducted from your pay every month or every two weeks? When you look at this, it just seems so old fashioned. And I totally get that unions are there for people who don't have a voice, who can't speak up for themselves, who haven't got the bargaining power. But surely articulate, intelligent, capable, self-possessed teachers would be able to bargain their own pay and conditions. Why would you need a union? Why would you need a union delegate to do it for you? And I guess the same goes for, I don't even know who's the big unions anymore. I think you've got the ones for the cleaners, home help. They do a great job because a lot of those people wouldn't be in the position to throw their weight around and demand better pay and conditions. So good if you're doing it on their behalf. But seriously, unions are going to negotiate themselves out of existence soon. They're halfway there already. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I just want to get your opinion. This follows a, shall we say, spirited discussion in the office around people who are trapped overseas and how they get home. I'd love to hear from people who might have been in this position before, trapped overseas because of acts of war or closed borders or forces of nature. What did you do and what was your expectation? Did you think it was the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home? And if you had chosen to live overseas and then the world turned mad, again, is it the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home? I find it really interesting and a little bit sad that people are complaining the government taxpayer should be doing more to help family members trapped in Dubai because of the enormous disruption to flights caused by the Iranian conflict. Sure, the Government sent a Defence Force plane to Iran last year during the Israel-Iran conflict, and during Covid we partnered with Australia to get stranded travellers out of Wuhan in 2020, but I really don't believe there should be an expectation that if you have chosen to travel or chosen to live in another country and then the mud hits the fan for whatever reason, that you will automatically and immediately be rescued. I had family living overseas in London for a while, and if they had suddenly found themselves in the middle of a war, I'd be doing all I could to get them out. And if there was a plane there, I would want them on it, whether it was a government plane, a commercial aircraft, whatever, I would be doing all I could to get them out of there, absolutely. But I wouldn't expect the government taxpayer to do it for me. I have been stranded overseas before when the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull blew up. I was in Paris doing the Paris Marathon, airspace over Europe was closed, travel insurance didn't help, and you were on your own. And there are worse places to be than trapped in Paris in the springtime, I will grant you that. And it was ash blowing into the cities, not Iranian missiles, but statistically right now, although that could change at any minute, there would be more chance of me being run over on the Champs Élysées back then than killed by a missile in Dubai right now. But that's statistics and that emotion doesn't come into it, I get that. When your loved ones are stranded overseas, you want them home and you want them safe. But is it on the taxpayer to provide that? I don't think so, but am I being a heartless moll? I've been accused of that before. But I just, you know, I get the emotion, I totally do, because I've been there. You want your loved ones home, you want to get home, but I never assumed that my first port of call would be the Government. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.