Kerre McIvor Mornings Podcast

Now I mentioned Thomas Coughlan's excellent piece in the Herald yesterday. He looked at the costings for Labour's policies so far. He got the Treasury costings for them, got Nicola Willis, the Finance Minister's accusations about lack of detail, crunched it right down to give us the best possible chance of getting a real world look at the numbers and whether Labour will be able to afford the policies. It is well worth a read if you haven't already. We'll talk to Thomas tomorrow about the importance of costing all of the parties' different promises. It's not just Labour's, it's just that they've released probably the most policy thus far, shockingly, given how late they were to the party. But all the mainstream media seem to be producing excellent analyses of the different parties' pledges and promises, and we have to read them as we go up to the election. It is so important that we know what we're voting for, what the implications will be if our party of choice is elected. And it doesn't really matter whether you're voting out of self-interest, what's in it for me, whether you're voting for tomorrow's New Zealanders, you have to understand what you're voting for, how it will be paid for, how far in the future the payments are going to be if it's a very expensive promise and pledge, what the bottom lines are. We have to know what we're voting for. Radio New Zealand's looked at the different new taxes being proposed by different parties. Basically, they've looked at the capital gains tax from Labour with comment from economists. They've looked at the land value tax from the Opportunity Party and the Green Party's capital acquisition tax, which is essentially an inheritance tax. And oops on the accounting error from the Greens. What's $800 million here and there, really? Not a great start, but there we go. Newsroom has an opinion piece from Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Andrew Butler claiming that the current Government has enacted laws far too quickly with inadequate consultation or analysis before they're enacted. And they have exhorted people to ask the different parties before the election what the party's attitude is towards the taking of urgency on legislation. The present coalition government has taken record amounts, they say, of urgency and has also avoided select committee scrutiny altogether on some important bills. That's where you get to ask questions of it and test the bill, really. And it's true that the coalition National government has passed more than 90 unique bills using parliamentary urgency since coming to office, nearly half of all the bills passed. Palmer and Butler have a point that it is not good for democracy when the normal protocols are bypassed. But Sir Geoffrey has either forgotten or learned from his mistakes – he was a senior member of the fourth Labour Government, which accorded urgency to a total of 152 bills. Of that total, 107 passed through all the stages under urgency during their term. The paper that the bills were written on was coming off and before the ink was even dry, people were voting on them. Sir Geoffrey is no stranger to urgency and perhaps he's learned that it's wiser to take time before you pass laws. There's a lot that we can do to keep ourselves informed. There's a lot that we can do to understand the implications of what we're voting for. There's a lot that we can do to make politicians more accountable. But what the politicians are relying on is that this stuff is really hard, and it is. And they're making it even harder. Both Labour and the Coalition Government have been very slow to respond to requests for official information. Some of it is vexatious, some of the requests are vexatious and just designed to really annoy and take up the time of the people in charge, but a lot of it is not. It is hard to find the information, to get the information, to compare the information with other information from different agencies and then be able to form a conclusion from it. It's really difficult. But our media's trying to do that on our behalf, and I think thus far they are doing a pretty good job. The politicians and the public service are relying on people to be as complacent as possible. Too busy, too busy working hard, too busy working hard with the kids. You do the thinking for me, you make the decisions for me, and then we moan when we don't like them. I mean, you look at Sir Keir Starmer – gone. Six Prime Ministers in Britain since Brexit because people don't like the news that they're getting. They want somebody to tell them it's going to be all right, and it's not. The world is in a parlous state, and we either have to cut our spending dramatically, and this is the Western world over, or increase taxes or some other way of revenue, getting revenue. It's really difficult. And so we have to know what we're voting for. The onus is on us starting from this election onwards to be informed as we possibly can. Democracy, from the Greek, rule by the people. Let us put the 'demos', the people, back into democracy. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Financial Services Council is backing National's KiwiSaver overhaul, saying it'll boost long-term savings. Plans include lifting contribution rates to 12%, making the scheme compulsory, and enrolling Kiwis at birth with a $1500 kickstart — plus extending support for parents and over-65s. Financial Services Council Chief Executive Kirk Hope joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the changes, and the effect it will have on Kiwis going forward. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Very shortly public voting will be underway for the Spark Retail NZ's People's Choice award. The People's Choice Award recognises a retailer that has made a genuine, positive impact on its customers. Retail NZ Chief Executive Carolyn Young said it's important to allow Kiwis to have a say in who they think deserves the award. Voting is open from Friday the 26th, and the awards ceremony will be on the 3rd of September. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As the election gets closer, parties are starting to release their policies. And after a slow start, keeping their cards close to their chest, Labour's building up steam. We already had the three free doctors visits for all, now we've got free maternity scans and a promise to scrap the $5 fee on prescriptions and make them universally free. Add that to the free public transport, well, up to a point, $20 in the major cities and $10 everywhere else, and that capital gains tax is going to be working overtime to pay for it all. So far, so Labour. But I'm not really sure about the Oprah-fication of Labour's policies. "You get a doctor's visit, and you get a doctor's visit, and here's one for you too. You get a free bus ride, and here's a free bus ride for you, and one for you as well." I understand that universal allowances, free bus rides for all, means less admin as opposed to targeted assistance, which if the administration and the paperwork for that didn't exist, would be a faff. But it does. The admin's already been done to reach those who need help the most. We have the community services card. So why not link the three free GP visits, the free bus trips, the free maternity scans to the community services card? And when I say free, I mean taxpayer funded. There is no such thing as free. So why would the taxpayer be funding free public transport, free doctor's visits, free prescriptions for people who don't need it? I don't think anybody would object to trying to keep pregnant mums healthy, to trying to keep the community healthy, to trying to prevent people from going into hospital because they can't afford to go to the doctor or pick up prescriptions. We're all in it for that, and even if you don't care about people, you only care about the sums, if you do the sums, it pays off for people to be seen by their primary healthcare provider so they don't end up in hospital. All makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is why the taxpayer is funding all of these things for people who do not need it. And you can't even say no thank you very much to some of them. I totally get that one of the platforms of Labour's policies is health, and they want to make sure that we keep people out of hospitals. Absolutely fine. But when Chris Hipkins was talking to Heather du Plessis Allan yesterday afternoon about the 150,000 people who aren't picking up prescriptions, I am not convinced that all of those people were avoiding picking up their prescriptions because of cost. Some of them can't be bothered. You know, buses are put on to remote areas to take people to their hospital appointments. Short of picking them up in a sedan chair and carrying them on the shoulders of the healthy and the hale to get them to their hospital appointments, you could not make it any easier. But I've heard from nurses and doctors and people themselves that they don't go. They take the free bus and then they go shopping in Whangārei, even though they've got an appointment. They don't bother telling people they're not going to turn up. So there'll be people who just can't be bothered. They don't prioritise their own health, they've got other things they're prioritising and it's not their own health. There are people who don't like taking pills, thinking oh for heaven's sake, you're asking me to take another pill, I'm already taking three, I don't want to take a fourth. There are people who'll be feeling better, think nah, don't need this one. I am not entirely convinced that when he says 150,000 people aren't picking up prescriptions, that a) those numbers are right, because we're hearing a lot of numbers being thrown around by every party over all of their policies. I'm not entirely convinced about that. I'm not convinced about the cost. All I would like is targeted assistance to people who need it. As a taxpayer, I am perfectly happy to fund any kind of policy that will help make life a little bit easier and ultimately save us money in the long run by looking after people. The community services card exists to help those who need a little bit extra. Use that. The rest of us are fine. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Work ethics – where do we stand on those? Is it a generational thing? Do you continue to soldier on despite Covid changing the way we see coming to work while sick? Do you still soldier on? Do you pause and take a break if you can feel a sniffle coming on because you want to A) ensure you don't infect your colleagues and B) ensure that you've got the best possible chance of getting better by staying home? Is it a generational thing or just an individual thing? Gerry Brownlee, the Speaker of the House, is cracking the whip. At scrutiny week yesterday, he proposed changing Parliament's sitting hours and expressed a strong view that Parliament did not sit long enough. During the 30 weeks that Parliament meets for business, it generally sits from 2pm until 10pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays with a dinner break —and this is harking back to 1953— with a dinner break from 6pm to 7.30pm. None of this snatching a thing of pre-packaged sushi and scoffing it at your desk for ten minutes. No, no, no. When the House sits, there's a dinner break from 6pm to 7.30pm, and then the House sits again. On Thursdays it sits from 2pm until 6pm. Governments can move motions to extend sitting hours to the following morning or they can put the House into urgency, but that doesn't happen very often. Gerry Brownlee has proposed extending Parliament's sitting hours, but he wouldn't tell the media the specifics of the proposal saying it would be unreasonable to do so while all the parties were considering it. Of course, many MPs do much more work than just sitting in the House debating proposed legislation. If they're good MPs, they'll work every day of the week. I mean our electorate MP, I see him at every community thing, every community clean up, every school fair, and that's with two small children – a new baby and a toddler. When you're doing it properly, it's a job that's tough on people and on relationships. And while we might like the idea of them all working longer hours and getting our money out of them, working longer hours and more days is all very well and good, but if MPs are just rehashing the same old ideas and arguing amongst themselves and point scoring and whatever, we wouldn't be getting value for money out of them, we'd just be getting more of the same. Working longer doesn't necessarily mean working better, does it? If you're the sort of jobsworths that sit there and work their hours, don't add anything, don't come up with any innovation, do something that way because it's always been done that way and we don't deviate from doing that way because that's the way it's always been done. I don't really think that you're getting value for money there. And on the same day that Gerry was reported as calling for MPs to work longer and harder, there was an interview on Stuff with journalist and men's health campaigner Jehan Casinader talking about Gen Z getting it right when it comes to prioritising work-life balance. He said in the interview, “We hear Gen Z described or Gen Zed described as the snowflake generation, but I think they're actually just showing the rest of us how to prioritise what's important in our lives. They have better boundaries, they're more emotionally open, they're better at articulating their needs and they're focused on how do I get my work to support my life rather than the other way around." Jehan said, “I think that's challenging for a lot of older people because they grew up with the opposite story: sacrifice your health, sacrifice your wellbeing, do whatever you need to do to provide for your family, keep your employer happy." But I do think he says that we're seeing a cultural change. And I have to say I am probably in that generation that turns up for work. I don't think there's anything wrong than doing whatever you need to do to provide for your family and keeping your employer happy. But then I've always had good employers, so you want to work when you've got good employers. I haven't had a crappy one. And my work's interesting, so I guess that's a bit different. Who's right, who's wrong? I'm all for MPs sitting longer, but it's really difficult because when you are an electorate MP particularly, although I'm sure there are some good list MPs as well who work every hour God sends, but it's a bit harder to quantify what they do. Sitting longer in the House isn't necessarily going to ensure better legislation, more innovative legislation, great ideas, bright ideas. I think there should definitely be penalties if you don't turn up for the bare minimum. Looking at you, Te Pāti Māori. I don't know. Who's got it right, who's got it wrong? Is it a generational thing or is it an individual thing? And should our MPs be sitting longer and more often? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our economy was well on the way to recovery, driven by a resurgence in manufacturing, before the fuel crisis hit. Stats NZ data out today shows GDP rose 0.8% in both the quarter and year to March. Equipment manufacturing, food production, accounting and businesses services, wholesale trade, and agriculture were all doing well. But mining had a big drop, as well as residential and non-residential construction. NZ Herald Business Editor Liam Dann joined Kerre Woodham to unpack the figure. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm going to start with good news today. Now, I know we don't normally, but it is such good news I have to comment, and it's also a topic dear to all our respective talkback hearts. And that is that almost all of Parliament is backing the 30 year infrastructure plan. You'll have heard it in our news, the Coalition Government comprising National, ACT, and New Zealand First, as well as Labour and the Greens, have committed to the Infrastructure Commission's blueprint for major works in this country, and bloody well done to them, I say. To get this sort of rare across the house support, the Commission must have done an excellent job of prioritising works, justifying the order of works, outlining what needs to happen for these works to be done. Chief Executive of the Infrastructure Commission, Geoff Cooper, is absolutely delighted, as he should be. “I think this is a great step forward. It is a significant opportunity for New Zealand to get to get better outcomes for infrastructure, and it's not every day that you've got the government and the opposition parties saying, “Yep, we can see a plan forward here."” There are 16 recommendations, 10 priorities for the next decade, and this had to happen. We don't have to imagine the cost of a stop-start approach to vital infrastructure; the numbers have already been crunched. A report out earlier this month showed that pausing, cancelling, and delaying infrastructure projects has cost New Zealand an estimated $11.8 billion in the last 25 years. Auckland Light Rail, Transmission Gully, the Interislander Ferry replacements, just in recent times have all been paused, delayed, or scrapped. Both main parties have been guilty of prioritising ideology over the country's wellbeing, but now, hopefully, the next generation won't have to see money literally disappearing down drains. Kieran McAnulty, in his foreword to the Infrastructure Commission's plan —the Government, Chris Bishop, Kieran McAnulty, and Julie Anne Genter from the Greens all wrote a foreword to the plan— put it very well. He said both Labour and National-led governments had announced projects without funding them, watched costs balloon, and then scrapped what the other side started. He said every time the plan changes, we lose time, we lose money, and we lose the skilled people who build these things —too many of them— to Australia. That's the problem this plan sets out to fix. He said the plan offered a long-term, evidence-based path that did not belong to any one government, a prize bigger than any single policy. That is very well stated. Green Party infrastructure spokesperson Julie Anne Genter said the party supported all 16 recommendations in the plan and said the Party overall welcomed the Government's intention and urges that this commitment to long-term planning and evidence-informed decision-making continues to drive investment in long-lived assets. Now, Labour and the Greens have some reservations, but not enough to put a spoke in the wheel, not enough to hold up this fantastic blueprint for the future. Ultimately, they have come together to support a long-term vision for the country that will benefit all future voters, whatever party they support. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Opportunity Party says a property tax shake-up's front of mind. The Party needs 5% to break into the Beehive, and has been scoring between 3% and 6% in polls. The centrist party's proposing a blanket Land Value Tax, claiming it'll bring house prices down by up to 15%. Leader Qiulae Wong told Kerre Woodham they want land banking to become less attractive. She says it's about shifting the income tax burden on to land tax, so people can't just grow wealth from property. WATCH ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More than a million households could be overpaying for power this winter, as more Kiwis struggle to pay the bill at all. Around half of Kiwi households haven't switched providers in five or more years, which is potentially costing them hundreds of extra dollars a year. Consumer NZ says that sticking with the same provider can result in a “loyalty tax”, as better deals are often only offered to new customers. Consumer Powerswitch Manager Paul Fuge told Kerre Woodham everyone grumbles about prices and their company, but they think it's time something has to be done about prices. He says it's causing harm to consumers and the economy, and it can't keep going the way it is, so they've started a petition. Fuge says that while some people have always struggled to pay their bills, the number of households struggling is increasing every year. “Middle New Zealand is now struggling to pay their power bill, and that's not acceptable.” LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The way the Government acquires land under the Public Works Act is being labelled unfair. Grey Lynn locals are the latest to deal with their land potentially being bought for a major Auckland busway. The Transport Agency plans to build the 18 kilometre Northwest Busway, to link the CBD with the city's western suburbs. It will soon be acquiring half of the homes on Ivanhoe Road, to tear them down for the multi-billion dollar project. Lawyer Adina Thorn told Kerre Woodham the projects can take 10, 15 years to eventuate, which means the people who own the designated land are stuck in never-never land. She says their property has been completely devalued through no fault of their own, and you're also stuck in the politics of the day – unsure whether the project will go ahead or not. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Life isn't fair. It's one of the first lessons you learn. And it's not fair when you find yourself, or more accurately your home, right smack in the middle of a vital piece of infrastructure. There's been so many cases around the country over a long period of time, but more recently you had the buyout of houses after the Canterbury quakes. Technically the buyouts of more than 8,000 properties were structured as voluntary offers. However, many residents felt forced to accept because the Government explicitly stated that essential infrastructure and council services would cease in those zones. They would be no more. They'd be living in a literal no man's land. You had the buyout of 160 odd homes for the Waterview Tunnel. We've had 50 odd homes in Ranui in West Auckland bought by the council to make way for new floodplains and to uncover a buried piped stream. So if your house happened to be right over the top of that stream, you were gone. Now we have the buyout of homes in Grey Lynn in Auckland for the Northwest Busway project. Some of the residents in the suburb of Grey Lynn have lived in their homes for more than 50 years, but the bus needs to get through. The Northwest Busway project will give the growing population of West Auckland a valuable public transport option. When completed, it will be able to carry 9,000 passengers per hour either way. There's just the matter of the people living on the land that's needed for the expansion of the motorway. About 20 of the properties have already been purchased at a cost of $40 million, which seems about right for that part of Grey Lynn and should still buy you a house in this market in the area of similar quality and standard of renovation if that's where you want to live. Negotiations will take place over the coming years for the remainder of the busway project as it progresses. And it might be tough for the residents, but at least the Government's learned lessons from the past. Remember Raglan Golf Club? You might not, but the Crown originally seized the 63-acre coastal site for a Second World War wartime military airfield. Turns out it wasn't needed. But instead of giving the land back when the war was over, instead of returning it to its Tainui owners, the Government leased it to the Raglan County Council, who turned the land into a golf course. Local Māori were evicted and expansion plans for the golf course encroached upon Māori sacred sites and burial grounds. When Māori objected and started to protest on the golf course, the council said, “Oh, all right then, well we'll sell it back to you." And Māori said, the Tainui said, “I don't think so. You didn't pay for it in the first place. You took it off us because you said it was absolutely needed for the defence of the country, and then you didn't give it back." I mean, imagine if the Crown just said, “Right, well we need this for the busway, bugger off." You know, at least they've learned the error of their ways. Eventually the golf course was returned to Tainui, the rightful owners. So at least we're not living in those grim times. There seems to be an understanding that a home is more than land and a house. And the neighbourhood buyouts are always complicated by differences of opinion. We saw that in Canterbury, we saw that in Ranui, we're seeing it now in Grey Lynn. There are pragmatists, some are even sanguine about it, seeing it as a new opportunity. You know, it has to happen, it's got to happen, well, you know. Others want to chain themselves to trees – “over my dead body," they're saying, will the NZTA take their home. And in that same area roughly, a supermarket was buying up land for its brand new supermarket. One holdout who wanted something absurd for his run down little home. I mean it's his castle, but he was wanting an absurd amount, so they just built round him. All right then, stuff you, we'll build round you. But what options do you have if you have been there and done that? There'd be plenty of people who have had NZTA come knocking on their door, especially with the highways between Auckland and Cambridge, between Auckland and the Brynderwyns really, and there's still more looking to develop that. Residents of Canterbury, you know, what options do you have? Have you been treated fairly? I mean, just looking at the prices that they're paying for the Grey Lynn residents of that part of Grey Lynn, that's market rates, which is fair enough. You don't want, I suppose you do if you're the owner, but as the taxpayer, you don't want the former administration going in with an open chequebook saying, “No, name your figure. No, that's too low. Let's give you more." You would want to see market rates being paid, a fair market rate being paid, so if people want to stay in the area they can, if they want to move on elsewhere, they can do that too. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now we were saying this last week and it hasn't gone away and it's not going to go away as the different parties announce their policies in the lead up to the election. How do we know what's true and what's not when it comes to costings? When it comes to millions and billions of dollars, how do we keep tabs on it? We can't. Nicola Willis says there's an $18.2 billion gaping hole between Labour's promises, which are reinstating the pay equity scheme, billions, the future fund and the cap on public transport, and the money available to fund those policy promises. Labour's finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds says, Really? Willis should take a long hard look at her own accounts and explain the $56 billion hole in the roads of national significance." And so back round we go again. As I mentioned last week, how are we to know when you've got Nicola Willis accusing the former CEO of Kāinga Ora of bidding $10 million more than the next commercial bid on a property back in the bad old days? He says that is an outright lie, it was $2 million more, which, you know, is $1.5 million too much. And then it turns out after, you know, a rule is put over the numbers, it was $8 million. So how are we to know? I thought we had Treasury with a sharpened pencil doing the adding up to see if the promises can be paid for, and we kind of do, but I'm with economist Cameron Bagrie who told Early Edition this morning he's in favour of an independent fiscal institution. Am I in favour of an independent watchdog to go through party political costings? I think that's a step too far. Am I in favour of what's called an independent fiscal institution which sort of sits aside the New Zealand Treasury, such as the Congressional Budget Office in the United States? The answer is yes. You know, I think we need to see a lot more sunlight, a lot more focus on the fiscal accounts, particularly issues such as population ageing and whether things such as New Zealand superannuation and exploding healthcare expenditure is going to be sustainable. Now, they will be sustainable, but the caveat is someone's going to have to pay. You know, the problem at the moment is that we tend to write out the cheques forgetting at some stage someone's going to have to pay and odds are it will be the younger generation down the track. Well exactly, because the promises made today without the money to fund them are the bills the young people have to pay tomorrow and enough's enough, they've got quite enough on their plate. It's a bit of a conundrum really because both National and Labour want to be calling the shots in the next government. They know that most voters are motivated by self interest, those that aren't tribal. They say, "You want my vote? Sure, what's in it for me?" So the parties have to make promises even though they're constrained by the fact that we're in dire straits. And so we need to know that they are promises that can be kept for those of us that care and hopefully, hopefully there are more and more voters that do care. Treasury can provide pre election policy costings but recognised political parties in Parliament are the ones who request the independent costings and analyses. It's not, you know, a public totting up as the policies come out. And rather than evaluating policies in a vacuum, Treasury and other relevant public service agencies assess the financial implications of the policies to ensure consistency and reliability. But as a voter, I think we really need a body that can independently audit each party's promise as they go and see whether they're pie in the sky or doable. And it will only really be the main parties we need to worry about. Minor parties can make all sorts of outlandish promises and then say, Oh soz, the senior coalition partner put the kybosh on them. We really wanted every household in the country to have $1,000 per week but National Labour wouldn't let us do it, so sorry about that." So it's only really National and Labour you need to have a long hard look at. But I would really like to see an independent authority with a head for figures do the sums and explain their workings in layman's terms so every voter will know what we're in for. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Men's Health Week is underway, with a warning one in four Kiwi men won't live long enough to get the pension. The campaign says raising the retirement age ignores big health gaps—especially for Māori and Pasifika men—and is urging guys to start making small changes to improve their health. Men's Health Week Director Mark Sainsbury joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the campaign. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The United States and Iran have reached a deal to end their war and will hold an official signing ceremony on Friday in Switzerland. Sky News Washington Correspondent Jonathan Kearsley joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the details of the deal, and what the conditions for each side are. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our meth use continues to break records. According to the latest wastewater drug test, methamphetamine use is up 15% since the last quarter. And wastewater testing is pretty accurate. Consumption of methamphetamine and MDMA both increased. MDMA use does have a seasonal component though, they said, with increases during the summer music festival period from January to March. People pop a pill while they're at the festivals and then pretty much get on with their lives. But meth use, up 15% since the last quarter, and my question is why? Why? Why are people taking up this pernicious drug when there is so much harm associated with it? Do they think that all the stories they hear, all the stats you read or hear, all the pearl-clutching is just middle class, middle New Zealand moral panic? Surely not. Meth use seems to be across all socioeconomic groups, but even on TikTok, Instagram, you've got former users who are saying how much better their lives are now that they've got free of the clutches of the drug and the gangs who control it, that they can't believe that they let themselves get hooked, that they were so low that they wanted to die and now they're out of it. Why are people still picking up the pipe and giving it a go? To a certain extent, I can understand how people become sellers and pushers of the drug. They don't actually want to work to make a buck. They see a way of making easy dollars, far more than they could ever earn in their small town with their small skills, and the lure of the money is just too great to withstand the overtures from gang members. So selling it, I can understand how you would get into that. You don't want to work, you don't want to work hard, you haven't got the ability to earn the sort of money that you get from selling drugs, I sell drugs. But why become a user? There was much hoohah yesterday with a major drugs bust in Northland. Operation Phoenix has dismantled an operation manufacturing and supplying meth in remote parts of the Far North – it's a huge problem up there. 14 people have been arrested with links to the Tribesmen and Head Hunters. Police say the gangs were getting single mums addicted to meth with the intent of turning them into dealers of the drug. So give it to them for free, get them addicted, get them to pay off the debt in the time-honoured way that desperate women pay off debts, get them becoming dealers, and off you go. Nothing new here. Kids from private schools have also been targeted for decades. Good looking boys hang around the girls' schools, good looking girls hang around the boys' schools, they give them drugs for free. They know that even if these kids don't have money, they know people who do, and off you go. So yay Operation Phoenix for busting this gang operation, but even the police know that meth use won't drop. They said in the press conference that it's a long game they're playing, it's not about one off jobs. It will have an impact on this particular gang for a certain amount of time. But why? Why are people using? Sir Paul Holmes, bless him, once he saw the damage that drugs could do within his family, he was on an absolute rampage against the drugs and the pushers of the drugs. We've all known the dangers of it, the dangers of being associated with it after all the publicity, the horror stories from former addicts. Why are people still picking up the pipe? I get that the world is a tough place if you feel like you can't get out from under the crushing weight of bills and debt and trying to be somebody, trying to do better, trying to escape a dreadful childhood, you just want to turn off. But nowhere have I ever seen somebody say, well, that meth use really helped, that turned my life around for the better, boy do I feel like a better, more whole human being as a result of using meth. Nobody. Not one person. There are other drugs, there are legal drugs. Alcohol does terrible, terrible harm too, but at least you're not in the claws of the gangs. If you need a drug to switch off, there are other far less damaging drugs than meth. Why? Why? I'd love to hear from those who might have been there, done that, who've got family members. And if you are trying to get off or you have managed to, how hard is it to get away from the gangs, to settle your debts to your dealer and walk away, and then how hard is it to get off the stuff? Because it's only by getting rid of the users that you get rid of the sellers and the pushers. If the gangs don't see a market in it, they won't be selling it, they'll move on to something else. It's the dumb shmucks who allow themselves to get hooked that ensure that the gangs keep earning good money, that they keep riding the flash bikes that you've bought them. Your money's funded their lifestyle while you're living in squalid, desperate poverty. The gangs are travelling the world in first class, the gang leaders, laughing all the way to their crooked accountant. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Connectivity is top of mind for many South Island voters. South Island businesses are banding together to push their priorities onto the election agenda, using a major new conference to pressure political leaders on growth, infrastructure and workforce issues. And for the average person, mobile coverage and connectivity is a big issue – with dropouts and lacking 4G/5G coverage causing problems. NZ Telecommunications Forum CEO Paul Brislen told Kerre Woodham that telco companies are reliant on the government to co-fund towers, as there's no commercial reason to put towers in places only a handful of people will use them every once in a while. He says it's very much a joint venture, and he doesn't recall anything in the Budget about more funding – but it's an election year so that may change. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

They say hope is the last thing to die. And thus it was yesterday when I heard Labour's first policy announcement in months. Give me a reason to vote for Labour – and they didn't. Chris Hipkins and Tangi Utikere announced a cap of some public transport fares —mostly for the cities, mostly for Auckland, where there's already a cap— that cuts off at a lower spending base. Not really the sort of bold and visionary policy you'd hope would come from a party that's been sitting around for years in Opposition, promising policy once the Budget's been released like it's going to be something quite seismic, revolutionary, changing the way we do things. A bit like the bold and visionary Labour of yore. That's what they came up with, starting with Michael Joseph Savage and moving through. Labour governments in the past have given us state housing, and the welfare state, and GST, and a shakeup of our economic policy, and a nuclear free New Zealand, and the Super Fund, and Kiwibank, although via Jim Anderton's Progressive Party. You would hardly say that this lot are the visionary Labour politicians of yesteryear. From them we get a lowered cap on public transport – after months, years, of being able to sit and develop policy, this is what they come up with. Labour's transport spokesperson was bigging it up, Tangi Utikere saying it will be a game changer for those who use public transport. “This is a real policy that will make a huge difference to households, commuters, shift workers, students, people who get from A to B every single day, every week. They're sitting around the kitchen table realising that their household bills are getting higher. This will provide absolute certainty for them when it comes to sorting their public transport.” Will it make a difference? I'm not sure how shift workers will benefit given the last bus in Auckland during the week finishes at 12:30am. Did Tangi even look at a bus timetable before he talked about how shift workers will find this absolutely a game changer? For some, I'm sure the extra 30 bucks will make a huge difference. I had a text yesterday that said, “it takes me three buses each way to get to and from work. As someone who's on a low income with a new baby, that extra $30 will go a long way. The current $50 cap does help with clear budgeting, but at $20 it feels like a godsend." So that's fantastic, but wouldn't it be better all round for the country, for people who are doing it tough right now, if we had targeted assistance? At the moment, Labour's spraying around universal policies, universal benefits, universal – although in the case of the public transport it's only universal if you happen to live in an area where there is public transport. As I say, it's mainly for the cities, mainly for Auckland. But the three GP visits for all... The taxes are going to be targeted, so why aren't the benefits? Why not give young Taylor who has to take three buses to work and has a young baby and is right at that stage of life where it's really grindy and in a particular stage in history where it's particularly, particularly grindy, why not give those young people a bit of extra assistance and not have young urban professionals who live close to public transport who don't need the cap putting it towards their end of week espresso martinis? Now I had an email from Dean who says, “my wife and I are both professionals who commute to the Auckland CBD. We have two sons, 22 and 23, one who lives at home. We'll be saving around $165 a week or close to $8,000 a year – that's simply going to pay for our next family holiday." They're just going to put the money, the public transport subsidy that taxpayers who don't live anywhere near a bus are helping to fund, towards a holiday and they don't even have the option of turning it down really. Once you hit that cap, that's it. Okay, so will it help you? Do you need the help? Would you like to see that help targeted more to those who need it rather than being universal? Would you like to see some visionary bold Labour policy? Hand up, yes I would. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The fact that life is a bit of a grind for many people, and has been for some time, means we start to question the natural order of things. When you can pay your bills, have time to spend doing what you enjoy with the people you love, when there aren't glaring inequities, when the failure of the present system and the people who run it aren't up in your face, when you don't see homeless people and beggars and violence, then everything's good. You accept the status quo; things are chugging along nicely. Democracy, capitalism, everybody's getting their fair share, everything's fine. But when things start to go wrong, and go wrong the Western world over, you start to wonder. Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century political philosopher who formulated the social contract theory, whereby people collectively agree —you'll remember this from your political theory studies back in the days of yore— to surrender some of their individual freedoms and transfer their power to a central absolute authority. In exchange, that authority —in this case our government— provides security, maintains order, and guarantees the preservation of life. In modern life, we've wanted a bit more than the preservation of life, we've wanted a little bit of fun, some enjoyment. Be that as it may, without the social contract, Hobbes argues that man's life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. And when you look at his definitions, we're heading that way. Solitary he defines as the constant distrust that prevents people from forming lasting bonds or cooperation. He didn't know anything about social media at the time, but that's what you're starting to get solitary individuals who don't want to or don't know how to connect with others. Poor he defines as having no incentive to build, farm, or invest labour, as others will simply steal the fruits of your work. Nasty violence and conflict are ever present. Brutish life devolves into a primitive existence stripped of any kind of enjoyment, civilisation, art, culture. And short the perpetual threat and danger of a sudden violent death looming over everyone. It might not be violence that gets us, but if our healthcare systems are failing and you can't afford private care, death or a long unpleasant illness might be our version of Hobbes' short life. We are not there yet. If you've popped into the car and think, “bloody hell, she's a depressing tart, honestly, she does go on," consider me the canary down the coal mine. I'm warning we could well be on our way there. Look at his definitions and tell me I'm wrong. Solitary, poor, nasty as in violent, brutish where there's no time or money to enjoy the nicer things in life. So if the social contract is failing us, we need a better system. And what is a better system than an MMP government and capitalism? When MMP was voted in, it was voted in in anger. People were either devastated or appalled, or they'd seen New Zealand's old way of life completely destroyed by Rogernomics and by Ruth Richardson. Now, maybe it had to be done, but it was done pretty brutally, and people suffered as a result. So the public voted First Past the Post out as a punishment to those politicians, but also because the smaller parties that came up as an alternative, like Social Credit and New Zealand Party, despite getting 20% in the case of Social Credit, 12% in the case of the New Zealand Party, they had very few MPs or no MPs in Parliament despite having so many people. And in '78 and '81, Labour actually got more votes than National, but fewer electorates, so they stayed in opposition and National was in power. So with MMP, Ruth Richardson argues that we have a high level of representation, which is great, but a really low level of government, which is failing us. Helen Clark says MMP has produced a stop go, stop go system of policies which has been detrimental to New Zealand in the long run. So where do we go from here? I'd argue that we're at a point in the Western world where we're on a descent and we need to ascend. With MMP, we were trying to find a better way of doing things. We looked at what a First Past the Post government did and said, “No, we don't want this to happen again. So we're going to bring in MMP and things will be better.” I don't think they are. Having lived under both, I don't think they are. Capitalism well, what's the alternative to capitalism? Communism doesn't work and has caused far more harm to the ordinary person around the world than capitalism has, but there'd be others who'd argue against that. What do we do from here? We're willing to cede our own individual powers to an authority, a government, to live a better life. If we're not getting that better life, then where do we go from here? What alternatives do we have? If this system right now and I'm talking the Western world, not just New Zealand, because have a look at any other country and you can't really see a shining example of where democracy and capitalism is working. Is there anything better, or do we just have to wait for this system to recover? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Public outcry over the entitlements used by Members of Parliament is the only thing that will get them changed, a political analyst says. Labour Leader Chris Hipkins has come under fire for using a generous publicly funded private superannuation scheme to pay off the mortgage of his family holiday home, saying that ultimately, it's his money. Other MPs have also been criticised for claiming the accommodation allowance and using it on properties they already own. Bryce Edwards told Kerre Woodham the best thing about the situation is that is has sparked public debate and put the ball in politicians' court. He says it's great the public is taking an interest and that they're angry, as the only way this will change is if politicians realise the public thinks something is wrong here. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Police Commissioner says he should have known months ago that senior officer Rakesh Naidoo had decided to run for Labour, to protect Police impartially. Police Minister Mark Mitchell says Naidoo has been privy to private information. Commissioner Richard Chambers says he only found out on Sunday, while Labour says Naidoo told a supervisor his intentions last Thursday. Chambers told Kerre Woodham there are clear Police guidelines for a reason. He says they've seen each other multiple times in the past two months, and they needed to know a lot earlier so impartially is protected and everyone is kept safe. WATCH ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Quite frankly, it's all getting a bit much. We're all tightening our belts, we're making decisions about where we're spending our money, what we're spending it on. The rates keep rising, insurance levies keep going up, the cost of everything is through the roof. And for many, many people, there's not a lot of disposable left at the end of the day. Even people who are earning pretty good salaries are suddenly finding there's not as much left at the end of the pay cycle as there used to be. Meanwhile, our House of Representatives are seeing the members gouging the taxpayer for every last cent they can get out of us. Louise Upston is claiming the full $1,000 a week ministerial housing allowance, which she's perfectly entitled to. It's designed to support MPs based outside Wellington with the cost of maintaining two homes. And you understand that. When you become a Member of Parliament, your business is in Wellington, but you might be representing the people of Timaru. You have a home there, a family there. So where are you going to live while you're in Wellington? Your employer should pay your expenses given you're required to be there. So the employer does. It offers an allowance to MPs who are not from Wellington to live there. That is us, the taxpayer. So, fair enough. But Louise Upston owns an apartment in Wellington and according to the register of financial interests, which all MPs have to fill out, there's no mortgage on it. Again, good for her. She's paid off the mortgage on that apartment and presumably her home. But what costs does she then have to claim? There are none. She owns the apartment outright. So she's claiming a cost she's legally entitled to, but should she be? She said at the time, it's an entitlement, I'm well within the rules, I can do it. Louise Upston's case unfortunately came just a week after she reduced the eligibility of homeowners to claim the accommodation supplement payment. She said we want to target support for the accommodation supplement to those who need it most. They are renters, they're not people who are using taxpayer support to increase their own asset. Hello! Are we looking in the mirror? She's not the only one, of course. Labour's Kieran McAnulty, Jan Tinetti, they have properties in Wellington, although they may still have a mortgage. New Zealand First's Andy Foster's doing it. He was the mayor of bloody Wellington and now he's claiming an accommodation allowance for a home in Wellington. Then we find the MPs in the parties, the different political parties, and again, all of them are doing it. Yeah, we wonder why they don't work together more often. Oh, they do, when it comes to their perks and allowances. We find the MPs in parties that own commercial property, which they rent to Parliamentary Service to operate as their own electorate offices. So they own the building, they say to Parliamentary Service, have we got a deal for you? We'll rent this and you pay for it because it's our electorate office. They defend this by saying the offices are rented at below market rates, and again, everybody does it. And then there's the superannuation. Chris Hipkins has defended using a generous taxpayer funded private super scheme to buy his family's holiday home by saying it's my money, I can do what I like with it. And it is, he can. But Heather du Plessis-Allan this morning interviewed Chris Hipkins, and I think outlined in an excellent manner just how it looks. HDPA: None of us are getting $60 to $70,000 popped into our superannuation funds every year by our employer, in your case the taxpayer, which we're then able to withdraw and buy a beach house with. This is the ruling class who has a different set of standards from everybody else. It's not right, is it? HIPKINS: The superannuation provisions that Members of Parliament get are generous superannuation provisions compared to what other members of the public get. I'll absolutely agree with that. HDPA: Do you need to change it? HIPKINS: Well, look, I think Members of Parliament are in a unique role. When people put their hands up to be Members of Parliament, in many cases they're basically leaving behind jobs that they cannot go back to. And we've just talked about an example of that now. When someone puts their hand up to be an MP, it closes off a lot of future potential job opportunities for them. So for many people when they put their hand up to be MPs, it will be the last job that they do. He was referring to Rakesh Naidoo, who is no longer working for Police now that he's put up his hand to be a Labour list MP. But we're told that the reason why backbenchers and MPs have diverged so far from other public servants like police, teachers, nurses – all of the salaries used to be around about the same in the 80s, MPs, police, nurses, teachers. Oh, it's very, very different now. We're told that the reason we're paying so much money is not because they can't get a job when they leave, but because they're so special and their talents are so unique that the private sector would snap them up in a heartbeat. And that is why we give them $177,600 for a backbencher, a learner MP, $320,600 for a Cabinet Minister, and $510,300 for a Prime Minister. Plus the expenses, the living accommodation, office expenses, travel allowances, plus the superannuation. With the superannuation, they get $2.50 for every dollar that the MPs put in from us. The contribution's capped at 20% of an ordinary MP's salary, which works out at $36,240 for every MP as of July 1st when the new rates kick in. So what's it to be? We can't do that. I mean, sure, if you're in a private super scheme of your own with different terms, you can take it out and do what you want with it. But dumb shmucks like you and me who are locked into KiwiSaver are limited to what we can do. We can't buy a second property with ours until we're 65, but hey. Are MPs of every colour and hue —apart perhaps from the Greens who seem to be able to maintain a shaky kind of moral high ground— just having a laugh? Everything is completely legal. Completely legal, but is it right? We're told we have to pay them that much to prevent the private sector from snapping them up. But really, where else would most of those people get that sort of money? Very few of them would and do once they leave Parliament – that's why they keep snuffling back to the trough, looking at Stuart Nash and Michael Wood. They tried it in the public, in the private sector, wasn't nearly as good as working as an MP, so back they come. We're told that they're such brilliant stellar talents that we have to pay them that much, but then Chris Hipkins says they can't get a job elsewhere. Yeah, they can. What they do is they use their political nous and contacts to set themselves up as lobbyists or working for companies as lobbyists in other parts of the world. Once a Minister leaves office, they can't just pop up as a lobbyist because they've got all kinds of insider knowledge – it's like insider trading. Not here. Kiri Allan started her consultancy business two weeks after resigning as Justice Minister and she was still an MP. So while they're doing this job that nobody really wants to do, they're getting paid very well to do it. They're getting good expenses to do it. They're getting a healthy superannuation fund that we are paying them we're paying for everything, but we're paying the super fund as well. Plus, they're building up knowledge and contacts, insider info that they can then sell, either as individuals setting themselves up as lobbyists or to companies that act as lobbyists. It's all legal, but is it right? We're funding all this. I mean, would you do the job? You've heard about the perks, you've heard about the expenses. You'd have to be prepared to be hated by at least half of the population and probably half of your caucus if you're hard working and you've got ambition. There'd be a few people who wouldn't like that. So I mean, you know what the gig is. It's a hard job. Is this what we have to pay for democracy to be sustained? It's legally right, but is it morally right to be claiming these sorts of expenses when you just don't need to? And at a time where you're wagging your finger at other people and telling them they need to tighten their belts and oh, we can't just be giving accommodation supplements away to everybody. They can't use it to build their asset. Yeah, but you can. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

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

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

The speed of the changes to council voting rights is sparking some concern. The Government is amending the Local Government Act, which would strip non-elected representatives of voting rights on council committees. Changes would impact iwi and youth representatives, although Treaty-based committees are exempt. Local Government NZ Board Member and Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell told Kerre Woodham that while they understand where Minister Simon Watts is coming from, this is substantial and unprecedented reform. She says it's a pretty quick change to the law, and they hope they can continue to have input so as to ensure there's no unintended consequences. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government will stop unelected individuals from voting on council committees, a move an Act MP has described as closing an anti-democratic loophole. It seems like a no brainer. Why should unelected individuals have the right to vote on council committees? Of course people who have never been elected to a council or a government shouldn't be given voting rights. You can certainly ask people for their opinion, their informed comment, but voting rights? The issue of unelected New Zealanders being appointed to council committees and then having voting rights has been in the news recently, predominantly around the Far North where hapū representatives were confirmed to be put on a committee tasked with shaping Māori strategic relationships and embedding Te Tiriti based partnership in council decision making. Fair enough, getting their opinions. Absolutely. You would imagine that hapū representatives are the best people to talk about how to shape Māori strategic relationships and how they see Te Tiriti being enacted through council decision making. Totally fair enough. Where it gets a bit murky is that they have full speaking and voting rights alongside elected representatives. They're also paid the daily rate. They don't have to accept it, but they are paid a daily rate of around about 250 bucks plus travel costs plus any childcare, just as elected representatives can ask for. They can volunteer their time and their knowledge, but if they want to be paid, they will be. They wouldn't make final decisions, but they would vote on the issues that would be heard at full council. ACT leader David Seymour said anyone voting on council decisions should be accountable, including facing elections, and the party lodged a member's bill to prohibit voting rights for unelected appointees. But Simon Watts, Local Government Minister, has basically cut their lunch and announced that non-elected individuals can be appointed to offer their professional advice, they can represent communities, but they will not be able to vote or count towards a quorum. The statutory committees and appointments, including those agreed as part of a treaty settlement though, will be excluded. WATTS: This is a specific board set up for Auckland Council. Short answer is, is that for the Independent Māori Statutory Board, those members will only be able to vote on council committees where the law specifically enables it, and what that means is, is that that committee's set up under a different act. HDPA: So they retain their voting rights? WATTS: If it's related to the specific act. So it relates to where they're doing the management of natural and physical resources. If they're on a subcommittee doing that, then they're able to vote. Anything else, they're not able to. So, does that clear it up? I would be really interested to hear from a range of interests as to how council decisions will impact, and some will vary more than others. If you're in Wellington right now, for example, and you're in council, you would want to hear from businesses as to how decisions made by the council have impacted upon them. The cycle lanes, the development of, or the neglect really, the lack of development around the bridge, the Paremata Bridge and the library, the reopening of the library, the cost of that, the redevelopment of the Michael Fowler Centre. You would want representatives from business to say, look, this is our experience, this is what's happening, make your decisions perhaps based on that. If you're Māori in the Far North and you're dealing with issues around Māori land or the rating of Māori land, the re-rating of Māori land, or water, tourism perhaps, you would definitely want a Māori lens, a Māori perspective. But if you're going to be making decisions so that some issues don't make it to full council, elected members might not even know that there was an issue because it's been dealt with by these unelected representatives and they have voted on what the elected members of the council will actually see, I think it's a different story. Imagine if the Government asked a panel of Newstalk ZB hosts for their reckons to shape policy and then vote on it as to what would get to Parliament. You know, basically act as a select committee. I don't think so. You wouldn't stand for that. And if we want to have our reckons represented at a council level or government level, then we stand. We stand as councillors, mayors, we stand as MPs. There are 33 Māori across all parties in Parliament, representing a huge range of views and lived experiences, which is fantastic. We have councillors, chief executives, highly regarded mayors, all Māori. And I'd be really interested to hear the views of Māori, particularly in how it relates to land and water management. But if you're not elected, I don't think you should have a vote. Have a reckon by all means, but not a vote. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Defence Minister Chris Penk opened the door, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon slammed it shut. Chris Penk was at the Shangri La Dialogue, an annual security forum held in Singapore where defence ministers and military chiefs from across the Asia Pacific gather every year. Asked whether New Zealand might ease its rules to allow nuclear powered submarines into its waters, given that Australia's slated to get three nuclear powered subs as part of the AUKUS deal, Chris Penk said, “We don't have any official shift in our no nukes policy, but the subject," he said, “is worth chatting about." He said New Zealanders are sceptical of nuclear weapons, but it's quite a different proposition when it comes to nuclear propulsion. And that is quite true. New Zealand doesn't allow nuclear propelled vessels into its waters, whether they carry nuclear weapons or not. We don't allow nuclear weapons, we don't allow nuclear propulsion, but we do allow nuclear technology in this country. Radioactive isotopes are used to diagnose conditions and treat cancers. Our universities and research centres use small scale radioactive sources for research, and various industries use nuclear gauges and X ray technology for quality control, safety testing, and measurement. So it's not like we're as pure as the driven snow. We don't allow nuclear weapons, sure, but nuclear propulsion, surely you'd put that in the same category as X ray machines. We seem to be okay with a little bit of nuclear energy and technology – what about a little wee bit more when it comes to propulsion? No way," says Christopher Luxon. We're going to remain purer than the driven snow and we will maintain our no nuke stance." CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Essentially, we've got a long-standing position from '87. It's across the political spectrum. All New Zealanders feel very strongly about the nuclear free position. HEATHER DU PLESSIS-ALLAN: No, they don't. LUXON: No, they do. They do. And whether it's nuclear propulsion or nuclear armed, that's something that we're not up for and we won't be changing. Right. So this gentleman's not for turning, to misquote Margaret Thatcher. “All New Zealanders feel strongly about this," he said. “No, they don't," said Heather, filling in for Mike. No, they don't. I'm kind of with Heather. I couldn't have been more proud as a kid when New Zealand took on this David and Goliath stance against America. “No nukes," we said. And the world applauded and we took the moral high ground and caused strains with our relationship with the United States, the UK, and Australia. There were tensions, but my god, we were noble and we were holy and we were righteous. David Lange and the fourth Labour Government put us on the world stage with our no nuke stance. All very well and good, but there will be some of you who weren't even born when that was happening. The world has moved on. The world is a vastly different place than it was 40 years ago. I think we have to be open to a discussion about, A, our stance around nuclear weapons, B, around our stance on nuclear propulsion when it comes to armed forces around the world, and C, when it comes to nuclear energy. It makes sense. If the Greens are putting up roadblocks to more hydro dams, we cannot depend on solar energy alone. Open your curtains, look out the window. We need to have a constant, steady, reliable source of energy and we need to be able to discuss where that comes from. We need in this crazy world to have strong defensive alliances. And if that means allowing nuclear propelled ships, submarines into our waters, I'm okay with that. I'm not as righteous as Christopher Luxon seems to think New Zealanders are. Where do you stand on this one? A little bit more nukes? I mean, we already have some because we understand the value it brings. We understand the good it can do. What about a little bit more? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As far as Budgets in economically precarious times go, I thought it was a pretty good one. And save yourself the 20 cents, anonymous texter. I can see you typing from here. "Well, you would say that, Tokyo Rose, wouldn't you?" Well yes, come on, be fair though – what on Earth were they supposed to do? We were warned that there would be very little money to spend. The Government resisted throwing lollies, instant sugar hits to voters and did concentrate on spending what money there is where it will get the most returns. Not on policies like Fees Free third year of education for tertiary students, which was not delivering on the metrics, but on things like capital works that have been sorely, sorely needed for so many years and will provide pipelines of work for years to come. So there'll be jobs, there'll be increased spending and there'll be necessary upgrades that so many communities have been waiting for, like the new 158 bed tower block at Whangārei Hospital, plans for a new hospital in Drury for the South Auckland population, the Cambridge to Piarere expressway, redevelopment programs for Tauranga, Palmerston North and Hawke's Bay hospitals, the rail network investment program, building 232 new classrooms across the country, new police stations in Greymouth and Whanganui, 2,250 additional social houses, new courthouses in Rotorua. You cannot argue that this is a poor use of what money there is. It feeds into the Keynesian school of economic thought, which I've always thought was really sensible and I don't think any other better alternatives exist, that during tough economic times, consumers and businesses will typically hoard cash and spend less. So, the theory argues, Governments should then step in and break that cycle because once you close everything down, it just gets worse. You can't make consumers and businesses spend money, but governments can. So they fund public works and infrastructure, the sort of sensible kind of spending, the long-term spending, spending with a long-term outcome. It will create jobs by doing that, inject money directly into the economy and provide the sort of capital infrastructure that the country so desperately needs. And the workers who work on these projects spend their money on goods and services and that creates jobs and income for others. It's called the multiplier effect – it brings an economy out of a slump. And I think that's what we've been asking for and arguing for a while, isn't it? The tax cuts, not so much, but that's okay, that was back then. So, you know, we'll draw a veil over that. But this kind of spending where you're spending on works that have to be done. There are no ifs or maybe one days or these are not nice to haves, these are essential works that need to be done. I thought it was, as far as Budgets in tough times go, I thought it was a pretty good Budget. I'd very much like to get your feedback on this. I thought the that old school style of reporting of “there was nothing in it for you, was there?”, to the beneficiaries and to the state housing tenants and the “what about me's”, is lazy. I think that's really lazy reporting. You have to look at the bigger picture and you have to have an expectation that when people are on benefits, it doesn't mean they might have lost their job or they might have lost their ability to work for a time, doesn't mean they've lost their minds or their brains. They can understand too that you've got to fix the economy, it's got to improve, it's got to get better before their chances of finding work improve. And if they're unable to work, you know, they're going to get improved services and improved benefits if we are financially prosperous, if we're in a position to spend extra money. We're not in that position right now and it's going to take a few more years yet. For the first time, I felt a little bit of hope. A little bit of hope that you could actually see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's not the train bearing down upon you. There is a way out. It was sensible spending for the most part. I'd give it an eight out of ten, but I'd love to hear from you. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So what would you rather? A little bit of pain now or a whole lot more later? The Reserve Bank yesterday opted to keep the official cash rate at 2.25%, but the decision to hold was a close-run thing. And we know that now because of the transparency around the decisions being made and a jolly good thing it is too. Governor Dr. Anna Breman had to use her casting vote. The Monetary Policy Committee was evenly split on whether to raise the rate. The three Reserve Bank officials wanted to hold, the external committee members wanted to hike and therefore Governor Breman had to use her casting vote. One of the external committee members, economic consultant Carl Hansen, has given an interview with the Newsroom website explaining why he wanted to shift the rate now. He and the other two external committee members argued it would limit the overall magnitude of the increase in the OCR when it settles at the top of the imminent hiking phase. Translated, that means a bit of pain now is better than a whole lot later. Dr. Breman signalled that a rates rise is very likely when the committee next meets, but how high remains to be seen. And if it starts going up around about July, around about October, which is when the committee meets again, it's not just going to be mortgage holders who feel the pain, the Government will feel the pain too. They don't want to be associated with increased mortgage payments, but that's precisely what will happen. Carl Hansen argues that moving the OCR up a notch now, as in yesterday, would mean rates then wouldn't have to be yanked higher up further down the track. He says the uncertain environment in which we're living and in which we're making decisions won't disappear quickly and he and the other external members felt by going up 2.5% it would be an easier decision to either hold or go up in July. So if the experts don't know, how the hell do we? You've got six people whose job it is to understand the economy, to read the tea leaves and say, okay, this is what we think's going to happen in 18 months to two years and here are the decisions that we're going to make that we best we feel will best support the economy, the environment, the living conditions. It's going to help keep inflation in check, it's not going to stifle growth, this is what we believe. But if they're divided, it just shows how precarious and uncertain the times in which we live are. I like knowing that it was a 50/50 call and I can understand both sides. I can understand what the external committee members are saying, if we increase it just a teeny tiny bit now, it's not it shouldn't dampen spending, it shouldn't dampen growth and then it won't be such a shock if we do have to yank rates up further down the line. But I can also understand where the Reserve Bank officials are coming from too, it's just too uncertain. We don't know, it might fix itself. Although even in saying that, I feel like my extra 15 kilos might just drop off too. You know, hope is not a strategy – it's just a reckon. When you've got an election coming up and when you've got an election where nobody's willing to call how it's going to go, whether we go with a National/ACT/New Zealand First coalition or a Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori/independent/whoever they can cobble together coalition, it's too close to call from the polls. So there's uncertainty. If you're in business, you're unlikely, I would imagine, to be investing in extra staff, in capital expenditure, you're not going to be going gangbusters while there's uncertainty. So I get I can totally understand both sides of the coin when it comes to the decision made yesterday. Do you think the call was right? Do you think the Governor was correct in using her casting vote to keep things as they are and that things might come right? That the uncertainty – actually the only thing that is certain is that there will be uncertainty, I think. I cannot see it rectifying itself anytime soon. But was the right call made in holding things steady with an election coming up where nobody's certain what the result is going to be? Is this a time where businesses are just holding tight, keeping steady, not making big investments, not making big decisions, taihoa, wait and see. I'd love to hear from those of you in business, I'd love to hear from those of you with a passing interest in economics and I love being able to see the decisions now. I think it's I think it makes it really interesting. I like the transparency. I am so glad. I don't know. I mean, Governor Breman just seems to be a steady, cool hand which is what we need right now, not some flamboyant rockstar rocking and rolling through the economy because we are still suffering. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

No matter how meticulously you plan, there's always a chance something will go wrong while travelling. New data from Southern Cross Travel Insurance shows it's often the small moments that end up costing the most, whether it's a simple fall on a walking track or a broken bone before even leaving the country. Chief Customer Officer Jess Strange told Kerre Woodham that as costs increase across the board, they're seeing more Kiwis cutting corners on travel insurance – opting to go with a less comprehensive policy. She says a lot of people don't realise what travel insurance covers. Comprehensive has cover for things like pre-trip cancellations, Strange says, an example of which being a $40 thousand payout for a family who had to cancel their overseas because their child broke their ankle. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have you done the sums yet to work out how much more you're going to have to pay, how much more you're going to have to find to pay the rates bill? We were talking before the show, for some of my colleagues it's an extra $45 per fortnight, they're in an apartment out of the main city. I can't even imagine how much the increase will be for people living in the leafy suburbs. Auckland Council has locked in a 7.9% rates rise, according to Wayne Brown it's to fund the City Rail Link. They've managed to keep everything else, they've managed to cut costs and reduce spending and keep everything level, this is purely to fund the City Rail Link. He's unapologetic. He said we've got this railway, if we don't pay for it this year, then we're just going to have to pay for it next year. And that's quite true, you can't just keep deferring essential spending. And that's what a lot of councils are finding around the country, that they might have deferred spending, put off investing in the vital infrastructure that needs to be spent, Moa Point anybody, and now they're going to have to, now they're going to have to do it. It's this lot of ratepayers that is going to have to pay because previous years' ratepayers didn't want to. Councillors didn't want to because they might get voted out, ratepayers didn't want to because they said we've got nothing extra in our pockets. Well now we're just going to have to find it. In effect, the rates increase is only an average, but pity the people of Waitaki, councillors there were looking at rates increases of up to 45%. Eventually they opted for a 22% rates rise because they've got to fund their three water scheme. Now that's been put off, put off, put off, they can't put it off any longer and now the people of Oamaru and the surrounding districts are going to have to find the money and pay for it. Many, many people are doing what the councils around the country are doing and what the Government is doing. They're looking at the bills, they're slashing what is not essential, trying not to slash everything that's not essential because you need something that's a bit of a morale booster. But when you've got a finite amount of money coming in, it has to cover so many, many increases. Fuel, insurance, rates. When there's two of you working, it's tough enough, if you're on a fixed income with very little in the way of other money coming in, you've already pared down the spending to the bone, it's even harder. Is this the time you look at selling the house if you have one? You're told when you go into retirement that you have to have a house, that this is one way that you'll be able to ensure a comfortable retirement, you have your own home, you have a roof over your head. But how do you make economies to cover the rates bill to pay for the house when you're already stretched so very thin? If your rates bill has come in, have you crunched the numbers, where are you at? I mean Auckland like Rotorua, and number of other councils around the country, even the Far North, they're trying to keep it into single digits, just skimming the 10%, but other councils, they're having to pay for that work that they deferred for so long and those rates increases are going to hurt. An earlier version of this article stated that “many Aucklanders will face an effective rate rise of between 12% and 15%”. Auckland Council estimates the vast majority of unchanged residential properties (around 94%) will receive a rates increase within 1% of the 7.9% average.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fear the cost of living crisis may be getting worse for Aucklanders following the super city's largest ever rates increase. The 7.9% rise will see the average ratepayer's bill increase by $320 a year. The Auckland Ratepayer's Alliance says the council's budget is bloated and it needs to focus on cutting costs, and they already hear from people on fixed incomes and pensioners struggling to make ends meet. Age Brightly's Hannah McQueen joined Kerre Woodham to discuss some of the options available for those on fixed incomes, who might struggle with the increase. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thirty years ago, I was the station manager and breakfast announcer at a very small experimental talk station in Auckland called ‘The Point' on 1476 AM. It lasted for about three years. It was a lot of fun. Now I mention this because I clearly remember 30 years ago a morning when we discussed what happens to New Zealand when the Maui and Kapuni gas runs out, because even then scientists were warning that supplies were limited and they were dwindling. That was 30 years ago, and the alarm bells were already ringing. Our failing gas is not some new problem and yet you have to say in the 30 years that have passed, as a country we have done little to pre-empt the impact. In the years since then we have become more efficient at using the gas we've got, we've become more efficient at extracting the gas we've got and so the deadline has been extended, but now it appears we're coming to the pointy end. The end of gas in New Zealand. In the past 30 years we've not found more and we have, you could argue, used our remaining stocks willy nilly. Industries have become more dependent not less. Now the last Labour Government was part of the problem. Yes, they curtailed gas exploration, but at the same time nobody found gas for the last 30-50 years and we've been looking. But what the Labour Government did do was suggest a gas transition scheme, and if you've forgotten about it, it was called the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund, GIDI, otherwise known as Giddy. It directly subsidised large businesses using fossil fuels like natural gas and coal to help them switch to renewable electricity or biomass. But when the latest government came in two years ago, they scrapped that. They didn't like the way it was sheeted home to the emission reduction plans because that was far too green for them, and they didn't like the way the taxpayer was directly funding industry so they cancelled it. And they banked $640 million that had been set aside for it. But they didn't have anything to replace Giddy with two years ago. Now they do and it's called the Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme. It's worth about $1.2 billion. It will only directly cost the Government about $48 million. They guarantee the loans, right? Well, I'll tell you how it works. They underwrite 80% of each loan which allows banks to offer lower interest rates. The loans can be up to $50 million, must be new lending, it'll run for 10 years, and the budget has set aside $48 million to cover potential costs and losses. So it's much cheaper than the Labour scheme. It depends on the commercial banks to loan to businesses. My question to you is will they, would they, can they? The goal of course is to help firms switch to alternative fuels, to protect jobs, and to leave remaining gas —because there is some there— to help the industries that are absolutely dependent on it. The scheme sits within the Government's broader budget focus. They've got four pillars of national security: international security, energy independence, social cohesion, and financial security. And the Prime Minister when announcing all this yesterday said New Zealand cannot compete globally without abundant affordable energy, obviously. To qualify a business must use natural gas and consume at least 1,000 gigajoules a year. That's about 40 times the usage of a typical household. That would be a commercial kitchen in a restaurant, wouldn't it? That'd basically be everybody except those people using gas at home to cook and to heat their water. Eligible sectors include food processors, brewers, hotels, aged care facilities, greenhouse growers. Some of the country's largest gas users they use 300,000 gigajoules annually. The Energy Minister is Simeon Brown and he says the loans will help businesses switch to electricity or bioenergy or other efficient technologies. “We are running out of gas very quickly. We have had a 23% reduction in New Zealand's gas reserves in the past year and production this year is now expected to be 15% lower than expected at the beginning of this year. And so that is a significant reduction. That means for those businesses that rely on gas there's less of it going around, prices are increasing, it's harder to get contracts and a lot of this is due to the last government you know putting the one the ban on oil and gas exploration in place and diminishing its role in our economy. And so we've a role to make sure we support those businesses through this transition to make sure that we can protect jobs and industry.” He's not wrong. The ban on oil and gas exploration put a bit of a tiahoa on everything, but to find a bit of gas and then to get it out into your into your cooker, that's a 10 to 20 year infrastructure job. So really we should have found the gas ages ago, and as I said right at the beginning, we were warning about this 30 years ago. Alongside the local program, the loan program, the Government will introduce new legislation requiring gas companies to tell us exactly how much gas we've got, and surely that makes sense. Regulations could be in place by the end of the year. Are you using gas and if so, why? Why when we knew 30 years ago that it was finite, why weren't we rationing it out from that point of time? What are your thoughts about this the way the scheme works? The previous Government, the Labour Government basically said here's a billion, change. And that was money straight out of your and my pocket as taxpayers. This Government doesn't like doing that and they've said okay commercial banks you loan them the money, we'll underwrite that and we'll put aside some money for those loans that go a little bit south, and that's about $48 million. That's a very crucial difference between two different types of governments. One socialist, the other a bit more capitalist and market based. What do you feel about that? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I was in the Coromandel over the weekend and I was reading their regional paper which still exists, The Informer, and in it was an article by Jeffrey Robinson, who's a local affairs reporter with decades of experience, and he points out the debate that is happening all over the country. The government is ending New Zealand's two tier regional and district council system, it has to happen by 2028 and every district must choose a new unitary council model. The only rule is, well you can't go with the status quo. There's got to be change, there's got to be a rationalisation, it's got to be amalgamation, it's got to be smaller. Now for Coromandel residents, they believe this means choosing between two options. One, create a small eastern Waikato focused council that looks after the Hauraki Plains and the Coromandel Peninsula that reflects the rural and coastal communities of interest, a Hauraki Plains Coromandel unitary authority. Or the other choice is be absorbed into a Hamilton based Waikato super city scenario. Despite not having asked its ratepayers what they want because there's just not enough time and the government has demanded the action, they're all debating it. And the Waikato Regional Council has already said what it wants: one giant unitary authority based out of Hamilton for the entire region. I mean it's the 07 isn't it? It's all got the same phone number, let's all have the same council. Now under that model, the Coromandel with just 32,000 people would hold one seat on a 16 member governing board based out of Hamilton. Hamilton alone would hold seven seats. They have the advantage, they have the influence. Decisions on rates and infrastructure and environmental management and long term planning would be made far from the Coromandel, while a Coromandel local board with only one seat to represent it would be left with minor matters they'd worry about parking and Christmas decorations, but they think they've got bigger fish to fry. And, of course, a Hamilton based super block of seat holders would mean that Hamilton would be able to dominate decisions and funding. Yeah we could do a new bridge in the Coromandel, or we could make sure that new suburb of Peacocke has more stuff. I think we'll go for the Peacocke, won't we? What do you think? Yeah, there's only one guy to vote against it, that's what we'll do. The Coromandel and Thames are very wary of that. This may be efficient, but they believe it would also be unfair. This eastern Waikato unitary council by the way, this idea has deep roots. Back in 2012 Coromandel and Hauraki residents gathered more than 1,500 signatures calling for just that, a council that represented Hauraki and Coromandel, keeping the decision making local. And such a model would return regional rates and jobs and environmental management to the communities they actually affect rather than happening in Hamilton, and ensure representatives live with the consequences of their decision. Thames Coromandel councillors will be discussing this on May 26th. Here's the thing though, have they asked their ratepayers? No they have not, because the government said you've got three months to do this, it's 10 weeks away, you've got to do it, just do it. They don't have the time to consult. Nobody does up and down the country. And this is happening up and down the country. In the Wairarapa, Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa are considering a combined rural unitary council because they don't want to be ruled by Wellington. In Taranaki, iwi and local mayors support splitting the region into two unitary councils that represent the natural north south and urban rural division. Hāwera does not want to be ruled by New Plymouth. Waitomo and Otorohanga are developing a King Country unitary proposal because they don't want to be run by Hamilton. And in the South Island, Selwyn's mayor also wants to protect Selwyn's identity because there they're talking about the Canterbury councils merging into a Greater Christchurch super city and they are not sure they want that. The mayor, Lydia, says it's an incredibly short timeframe, we can't consult with our ratepayers but we need to make sure we make the right decision. And they're not happy about it. Waimakariri and Selwyn ratepayers have expressed reservations of being ruled by Christchurch. And this is a real fear up and down the country. The move to rationalise local government could see the big cities and towns grabbing all the power and money. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government has unveiled a major overhaul of social housing, creating both winners and losers. So what is social housing? Social housing provides subsidized rental properties for those who cannot afford private rentals. Homes are managed by Kāinga Ora or various Community Housing Providers (CHPs). Tenants typically pay an Income Related Rent. To qualify, you must be a New Zealand citizen or resident, meet housing need criteria, and fall under specific income and asset limits. Single with no kids, income must be under $832 a week after tax. If you're a couple with two kids, so four of you, you must be earning in the hand, under $60,000 a year before you could actually claim either the accommodation supplement or get onto the waiting list and get yourself into a state house and pay the State rent. For current social housing tenants, minimum Income Related Rent contributions are 25% of your income. But now the Government is changing the rule to make the system “fairer” and more targeted. From April 2027, the minimum rent contribution for social housing tenants will rise from 25% to 30% of income. This saves the government nearly $400m, which will be reinvested into higher Accommodation Supplement rates. Those privately renting and receiving the Accommodation Supplement, they'll get a bit more. As a result, 110,000 families renting privately will gain about $15 a week, but 84,000 social housing families will be around $30 worse off. Another 45,000 families receiving Temporary Additional Support will also lose about $11 a week. Housing Minister Chris Bishop says the current system is “backwards and inequitable”, with social housing tenants often hundreds of dollars better off than similar families renting privately. The reforms will tighten access to social housing, focusing on people with the most severe and persistent barriers — such as mental health challenges, addiction, disability, or family violence. Affordability alone will no longer be enough to qualify. The Government also wants to improve people getting out of social housing. That includes exploring tenancy duration limits, more regular eligibility check-ins, and better support for people who could move into private rentals. Bishop says many tenants will still need lifelong support, but others can transition out — freeing up homes for those in greatest need. As a result, 110,000 families renting privately will gain about $15 a week, but 84,000 social housing families will be around $30 worse off. Another 45,000 families receiving Temporary Additional Support will also lose about $11 a week. Bishop says the changes “narrow the gap” between social and private renting, encouraging work and independence. He argues the system must be financially sustainable —with housing supports costing $5.5b last year— and better targeted to those with the highest needs. In essence it shows that this Government prefers social housing to be provided by private landlords. But they're wary of a wholesale change because of what it would do to the housing market at a time 20% of townhouses are being sold at a loss. They don't agree with social housing for life. They probably don't agree with the State owning housing stock at all, but they're too chicken to go the whole hog. This is all about ideology and the response will come down political lines. Those tending right will support it and feel that finally the Coalition is walking the talk they've talked for years. And those tending left will reflexively call this the move of a heartless Government who just don't care about poor people. And they are poor people, which is why Nicola Willis' won the lotto comment was so tone deaf and required an immediate apology. It is a major shift, but it could have been a lot heavier. What will come from it? Will it bring more private properties into the social housing market? Will it break the back of those people at the edges of society? And what do you think we need to do with social housing and benefit support for housing in our country? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let's talk EVs. And I better make the declaration straight away; I am an EV driver. There is a new state of the nation report from an organisation called Drive Electric which has been released. It's calling for consistent cross-party support. The report shows just 11% of new vehicles registered in New Zealand are electric – that is down from 27% in 2023 when we had the rebate. But countries like Norway, they're sitting at, wait for this, 98%. New Zealand also has one of the lowest EV to fast charger ratios in the OECD, despite 88% renewable electricity generation and promises from the Government to actually help. Drive Electric's State of the Nation report, which was launched at Parliament, is calling for long-term cross-party policies to speed up EV uptake and charging infrastructure. And the board chair of Drive Electric New Zealand, Kirsten Corson, spoke to the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning about how far behind the rest of the world we are. “I think the interesting thing that this report shows is there's been a shift. This isn't an environmental decision anymore, this is an economic one. And what we've seen in the last three years is a massive emergence of countries like Ethiopia, 60% electric, you know, new vehicle sales are electric, Vietnam 40% Thailand 28% Turkey 22%. These are all emerging nations that are making the transition purely from an economic perspective because they do not want to import fossil fuels.” We're at 11%. Drive Electric's report goes on to say that New Zealand has a major advantage because we've got renewable energy, but the recent policy changes, the scrapping of that incentive, has really slowed progress. So EVs, by Drive Electric, they're now being framed as more than just transport that doesn't use fossil fuel. The report wants to call them mobile energy assets, so they can store electricity and feed it back into the grid when the demand is high. Now transport currently accounts for about 18% of our total emissions and nearly half of the CO2 emissions as well. But electrification could boost energy security and reduce the country's $7 to $9 billion annual fuel import bill. There are of course health gains because the air pollution is a little bit lower. The key opportunity they say is vehicle to grid technology, which allows EV owners to sell stored power back to the network while their car's sitting there. Maybe it's on 80% or 90% and it could actually be providing the electricity that does the hot water heating and take the load off the entire network. Vehicle to grid technology. And of course they're asking for government money. Now look, as I say, I have an EV and I did take advantage of the EV rebate when it was in place, just like the Prime Minister did. But the thing about that, and I felt a little guilty about it, is I didn't agree with it because EVs or a car or any product really have to rest on their own competitive advantage. Mike called it this morning the artificiality of a market, and that's not right. But the current fossil fuel crisis, it is bringing that competitiveness up without us providing any government money. So if we could help, how should we? I thought about it for a while and thought, well, how could we do it? And one possibility might be the subsidy of home-based smart chargers. If they are capable of feeding back into the grid, and the Drive Electric claims are correct, that if 30% of EV users feeding back into the grid could in fact rival our entire generation capacity at any given time, then isn't that an investment in improving our electricity infrastructure? Which would be good for everybody and would mean that while it might be a subsidy to an EV driver to put in a smart charger that can feed back into the grid, it's actually an investment into the entire electricity network. Can you see the logic in that maybe? I do not have an EV charger at home. I use fast chargers at the supermarket. I don't have an EV charger because when I bought the car, I looked at how much the home EV charger was going to cost me —$2,000— and frankly, I don't have a lazy two grand sitting around. I don't know if you've noticed, times are tight and the cost of living is high. But hey, what about if the Government pitched in half of that? Would that tip me over? I think it might. So if they put in a thousand and I put in a thousand, then I'd have an EV charger at home, which when I wasn't charging the EV, it would be feeding back into the network and saving the electricity for everybody. So there's the question for you today: should we as a nation be offering some sort of incentives towards increasing the size of the EV fleet? And what are the ramifications of the EV fleet being expanded as is happening right now? I mean, what are the ramifications of this for us? Do we have enough renewable energy? Do we have enough electricity? We seem to swing from pillar to post in terms of electricity excess to a lack of electricity and then the prices go through the roof. So can we actually really support an EV fleet the way Norway can where 98% of their vehicle sales are in fact EVs, even though they have their own oil? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let's start with the big story of the day: the Finance Minister yesterday unveiling a major plan to shrink the public service. It's putting thousands of jobs on the line, but it is booking, potentially, billion-dollar savings into this year's Budget. So the interesting thing about her announcement —there were precursors to this, so this is stuff we knew, but it's all brought it into focus— is the pure numbers that we're talking about. So the Government wants to reduce the size of the core public sector. At the moment it's at 1.2% of the population. 1.2% of working New Zealanders work for the Government – they want to bring that down to 1%. So as we learned the other day, New Zealand's population sits at around 5.3 million. That, if you do the maths, means about 6–8,000 roles should go. The actual number they mentioned though was closer to 9,000. The savings will come from trimming staff numbers. They want to merge departments, and they want to increase the use of AI to improve efficiency. Now, of course some of us had thought that the cull of the public servants had already started. Wellington's economic stagnation has been blamed on that first round of efficiency cull, but it appears that not much was achieved. And here again, the numbers tell the real story. Back in 2017 there were 48,000 public servants. This ballooned under the Labour Government to 63,000. But despite all the angst in Wellington about bureaucratic redundancies over the past two years, the fact is there has not been a dramatic reduction in head count. In 2023, there were 63,000 public servants in this country. Today, in 2026, there are still 63,000 public servants. It's a dynamic world, the world of business and employment, and it's a bit like whack-a-mole. You cut here, but then you have to increase the cohort there every time you launch a new programme. If David Seymour gets his immigration policy over the line and we're going to crack down on overstayers more, they're going to need a whole lot more immigration workers – but they just fired a whole lot of those. Our search for 500 extra police officers was proof of how difficult all this can be. As fast as we hire a new cop, an old cop quits. So, we're running as fast as we can to stand still. These 63,000 people in the core public service, guess how much they cost the country? Guess how much? $11 billion a year. On average, and wait for this, each role costs about $175,000. I know. Well actually, the average wage is more like $100,000, but there's a whole lot of guys who are paid a whole heap more, so that brings that up a bit. Also it's the cost of disestablishing the role. But anyway, the fact of the matter is reducing those numbers will save hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potentially billions of dollars over the Government's four-year forecast period. Here's the thing, it's forecast over four years and even though these job cuts won't happen immediately, the Government plans to count these savings in this year's Budget, which is a week away. Based on the firm target that they're going to reduce head count by 9,000. So they're already talking about it. They're already saying before they've done a thing, hey, we've got an extra $2.4 billion and we'll be able to buy more services with that. And they're going to be doing that this election campaign; they'll be doing it next week over the course of the Budget. That's a very pretty $2.4 billion, isn't it? It sounds really good, but it'll take four years to achieve it if they achieve it. And I would ask you, is that counting your chickens before they hatch? So the process is easy to say, but I think you'll find it's much harder to do. And if you lay down an arbitrary target, we're cutting 9,000 jobs, that doesn't necessarily mean that the target will be met or met appropriately. So look, it's your show. What do you have to say about it? Are you confident that this can be done? Are you confident that this can be done and our services won't be unnecessarily reduced? There's another little debate we can have about the cut to the public service right now and that's the political fallout. This is an election year. Now many on the right will congratulate the move, and indeed they already have. And indeed, they're already asking why did this not happen two years ago? We thought the cull had started. I think the number you'll find that they've done is around about 2,000. Now they're talking about 9,000. Why didn't they talk about 9,000 two years ago? But anyway, the right will say great, good job, we need this. How will swinging voters feel about a cull? It's hard times and suddenly neighbours, family, friends are losing their job. And remember with every job cut, the ripples spread out, affecting the private economy. There's an old rule that says every job lost affects three more down the economic chain. So if we've got 9,000 jobs cut over the next four years, we've got nearly 40,000 other jobs that will be economically affected. So the political fallout, will this just harden the dislike for the Coalition among swinging voters who chop and change? And of course, the left, well they detest it immediately, don't they? They just hate this stuff. So the question politically, in doing this and doing it hard and doing it like this and doing it with such fanfare, is the Government shooting itself in the foot? Or will they be rewarded for finally stepping up their game? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A five month old baby boy by the name of Bodhi lived in Hawke's Bay, and in October 2022 was found unresponsive in his sleeping pod. The sleeping pod was placed inside the cot. He was lying on his stomach. He had blankets around his face. His parents, distraught, immediately called emergency services, but he could not be revived and we lost Bodhi. And after these losses, of course, coroners then look into it. And we've had a coroner look into it and found that Bodhi's death was likely caused by suffocation or re breathing and pointed out the risk factors that Bodhi was experiencing: sleeping on his tummy, loose blankets, and the use of a soft sleeping pod. Experts say babies this young cannot lift their heads to clear their airways, so if you're on your tummy, you've got some loose blankets and you've got these soft sleeping pods all over the place, they can suffocate. The coroner is now urging urgent action to prevent similar deaths. She's called on MBIE, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to work with the Ministry of Health to introduce clear safety standards for infant sleep products like sleep pods, which apparently at the moment currently face no specific regulation in New Zealand. She says they could use the unsafe goods notices under the Fair Trading Act to restrict or remove dangerous products from the market. She's basically saying it's the sleeping pod, the sleeping pod is dangerous, and experts agree as well. Many of these sleeping pods are actually sold as lounges, but they're also of course sold for sleep, and all the experts say we need some stronger warnings and potentially an outright ban. And of course the coroner came out and said the obvious thing, she wants better education for parents whose health providers are encouraged to actively discourage the use of these products, right? So remember your guidelines, I still remember them from 25 years ago when I was looking after babies: always put your babies on their backs, always put them on a firm, flat surface, don't have loose blankets or soft items around them, and avoid unapproved sleep devices altogether. Have we just forgotten how to do this very basic thing? Because we've had talkback about this, sudden infant death syndrome, cot deaths, for ages, but then suddenly we have not. Put it this way, back in the 1980s, we used to have about 250 public health campaigns a year about how to put baby to bed. These days we have about 50 – that is a huge cut in public health campaigns. Can you remember the last time you saw an ad in a paper or on the telly or on the radio saying look after baby, put baby to sleep on back? And the thing I remember from back in the day was swaddling, making sure that baby is securely wrapped, restraining their movement, preventing them from rolling on their tummy and preventing the blankets to go and block their noses and their mouths. Have we forgotten this? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The government has confirmed major changes to New Zealand's secondary school qualification system, officially replacing NCEA with a new subject-based model. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford announced the shift in Orewa, saying the current NCEA system is too complex and doesn't clearly show how well students have mastered their subjects. From 2029, Year 12 students will begin the New Zealand Certificate of Education, followed by the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education for Year 13 in 2030. Level 1 will be removed in 2028. Under the new structure, students will take at least five subjects, and must pass a minimum of three to earn the qualification. Every subject will include internal assessments and an exam, and results will be reported using a six-point grading scale from A+ to E. Certificates will list each subject and the grade achieved, with endorsement awards for top performers. Year 11 students will face new compulsory subjects — science, English or te reo rangatira, and mathematics — and all students will need to pass the new literacy and numeracy Foundational Award. The curriculum will also expand to include new subjects such as Civics, Politics and Philosophy, Advanced Mathematics, and Journalism and Media, alongside industry-developed subjects like building and construction and primary industries. Stanford says the changes are designed to move students away from “credit crunching” and toward genuine learning progress. Current Year 9 students will be the first full cohort to move through the new system. So all the statistics point to NCEA failing but like all tools it's because of the people who used the system not exclusively because of the system A common reaction amongst older New Zealander is how tis resembles the School C, UE system we grew up with so it was less of a revolution and more of a return to basics that were well understood The easy criticism for older folk was the marking system. For some reason parents and employers did not understand the Excellence, Merit and Acheived rankings when obviously Excellence means an A, Merit a b and Acheived a C. The A to E system is one that parents grew up with but in the cold light of day is just as abstract as the NCEA rankings. The real problem lay in the rorting of the credits with students choosing easy to pass subjects and avoiding anything that seemed challenging. But the real responsibility for the credit crunching surely lies with the parents as well And the strength of NCEA was recognising that there is not one education for all. That some people don't cope with maths or English or Science and the system recognised what talents they had. My youngest and I had a big to do over his Year 13 subject choice. He detested maths and wanted to study photography. I said you have to have maths. he argued that he had as much maths as any average student would need for real life. He won. And now he is a successful photographer doing his own taxes and playing Sharesies particularly well. So he was right. But I'm just lucky he's such a rounded individual But while the new system re-emphasises 3 basic pillars of knowledge in English Maths and Science a lot of those BS credit crunching subjects remain. Other arguments are amongst those who say exams are artificial and how do you sit an exam on Food Technology which is the new fangled name for cooking. Or photography which still exists. The question exists is this a brave new world or will the old problems still remain. Luxon also used the event to comment on global instability, national security, and recent speculation about a potential National–Labour coalition, dismissing the idea outright. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Blues are celebrating their 30th anniversary with their inaugural Blues Hall of Fame. It'll honour the legends, stories, and defining moments that have shaped the club since its inception in 1996. The first class of inductees will be honoured at a formal lunch today. Former All Blacks coach and Blues board member John Hart told Kerre Woodham that initially, while they catch up on history, the Hall will focus on the players and coaches. But after that, he says, the ‘Guardians' class will be added, which honours people like managers, administrators, supporters, or sponsors. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Obesity related illnesses, as you well know, cost this country a fortune. The direct healthcare costs of obesity, well, they estimated it at $2 billion per year, per year, and that was in 2021, so it'll be a hell of a lot more now. It's more difficult to calculate the total economic impact that obesity has on this country. Estimates range between $4 to $9 billion per year. It depends whether you include lost productivity and how you quantify the loss of quality of life. If you are chair bound and you're in your 20's, how do you calculate the cost of that? Cardiovascular disease linked closely to obesity costs New Zealand a minimum of $13.8 billion. We're looking for hundreds of millions at the moment to try and balance the books with the Budget coming up – look at the billions being spent on healthcare costs. Type 2 diabetes, that costs an estimated $2.1 billion annually. Over two in three adults and nearly one third of children in New Zealand are overweight or obese, placing a severe strain on the health system. So it costs the country a lot. It would make a meaningful difference reducing the numbers of people who are obese and then see that obesity is triggering all kinds of health conditions. The cost in terms of New Zealanders not being able to live their lives, fulfil their potential, that too is staggering. So if there is a way to fix it, why wouldn't we fix it? If somebody said there's a pill for that, you'd take it. And indeed, turns out there is. Pharmac thinks we can and should solve the problem through medication. It has added the semaglutide drug to its list of medicines suitable for future funding. In a decision released yesterday, the drug funding agency confirmed it had added Wegovy, as you know it, to its list of options for investment. The options for investment includes all the medications Pharmac would fund if the budget allowed. It's currently unfunded, and if you want to buy it yourself, Wegovy costs someone about $400 a month. The order of Pharmac's list isn't made public for commercial reasons, as Radio New Zealand writes, but if chosen, the drug would be available to people with a BMI of more than 50 and also to those with a BMI of more than 35 with at least two comorbidities. There is a cure for obesity, but there will be a group of people, and you might be one of them as you're standing or sitting here listening to me, who don't want to fund obesity drugs despite the clear cost benefits, because you see fat as being a moral failing, and fat people as being inferior beings. You think it's simply a matter of willpower. There were no fat people during wars, food was scarce, and that's the end of that. Pull up your socks, go for a walk, say no, put down the fork, problem solved. Despite the fact that medical experts and psychiatrists say it is way more complicated than that. The ads we're running for weight loss drugs at the moment on this station give an indication of what it's like to see food as a reward and as an enemy. It's the voice chatter that Oprah Winfrey talked about when she went on Ozempic. She said the medication stopped the constant mental chatter about what to eat, what to resist, the constant negotiation about food, which was a feeling she'd experienced for 50 years. The okay, well, if I have an egg for breakfast, that's protein, that's good, but then there's the toast and that's carbs, should I try and put it on say a rice cracker? That doesn't feel very nice. Okay, I've been for a walk so I can reward myself with a piece of cake. Constant. And that's what the ads give an indication of, that's what Oprah Winfrey was talking about. She had an aha moment when she realised that overeating doesn't cause obesity, it's obesity that causes overeating. It is not a moral failing. And I know that when you exercise and when you restrict your food, you lose weight. I've done it before. I'll do it again. I'm in and out like an accordion – I can still hear the chatter sometimes, other times I let it go. But for some people, the chatter is so great that they simply don't have the option of going for a walk. Some people can't tie their own shoelaces. It's a psychological illness rather than a physical one. And that's what the experts say, that's not just me. And I know you feel smuggety smug smug smug smug when you're out there running in the early morning and having your chia and your sliced berries and that's your bag, or your marinated vegetables for breakfast, and you're feeling super fit. I used to feel smuggety smug smug smug too when I'd go for my early morning marathon training runs and you knew that people were lying in bed at 7:30 in the morning. Now I think, bloody who was the fool? But you go on feeling smug, you go on feeling smug and feeling superior, and in the meantime, there is a solution to a problem. It's a problem that affects a significant proportion of people. Some people can put down the fork, some people can reset their minds themselves. Great. Others need more assistance. As with many psychiatric illnesses, some people need to have their brain rebooted. And if we can do that and save ourselves billions, why would we not do that? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.