Kerre McIvor Mornings Podcast

Clearer boundaries around Kāinga Ora tenant behaviour could explain a 600% surge in formal warnings. In the past 10 months, 63 tenancies were terminated because of abusive, threatening, or persistently disruptive behaviour. Nearly 1,500 warnings have been issued in the financial year to date. Chief executive Matt Crockett told Kerre Woodham behaviour isn't worse, rather the previous framework wasn't as sharp. He says clearer boundaries and more follow through now have more people's behaviour changing for the better. The fate of multiple vacant Kāinga Ora sections sitting empty will be confirmed in the next month. Multiple projects are on pause as the state housing agency re-focuses on the Government turnaround plan. This includes selling 900 older homes a year and a new build programme. Crockett told Woodham Kāinga Ora's been reviewing which areas are cost effective and serve populations. He says about 20% of its current land holdings will be sold back to the market. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's not really a huge shock, is it? The news that homeowners will have to pay even more for home insurance to help the Natural Hazards Commission (formerly known as the EQC), is to be expected. Insurers have been warning for years that premiums will rise and will continue to rise, that they may have to put some of the cost of risky properties back onto homeowners and in some cases, they'll be declining to insure homes altogether. And we've already started to see that. In 2017, a then-record $242 million in weather-related claims was paid out. Just six years later, climate related claims were more than $3.5 billion due to the Auckland anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. It's incredible when you see the insurers' charts, 20 odd years ago they'd say this is a record year or this is a once in 100 year, then the next year, or three years later it would treble in terms of the cost of the claims that had to be paid out. So there's a pattern, you'd be a fool to ignore it, and the government is not doing so. Nor is the insurance industry. The Natural Hazards Commission provides cover for capped portions of residential buildings and land damaged by earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes, hydrothermal activities, tsunamis, storms, and floods (land cover only). Leaving private insurers to cover the rest. The NHC has struggled to recover following the Canterbury earthquakes and faces huge future claims costs. The new modelling lifts the likelihood of a big earthquake, with construction costs soaring post-pandemic and the reinsurance market hardening. The NHC is so underfunded that there's only a 37% chance the levy income will meet the costs over the next five years, according to the Treasury. And the NHC must cover the first $2.1 billion of claims related to a natural disaster before it can tap into its reinsurance cover. So just like any insurance claim, you must pay your excess, and then it will chip in. It's just in this case, $2.1 billion is your excess. Given there's only $500 million in the kitty, if there was a big disaster today or tomorrow, the government would have to find more than $1.6 billion to cover the claim costs before reinsurance cover could kick in. Associate Finance Minister David Seymour says levies will almost certainly need to rise, Cabinet's set to decide on the changes in the coming months. An insurance consultant told Ryan Bridge this morning it'll probably cost homeowners an extra $200 to $300 more a year. And if that sounds like a lot, well count yourself lucky, because there are some people who simply won't be able to get insurance for their homes. And it's not just people in the obvious places on cliffs or banks next to rivers who will be paying. Everyone is at risk. And those living up the top, who's homes are built on traditional drainage areas or water soak areas are part of the problem. We're all in this together. So, what are your options? If you have a mortgage you have to be insured, but it might mean that people take the bare minimum because that's all they can afford, meaning they are left underinsured and depending on the kindness of strangers to recover after disaster strikes. Will Give A Little be the insurer of choice for people who can't afford to cover themselves? I assumed Hamilton might be the safest place to live, and I was right. Volcanologists say Hamilton is probably the safest place to live. It's away from the coast which cancels out tsunamis. It's a safe distance from known fault lines, although there is the caveat that one could be lurking. It's far enough away from Auckland's volcanic field to be considered safe, and even if the Waikato River flooded its much lower than the houses around it. In the North Island, there's no real escape so should the north be paying more? Do we start pointing the finger at other areas? Can the people of the Waikato say “Hey, not us. We are living in a really safe area. If you choose to live anywhere outside of Hamilton, it's on you.” Do we ban the rebuilding? Make them no go zones of any area that's been flooded 2, 3, 4 times in the past 100 years. It's all very well and good for those who have not been flooded or have not been affected or haven't seen their homes turned to smithereens to say just move. But for most people, their home is their castle. It is their most significant financial investment. If they can't sell their home, they can't move. They have to patch it up and make do. So I would be really interested to hear your thoughts on this one. Do we go in this as “we're all in this together?” We accept that we're living on the shaky aisles, that we are a natural hazard magnet and that's the price you pay for living in a bucolic paradise. Should some areas pay more than others? Do you get the insurance companies whose business it is to gauge risk to set cover across the country based on the riskiness of each region.? Do we ban the rebuilding on known flood areas? What do you think the answer might be as we struggle to come to terms with living within our environment? We're not so far removed from early settlers really as we try to balance the advantages and disadvantages of living where we do. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Honestly, I don't know why we report on polls. Seriously, I don't know why I'm even talking about them myself, but it's really ripped my nightie overnight. They're so frustrating, and because media companies commission them, it makes the media look like master manipulators. This is from 1News last night (I didn't watch 1News, obvs) but this is from their website – both National and Labour have slid in the latest 1News-Verian poll, while New Zealand First have moved to their strongest position in eight years. If an election were to be held today, the right bloc of National, ACT, and New Zealand First would have 63 seats —enough to form a coalition— while the left bloc of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pati Māori would have 58 seats. So that's from 1News and their Verian poll. This is from Radio New Zealand – after the budget and pay equity changes, the left bloc would have the support to turf the coalition out of power, the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll shows. The preferred Prime Minister and leadership ratings are also bad news for the government, with the exception of Winston Peters, who's seen his highest results since 2017. The ratings of the government's general performance have also continued to slide, with Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Māori all gaining compared to the previous poll, they would have a majority with 63 seats between them, compared to the coalitions 57. A direct opposite of what 1News-Verian said. How can this be? And it's always headline news. You've got 1News talking about the right bloc being able to hold on to power, but only just, and look out. You've got RNZ crowing about the fact that the coalition government would be turfed out of power with the left gaining hold. And both lead with it, and it leaves me scratching my head and doubting both of them. How do you imagine the pollsters collect their data? Random phone calls of 1000 people? No, no, no. It's far more tricky than that, and they put it in every story. It must be an obligation on the part of the media company to say how the data was collected. From TVNZ: Between May 24 and May 28, 1002 eligible voters were polled by mobile phone (500) and online, using online panels (502). What are online panels? Are they things you sign up to yourself? Who knows? The maximum sampling area is approximately plus 3.1%. Party support percentages have been rounded up or down to whole numbers. The data has been weighted to align with Stats NZ population counts for age, gender, region, ethnic identification and education level. So what does that mean? If I'm a numpty, am I worth 2 points as opposed to somebody who leaves school worth NCEA and that's worth one? What does that mean? If I'm 18 and I respond, does that mean because there are fewer 18 year olds who respond, does it mean that my reckon is worth double that of somebody who's 50+. How can you weight the information? And not all 18 year olds think the same way. If you're looking at ethnic identification, not all Māori, not all Pakeha, not all Pasifika, not all Chinese people, think the same way. The sample for mobile phones is selected by random dialling using probability sampling. Online sample is collected using an online panel. So that's from 1News. This is from RNZ: This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between the 23rd and 30th of May 2025, has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1%. I'm of a mind to never discuss the polls again. The statisticians and the research pollsters and the companies all say, oh, no, no, no, it's terribly scientific. Is it really? When you've got two polls conducted over the same time, presumably using the same scientific methods, coming up with two completely different results. If the polls were scientific, surely you'd see a consensus of opinion. You wouldn't go sniffing like a truffle hunter looking for respondents that agree with your particular version of the way things should be. It's like you're researching into an echo chamber. It's not worth the time and the money. If this is what RNZ is spending their money on, given that they are funded by the taxpayer, I'd rather they spend it on training up young reporters or allowing a veteran reporter to spend some time doing some investigative journalism, rather than coming up with a poll that supports their worldview. And which is in direct contrast to the other taxpayer funded organisation, which is kind of paying its way at the moment, which is 1News. What is the point? How on earth can we take them seriously when they come up with completely different results and when all the data is weighed, quotas are taken, samplings adjusted. It's an absolute crock. The emperor is stark naked and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kiwi business leaders fear the impact of Donald Trump's tariffs will be more severe than the impact of the Global Financial Crisis and the Covid pandemic. ASB and Talbot Mills have been surveying more than 300 business leaders, including CEOs and founders. Two-thirds of businesses are concerned about the impacts, including almost 80% of exporters. Meat, dairy and wine are expected to be hit harder, while the wool and seafood sectors are expected to fare better. ASB's General Manager of Commercial Banking, Ben Speedy, told Kerre Woodham that the results highlight that businesses are really struggling with the uncertainty that's playing out in the environment at the moment. He says businesses not only need to navigate tariffs, but also the difficult business and economic environment in New Zealand. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How is it that two recent polls had such starkly different outcomes? The latest RNZ Reid Research poll —out this morning— has the right bloc on 46.4, behind the left bloc on 50.3. But the latest 1 News Verian poll —released last night— has the right bloc on 50-percent, well ahead of the left bloc on 45. Curia Market Research Owner David Farrar told Kerre Woodham that when you poll 1000 people, they say there's a 3% margin of error – so if a party is sitting at 50%, in reality they're somewhere between 47% and 53%. His advice for conflicting polls is to average them out, as that will generally give you a pretty good idea. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On average, there are 73 work-related deaths in New Zealand every single year. Relative to the number of people in employment, the New Zealand workplace fatality rate is double that of Australia, and it hasn't shifted in many, many years. More road cones have not made a difference. The New Zealand rate is similar to the rate the UK experienced back in the 1980s. The gap between New Zealand and Australia is consistent across most industries and occupations. It's not like we've got one that is more dangerous than any other, which is why it's throwing these figures out. It's consistent across industries and occupations. Looking at the construction industry, the New Zealand fatality rate is 4.41 workers every 100,000 compared to 2.93 workers in every 100,000. The workplace injury rates tell a similar story. New Zealand injury rates, as reported by ACC have improved over time, however the Australian rate is 25% lower, the UK 45% lower. Why? Why are we so much worse than other countries we should be able to compare ourselves with? Brooke van Velden, the Minister for Workplace Safety, says we're overregulated. That there are too many rules and the fear of prosecution is making workplaces less safe. “We're changing the focus of worker health and safety to focusing on the critical risks, those things that can cause deaths and serious injury, and at the same time, I'm changing the focus of WorkSafe to care about deaths and serious injury as well and not sweating the small stuff because we've had a culture of too much over compliance, ticking all the boxes, trying to get all of the paperwork done, rather than focusing on, do I actually do anything in my workplace that could cause death or serious injury? And are we doing that correctly? “So I'm saying to everybody out there, let's not sweat the small stuff. Let's focus on those deaths and serious injury activities and let's have WorkSafe going on site providing more upfront guidance so that they're here to help rather than having too much of the stick.” Who was it that said there are no more chilling words than “hi, we're from the government. We're here to help”? It was an American, I'm sure. Is there going to be able to be a change of emphasis? If all of a sudden, Workplace Safety says, ‘hey, we're here to help. We're here to help you, as the employer, make the workplace safer'. Are we able to pivot away from thinking ‘if Health and Safety come in here, they're going to find all sorts of nitpicky things and make my life misery', to ‘might ring Workplace Health and Safety and see how they can help me'. It's going to take a big mind shift. Mike said this morning he thought there were too many rules and there probably are for people who are educated, who have choices about what they do, who have choices about where they work. For people who don't have the luxury of telling a boss to stick it if they're asked to do something they think is really dangerous, or to do something with equipment they think is dangerous, rules are required. But they need to be clear, they need to be effective and if they're not working, do away with them. And I think most importantly, employees need to be on board with them. The number of times I've had employers ring in and tell me that as required by law, they bring in the safety gear, they instruct the workers to wear it, they do spot cheques to ensure the workers are wearing it, and the workers are not wearing it. They say that the goggles mist up. That the harnesses mean that they can't rely on their own wits to go about the building, and they'd rather risk death than rely on their own sense of balance. The employees don't seem to value their lives in some cases. You've got to get employees on board as well. There has to be a culture of safety, that workers have to value themselves and employers have to value their workers. And you can't regulate for that. You can't red cone that. I tend to agree that too many rules just mean the important ones get lost in the noise. Too many road cones and you don't know when it's dangerous and when it's not. But our work-related deaths are appalling. And they've been appalling for a very, very long time. How do we fix it? It's only those workers in dangerous occupations, mainly men, and the bosses in those dangerous occupations that can tell us. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The rise of generative AI could be putting children at risk. Gloria Masters, founder of 'Handing The Shame Back', believes the current digital environment has enabled “much more sexualised content” of children to be available to predators. AI tools allow people to remove clothing from people in photos, such as children, creating fake nude images they can then trade. She told Kerre Woodham that share your photos with trusted friends and family members by all means, but the days of posting them on Facebook, Instagram, and other such platforms are gone. According to Masters, research shows that 85% of online offenders become contact offenders, going on to abuse real children. She says it's important to stop giving predators a free pass and remove content so they can't access it. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You might have heard ACT leader David Seymour on the Breakfast show this morning. He says there will almost certainly be prosecutions against parents of absent students this year as the Government intensifies its crackdown on school truancy. And it's not even truancy, in my mind truancy are kids doing a bunk, wagging, taking a day off. What this is, is parental neglect. Parents who are failing to ensure that their kids get to school and get to school on time. According to Ministry of Education figures, around 11.3% of students were chronically absent from school and term 4 last year, equating to around 93,000 young people. Chronically absent means a student attends 70% of school or less. The Associate Minister for Education spelled out what's going to happen next to parents who will not send their kids to school. “Basically, a school will go to the Ministry of Education, say look, we've got someone who they're not a can't, they're a won't. We've tried. We've gone out. We've engaged with them. They're basically giving us the middle finger and saying education is not important and you've got no right to demand that my kid enrols and attends a school. And in that case I've been told by the youth aid, police, by the attendance officers, by the deputy principal, we need another sanction, another step we can take. At that point they will go to the Ministry of Education and say, look, this is a potential prosecution case. Ministry of Education will weigh it up and if it stacks up, they'll take the prosecution, ultimately go before the courts. Now you can be fined $30 bucks a day up to $300 initially. For repeat offending the fine on parents can be $3000.” Which of course many parents won't be able to pay in that category. They're not going to be able to pay it, but the message is clear from the Government. They are quite happy to be the bad guy in getting your kids to school. And principals have said they've already noticed a difference. The expectation is that young people will attend school. Schools have to deliver statistics on the numbers of children who are turning up and they have to deliver those to the Ministry of Education – if their figures are slipping, or if there's no improvement, then action is taken by branches and agencies of the ministry to encourage children to attend school. So is it going to help the parents who've rung in and told me they cannot get their children to school? These are the older students who cannot and will not get out of bed. That makes it a bit tricky. We have had, on the face of it, perfectly “normal parents” who are trying to do the right thing by their children and by the community who want their kids to get ahead in life, who want their kids to go to school, tell us that they cannot get their teenagers out of bed and into the classroom. If you can say, well, if I have to pay that fine, then that's going to come out of the money for your wardrobe or the money for your school trip, or the money for your phone plan, will that help? I mean, 11% of kids who are chronically absent, that's quite a lot of children, 93,000 young people, as a lot of young Kiwis who are missing out. And they're not just missing out on learning they're missing out on the structure and the discipline of getting up and going to work. And what if the parents and grandparents like me, who take the kids out of school for a jolly? I guess there are exceptions to every rule, but should we be fined as well? If you're willingly, wilfully disobeying the edict from the government to get your kids to school should parents and grandparents like me be fined for basically sticking the middle finger, as David Seymour said, to the attendance expectations? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Construction of New Zealand's first large scale grid battery storage system has finished in Ruakākā, just south of Whangārei. The Meridian Energy project has storage capacity of 200 megawatt-hours, which is enough to power 60 thousand homes for two hours. It will provide greater resilience and reduce strain to the Northland power and reduce strain on the wider power supply. Guy Waipara, Meridian Energy General Manager Development, told Kerre Woodham the batteries are designed to be available at peak periods for the network. He says it's only part of the system, but it will play a really important part at the times where energy security is challenged. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What on Earth do we do with young people who were born in New Zealand, who have lived in New Zealand all of their lives, but who aren't New Zealanders? They've never known any other home, but they can't get healthcare, they can't get a driver's licence, they can't get a job, they can't pay taxes. In 2006, a law change under the Helen Clark Government removed the right to citizenship by birth for children born in New Zealand. The justification was that it stopped people from country shopping by going from country to country, having a baby in the one they liked and therefore being granted citizenship through their child. That's a fight Donald Trump's having right now with the US Supreme Court, the US being one of 33 countries that grants jus soli – the right of the soil, or the right of citizenship to anyone born within a territory. We did away with jus soli in 2006, and now young people, it's not known how many, because of course they live in the shadows, are leaving the education system and are locked in limbo. The education system will educate anyone here, even if they're here unlawfully, until the age of 18. After that, all services of the state are denied to them, and they are on their own. Stuff has an excellent story highlighting the plight of New Zealand born overstayers this morning. At the moment, it appears there is no pathway for children born to overstayers after 2006. It's even more cruel to think that siblings born to those same overstaying parents before 2006 have New Zealand citizenship but their brothers and sisters born after don't. At the moment the only option is to go to the Minister of Immigration and plead individual cases, which is time consuming, lengthy, costly, and takes up a lot of bureaucrats' time. So what do we do with these 18 and 19 year olds? An immigration lawyer quoted in the Stuff story wants a repeal of the 2006 law change, which removed the right the birthright citizenship. Or, he suggests, we do what the Aussies and the Brits do and that is grant citizenship if you're born here and have lived here for 10 years or more. Surely that seems the most humane way of dealing with these young adults. They're here, they've been here all their lives, they likely have siblings who have New Zealand citizenship – those siblings are working or at university. Should the same rights be granted to those kids who, through no fault of their own were born in this country and now find themselves in effect stateless, without a country, without a place to call home, despite the fact that New Zealand is the only home they've known? I would do what the Aussies and the Brits do. If you have been born here, if you have lived here for 10 years or more, you're a Kiwi. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You cannot go into an election promising to get tough on crime, win the election and vow to draw a line in the sand, declare war on the crims, and then issue a directive that police won't turn up to minor crime. To paraphrase supermodel Linda Evangelista, who famously said she wouldn't get out of bed for less than $10,000, it appears our coppers won't get out of their Skodas for less than $500. A memo has surfaced directing police staff not to investigate crimes under a certain value, such as shoplifting goods under $500. As you can imagine, there have been howls of outrage from retailers and dairy owners, and police are now scrambling to explain themselves. Ann-Marie Johnson, Retail NZ manager, was on Early Edition this morning. She says that retailers do have a realistic expectation of police. “Retailers know that police aren't going to show up to every small, very minor case of shoplifting, but we certainly want to know that they're taking these crimes seriously and that where they can, they will be following up and arresting. Often they're repeat offenders, so we know who they are, and police know who they are, so we want to particularly focus on those people.” Well, exactly. I remember ages ago I left my window open. I used to live in a villa that was on the street, and I left the window open in summer and some opportunistic heffer managed to heave herself through the window and scoop up what she could see in my bedroom and disappear. And I rang the police, not because I expected them to turn up, but because I needed the case number for my insurance claim, but somebody turned up about 3 or 4 days later and dusted for fingerprints on the windowsill. And because of that, they were able to match it to a nest of Vipers in West Auckland, a group of women who had committed all sorts of petty thefts and burglaries and crimes, and so it was worth holding off on the house cleaning and not doing the window sill so the police could dust for fingerprints. Of course they can't turn up to every crime. I know that, but it's not a good look. Police Minister Mark Mitchell says he is happy to talk, but he doesn't want to get ahead “of the police executive who are going to clarify their position”. I can only imagine the “please explain” face on the Minister when he made a call to the newish-Commissioner. It's one thing for us all to know that if our wallet is nicked because we stupidly left it on a bus stop seat, we know the police aren't going to converge on the scene of the crime, all blues and two in their numbers. It is quite another thing to know that a directive has been sent applying nationally standardised threshold values when assessing theft and fraud. Losing $500 worth of groceries and goods can have a huge impact on a small business' weekly turnover, and I sure as hell do not want to see losers walking out of supermarkets with $500 worth of groceries, getting a free pass. You don't elect a centre right government for that sort of carry on. That was the very thing that galvanised a significant number of voters to vote centre right. You may not be able to get to every petty thief in the country, you know that. I know that the retailers know that, and the crims sure as hell know that, but the messaging from police has to be that they're going to jolly well try. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Police Minister is reassuring retailers officers will still turn up to reports of shoplifting. RNZ reports staff have been directed to not investigate retail crime below $500 and online fraud below $1000. Police may not take further action if the reports don't have enough evidence, such as CCTV. However, Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham every crime deserves a response. He says he wants to be clear that people can't go out and shoplift anything under the value of $500 – there will be a police response, especially if the offender is able to be identified. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two new ‘non-financial' sanctions have come into force today for beneficiaries, who, in the words of the MSD, do not meet their obligations or, as other people might put it, who do not get off their arses and go and look for a job. Some people may have half their weekly benefits put onto a payment card for four weeks, that can only be spent on essential items at approved shops. Others may also have to find volunteer work for at least five hours each week, again for four weeks. Remember though, as the Minister for Social Development confirmed, it's only a tiny proportion of job seekers who are having a laugh – 98% are complying with their obligations and are doing what they can to get off the benefit, so it's only really going to apply to 2% of those on the benefit. But as former Welfare Expert Advisory Group member Phil O'Reilly told Ryan Bridge on Early Edition this morning, sanctions can and do work. Sanctions do work. Exactly how well they work is always open to debate. They work for two reasons. One is they encourage people to get off the benefit. But secondly, very importantly for people like you and me who are paying tax in order to give persons a benefit, they keep our faith in the system too. That if you're not going to play by the rules, there's going to be a bit of a sanction on you, so they do actually work in those two contexts. And I think that's important to remember too, it's not just about those who are on the benefit, it's about those people who are paying, in effect, the benefit. There has to be faith in the system to keep the system going. People won't suffer a financial loss per say, and since they'll be restricted as to what they can spend their benefit on if they are failing to meet their obligations. I'm less enthusiastic about the volunteering requirements. The poor old charity sector is doing it tough enough as it is without some hapless souls turning up reluctantly, looking for things to do because they have to. I don't see why voluntary organisations should be charged with the task of straightening out recalcitrant beneficiaries on top of everything else they do. Compulsory training courses or upskilling by MSD should be the way to go as far as I'm concerned. If there are people who want to volunteer, who have something to offer, fine - fill your boots. But I imagine they'd be doing that already if they felt they had something to offer. What on Earth are you going to do with a couple of individuals who don't want to go and get a job? We're talking the tiny proportion of beneficiaries there who don't want to go and get a job, who don't know how to go and get a job, who don't believe they have anything to offer anyone - they'll have had the stuffing knocked out of them after being on a benefit for years - turning up at your local Hospice shop or your SPCA or whatever, what on Earth are you supposed to do with them? David Seymour, whose party campaigned on the policies, said sanctions should go further. He said no country can succeed with one in six working age people on a benefit and ACT wants to see money in kind given as a benefit instead of cash. If you want the freedom, he says, to spend cash as your own, then earn it yourself. Which is all very well and good when the jobs are there but it's widely acknowledged that we're seeing unemployment rise. Hopefully it will peak very shortly, but we are at a time of high unemployment relative to the circumstances of this country. I'm all for getting the sanctions out for the 2% putting restrictions on what they can spend the money on so that taxpayers will have faith in the system, but the volunteering, no. Also, some of you may have a different view now about being on a benefit. Prior to the Covid years, many people had never experienced the shock of losing a job. During the Covid years, people lost work almost overnight. And they were extraordinary times trying to find something to do in a in an industry that had disappeared for a time or in the recession that followed. You might have suddenly found yourself surplus to requirements because the company you had worked for years was in really straightened circumstances and had to ditch people overboard to survive, so you might have a different view about what it means to be unemployed and looking for work. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's been revealed how outdoor education can help build teenagers up. The Boyle River Outdoor Education Centre is 20 minutes east of the Lewis Pass. They're a not-for-profit organisation offering outdoor education programmes to secondary school groups and are in the business of fostering leadership, growth and confidence in young people. Boyle River Outdoor Education Centre Manager Sharon Nicholas talks to Kerre Woodham about the importance of outdoor education for young people. LISTEN ABOVE. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prime Minister's keen to raise the retirement age -- but it's not possible in coalition with New Zealand First. The Government is halving its KiwiSaver contribution rate -- and canning if people earning more than 180-thousand dollars. The default rate of worker and business contributions to KiwiSaver will rise over time. Chris Luxon told Kerre Woodham pushing out the retirement age to 67 makes sense. He says Labour doesn't think it's a good idea, and New Zealand First does not want to move that forward. Luxon also spoke about the cuts the government made to make funding available elsewhere. Budget 2025 includes 21 billion dollars of cost-savings - 13 billion of that from the controversial change to pay equity law - raising claim thresholds. Prime Minister Chris Luxon told Kerre Woodham these are difficult choices, but there's no way they could afford that. LISTEN ABOVE OR WATCH HERE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Isn't it cruelly, cruelly ironic that yesterday we were talking about just how tough it is in retail, and we have the news that after 145 years, Smith and Caughey's, the last of the great, grand department stores, famous for the high-end goods, the beautiful Christmas window displays, will close its doors for the final time by July 31st. Ninety-eight jobs will be lost, but it's more losing a bastion of retail, it goes beyond the closure of just the store. It survived two world wars and two severe depressions. It was battling online retail but then a “perfect storm” in 2024 and 2025 meant that it just couldn't carry on. Once it's gone, we won't be seeing the likes of that again. So ironic that we were talking just yesterday about the man from JLL saying we need more retail space, a quarter of a million more square metres of retail space over the next five years, and we were like really? How about filling the retail space that exists? That led into the conversation about just how tough it is selling stuff in this day and age. Mike Hosking was talking to Viv Beck of Heart of the City this morning, and they agreed that the changes made to the inner city had proved too difficult to navigate. “We hoped they'd be able to get through to the opening of the CRL and we have absolutely laid it out, clear as day, to both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport what they needed to do to reduce the barriers to get into the central city. And I think the lack of action is inexcusable. There are fundamental flaws in the way this is being managed, and it has to stop. “The reality is it's been an obsession with getting cars out. We've already lost 44% of them since 2015, and yet Auckland Transport seems to think fining people in our nighttime district in Queen Street is acceptable. But the reality is we've got so much good stuff and it is a positive future. The City Rail Link will make access easier, but we cannot tolerate this behaviour anymore. It has to stop.” There's so much that went wrong all at once, that so many businesses have been trying so hard to navigate and it's not just an Auckland. We're talking about Auckland right now, but look at Wellington and Hamilton as well. The inner cities are really struggling because of the ideological brain farts of city planners, because of the ideological bent to get vehicles out of the inner city without actually replacing them with any kind of decent public transport, because of Covid, because inner city hotels and motels were turned into waste stations for transients and waifs and strays making it an unappealing place to visit, because of online retail – there are so many reasons why it has been incredibly difficult. They're trying to hang on trying to hang on until the promise from these urban planners, the promises from the transport departments, the promises from the ideologues, that this is going to be a new and bright and beautiful future. That the streets are going to be teeming with throngs of happy people who are desperate to buy whatever it is you've got to buy. And so these businesses are hanging on by their fingernails. “Better days are coming. Better days are coming.” Well, some of them cannot hang on any longer, their fingernails are losing the grip in there, slowly scraping their way down the side of the wall. I was on Ponsonby Road yesterday and a fashion designer who's been on Ponsonby Road in the same store for 26 years, she's conceded defeat. She can't do it anymore, she said, she just can't. She's been waiting and waiting and waiting for things to come right and she's run out of money and run out of time. And again, it's the economy, it's Covid, it's the new employment relations rules, it's all of those things. And then just when things start to come right, along comes Trump. There's so much that's happening. But she also made the same comment that a lovely young woman from the New Zealand fashion powerhouse Zambezi made – Zambezi's not renewing its lease on Ponsonby Road. Both women said that along with all the difficult times they've experienced over the last five years, they said that their customer base had aged out and they weren't being replaced. That they were trying to reinvigorate their customer base, but the younger generation are just not interested in buying the more expensive New Zealand designed, New Zealand made fashion. The younger woman don't want to pay those prices. So, the kids may well bunk off school to take part in climate emergency protests, and they may well harangue the older generation for bequeathing them a world on fire, but they're not willing to settle for one outfit a year from a New Zealand designer when they could have 50 dresses from Temu. Rather than actually putting their money where their mouths are and not contributing to the ecological environmental climate change disaster of fast fashion, and rather than support New Zealand designers in New Zealand, machinists in New Zealand, pattern makers in New Zealand, they'll go and do their climate protests at lunchtime and then be home in time to make some clicks on Temu and Shein to get their fast fashion. You can see the mountain of fast fashion waste from space. And the kids could do something about it, but they choose not to. And that means that we're going to see more of these closures and more skills and crafts lost as the younger generation just don't care. So I don't think I'll be harangued by a young one about the state of the world anytime soon and take that lightly. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't know where the Head of Research at JLL, the commercial property company, I does his shopping, but it cannot be anywhere that I go. If you've ever wondered what the definition of gaslighting is, you may well have heard it this morning. Chris Dibble —the Head of Research at JLL— was on the wireless claiming that we have a critical under-supply of retail space in this country, and that to keep pace with population and demand we need to come up with a quarter of a million square metres in the next five years. Shopping centres and large format retail are experiencing solid demand, he reckons, and he told Mike Hosking CBD's strip vacancy rates are the lowest in Australasia. “The way that we've attacked this research is looked at basically the ratio between how much retail space we currently have and the population at the moment as well. And so when you look at that ratio, which is around about 0.5 square metres per person across the country, then when you look at the population growth that New Zealand's going to go through over the next sort of five years, we can understand that to keep their ratio we just need more space. “And so we are seeing a bit of development across the country, which is positive. It will help to start, I guess, eat away at some of this growth forecast that was required in retail floor space. But yeah, there will need to be a lot of that around in Auckland. They've got around about a third of all the retail supply across the country so from that perspective, it is a significant amount that will probably happen in Auckland.” I was listening to this, and I was thinking why don't we use the retail space that's vacant right now before we build anymore? The way he was talking it was that demand is such that you've got queues of retailers hammering on the doors of existing retailers, begging to take over the space, and that is simply not what I am seeing. I would love to know what your main street looks like? I know JLL is a commercial property leasing company, you have to talk up your business, but there's talking up and then there's downright delusional. If you have ventured into your local mall, how many sites are boarded up or being used as displays for the stores that remain or have these poor people sitting there gazing at you as you walk past, willing you to come into their store? They'd be lucky if they have four or five customers in a day. I've never seen it so bad. It's not just my anecdotal experience either. I thought it might have been, but according to OneRoof, New Zealand's commercial property market in 2024 has been one of the toughest in two decades. High interest rates, remote working online shopping leading to higher vacancy rates and soft rental growth. Bayley's commercial and capital figures show commercial property sales plummeted since 2021 in both volume and value, and we're sitting back where the market was in 2001 and 2002. Westpac said in early December the market had fallen around 10% since its peak in 2021. The value of sales dropped below $6 billion over the 12 months to June 2024, the lowest in more than a decade. So who's right? How can we possibly need up to a quarter of a million square metres of retail space in the next five years when so many shops are sitting empty? What are you seeing, because I am not seeing what Mr. JLL is seeing. The one thing I would agree with in the report is that along with the fact that we need three or four new 277's, is that Kiwis still value in-store experiences. And for those stores that remain, by crikey I do, I love a good in-store experience, and I get them. Where you've got people who've been in business for years who know their business, who know that there is online, so they upgrade their websites, they get with the programme. I was in Tauranga on Friday. There's a store called Wendy's there that's been there since 1984, and it's still doing a roaring trade. Great website, it was absolutely packed, knows its customers, and the staff were incredibly helpful. It's seen off recessions, it's seen off online shopping. If you know your stuff and you will have stores like that up and down the country, you stick with your knitting, you adapt with the times, you know what you're good at, you take on board what you need to grow with your customers, you'll be fine. And you cannot beat a good in-store experience, but bloody hell, it's tough out there. So how on Earth can we fill four or five massive new shopping complexes, which is what Chris Dibble was saying? Would it not be best to start with filling the existing stores that have vacant right now and have been vacant for far too long? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Public transport is brilliant when it works. You cannot beat it for convenience, for timeliness, for moving large numbers of people expeditiously and in an environmentally friendly-ish kind of a way, when it works. When it doesn't, it's a pain. Look at the poor Auckland rail commuters this morning – due to an infrastructure issue at Penrose, there were delays and cancellations. No services running through Newmarket on the Southern line, all Southern Line services were running via the Eastern Line, Onehunga line services cancelled until further notice. Just what you need, and not for the first time. Auckland's rail network rebuild started in January 2023 and in its final stages, as announced, there would be 96 days of train closures from Christmas 2025 through to January 2026. KiwiRail chief infrastructure officer Andre Lovatt said the work was critical to convert the existing network, which was designed for freight trains, to one that has the capacity to carry faster and more frequent trains, about 16 an hour when the CRL opens. And when they're running, and when it's working, and when there aren't closures, it will be brilliant. It will be a really efficient way of moving people about the city at critical times. A lot of the really long-term problems will have been fixed, he reckons, so that means they'll be able to focus on preventative maintenance, and he's promised the long periods of closure won't be required in the future once the work is done. The Government, too, appears to have faith in the rail network in our major cities as a means of transporting commuters. They also appear to have faith in its ability to shift freight, with the pre-Budget announcement of a $604 million investment in rail. Chris Bishop, the Minister for Transport, said investment in the Auckland and Wellington Metro network would enable vital and overdue work to be carried out. I thought vital and overdue work was already being carried out, but clearly there's more where that came from. A backlog of overdue renewals had made the services less reliable, with commuters experiencing ongoing disruption in recent years, and indeed this very morning that the announcement was made. Winston Peters, the Minister for Rail, says rail currently moves 13% of national freight and a quarter of New Zealand's exports, complementing the truckies during the short hauls. He says the rail network investment programme for 2024 -2027 is now funded, meaning maintenance, network operations, asset renewals and modest improvements are funded. We have a legacy for rail freight, says Winston Peters, and this builds on it. So there has been much investment in varying sorts of rail over the last two to three governments. Yes, we have a legacy of rail but clearly there is a commitment to a future for rail. Both in terms of Metro commuting and in terms of freight. I would love to see rail be a big part of our cities and of linking the provinces for commuters and of shifting freight – it's interoperable with the trucks. But we don't seem to have been terribly well served when it comes to getting value for money for our investment. I'm not even going to talk about light rail because I'll probably have a cardiac infarction and that will be the end of that, if you just think about the money that was wasted on that. We have a legacy of rail, is it a part of our future? I would really like to think so. I would really like to think that Andre Lovatt is right, that when it comes to Auckland in particular, all of the disruption and all of the inconvenience and all of the teeth grinding frustration of commuters will come to an end. The work will be done, they will get ahead of themselves in terms of renewals and remediation, and be able to be proactive in maintenance so that things don't come to a grinding halt. I would like to think that the rail tracks could be upgraded so that transport between our ports isn't just solely dependent on our trucks. That more of the load could be shifted onto rail making it easier for everybody – those using the road, the exporters, those working in the ports. But we have been so poorly served by the money that we've invested as taxpayers. We've earned the money, we have asked our bureaucrats and our governments to invest it wisely on our behalf. Most of us, I think, support some form of rail but I would really like to see more accountability for how it is spent and for delivery. KiwiRail says yes, you'll get that. We're getting ahead of ourselves by 2026, we'll be sweet. Do you believe that? Winston Peters says we have a legacy for rail freight. Do we have a future when it comes to rail freight? I'd really like to hear from those who do the heavy lifting for this country, metaphorically and literally. Can we have more than the 13% of national freight and a quarter of New Zealand's exports on rail? And when it comes to commuters do you have faith that this will be a brilliant, convenient, timely, fantastic way to travel in the near future? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There are hopes investment in rail is just the boost Auckland needs. The Government will tip more than $600 million of Government funding in Budget 2025 to fully fund the Rail Network Investment Programme until 2027. The freight network will get $461 million, and $143 million will be spent on Auckland and Wellington's metropolitan trains. Greater Auckland director Matt Lowrie told Kerre Woodham some maintenance hasn't been done for decades. He says that now that funding is coming through, they'll be able to get improvements done so they can actually maintain and continue to improve services. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Northland might be the meth capital of New Zealand, but Hawkes Bay wouldn't be far behind. One tiny town – Waipukurau - recorded the biggest increase in meth consumption in the country in 2024. It was up more than 300 percent. What concerns the local coppers is that the community staying schtum about who's supplying the drug as Inspector Martin James told 1News last night. “One of the key concerns for me here in Central Hawke's Bay is a lack of information that is coming through from the public to support us, there will be people within this community that know who are supplying this drug, this heinous drug, and we need them to come forward." Well, there might be people who know, but locals who have spoken to by 1News said they'd never seen any evidence that their town had such a huge meth problem. And I guess you wouldn't if you if you don't do meth, it you don't know people who do meth, then you're not going to see the problem. The police are depending on those who do know. And they might say there isn't a problem in their small town, but surely wastewater testing doesn't lie. The only reason I could think of that you'd see a spike like that would be perhaps a drug dealer has seen the light, had a road to Damascus moment and is going to turn over a new leaf and has flushed tens of thousands of dollars' worth of meth down the dunny over a period of weeks, but you know that is unlikely. This is just the latest call from police, iwi leaders and the Police Minister for the community to play its part in thwarting the gangs and the drug dealers and in saying no, you're not dealing here, not in our town, not to our people. They want the community to be proactive in terms of stopping meth, taking a hold in their communities, but how realistic is it to expect people to dob in their relatives or friends? It would be hard enough when you're an upstanding member of the community with no links to gangs to give police information that could lead to an arrest. You might be concerned about ramifications to your business or to your home or to your family. But imagine if the drug dealers and members of your very own family - you give information to the police that leads to a conviction for dealing, not possession, but dealing, you know that the person will be going inside for a very long time. You might hate the crime, but loved the crim. How do you reconcile helping the police with their inquiries with the knowledge that there could be an enormous impact on your own family member?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Green Party is suggesting an overhaul of the tax system in their alternative Budget. It includes taxing wealth, inheritance, gifts, and private jet journeys, and they say it would bring in $88 billion in revenue over four years. New income tax rates of 39% on income over $120,000 and 45% on income over $180,000 would be introduced, and the corporate tax rate would be raised to 33%, 3% higher than Australia's current rates. Malcolm Rands is the spokesperson for the ‘Open Letter on Tax' released in May 2023, in which 97 people leading “financially comfortable lives” expressed their willingness to pay more tax. He told Kerre Woodham he thinks people who can afford more aren't contributing as much as they can. He says taxes don't just fund social welfare and education, but also things like climate change and the infrastructure bills being passed that will need funding. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Are the Greens bonkers? The Greens have come out and criticised Judith Collins for tinkering with the Public Service Commission census – that's a voluntary survey run over three weeks and it's a follow up to the initial 2021 survey of the same name. Now Judith Collins and her office had a look at the 2021 survey, and they suggested a few changes. They had thoughts about the census, and they said we don't really need the questions about disability, rainbow identities, religion, te reo Māori proficiency levels, on-the-job training, and agencies' commitment to the Māori-Crown relationship. Instead, Judith Collins' office said, we want to put in a new question about whether public servants give excellent value for my salary, there are instances when I consider my work wastes taxpayers money, or I would rate my manager as someone who cares about the effect of my work. They're focused on productivity rather than personal well-being, which seems to be what the 2021 survey was all about. So the Greens and PSA Union have come out and said it's a form of political censorship, he says several ministers seemed more interested in fighting imported culture wars – there's all kinds of criticism for putting in questions on productivity. Judith Collins says she doesn't really care, to be honest. She says: “I think the Greens are frankly bonkers. I mean, how can they find it difficult that the public service should be delivering value for money? The Greens can go off on their fine little tangents. Frankly, that's their problem. I think it's very, very important.” So bonkers. The Greens received the same criticism from some quarters when they released their Budget this week. They pledged, among other things, free GP visits, free childcare, funded through new taxes and increased borrowing. The policies include a wealth tax, a private jet tax, ending interest deductibility for landlords, restoring the 10 year bright-line test, doubling minerals royalties, and changes to ACC levies. It would see net debt climb from 45% of GDP to above 53% by the 2028/29 financial year. Criticism was immediate. Idealistic pie in the sky, policies that would mean the death knell for Kiwi businesses. Clown show, economics, Marxism. You probably heard it, you may even have uttered a few criticisms yourself of the Budget. But is it bonkers? Yes, net debt would climb from 45% of GDP to above 53%, but 60% is considered a sustainable level of debt. It's considered a prudent level of debt by economists around the world. Sure, they're talking bigger economies and when you're a smaller economy, you don't have as much wiggle room, 60% would probably be way too much for a country as small as ours. But 53% – is that completely unsustainable? And do all Kiwi businesses think this is nonsense? I don't think so. Remember the group of millionaires who wrote to the government a year or so ago? I think it was in the final stages of the last Labour government. It was a group of 96 wealthy New Zealanders who called on the government to tax them more. In the open letter, they said the current tax system contributed towards the gap between the poor and the wealthy. They said they didn't mind if the taxation is done through increased income tax or wealth tax, or a capital gains tax, but the increases should only apply to the wealthy. Now, how do you define wealthy? According to the Greens, if you're on $120,000 a year, you should pay more tax, Under the Budget that they released —the proposed alternative Budget— If you're earning 120,000 a year, your tax will go up to 39 cents in the dollar. If you're on $180,000 your tax will go to 45 cents on the dollar. Does that then put you in the group of 96 wealthy New Zealanders wanting to be taxed more? When it comes to the differences between the parties, how helpful is it for the name calling, for the bonkers? Do we need to have a look at what policies might work? Are they aspirational policies? Are they policies that need more thinking through? I mean, when you look at the previous Labour government under Jacinda Ardern, initially there were some great ideas. I thought brilliant, fabulous, but they hadn't been worked through, and the unintended consequences was so damaging, and the fallout was so great, from nice ideas that hadn't been thought through. So before you dismiss ideas completely, is it worth looking through how they might work? Is it worth discussing rather than dismissing ideas completely out of hand? Could there be a generational and ideological divide that blinds us, perhaps to some good ideas? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, what a to-do. The image of Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters slumped in the House, head in his hands, summed it up really. Brooke van Velden dropped the C-bomb in the house, quoting a Stuff article whose author used the word in criticising the government's decision to amend the pay equity legislation. The coalition's female MPs are angry that Labour MPs, particularly the female MPs, have not condemned the journalist's use of the word, which was used as a derogatory in the article. Judith Collins, head of the Privileges Committee, was on with Mike Hosking this morning, ostensibly to talk about the suspension of three Te Pati Māori MPs for their haka in the House, but during the chat she deplored the decline of standards in the House. “There's a lack of civility now and it's not acceptable, and I feel that the comments of the print journalist in the Sunday Star Times this last Sunday was one of the lowest points I think I've seen in 23 years. That and what happened on the 14th of November in Parliament. It's just the sort of behaviour towards each other that is despicable. So I'd say to Brooke, you know I wouldn't use the word myself, but I did feel that she at least stood up for herself and for all the rest of us, and I am waiting for someone of the left persuasion in our Parliament, one MP, just one, to come out and say it's not okay to attack people just because you don't agree with what they do.” I think she'll be waiting a while. Karen Chhour has been consistently attacked by Labour MPs and Te Pati Māori MPs, really for just for being a Māori woman who has the temerity to be an ACT Party MP. And to be fair, when Jacinda Ardern and her preschool daughter were receiving violent threats —violent sexual threats, some of them very real and credible threats— there wasn't a universal condemnation of the abuse from National and ACT. Certainly Judith Collins, when she was the opposition leader, said she did not want to see Jacinda Ardern threatened when she visited Auckland in 2021 after the three-month lockdown. She said I don't want to see anything happen to the Prime Minister or have her threatened in any way. I think it's not good for our democracy and also it is not right for people to do that to each other, which is true, and good on her for saying that. But at the same time, it's hardly a universal, strident condemnation of the threats that the Prime Minister of the time was getting. We were discussing this before the show, one of our colleagues said politicians need to be better otherwise people will just give up. They'll look at the carry on, they'll read the stories and think I'm not going to vote. I argued that there are House of Representatives – they are us, to borrow a phrase. Abuse of MPs on every level increased in 2022, 98% of them reported receiving some kind of harassment. Women were considerably more likely to face abuse on most counts than male politicians. Abuse increased across 11 of the 12 different mediums, with social media overtaking emails, faxes and letters as the most prominent. That came from us. That's men and women, normally erstwhile, law-abiding, God-fearing people who suddenly became more strident. It was a result of societal factors, of lockdowns, of decisions made that had an enormous impact on people's lives and livelihoods and families. And there will be people who will never forget what happened. It can't be undone. But that all resulted in extremes, in the use of language and the vehemence of our opinions and our tribalism. I had a public Facebook page for years. I think in the in the seven or eight years I had it before Covid, I blocked two people. Once Covid started, I just got rid of it because it's why would you be a sitting duck? When I first heard about the death threats against Jacinda Ardern, I thought, well, who hasn't had them? You know that is not normal. That's not a normal response. The days of Socratic discourse are long gone. So does that mean we have to give up, my colleague asked, that we have no expectations of our MPs? No. But I think before we ask anything of our MPs, we look at ourselves. I was thinking about that this morning. Can I call out the Principles Federation representative and say before you start looking at the government, how about you call out the poor parents who send their kids to school unable to hold a pen and not toilet trained? Whose fault is that? That is the parents. Can I say that? Absolutely I can. Should I mimic her voice while I'm saying that? No, I shouldn't. Talkback's a robust forum. It's a bit like Parliament, people get heat up. We're allowed to have opinions. We should have differing opinions, but before I'm going to ask anything of our MPs, before I ask anything of my fellow journalists, I'll have a look in the mirror and check myself out. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this spirit of taking the good news where we find it, I was absolutely delighted to see the results of Inland Revenue going after student loan defaulters. At the end of April, there were 113,733 people with student loans believed to be based overseas. If you're based overseas, you don't get the student loan automatically taken out of your pay packet. Overseas, it's up to you to make repayments, and more than 70% of those are in default on their loans – so it's up to them to make the repayments. Despite the extraordinarily expensive tertiary education they receive, they don't seem to understand what a loan is. They owe $2.3 billion, of which more than $1 billion is penalties and interest. Even if you wiped the penalties that is still $1 billion, owing to the taxpayer. We paid for the lion's share of the education, around 70% of the true cost of the education, they took out a loan which was paid for by the taxpayer, and $1 billion is owing to us. For about 24,000 of these overseas based borrowers, the debt is more than 15 years old. Inland Revenue has collected more than $207 million in repayments since July last year from student loan borrowers living overseas, and that's 43% up on the same period the previous year. And the reason for the sudden flurry of productivity and getting the money back? Inland Revenue was given the money, student loan compliance funding, to go after the little thieves, so they finally had the resource to be able to do it. According to Inland Revenue, they've contacted more than 12,000 borrowers – 1,320 of them have entered repayment plans, 960 have fully repaid their overdue amounts. Inland Revenue has seen a collective repayment of $9 million once they took an interest. Thank God. The department is also looking at borrowers who own property in New Zealand – there are just over 300 of them. And ever since “hello, it's Inland Revenue on the phone. We understand you owe us money. We also understand you have property in New Zealand”, shockingly, these people are suddenly able to find the money to repay the New Zealand taxpayer. So they've paid up $1.7 million. Any defaulters within the group who have refused to engage and resolve their defaults, says Inland Revenue, will see further legal enforcement taken, which may include New Zealand based bankruptcy or charging orders over their properties. They're doing the same for student loan defaulters who have investments or bank accounts receiving interest income in this country. Just watch these people suddenly come up with the money they owe once they realise Inland Revenue will be able to go sniffing around in their accounts. And as a last resort there'll be arrests at the border. This is so overdue. In the past there seems to have been a reluctance to go after overseas based student loan defaulters. What about when they all flocked back to New Zealand during the Covid times? That was the perfect time to collect the money owed. It is a kindness to the borrowers to keep that student loan debt at the front of their minds. If you can forget about a big debt, if there are other people screaming at you for money who are up in your grills, you'll park it and put it to one side and think I'll do that when I get a bonus at work, or I'll do that one day, and then it gets so big that it becomes terrifying and you just don't think about it. You will remain in blissful and wilful ignorance of the monies owed, and then the penalties and interest that blow out that original loan. Keep it at the forefront of their minds. There are all sorts of arguments that have been put up by student loan thieves over the years. We're the best and the brightest. If you come after us, we won't come home. We'll keep our enormous intellects overseas. Well, you can't be that bloody bright if you don't understand what a loan is, can you? It's not a gift. It was a loan. You have to pay it back. Another argument is, “it's all right for you, your generation got free university education we had to pay for it”. Well, it was really the generation before that received free education. But back then, they really did only take the best and the brightest, numpties need not apply. Total enrolments at all universities in New Zealand was 16,524 in 1960. Today there are 177,000 university students in New Zealand. I'm quite happy to have a discussion about making unit centres of academic excellence and restricting access once again to only the very best and the brightest and pay for that education, absolutely. If we reduce it down from 177,000 to 16,000, we can afford that. Happy to have a chat about means testing but not until you do what most of us manage to do, even the most lowly qualified of us ... pay your bills and pay what you owe. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

School principals say they're grappling with growing numbers of new entrants with behaviour and oral communication issues - and believe the Covid-19 pandemic is to blame. They're calling for more investment in learning support to help address the problem. Kerre Woodham believes the problem lies not with the education system, but rather with parents who fail to prepare their kids to enter it. "How about principals, instead of moaning and grumbling and demanding more of the taxpayers' money to shore up the gaps and poor parenting, actually call the bloody parents to account." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inland Revenue says attitudes are shifting among student loan holders living overseas. More than $200 million has been collected from overseas borrowers since July last year – a big annual increase. More than 24,000 people are thought to be overseas, collectively owing $1.3 billion on loans going back more than 15 years. IRD's Jane Elley told Kerre Woodham since they received additional funding they've been able to ramp up their workforce, enabling them to be a lot more targeted when chasing debt. Her advice to anyone struggling with their loan is to get in contact with the IRD – ignoring the problem only makes it bigger. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This particular pre-Budget announcement should be music to the ears of parents who are currently working every hour God sends to pay for extra maths coaching for their children. You might have heard them on this show before – parents who really can't afford it, but say to themselves they can't afford not to, pay for the sort of tuition that teachers are unable to give in school, that one-on-one coaching to fix the gaps in literacy and in maths. Core subjects that teachers should be able to teach and should have time to provide extra support for those children who needed a little bit of a catch up, but in the modern-day classroom environment, it appears they cannot. Next week's Budget will include nearly $100 million in funding over four years for students who are underachieving in maths, including $56 million for the equivalent of 143 “maths intervention teachers” in primary schools. I didn't know we had a “maths intervention” tree, but it will be fantastic to pick 143 teachers off there and pop them in the classrooms. Perhaps they'll come out of the after-school tuition programmes. From next year, all students will have their maths ability checked in their first two years of schooling, which is fantastic. You have to know where you're coming from, you have to have a base from which you can start. Education Minister Erica Stanford said the maths check scheme would cost $4 million and aims to identify students who need more support, similar to the literacy phonics check unveiled last year, which is going, by all accounts, great guns. So that's $100 million that we've got, that's $56 million spent on the maths intervention teachers, $4 million for the maths check scheme, and according to my maths, that leaves us $40 million that will fund small group maths tutoring for up to 34,000 year 7 & 8 students each year, from next year. Hell-ay-jolly-lujah! As I say, parents are trying to shore up the gaps in their children's maths education by enrolling them and after school tuition at considerable expense will be absolutely delighted. Are the teachers? Thank you for asking. According to Upper Hutt Principals Association president Robyn Brown on Early Edition this morning, not so much. “Unfortunately our problem doesn't sit in maths. We are desperate for learning support and if we want to improve achievement, we need to put every cent we have into learning support rather than ring fencing it just for maths. We know that that's not going to make a huge difference. At the moment we have inadequate PLD or professional development for teachers. On a curriculum that they've only had two terms to teach so far, it's not been implemented with ability, we have no way of even assessing it yet.” It would be great if you could say $100 million investment in our classrooms is fantastic, but I guess you're not going to get that from Principal Associations and education ministries. They have been saying for some time, since Labour was in power, that they need more professional development. They need more time and there have been many, many changes within the schools around the curriculum, and I don't blame them for wanting to catch a breath, catch up with what this iteration of the curriculum looks like. But when she says math isn't the problem, that is the problem. In 2023, New Zealand students recorded their worst ever results in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. The average student dropped up to 15 points in maths, one of the worst performing. It's not a one-off. New Zealand's “achievement” in maths has plateaued for the past two decades. And then you had all this nonsense back in 2022, saying they get maths anxiety before tests, they're very anxious. They're actually brilliant at maths, they just get very anxious before exams. What tosh, absolute nonsense. They don't know the answers – that's where the anxiety comes from. They're not prepared; they don't know how to do it. Parents know this. They will welcome this investment even if the teachers don't, or the teachers' unions and representatives don't. When it comes to the learning difficulties, that surely is a separate matter entirely. Neurodiverse kids, kids who are behind the eight-ball from the time they were born because of the damage done in the womb, that is complex, it is difficult, but surely it's a completely separate issue. I'm not sure it should be conflated with your average school kid needing to do better in core subjects – children who are able to learn from a standard curriculum, who want to do better, who deserve better, who should be doing better. I'm sure there's a shopping list a mile long that any teacher or principal has when it comes to doing the best for the kids that turn up in their classroom. Too often your ordinary, everyday children are getting left behind and forgotten. They deserve the best. They deserve to be supported and encouraged and just see how far they can go, not have all the money spent on trying to deal with incredibly complex and difficult situations with families and children. How about a little support for these kids whose parents are doing the best by them, whose teachers are trying to do the best by them but they're getting dragged in so many different directions and situations? I'm all for this this. It's fantastic. Have the base check, know which children are going to need the extra support, target it to them and hopefully, hopefully in a few years we won't have children leaving primary school who are illiterate and innumerate, because that has been a crying shame for the past two decades and that is only going to benefit New Zealand to have a better educated populace. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The government sent a strong signal to boy racers that their days of running amok on the roads are over. Car crushing is not new, it's been announced before - Judith Collins was police minister in 2009 when car crashing legislation was introduced for recidivist boy racer offenders, hence her sobriquet, Crusher. In fact, only three cars were crushed and Judith Collins wasn't the police minister by the time it happened, because he needed three strikes before a car was crushed. Anne Tolley was the police minister when the first of the three cars was crushed. But despite the fact only three ended up in the jaws of the hydraulic crashes, Judith Collins said the legislation worked as a deterrent. Vehicle offences lowered by 15% in the first year of the legislation and she said police had seen a massive drop off in the number of complaints about boy racers. At the time, Collins wanted to see the legislation extended to cover those who fled police. Now, a decade and a half later, it's happening. Chris Bishop and Mark Mitchell have announced a suite of legislation aimed at dangerous drivers. According to Chris Bishop, Kiwi's are sick of seeing idiot drivers putting everyone around them at risk, so the governments going to take action through a range of much tougher penalties. And they are: Establishing a presumptive sentence of vehicle destruction or forfeiture for those that flee police, street racers and intimidating convoys and owners who fail toidentify offending drivers. Giving police more powers to manage illegal vehicle gatherings by closing roads or public areas and issuing infringements. And increasing the infringement fee for making excessive noise from or within a vehicle from $50 to $300. The changes will be introduced in new legislation and in mid-2025 and Chris Bishop says convicted fleeing drivers, boy racers and people participating in intimidating convoys will have their vehicles destroyed or forfeited. No three strikes. When you commit an offence that comes under this legislation your car will be gone. But I owe $30K on it! Tough. You'll keep paying it off to the finance company, but you won't have a car. Is this sort of heavy-handed legislation necessary? Well, yes according to the Police Association President Chris Cahill. The one conviction, rather than having to have three convictions under the current law, should make a difference. Look, we've got to do something. These things are out of control and they're not just anti-social boy racing. These things have got to the point where they deliberately antagonising police when they turn up – They're getting bottled, they're getting their cars rammed and the public had gutsful of it when it's in their neighbourhood, so I think it's worth a try. Worth a try? Well, yes, it worked before apparently according to Judith Collins, and she had the stats to support it. When it was introduced critics said, well, only three cars were crushed. Precisely, she said, because people changed their behaviour. She said clearly these boy racers aren't idiots. They don't want to lose their cars, so therefore they won't commit offences that mean their cars will be seized and destroyed and if it works as a deterrent, so much the better. I'm glad to see that they're going to extend the legislation to those who flee police. That can only make the roads safer. I'm all for it. Ever since I began doing talkback, which is going back a very long time, there have been problems with young people, men and women, and not so young, those who are old enough to know better getting together and deciding that parts of the roads belong to them and are going to be their private racetrack. And there's a school of thought that says, oh, they're just kids, they're just having fun, this is how they learn to drive. There's nothing for them to do, this is their passion. Well, no, there are plenty of places where these young men and women can go on race legally if they want to prove themselves. And don't come at with me with the ‘it's expensive'. You choose to spend money in all sorts of ways. Your cars are expensive. You take pride in them. Pay the money. Go to a racetrack where you can really prove yourself. It's not harmless fun. Not when people have been killed, maimed and injured. And not when it's costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not when you're filthy little oiks leaving your rubbish everywhere. Not when you're abusive. Enough. You won't get your car seized if you don't break the law - really easy. You won't get your car seized if you stop for police when they tell you to do so. You won't get your motorbike seized when you and your dodgy mates don't get together in a convoy and break the law and stick two fingers at the police and at us. It's really simple. Nobody's coming after you. If your car is seized, you've gone looking for trouble. Bring it on.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's bad news, really, and it's been coming and I think I've had my head in the sand for some time. I've been wanting things to get better quickly. I've wanted things to move out from grindy-ness, and a lack of fun, and excess, and nonsense. It's just been for four years of long, slow grind, it seems. Well, Matthew Hooton's opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald has laid it out starkly, unequivocally, in no uncertain terms. The grindy times are here for a long time, as he says. Brooke van Velden's constitutionally dubious and deeply unpopular legislation to amend the Equal Pay Act and more bold moves like it, are now unavoidable, whether they take the form of massive spending cuts, much higher taxes, or most likely, he says both. And the reason? Successive governments have been on a massive jolly, and now we, and successive generations have to pay for it. As Hooton reminds us, Treasury began formerly warning in 2006, about the looming fiscal challenges after 2030. It expected future governments would follow the responsible fiscal management of the Bolger, Shipley, and Clark governments, that they would maintain surpluses, pay back debt, put aside cash for a rainy day. Had we heeded the advice and followed the blueprint, we would be 15% of GDP in the black this year. Instead, the Key-English and Ardern-Hipkins Governments went on a 15-year spending spree, putting us 23% of GDP in the red, despite the Super Fund's returns on investments exceeding expectations. You can say what about the Canterbury quake, the GFC, and Covid? You can say all of that. But he's quite right. Successive governments have had to recover from crises, but they've also used that time to have a spend up, to push through expensive legislation and policies, of their choosing, of their ideology, while at the same time having to fork out billions in damage recovery. So, the four years of grindy times are going to be nothing in comparison to what we are going to see. There's more with this came from. Thanks to the Key-English and Ardern-Hipkins legacy, we're nearly 40% of GDP, or more than $170 billion, behind where Helen Clark, Winston Peters, and Sir Michael Cullen planned back in 2006, just as baby boomers retire and health costs start to explode. He says and argues without radical policy change, there is no plausible scenario that doesn't lead to eventual financial and social collapse. I urge you to read it and have a look and see what you think. That is why Labour's well-intentioned and accurately costed ill thought-out legislation is being scrapped. That is why superannuation and healthcare costs will be put under the microscope as costs balloon. And that is why I would argue, National and Labour need to work together to get us out of this mess. Treasury warned of the fiscal challenges in 2006. They warned of them again in a 2012 post-election briefing to John Key, the papers stressed again as baby boomers move into retirement, New Zealand's 65 and over population is projected to grow nearly four times more quickly than the total population, and consequently there'll be a rapid rise in health, aged care, and New Zealand super costs. Treasury said the fiscal challenge is considerable. There is no way to avoid making trade-offs. Given the potential economic and social instability that could result from any uncertainty about these trade-offs, we think it's crucial that effort be made to build broad public consensus on the way forward. And that's where we are today. The trade-offs are starting but there's no consensus, because it's just been sprung on us. Well, it hasn't been sprung on us. Treasury have been warning of this for some time, and we have ignored it as voters and the parties have ignored it. Both National and Labour are at fault, but we voters are to blame as well. We can't just stand there saying, “oh, we're victims we didn't know”. Would we have elected any party to government that laid out the grim prognosis for New Zealand Inc. and spelled out the tough measures we would need to take to recover? If Christopher Luxon had stood there in 2023 and said, we're in a real mess and it goes way beyond Hipkins and Robertson, Ardern and Robertson. It goes back a lot further than that and we are going to have to cut the equal pay amendment legislation, we're going to have to raise the age of superannuation, as every other western country we measure ourselves against has done, we're going to have to look long and hard at healthcare, we're have to look long and hard at welfare payments, and we're probably going to have to scrap some of them because we're in a deep, deep fiscal hole. Would we have said thank you so much for spelling it out. We're going to vote National back in to do these austere and tough measures that we need to recover so that we've got a country for our grandchildren. I doubt it. We are just as much to blame. The party is well and truly over, and it has been for some time. We've just borrowed to keep it going and buried our heads in the sand, turned up the music so we don't hear the creaking and the groaning of the economy as it struggles to keep the party going. It's time we all grew up. And it's time both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition worked together to try and keep the country together while we work our way out of this mess. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Warnings to be careful after a string of fires was linked to lithium-ion batteries. Scrap metal company Sims Metal has been fined $30 thousand over a 2023 fire that released toxic smoke near Ōtāhuhu. A massive blaze at a recycling plant near Glenfield last month was also linked to lithium-ion batteries, as well as a number of fires breaking out in rubbish trucks across the city. Fire and Emergency New Zealand's Community Education Manager Tom Ronaldson told Kerre Woodham that lithium-ion batteries are perfectly safe, as long as they're used correctly. He says you should only be charging devices while you're awake, and unplugged as soon as they're fully charged. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Long serving Labour MP and former Minister David Parker gave his valedictory speech in Parliament last night, where he gave his colleagues across the House a list of things to do, among his thank yous and goodbyes. Chief among them was closing the gap between the very wealthy and the middle class. It could be done, he said, with a tax on capital income, a wealth tax, some form of interest deductibility ban with rules for deductions to avoid double taxation. He said this would pay for a tax-free threshold for income earners up to $10,000 with the next 10,000 subject to lower tax rates. Another was that he hoped freshwater standards would endure in some form, and called on future Ministers for the Environment not to become Ministers for Pollution. Looking at you, Shane Jones. Parker also suggested a way of future proofing New Zealand against future disasters by getting the Reserve Bank to use a quantitative easing scheme to purchase a long dated bond in the event the Alpine fault ruptures, which is not a bad idea because that would spread the cost of the disaster over generations, rather than have one generation deal with it. He wanted to see the government take on the tech giants with a proposal to make their social platforms liable for harmful content shared on their platforms. And he called out MPP as a political system that is becoming worse over time, that is fuelling culture war politics. “Under First Past the Post, New Zealand became amongst the best country in the world, but MMP was meant to be better. Perhaps Doctor Hooten is right and MMP gets worse over time. It's the people's system, not ours. As things polarise and the hard issues don't get fixed, we should allow the people to again make their choice. I'd vote STV. All 120 of us would have to serve in a seat - that drives behavioural change. I'd add in a small upper house, 30 people appointed as in Canada, or voted in STV and limited to two terms each.” That was David Parker last night in Parliament talking about the New Zealand he would have liked to have seen when he left politics. The thing is, the public have had their say and they have chosen and then reaffirmed MMP. My conscience is clear. Like David Parker, I preferred STV – that's what I voted for back in the 90s and I still think it's a better system today. I think he's right when he says that MPs need to have electorates to which they are accountable. And I think STV would be a fairer, less divisive system. First Pass the Post was undemocratic. There were times when New Zealand elected a government that only had around 38 - 40% of the vote, and 100% of the decision making, and that's not particularly fair. Some form of proportional representation is more representative, it's more democratic. If we're going to live in a democracy, we might as well behave as though we're living in a democracy and vote and get results as if we're living in a democracy. So from his to-do list, which would you like to see MPs pick up on? And specifically, when it comes to the voting system, I don't think we've got it right yet. There will be some of you who vote, who have grown up with the MMP and that's all you have known. As someone who knows First Past the Post and MMP, I think MMP is better than FPP and producing a more democratic and fairer result. Is it perfect? Nowhere near it. I think we need to keep refining it just because we've voted for it once, reaffirmed it once, doesn't mean we have to be stuck with it forever. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Just when I thought the issue of pay parity couldn't get any more confusing, the Government has made it so. Yesterday, the coalition government moved under urgency in Parliament to raise the threshold for proving work has been historically undervalued when making a pay equity claim. Under the new legislation, any current claims would be stopped and need to restart under the new higher threshold to show genuine gender discrimination and make sure the comparator settings were right. So 33 current claims will be stopped as a result. ACT's deputy leader and Minister for Workplace Relations Brooke Van Velden, the architect of the bill, said she supported pay equity, but the legislation introduced back in 2020 was problematic. “At the moment, people can choose a comparator for sex-based discrimination across the entire workforce. We're saying let's start firstly at home. If you can find people within your own employer, that would be a good starting point. If that comparison can't be made with a similar employer, that comparison's not there within your industry, if you can't find one there you've got to stop.” Which all sounds perfectly reasonable, because I've always thought how on earth do you compare completely different occupations? As van Velden told Parliament, Health New Zealand admin and clerical staff, as an example, have been compared to mechanical engineers. Health New Zealand librarians have been compared to transport engineers and Oranga Tamariki's social workers have been compared to air traffic controllers. I can't get my head around that at all. Equally, van Velden makes an interesting case about how wide-ranging and unwieldy claims can be drawing in vast numbers of employers. But the Government is moving or has moved so quickly, there's no Select Committee on the bill and as Thomas Coughlan points out in the Herald, officials didn't have time to write up a regulatory impact statement – which is an irony considering the changes were made by Brooke van Velden who is responsible for creating the regulatory impact statement. So before MPs vote on a bill they can have a look at the regulatory impact statement. How much is it going to cost? What are the effects? What are the wide-ranging impacts of introducing this legislation? They don't have that, and didn't have that when they went to vote last night. And as Thomas Coughlan concludes in his piece in the Herald, if the government cannot publish official papers that explain why this is a good idea, the public can be forgiven for concluding this is because it isn't one. It's the optics for me. Absolute optics. How can National champion pay parity in 2020 and champion the very legislation that they're now amending, and then say no, it's unworkable, unsustainable? They actually thought it was a jolly good idea in 2017. National began the process of amending the equal pay legislation in 2016. There's excerpts from speeches to Parliament back in 2020 when the equal pay legislation was introduced doing the rounds on Facebook, and quotes Nicola Willis saying this was a process National kicked off in the last government. “A bill was drafted, things were ready to go, and then there was a change of government – that's when Labour and New Zealand First formed the coalition. So my colleague Denise Lee, who believes very passionately in the concept of equal pay and pay equity, took a member's bill to this Parliament to progress pay equity in the absence of the new government where National had left off.” So she's taken credit for legislation that she now says is unsustainable and un-workable. How can you do that? Well, you can do that when you've got a bloody great hole in your budget, can't you? Yesterday, she said what this is about is ensuring we're clear, transparent and fair to ensure that where those claims are made, they relate to gender based discrimination and that other issues to do with pay and working conditions are raised during the normal employment relations process. So either the bill that that she worked so assiduously on and took credit for in 2020 was drafted poorly, or she's completely changed her mind about its workability. Or they didn't see through what the implications might be? And again, when you pass bills under urgency, which that was in 2020 and which this is now, you get those gaps because you don't have time to look at the far-reaching consequences – remember, there's no regulatory impact statement. So it was passed under urgency in 2020. Maggie Barry, at the time a National MP, harrumphed about it and said, for heaven's sake with Covid going on, we're passing this under urgency, this is a nonsense. But she still voted for it, as did National. And now they're saying it's unsustainable and unworkable. What this looks like is National stepping back from legislation they worked on, recommended and pushed through the House, and in fact took credit for it when it passed, so they can balance their books. It gives their critics all sorts of opportunities to lambast the government for stealing from the poorest paid workers to give rebates to wealthy landlords and tax cuts to the wealthy pricks. I actually happen to agree with the restrictions that Brooke van Velden is imposing, I think that they make sense. But it's a unique gift that this government has to make something right look so very, very wrong. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government is being criticised for their use of urgency to pass legislation. A law to lift the threshold for gender-discrimination pay equity claims and extinguish claims under way is likely to pass today, after only being announced yesterday. The Government's said it could save the taxpayer billions of dollars. Taxpayers Union Policy and Public Affairs Manager James Ross told Kerre Woodham that urgency has a place, but it should be an emergency button as opposed to something in the government's standard toolbox. He believes the reason urgency is being used in this case is because they don't want this in the media for too long, as it's a difficult conversation to be having. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The unemployment rate has stayed static for another quarter. Stats NZ figures just out show the rate remained at 5.1% in the March quarter. The number of full-time workers fell by 45 thousand over the year and part-time employment grew by 25 thousand. Herald Business Editor at Large Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham today's figures are a surprise. He says this is good news but it hasn't felt like it, and economists will be scratching their heads. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A new report from Retail NZ has revealed the state of retail crime in New Zealand - 99% of the membership of Retail NZ has experienced some form of crime or antisocial behaviour in 2023/24, that's up from 93% the year prior. I remember thinking that's a lot, National want to be working on that because they were very strong in opposition and in the election campaign saying they were going to get tough on retail crime – it seems to have got worse. It ranges from credit card fraud, shoplifting, threatening behaviour, criminal damage, or physical assault. Retail NZ's membership recorded 140,746 incidents of retail crime over that period. What I find really interesting from the report is that almost 40% of those retail crimes were not reported to police. There were a range of reasons why respondents didn't report to police. Apparently it was because of low value items not being worth the effort, the retailer discovered the offence too late, or they dealt with it directly. There were also concerns that what was the point? What was the point of telling the police? Nothing's going to happen. I would love to know from retailers at what point do you give up caring? 40% of retail crimes are not reported to police. That's a hell of a lot. When do you reach the stage of simply shrugging your shoulders and saying, what are you going to do about it? Have you become so inured to retail crime, to abusive language, to people just putting something in their pocket or putting something in their bag and walking out, you're like, well another day? I remember Chris Quinn from Foodstuffs when we were talking about people walking out with trolleys full of groceries. And I said, well, why don't you put in the measures that people have told me about overseas, where you scan your receipt and then the gates open, and your trolley and you, can walk out. If you don't have a receipt, the gates don't open – make it jolly hard to walk out with a trolley full of groceries. He said, I just don't think the public could put up with that. Yeah, we would, wouldn't we? I thought that was a really defeatist attitude. He said, you know, the majority shouldn't be punished for the minor, obviously, but I mean that is the way society works. We have rules and legislation to cater to the numpties and the low lifes and the stupid and the criminal. I personally don't mind putting my receipt to a scanner and having the gates open if it means that some arrogant arse is prevented from walking out with a trolley full of groceries and sticking two fingers to us all. I really don't mind. It would be minimal in terms of hassle, in terms of hold up. The same would be true of many retail security measures. It makes more sense to have security measures in shops and supermarkets than it does at the airport. Me taking my boots off does not help us find the Malaysian Airlines plane that crashed. It makes more sense to me to be held up slightly at the supermarket, ever so slightly if it means that people aren't getting away with it. They seem to take great delight in it, and that's what annoys me. We've got to have a zero tolerance policy to this sort of retail crime. And that means you and I have to be part of the solution. It's not just retailers, it's not just police that are going to make a difference. It's when you and I are willing to accept a little bit of inconvenience to tell the toerags and the freeloaders and the criminals that up with this we will no longer put. Draw a line in the sand and for once let the good guys prevail. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't know if you caught the story over the weekend - Ngāpuhi, the iwi of Northland, are calling for police to round up the drug dealers in Northland using the same strong tactics they used in drug raids on Ōpōtiki last year. You'll remember there was criticism of how the police dealt with some of the individuals in Ōpōtiki, mainly coming from the individuals and their families themselves. Now Ngāpuhi is saying bring it on. The leader of the country's largest iwi, Mane Tahere, said he asked the Police Minister for decisive action after recently seeing a group of youngsters smoking a meth pipe in broad daylight in the Main Street of Kaikohe, just down the road from the police station. As somebody who has been going to the Far North for the past eight or nine years, I've certainly seen a change for the worse in Kaihohe. There are tiny little fragile grass shoots of hope, but the meth is a huge problem there, an absolutely huge problem. Locals in Opononi stand outside the local dairy, the local shops on benefit day to try and stop the dealers from getting to the kids first. The community is trying to do what it can to stop the dealers getting a strong hold in the community, to try and thwart their attempts to get more young people hooked on the drug. But they are a tiny, tiny, tiny bastion against what is a multimillion-dollar business. The cold, harsh reality is that Northland has the highest consumption of methamphetamine in New Zealand. Nearly 2000milligrammes per day consumed per 1000 people. And Mane Tahere has said we are doing what we can as a community, as an iwi, as a people but we can't do it on our own and we need the police to step in. He said a crackdown isn't the solution to all problems in Northland but it's a major part. He knows he is calling down a whole heap of criticism on his head by asking the police to step in, but he says our hard, staunch kind of hate for the police is not the future. Compare his pragmatic, proactive hard line on drugs with the words of Green MP Tamatha Paul. You'll remember she criticised Wellington's beat patrols. She accused the police of rounding up the homeless, without providing any evidence other than the musings of a couple of street people themselves. She said some people felt less safe because of the police's presence. Right. This is a very bright young woman, Tamatha Paul has won numerous scholarships for academic excellence. She has graduated with the Masters in Resource and Environmental Planning. This is a very bright young woman talking to other very bright young people on a university campus, postulating and theorising and coming up with all sorts of grand plans about how a different world could look, and that's what you do at a university when you're young, when you're bright, when you've got all the answers, when you're at a peace action conference. You have the luxury of theorising. I would venture to suggest most of the young people there were just like Tamatha Paul. They may not have started in a world of privilege, but they've taken the opportunities offered to them, they've worked to realise a future for themselves. And that's a future that looks very, very different to the lives of the same young people in Kaikohe. The sort of people that Mane Tahere is trying to help every single day. He knows to combat the absolute evil of drugs, his people don't need to read another thesis on colonisation, Hauora and whenua in Aotearoa published in 2019, among many. He knows what they need are not the academics, but addiction and rehab specialists. They need to keep up that community involvement, that community fight against the drugs. And they desperately, desperately need police boots on the ground. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The leader of the country's largest iwi is calling for the police to crackdown on drug dealers and methamphetamine use in Northland. It comes as a group of young people were caught smoking a meth pipe in broad daylight in Kaikohe. Northland MP Grant McCullum says locals need something constructive to do during the day. "We've got to commit to helping these people get into the habit of getting out of bed in the mornings and going to work." LISTEN ABOVE. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The leader of the country's largest iwi is calling for the police to crackdown on drug dealers and methamphetamine use in Northland. Ngāpuhi leader, Mane Tahere says he saw a group of youngsters smoking a meth pipe in daylight on the main street of Kaikohe - just down the road from the police station. He's met with Police Minister Mark Mitchell - asking authorities to use tactics similar to the drug raids carried out in Opotiki last year. Police Minister Mark Mitchell talks to Kerre Woodham about the issue. LISTEN ABOVE. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour is absolutely on the money with his call to cut the number of ministers in Cabinet and outside of Cabinet. In his speech yesterday, he proposed capping the number of ministers at 20 —currently there are 28— and scrapping the position of minister outside of Cabinet. “Right now, there are ministers that have seven different departments. There are departments such as MBIE that answer to 19 different ministers. There are portfolios, just to give you one example, not to pick on it, but the Minister for Auckland that Labour created – there's no Auckland department, there's no Auckland vote in the budget, it's just a made-up thing, frankly. And I think that really, we should be moving to a world where each department has only one Minister, no portfolios exist unless they have an actual department with a budget and a thing to do, and there should be no ministers outside of the Cabinet, everyone should be sitting around the same table. That's going to take a lot of people making a concession, but if we could get there, I think the whole thing would just get stuff done faster.” Couldn't agree more. I've always seen the roles of Minister for Women, Minister for the Voluntary Sector, Minister for Auckland, Minister for the South Island, sops to lobby groups. As David Seymour said in his speech, it's symbolism. Portfolios, he said, should not be handed out like participation trophies. Could not agree more. Michael Wood was made Minister for Auckland at the beginning of 2023 in Chris Hipkins government. Did he do anything? No. Did he have any power? Not really, no. As David Seymour said, there's no budget. So why create it? Because Chris Hipkins realised he needed to get Auckland back on side after the Covid response, after the crime waves that affected so many retailers in Auckland. It was a sorry guys, here's a Minister for Auckland we prepared earlier. Didn't work, too little, too late. Later on in ‘23, the red wall crumbled in Auckland and Labour strongholds went to National. Labour knows they need to win them back and Chris Hipkins understands they need to do more than appoint an Auckland spokesperson, but I suppose it's a start. Not everybody sees them as a waste of time – when the very sound James Meager was made Minister for the South Island, the Ashburton Mayor Neil Brown said it was a good move. South Island councils had told the government they felt their voice wasn't being heard, having a local MP promoted to minister outside of cabinet would provide a more direct connection with Wellington. Again, I don't think there's any real merit in having a minister for the South Island other than as a sop to South Islanders. You think we neglect you? You think Auckland's getting all the attention here? He is a minister, a fine young man we prepared earlier, have a Minister! In fact, everybody have a Minister! Minister for Hospitality, Minister for Racing, Minister for the Voluntary Sector. It nullifies the effect of having a Minister. If you don't have a budget and you don't have a vote, what is the point? If you make everybody a head prefect, what is the point? It devalues the position. It might make the minister themselves feel a little bit better, a little bit special, but if everybody's special, nobody is. The only good reason, perhaps to have a minister for anything, other than as a sop, is because you do have fine young talents like James Meager who are given a bit more responsibility. But are they? It's like an apprenticeship for becoming a real minister. It's an absolute nonsense. I couldn't agree with David Seymour more. We've had our disagreements in the past and this one I'm absolutely on board with them. There should not be a minister unless they have a budget and something to do. And government departments should only have one minister to report to, not 19. How could anybody argue with what David Seymour has proposed? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Hawke's Bay group is helping households tackle food waste. An average of 130,000 tonnes of food is wasted each year in New Zealand – 86kgs per household, resulting in $1326 down the drain. Every Bite is a four-week programme run by Sustainable Hawke's Bay, designed to help households become more food resourceful and reduce waste. Acting General Manager Sam Paterson told Kerre Woodham the programme is teaching a variety of things – not only how to cook, but how to substitute ingredients, and make new things. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government has set a deadline for the new Interisland ferries. Two new ferries are due to arrive in 2029, and the wharf currently home to the Aratere ferry is set to be demolished within a year to make room for infrastructure that can support the new ships. Ferry Holdings Ltd has initiated discussions with KiwiRail and the Port of Marlborough to understand the infrastructure required to meet the deadline. Chair Chris Mackenzie joined Kerre Woodham to delve into what is being planned for the ports. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can you copyright a recipe? Two Australian cookbook authors are clashing over claims of plagiarised recipes. Nagi Maehashi, who runs the popular food blog RecipeTin Eats, says influencer Brooke Bellamy's new cookbook ‘Bake with Brooki' contains uncannily similar ingredients, quantities, and instructions for a caramel slice and baklava. Food writer and cookbook Author Allyson Gofton told Kerre Woodham that since baking doesn't differ that much on a basic level, where copyright would come into the argument would be in the method and how it's written. She says that unless the text is copied word for word, it would be very hard to prove, especially for classics like baklava. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.