Kerre McIvor Mornings Podcast

It's the last days of Art in the Park this weekend – a uniquely curated art show held annually at Eden Park. It showcases the works of both emerging and established New Zealand artists. The King's Trust has been the charity partner of the event for the last four years – an organisation formed in 1967 with the vision that every young person should have the chance to succeed. It's been running in New Zealand for six years, and CEO Rod Baxter told Kerre Woodham that in terms of economic value, they've quadrupled every dollar that was invested. He says it's not just about the success of the King's Trust and the Government, and the corporate supporters, but also the success of the community off young people. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The news came in around quarter to 11 yesterday, and it was unwelcome confirmation of what many people had been experiencing, had been feeling. The economy had contracted, and worse, it had shrunk 0.9%, far worse than economists had been predicting. Economists at the Reserve Bank had forecast the economy would shrink just 0.3% during the June quarter. Retail banks said, "Oh, I don't think so. I think it'll be closer to 0.5." In fact, the figures released by Stats NZ yesterday showed GDP fell almost a full percentage point in the three months ended June, with declines in most industries. Manufacturing fell the hardest. It dropped 3.5% in the quarter, led by transport equipment, machinery, and equipment manufacturing, which fell 6.2%. Food, beverage, and tobacco manufacturing fell 2.2%. And that was reflected in the decreased export volumes of products such as meat, which we referred to yesterday when we were talking to Infometrics Chief Economist Gareth Kiernan. He was saying it was the drop in exports – if you haven't got the produce, you can't export it. Construction was down 1.8%, reversing a 1.2% increase in the three months ended March. So what does it all mean? Well, it means fewer jobs, it means fewer people earning, it means less money being earned. It means people scared of spending money if they do have money. It means less money sloshing around in the system. It means people doing it tough. Roger Douglas, he of Rogernomics fame or infamy, and the Finance Minister in the Fourth Labour Government, called for the head of Nicola Willis. He and Robert MacCulloch, the economist, released a statement yesterday that said Willis was sending New Zealand bankrupt by failing to get to grips with our ballooning fiscal deficits and public debt. Her own Treasury, they said, contradicts her claim that New Zealand is on a path to surplus. They say it is not. Treasury's long-term fiscal forecast showed out of control deficits due to pensions and healthcare spending from an aging population. Willis, they say, is not up to the job and is not levelling with the New Zealand public. Willis ignored that criticism, and looking at the GDP figures, says Trump's tariffs had an outsized impact on local business confidence, far out of proportion to what actually happened. She said yesterday's data is backward-looking. It's looking at what the economy was doing months ago, and she says that the economy is in fact improving. “I think when you think about your average Kiwi, they're saying, well, actually, I need to have confidence that I can pay my mortgage, maybe that I can buy a bigger house in future, that I can buy a house at all. And the biggest tailwind for that is lower interest rates. And we know that they are what has spurred previous recoveries. That's actually good economics. Our government has done everything we can to create the space for the Reserve Bank to do this, and they just have to keep doing that job. “For our part, we've chosen a balanced course of consolidating the books over a few years, which has been endorsed by international economists, by ratings agencies who say that our fiscal plan is a good one. We've delivered significant savings while investing in more infrastructure, in health services, and education services. I completely stand by that approach. And Roger Douglas may want me to slash spending overnight. That would be the wrong thing to do in terms of the commitment we've made to voters, but actually it would be the wrong thing economically.” So that was Nicola Willis holding the line. John Key, former Prime Minister, came on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning and put the blame squarely on the Reserve Bank. “This is a saying that Ruth Richardson once had, which was monetary policy needs mates, and that was her argument when she was really tightening up the economy, that the Reserve Bank needed that support because they were in tandem working with the government. I think what you've seen over the last 18 months or so is a government that has been working hard to get the economy straightened up after, frankly, the mess it inherited. But it hasn't had a mate in the Reserve Bank, and the Reserve Bank's job very clearly over time has been to say interest rates need to come down. “And I mean, look, two months ago, I got hammered for saying interest rates need to come down 100 basis points. Well, they came down 25, they're going to come down another 50. You can put a ring around it in the next monetary policy statement and they'll come down another 25 by Christmas. So the person that's not doing the job or the people that are not doing their job are the Reserve Bank, who frankly, if they just walked around Auckland and Wellington for five minutes, could have felt the fact that the government needed help through monetary policy.” So, the experts have had their reckons and I'd love to hear yours. Now they say, how often have you been hearing that there are green shoots growth coming? They say that things are getting better, that job vacancies are up, that business confidence is up slightly, that come Christmas most people will be off the big mortgage interest rates and onto lower ones, which will mean more money in your pocket? They're not relying on bringing in migrants to push up the housing market, give you the sugar rush that you get from basically a false economy. They're relying on the economy to rebuild itself, making it more resilient and stronger. That being said, this was a government, or the National Party was a party, that campaigned on better times ahead. We're the ones that can fix things. We're the ones that can turn the ship around. We're the ones that can fix the mess that Labour left us in. Either the mess was bigger than they thought, or the levers they're pulling aren't as effective as they thought, or we are a timorous lot. We've been knocked around too much, bashed around too much to feel particularly confident. When a lot of business has been suffering since 2022, probably, it's hard to feel confident. It's hard to feel optimistic. It's hard to feel confident about spending money or investing in capital, that sort of thing. I do think that better times are a-coming. It's just the way economies work. You know, there are cycles. And surely we've reached the bottom and now we're going to go up and then we'll reach the top and round we'll come again, no matter who's in power. So, you know, you can talk a big game, but I think what National has shown is that they are victims of the economic cycle. There were no magic levers they could pull. Could Labour have done any better? The answer to that is no. Absolutely not. That is a very hard no from me. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How much blame for the GDP drop can be placed at the feet of the Reserve Bank? GDP's fallen 0.9 percent in the June quarter – a much sharper drop than economists had been expecting. NZ Initiative Chief Economist Eric Crampton told Kerre Woodham what we're feeling is an effect of getting inflation back in line, but he wouldn't necessarily blame the Reserve Bank for the drop. He says it's one big job is keeping inflation in the 1-3% band, and it largely forgot what it's job was in 2020 and 2021, and went overboard with the spending. Crampton says he wouldn't blame the bank's current round of tightening, but rather the prior round of exuberance that required it. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Back when I was a kid, you knew the school holidays were coming up when the Seafarers Union went on strike. Sure as God made little apples, a week before the school holidays, the unions would be all out, brothers and sisters, and then there'd be all night negotiations between the cloth caps and the capitalist overlords, while parents waited anxiously to see if the annual road trip —south in our case— would take place to go down and see the Christchurch rallies. Generally, at the last minute they would, so it was a mad dash to Wellington, over the Cook Strait to Christchurch for the school holidays. Every single time. Union representatives were household names in New Zealand – Ken Douglas, Sonja Davies, Blue Kennedy, everybody knew them. The strength of unions abated over the years after the reforms of the Fourth Labour Government. But since the demise of the last Labour Government and the arrival of this centre-right Government, unions have certainly been flexing their muscles. Primary school teachers have voted to go on strike on October 23rd. “Kerre, isn't that the Thursday before Labour Weekend?” That's correct, it is. So what's that going to do? A glorious long weekend, and two days off school for the kids. Secondary teachers are on their rolling strike this week, again, right before the school holidays, massively disrupting senior classes and school attendance. Nurses walked off the job recently and senior doctors go on strike next week. They are perfectly entitled to do so, but it's a delicate balancing act holding on to public support while pressuring the government to give in to their demands for pay and conditions. Political commentator Bryce Edwards made a very good point in an article yesterday, which just reinforces what we know. Unions take a softly, softly approach with Labour governments generally, because they don't want to damage Labour-led governments by striking. Unions affiliated to Labour contribute their members' dues to the Labour Party, and unions have voting rights on Labour's leadership under the current constitution that the Labour Party has. So, in the main, they don't want to embarrass a Labour-led government. That is not to say they don't strike. Teachers held rolling strikes throughout 2023 because the Labour Government was stonewalling on negotiations. And in part, teachers say it's because the last Labour Government mucked them around for so long that they're striking again. They can only settle pay and conditions in the three-year blocks. And by the time Labour settled with the PPTA last round, it was time to begin negotiations again. But they are much more likely to strike than to negotiate. That's what the head of the Public Service Commission, Sir Brian Roche said – that we offered them a good deal, they didn't bother negotiating, just said, "Right, we're striking”. The disruption to kids and their parents is far, far more than just the one day they strike, though. By choosing to strike right before the school holidays, kids don't see the point in going to school for the last week. They're lumped together in mixed classes. There's no real learning taking place. Teacher-only days in many schools on the Friday. What the hell is the point? It's a real struggle for people I know who have teenagers to get them to school because they'd go if they were learning, they'd go if it mattered, they'd go if they felt they were going to get something out of it. When all they're doing is being lumped together in one mess class with a couple of duty teachers to make sure people don't go missing or harm one another, that's basically the end of it. It's basically babysitting for a couple of days, and the kids know that, so they think, why bother? At what point do you lose sympathy for striking public servants? At what point as a teacher or a nurse do you lose patience with your union? I think most of us have sympathy with teachers, and nurses and doctors, and police officers, understanding just how important their jobs are within society. But are they more important than what you do? And at what point do you decide that actually, you'd rather be paid on performance, not how many years you've hung in there at the chalkboard? At what point do you think, I would rather be teaching my classes, not striking to give my peers pay and conditions that some of them simply do not deserve? When you know that you're a better, more competent, more hard-working, more innovative, more empathetic teacher than the one next door, does it not rankle just a tiny bit that they're getting either the same as you or more, because of simply being there longer than you? At what point do you believe in yourself? At what point do you negotiate your own pay and conditions the way the rest of us do, because you believe in your abilities and what you bring to the workforce? And if they're not good enough, you go. At what point do you back yourself? And say, you know what, I do a really, really, really good job and I want to be paid more than the lazy ass next to me. I wonder why teachers in particular are so insecure in their own bargaining powers? How many teachers would rather not be in the union, negotiate their own contracts? If you don't feel that you are fairly paid in your job or your conditions aren't ideal, have you used the union to negotiate for you or do you do it yourself? Have you found the unions useful? I look at teachers and I think, you know, we all know there are some that are so much better than others, who are so much more hard-working and innovative. Why don't they get more? Still, it's up to them. If they want to have collective bargaining and collective conditions, that's their choice. But for how many is there a little seed of doubt settling in thinking, really? The way New Zealand is at the moment, the way the kids' schooling has been so severely disrupted over the last few years, our conditions aren't that bad when you look around. When you look around at what other people are earning and what other people are doing. At what point do you think the union's not for you? Back in the olden days, the unions were all powerful, dominant, a really strong collective force, and they wielded enormous power on the economy and on governments, but they struck themselves and bullied themselves into irrelevance. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The country's getting up to scratch on teaching Kiwis how to manage possible lone wolf attackers in crowded spaces. Police are promoting the mantra 'escape, hide, tell' to show the public what to do during an attack. The Crowded Places Strategy includes information on how to detect possible attackers, and how to conduct security audits. Auckland's Newmarket Business Association CEO Mark Knoff-Thomas told Kerre Woodham there have been situations where people freeze or start filming, which isn't ideal. He says they want to make sure people are armed and educated with the best knowledge possible, as even if it's not applicable in New Zealand, it may come in useful overseas. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our economy's been shrinking much faster than economists thought. Latest data just out from Stats NZ shows GDP fell 0.9% in the three months to June. That follows six months of growth, after six months of contraction. Infometrics Chief Forecaster Gareth Kiernan told Kerre Woodham it's far worse than any economists were expecting. He says this number is completely "off the charts", as far as they're concerned. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shane Jones' warning was clear and concise. As of 2029, if no new gas fields are found or an alternative energy source is not found, there will be no gas available for industrial, commercial, and domestic use. “In simple terms, what's going to happen in 2029-2030 in the event that we either don't import gas, or we don't find a major find, is that the demand will still be there, but the supply will be below the demand. And there'll be a fraction of gas available, but for those big users, and quite frankly, the energy companies use quite a lot of gas and they can pay because they hand it on to you and I, that's what the crisis will be. There will be too many businesses in New Zealand still dependent on gas and the supply of the gas will be below their need for gas.” Shane Jones, as other commentators have noted, does talk a big game and is prone to hyperbole to make his point – should have been a journo. Gas NZ Chief Executive Jeffrey Clarke says homes and small businesses accounted for less than 13% of gas demand last year and are likely to have gas for longer than 2029, if only because other bigger customers will find alternatives, and because domestic and small business are profitable. But there's no doubt that the brutal reality is that we don't have as much gas in our gas fields as we thought we did, and that existing fields are going to run out sooner rather than later. Worse, according to an explainer story in The Post, gas industry sources believe that the aging Maui gas field will require expensive maintenance work in the middle of next year, raising the very real possibility that its overseas operator OMV could simply look at the bill for the maintenance, look at the life of the gas field and say, you know what? Don't worry about it. We'll shut it up early. Close the field. And some businesses won't survive that. In Shane Jones' report to Winston Peters, where he made the dire warnings, Jones says without profound action, the die is cast. There'll be a rust belt decline in New Zealand with a widening gap in societal well-being. We're already seeing it. Carter Holt Harvey shuttering its Eves Valley sawmill near Nelson, Kinleith closing and Tokoroa, and now Carter Holt Harvey closing the plywood plant there. Timaru's meatworks gone, Winston Pulp closing its factory in Ōhakune - small town New Zealand is once again fighting for its very survival. What are the options? What are the alternatives? According to Gas NZ, homes and small businesses account for less than 13% of gas demand. It doesn't mean that they are going to be really struggling to find alternatives to keep themselves going. The small manufacturing plants, we've already seen it, it's the cost of energy that is closing them, the manufacturing plants around New Zealand. Can you find alternatives to gas before 2029? If you are living in a small town where your major employer is owned by a multinational, the answer is they'll probably just shut up shop, as we've seen happen in other small towns. They'll look at the cost of finding an alternative energy source and go you know what? No. If you're a small town locally owned business, you might think differently. There might be more skin in the game for you. You might be willing to make a huge capital investment in resourcing the power supply to keep the plant open. But ultimately, once you do the sums on the back of an envelope, it just comes down to whether you can afford to or not. And in that case, what is the future of small-town New Zealand? Is the die cast? Are we looking at a rust belt decline and a widening gap in societal well-being unless we can find alternative fuel or simply another way of keeping small town New Zealand alive? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When US conservative activist and media personality Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on Wednesday, a lot of people had an awful lot to say. Those on the right of the spectrum mourned the senseless violence and deplored the actions of the left. Many of those on the left rejoiced, were gleeful. And there's no other word for it when you look at some of the posts on social media. For others of us, it was a deep dive into why Charlie Kirk was so well-regarded by conservatives in the US. I was aware of him, but I certainly wasn't aware of the breadth of his reach in the US. So, for me it was an information-finding exercise. And what I saw was a lot of grieving, a lot of mourning on the right, and rejoicing and jokes on the left. Some took a righteous tone, like New Zealand investment manager and Kiwi Saver fund provider boss Sam Stubbs. He posted on LinkedIn on Saturday saying, "We should mourn the violence but not the man, and we certainly cannot eulogise a racist, sexist and bigot. RIP Charlie Kirk, I wish your ideas had died with you." It certainly wasn't the worst thing I'd seen posted about Charlie Kirk's death, not particularly charitable, probably unnecessary. Now, the Simplicity boss has apologised on LinkedIn and deleted the post. Stubbs said his first post on Kirk's death was sent in haste. Odd, given he wrote it on Saturday and Kirk was murdered on Wednesday. Three days should give you enough time to consider what you want to say. Anyway, he went on, "It did not come across as I intended, and I apologise to anyone who took offence." Well, of course they're going to take offence. "Here's what I intended to say," he said. "Murder is murder, anyone celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk is celebrating acts of wilful vengeance. That is wrong, full stop." He said he found much of what Kirk believed as sexist, racist and profoundly objectionable, but in a democracy, he said, he has the right to speak and to live to say what he thought. And let's hope his supporters feel the same way about those who disagreed with him, he added. Probably unnecessarily. Fairly grudging, and you'd wonder why he bothered. Why on earth would you bother? Is he going to lose enough business to see a dent in his company? I wouldn't have thought so. Possibly he might be concerned about not getting a visa into the US. In the wake of the rejoicing from opponents of the ultra-conservatives, there's been a backlash in the US. Numerous workers have been fired for their comments on Kirk's death. Teachers, firefighters, journalists, nurses, politicians, a worker for a prominent NFL team. And the Deputy Secretary of State, Christopher Landau, posted on X, "In light of yesterday's horrific assassination of a leading political figure, I want to underscore that foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country. I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalising or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action. Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the State Department can protect the American people." Well, in they came. People have been more than willing to dob in their fellow countrymen, including the hosts of Breakfast TV. A poster put up the clip of the crew shooting a Trump doll with Bug-A-Salt back in 2023. You can imagine the reaction to that. "Never let these people into the country," and on it went. It's not the first-time people have lost jobs over things they say publicly, but in the US, the speed of the firings has raised questions about free speech rights. And it does seem odd that a passionate proponent of free speech, like Charlie Kirk, should see people sacked in his name because they're exercising their right to free speech. It seems a bit incongruous, but there it is. Are you aware that if you do post, and especially in this day and age now that we have access to meta search tools like AI, they can troll through every single post you've made on social media going back a decade or more in a matter of minutes, discovering and finding things you thought you'd deleted? It's all there waiting to be found. And if you think that you're sitting at the bottom of the universe, miles away from anybody and nobody cares, wrong. We live in a village now. An absolute village, and it doesn't matter that we are last stop before Antarctica. If you say something, you have to accept that it's going to be found. If you send a text into me, it can be found. What you say, whatever it is you say, can be found. You might send it, think better of it later, as Sam Stubbs did. Too late, it's out there. As employers, do you as a matter of course go through people's social media? See what they've written, see what stance they take? Do you take into account what people have said and done on social media? Is that just a standard part of hiring now? Should you be able to travel anywhere at will? Or should the things you say and post on social media be taken into account when it comes to applying for the right to travel to another country? Should the right to free speech have consequences? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Of the many, many insane, ideologically driven policies I have heard come from government departments over the years, this has got to be one of the most bonkers. There have been times over the years, when I'm feeling a little overwhelmed, when I've fantasised about ending up in hospital. Nothing life-changing or dramatic, just a nice routine operation, five days in a lovely quiet ward. Crisp white sheets, view out to Cornwall Park, the scent of lush green grass carried by the gentle zephyrs of spring through the open window. Matron running the ward with a firm, but benevolent gloved hand. I can sleep and rest and be protected from the rigours of reality in a nurturing, safe environment. Oh, how those days have gone. If they ever existed, I think they may well be some kind of Enid Blyton-esque type fantasy I got through reading old-fashioned books. I am really, really struggling to see how 24/7 visitors' access to hospitals is going to benefit anyone. Anyone. Not the patients, not the security staff, certainly not the nursing staff. On the face of it, it looks like a desperate attempt to shore up staff deficiencies in the wards. They say it's not. Health New Zealand says the implementation of the new patient and whānau family support policy is not driven by staffing levels, but is about giving patients the choice of having whānau support when they needed it. National Chief Nurse Nadine Gray says the policy is patient-centred and driven by whānau voice. That's what the official party line is. New Zealand Nurses Organisation says the union supports full access for families to be involved in patients' care, which can be very important in some cultures, but they reckon the current push is more a response to the increasing need for patient watches and the lack of staff to do them, and I think they're probably on the money. Patient watches are needed if a vulnerable patient needs monitoring to ensure they don't hurt themselves or interfere with treatment, and are usually carried out by trained healthcare assistants. But because there's a chronic shortage of healthcare assistants, family members, say the Nurses Organisation, are being expected to take up the role. Now, decision-makers might think that the general public will understand that the 24/7 access is ideally for those with children in hospital or family members with dementia or patients who have specific needs. But that is not what the general public will hear. You'll get 20 people camped around a bed with takeaways for five days, while an adult son waits for an operation for his leg fracture. It'll be hoots-wah-hey and off. Party central. The Health New Zealand Chief Executive says under the policy, whānau will be supported to be with patients 24/7 (24/7! have we even asked the patients if they want the whānau there for 24/7?) where appropriate, working alongside nursing and maternity teams to make this possible. And here's the absolute banger for me - while respecting the privacy and recovery of others. How? Unless you're in a Portacabin 20 miles away from me on the hospital grounds, how is my privacy going to be respected? How, when the only thing preventing me from becoming a member of my neighbour's extended family is a flimsy nylon curtain? The nursing staff and security can't be expected to manage the number of visitors, supposed to be one or two per person. That doesn't work now. How are they going to be expected to manage the behaviour of the visitors, the transgressions of the visitors? We are living in a culture of self, where individuals prioritise their own needs. Their own wants and desires over the need of the collective good of others. Bloody hell, if there was ever an incentive to lace up the walking shoes and say no to the doughnut, it's this. The thought of ending up in a hospital ward now, my vision has long been shattered. In an ward with three other people is bad enough. The thought of ending up in a ward with three other people and their partners, and their kids, and their parents, and their siblings' children ... euthanise me now. Don't worry about fixing my broken arm. No, pass. Chop it off. No, I'll have to stay in hospital. I'll just live with it. I'll have a gimpy arm for the rest of my life. Of the many, many insane, ideologically driven policies I have heard come from government departments over the years, this has got to be one of the most bonkers. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Health NZ is planning to remove restrictions on visiting hours at hospitals. The change would allow family members to visit patients at any hour of the day, a move that has led to mixed responses. Health NZ National Chief Nurse Nadine Gray told Kerre Woodham that the change is part of a patient support policy. ‘It's part of the code of patients' rights to have support.' LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now, long-time listeners will know that I have said, I do say, and I will undoubtedly in the future say stupid things. In a career spanning decades, we are talking live on stage or live on air, television or radio. When you're going for the snappy one-liner and you're pushing the language out and you're trying to be clever and you're trying to be funny, a lot of the time you're operating on instinct. You have to speak without thinking. I know you're not supposed to, but when you're doing live radio, live television, live on stage, you have to speak without thinking. So the potential for saying something offensive or stupid or both is very real. That does not excuse you from the consequences of saying something out of line. I've had to suffer them before. It just explains how it happens. So, while I can see how Stuart Nash came to make his ill-advised one-liner on what defines a woman, I can also see and understand the repercussions. Especially for someone who works in executive recruitment for a company that presumably sees women as more than being how Stuart Nash described them. And also, for someone who wants to run for public office. Yesterday, Nash resigned from his job at Robert Walters after he gave his definition of a woman to The Platform media outlet earlier this week. For those who don't know what he said, text Nash to 9292 and we'll text it back to you. No, that's not what will happen, but you must know what he said! Anyway, as soon as the words came out of his mouth, he knew he'd gone too far. He asked his wife, "Was this a really stupid thing to say?" And she went, "Yeah, it really, really, really was, you complete and utter numpty." I'm putting words into Mrs. Nash's mouth, but I imagine it was that or somewhat stronger. He phoned The Platform back asking for the clip of what he'd said to be taken down. As if. It was all over social media in a matter of minutes. The matter's been bubbling away for a few days now and then Nash's employers, Robert Walters, the executive recruitment firm, took decisive action yesterday by encouraging, no doubt, Nash's resignation. Now Nash's potential employer, New Zealand First, is in a bit of a conundrum really, because Winston Peters is old school. He holds decorum and standards and ways of doing things, he holds fast to those old principles. He might swear – I've been at private parties where he's been. I've never heard him, but I'm not saying he doesn't, I've just never heard him swear. And I cannot imagine him ever using the words Nash used to describe women. Peters spoke to my colleague Nick Mills earlier in the week about the values pledge needed for new migrants, because too many people were coming to New Zealand without the requisite respect for equality and respect for women. Awkward. Winston doesn't like coarseness, and he doesn't like vulgarity. So that's against Nash. But he hates the media, and the media is who got his golden boy into trouble. What to do, what to do if you're the leader of NZ First? After some consideration, Winston Peters issued a statement saying the words used by Nash were not acceptable, and on that point, we agree with Mrs. Nash. End of statement. The irony is that Nash's definition of a woman, here it comes, for all of you who are texting 9292, he described a woman as a person with a "p***y and a pair of t**s", which is a rather crude reduction of what an individual might be, but nonetheless, that's what he said. But the irony is that definition of a woman could equally describe a trans woman. "P***y and a pair of t**s". Or a trans man. Nash has lost quite a lot without getting any further ahead. We are no further ahead in the definition. Peters has previously described Nash's transition from sacked Labour minister to NZ First party member as seamless. Well, there might be a few wrinkles in that seam now. But where do you stand on this one? Should he have resigned? He would have been shoved had he not. Personally, I don't think you can be a specialist recruitment executive and be on record as having reduced women to a "p***y and a pair of t**s". You can't look at a woman who is going for a high-powered job, well, any job really, and say, "Well, let's have a look at your qualifications." I mean, maybe if he was a recruitment specialist for Showgirls or any of the other strip clubs in town, sure, let's see what you've got. But not when you're looking for someone who's slightly more than that, you know, who needs a bit more than that to do the job. An MP? If he was still an elected MP relying on an electorate to vote you in, you could get the people of the electorate to decide. That would be really easy. They could make the choice of whether they thought it was a stupid, crude, poor old thing to say. The sort of thing you might say after many beers with the lads, maybe a few of the ladesses, you snigger, you move on. But you don't do it on a media platform when you're a recruitment executive. That just shows really poor judgment. And he's shown it before, there's form. Now you might want Winston and Shane if you're a NZ First voter, but you don't want Stuart. But when a political party relies on list MPs to get in, then Stuart's going to be part of the job lot. You've got to feel for Winston this weekend. What to do, what to do? Don't like what he said, gross. Ooh, hate the media – it's all your fault this boy's in trouble. I reckon he'll end up staying. What would you do? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has released a cabinet paper proposing a raft of changes to the Crimes Act. This is part of the coalition agreement with NZ First. It introduces new offences and strengthens existing ones. The proposals include a new strict liability offence for shoplifting, with a $500 infringement fee, doubling to $1,000 if the value of the stolen goods is more than $500. It would be proven simply by evidence that people, or the person, left the store with the goods, so CCTV footage, but with a reasonable excuse defence to mitigate against catching people who genuinely make a mistake, according to Goldsmith's paper. A strict liability offence means there's no requirement to prove a guilty mind. So, the offence removes the requirement to prove intent and introduces reverse onus. The burden of proof is shifted to the defendant for the ‘reasonable excuse' defence. Paul Goldsmith explained how he thought the new law would work on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. “It's more akin to a traffic offence. So you know, you're speeding, you get a ticket. There's no sort of debate about it really, unless you've got a reasonable excuse, and you pay the fine. And the whole purpose of it is to come up with a quick and swift way to deal with shoplifting, other than the alternative, which is to go through the whole court process. “I mean, we've got to remember we've got a real issue with retail crime with this big increase in people going around stealing stuff. We've got to do something different. Currently, you've got to go off to court, that's a very high threshold and doesn't happen enough. And so what we're introducing is a swift and effective fine as an intermediate step to deal with things and so that there is a real consequence for that level of shoplifting.” Swift and effective fine? Who the hell is going to pay it? There are concerns the new shoplifting law would come up against the Bill of Rights, which says we have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Also, within the New Zealand Herald story on this that's online, there's a whole subheading saying, what it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse. Paul Goldsmith says in his paper, a strict liability offence increases the risk that misinterpreting the behaviour of deaf people, or people with an intellectual or neurodisability, could result in disproportionate impacts on this group. I get if you have an intellectual disability, you might not know it's wrong. Since when were deaf people shoplifters just because they were deaf? Since when were Māori shoplifters just because they were Māori? Sure, if you have an intellectual disability, absolutely. What it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse... the disabled and Māori and the neurodiverse aren't typically criminal? Honestly, how is how is being deaf going to make you a shoplifter? That it's going to increase the chances of you being pinged? My concerns are far more pragmatic. Whatever your reason for stealing stuff, whether you're a kid on a dare, you're desperate and starving, you're a low-life lazy thief – who's going to pay the fine? Maybe if you're a shoplifting former Green MP with PTSD and a fine taste in clothing, you'll pay the fine. But those sorts of people are still in the minority at the moment. I know they're trying to stop the courts getting cluttered up with shoplifters and that some shoplifters are getting away scot-free because the amount they stole doesn't meet the threshold for going to court. How many shoplifters, can you imagine, are going to sit down, oh, goodness me, I've got to pay that fine before I incur any extra costs. Must sit down and process the payment. There we go, job done. Or wander down to their nearest post shop with their $500 infringement fee clutched in their hot little hand and stand in the queue and go to the counter and say, sorry, I've got to pay my fine for shoplifting. I cannot see it. How many people shoplift accidentally? That's what I would like to know. There are also ways to mitigate that. I went to the supermarket with the grandchildren yesterday, chased down a poor security officer who was minding his own business and looking for trolleys of groceries going out the door of the New World. I said, look, I'm so sorry, excuse me, so sorry. Look, my granddaughter's just got some yoghurt that she didn't eat from her school lunch and she's going to eat that while we walk around and I'm very sorry, but we didn't. Yeah, okay, lady. Please get out of my grills, is what he seemed to be saying. There are ways and ways. What, you're going to say, I'm so sorry, I forgot I put this pack of sausages down the front of my trousers? I mean, what? How do you shoplift accidentally? How do you shoplift clothing accidentally? I'd really love to know. Perhaps you do. And equating it to speeding is just silly. Most of the time when people are speeding, nobody is impacted. I accept that when things go wrong, horrific. But most of the time if people are going 5 or 10 kph over the limit on an open road with nobody around, nobody's harmed. And if you do get pinged by a speed camera, you pay, because for the most part, just about everybody, I think, has gone over the limit. I mean, I'm making a huge general assumption here and put me right if I'm wrong. Most people have gone over the limit once or twice. If you're pinged, you pay your fine and that's that. Shoplifting's a whole other thing. Every time you slide a bottle of nail polish into your pocket or walk out with a trolley full of goods, we all get impacted. Retailers, insurers, shoppers, cops, the lot. What on earth is the point of introducing a law that the lawbreakers will simply ignore? Love to hear from you on this. Have you ever accidentally put something in your bag? A $500 sweater that you, oh, forgot to pay for? Or I know, you put something in your pocket, and you forget to pay for it? I just don't see how you can do it accidentally. And when you are stealing, quite often it's an act of intent. Speeding, it's sometimes your concentration lapses. And people generally pay their speeding fines. I paid one yesterday. You pay $30 for being pinged by a speed camera. And that's okay. Got it paid before the due date. How many shoplifters are going to be doing that? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The cost of alcohol abuse in this country is absolutely phenomenal. Worldwide, I can't even imagine what it would be, but here in this country it's bad enough. A report that came out last year from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, the first of its kind since 2009, found that: The cost of alcohol abuse in terms of alcohol harm based on disability adjusted life years is $9.1 billion. $4.8b associated with disability-adjusted life years from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) $1.2 b associated with disability-adjusted life years from alcohol use disorder $281m - intimate partner violence (for alcohol use disorder alone) $74m - child maltreatment (for hazardous drinking alone), $2.1b in societal cost of road crashes where alcohol was a factor $4b in lost productivity associated with alcohol use, including FASD, crimes and workplace absenteeism $810m, predominantly in health and ACC spending. Peter Dunne, in an article in Newsroom this week, argues that these costs are a result of a decades-long failure in policy. He says when he was working for the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council way back in the late 70s, they undertook the first national survey of New Zealanders' alcohol consumption and drinking patterns. The most dramatic finding, he says, was that 9% of drinkers were responsible for two-thirds of the alcohol drunk. Of all the alcohol consumed in the country, 9% of drinkers drink two-thirds of it. He says that told you there were binge drinkers, problem drinkers, who made up a minority of the population, and a minority of the drinking population, but consumed the most, and that's where education and policy should have been directed. However, around the same time that survey came out, the World Health Organisation came up with its own policy and advised that government interventions should focus on reducing alcohol consumption levels overall to reduce the number of alcohol-related problems, rather than focus on specific groups. So you've had broad-brush, once over lightly programmes, you know, general, ‘hey guys, you know, it's not what you drink, it's how you're drinking', the general programs. And that, he says, has failed. Most people do know how to drink sensibly. They'll enjoy a glass or two of wine occasionally, and that'll be that. A couple of beers on a hot day after a surf. Fantastic. Then there are those of us who board a sky-sailing pirate ship to whiskey Valhalla and it's hoots way hay and off as Caitlin Moran put it. And sometimes that's fine, and sometimes that's not. When you set out to lose control, chuck everything in the air and see where it all lands, sometimes it lands you in a police cell, or hospital, or in the bed of someone you shouldn't be with. And that's when the trouble starts. Peter Dunne argues that we need to do away with the broad-brush approach and focus on the binge drinkers, the problem drinkers. Targeted policies for that 9 to 10% of the population who cannot drink sensibly, who do not drink moderately, and who are causing all of the harm. Do you need to be told how much you should drink, when you should drink it, like not when you're pregnant? Do you need to be told that? Do you just switch off when you drink and think, oh for heaven's sake, who on earth are they talking to? I know all of this stuff. Do we need to be focusing on the people who need to hear the message, all that money going into general education, redirected to those groups who need to hear the message most, and putting more of the money into the rehabilitation and the turning around and the changing of dangerous drinking behaviours? That is a hell of a lot of money to spend on disordered drinking, on problem drinking. And it's not you, probably, or you. But over there in the corner, it's us. And we're the ones that need to hear the message, not them. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand has long had a problem with alcohol abuse. A report last year from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research found that the total estimated harm from alcohol use costs $9.1 billion in a single year. Peter Dunne argues the costs are a result of a decades-long failure in policy – saying that we need to do away with broad stroke approaches and target those prone to binge drinking. He told Kerre Woodham that we should be targeting the response to those who are most affected by alcohol harm, and therefore making interventions early as opposed to a broad sweep that hasn't worked. Dunne says our cost of alcohol abuse is as high as it ever was. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ANZ's New Zealand boss says the bank has no major restructure plans on this side of the Tasman. The Australian banking group has announced plans to axe about 3,500 in-house roles and 1000 contractors. Its New Zealand arm says about 20-30 mostly head-office roles might be cut here. But Chief Executive Antonia Watson told Kerre Woodham it's part of a normal review of efficiencies, which they do every year. She says times of change always generate nervousness, but they've been clear that what's driving the change in Australia isn't a factor here. She says staff will have a lot of empathy for their Australian colleagues who are going through a tough time at the moment. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I said yesterday when I left you at midday that I thought I'd brought you one of the nicest stories that we'd done all year, which you clearly loved, and one of the saddest. The nicest: the interview with the musical director of the Auckland Pasifika Secondary Schools Choir, the choir who sang the national anthems for New Zealand and South Africa at Eden Park. The saddest: the shooting of a police officer, the fatal shooting of Tom Phillips, and the recovery of three children who had spent four years being force marched through rugged bush by their father. What made it sadder still was the bile and the sewage that filled the text machine and social media and is still doing so. You probably never see this sort of thing, and I'm glad for you. You don't know the inner workings of some of your fellow New Zealanders' minds. People that you might work with or play sport with, or heaven forfend live with, because you can choose to disengage. And you should, you absolutely should. It chips away at your soul when you read some of the stuff. Just how much some men loathe women. How much some men loathe authority. Who think shooting a police officer is justified. Who think the old “if I can't have her, nobody else can” trope that sees so many ex-partners end up dead, and in this case, “if I can't have them, nobody else can have the children, they can't see anybody else but me” - who think that's justified. Maybe in the fullness of time, when all the details come out, the angry men might think differently. I would hope so. And you always get the superheroes after every tragedy. Pike River, the Rena, Whakaari-White Island. Every single time, you get the superheroes who would have put their underpants on over their trousers and would have solved the situation earlier, and quicker, and more expediently, and they knew what to do and they'd have saved more lives. This case is no different. There are so many people who think they would have found Phillips and the children with just their knowledge of the stars, a bit of beef jerky and a good dog. And possibly they could have. But there was so much more at play here, as the Police Commissioner told Mike Hosking this morning. RC: We have always been very, very concerned, Mike. We knew that we were dealing with an armed, a dangerous, and a very motivated individual in Mr. Phillips. And we had to be very, very cautious about the approach that we have taken. You know, that played out yesterday morning in a way that we suspected it could, which is not something that any of us wanted, but our assessment of the situation over the last four years has been spot on. And, and that was shown yesterday morning when we confronted, Mr. Phillips, he shot one of my staff and, and we, we had to return fire. And, we have always been concerned that may be exactly what occurred, and of course that may also involve, the children. MH: The thing that's bugged me the whole time is this community thing whereby somehow this guy's a hero, or he's allowed to do what he wants to do, or he's, I don't understand that. Do you deal with that? Is that common in rural New Zealand? RC: You mean in respect of Mr. Phillips? MH: Yeah. RC: He's not a hero. There will be inquiries. There'll be reviews of processes, of how things could have been done differently and possibly better, and that says it should be. But I don't know how you speak to, connect with the men who are so angry, so alienated, so self-pitying, that they think the shooting of a police officer is justified, and taking three children hostage in the bush for four years is the action of a loving father. I mean, already here it is. “How can you defend the cops? They shot a father dead in front of his child. That child will be screwed up for life”, says Ben. You don't think that perhaps four years on the run in the bush might have done something to them? God knows what he was telling them. You don't think the fact that he pulled out a gun and shot a cop might have been the reason he ended up dead in front of his child? See, this is what I mean? That isn't the action of a loving father. The loving dads, the hero dads, in my mind, are the ones who put their own anger and their sense of grievance behind them, and who turn up and show up for their kids, who accept the kids aren't their property, that children have a wider community of family and friends who love them and who the kids deserve to be around. They're the hero dads. So often on the radio, I only hear from the 2%. It's a well-known stat that of the 100% of people who listen to talkback radio, only 2% will ever ring. I think the stats are probably higher. I haven't seen those for those who text. It would be amazing today if the reasonable people, the rational people, the ones who appreciate our police, and the ones who know what it is to swallow your pride, to swallow your grievance, to swallow your hurt, who know what it is to be a good mum or a good dad, took the time to ring and text. It would be really lovely if you used your voices today.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Everyone has an opinion and as technology has progressed, it's become easier and easier for people to make their opinions known. And while this has allowed for greater communication and debate around various topics, it's also allowed for people to share waves of vitriol, hatred, and unhelpful commentary. Clinical Psychologist Dr Dougal Sutherland told Kerre Woodham that with social media, it's very easy for us to be an “expert” in everything. “We have a whole lot of information fed to us – we don't necessarily digest it, but we can say very quickly what we think is right or wrong.” In comparison to calling into something like talkback radio, social media and texting is instant, allowing people to fire off their five cents and move on. “Then you've got this personal investment,” Sutherland told Woodham. “Your adrenaline's going, you're part of the story ... then someone says something, and you're already riled up.” “I think we're being shaped by social media to react strongly, because that's the thing that gets likes, and that's the thing that gets ratings, and that's the things that get, y'know, the algorithm working.” LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the highlights from Saturday night's rugby test were the anthems sung by the Auckland Pasifika Secondary Schools Choir. Students from Auckland Girls Grammar, Avondale College, De La Salle, Kelston Boys, Kelston Girls, Glen Eden Intermediate, Marcellin College, Marist College, Mt Albert Grammar, Southern Cross, St Marys, St Paul's College and St Peter's College. Music director Nainz Tupa'i told Kerre Woodham that it was an amazing feeling to hear the whole stadium singing along. 'It's a real honor and a privilege to have been given that opportunity and for our kids to experience that in that moment' LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The New Zealand First convention took place at the Distinction Hotel in Palmerston North over the weekend. And all these silver fern, pin-wearing NZ First faithful gathered, along with a few wannabes, like Stuart Nash, he spoke. Just a few formalities to go through and it looks like Stuart Nash will be a signed-up member of NZ First and one of their high-profile names going forward at the next election. I don't know how the coalition government decided who would go first in the Deputy Prime Minister's role. If they said how they did it, it's escaped me, I'm sorry. They might have tossed a coin. They might have played paper scissors rock. They might have put their names in a hat and Christopher Luxon drew out one. Might have been done on seniority - oldest and most experience goes first. You just know that Winston Peters, leader of NZ First, would have totally gamed the system to ensure he served first as Deputy Prime Minister because after a good stint of being Foreign Affairs Minister, which he still is and which he still works hard at, and a good stint of standing in for the Prime Minister when he was out of the country and fulfilling his obligations admirably, it free's him up now, now that David Seymour's in the role, to really get the campaigning underway for NZ First well before 2026 rolls around. To be fair, ACT are not far behind. David Seymour's State of the Nation speech at the beginning of the year was a rallying cry to the party faithful. But at NZ First's convention over the weekend, you heard speeches that sounded more like promises. Promises that would normally be made on the hustings. It wasn't a convention per se, it was more of a, "Let's get going, brothers. Let's start promising," the kind of glorious kind of promises that NZ First voters are looking for when it comes to political parties. Things like making KiwiSaver compulsory, contributions being raised to 10%, offsetting that raise with tax cuts. What's happened here is you've got thousands and thousands of people, hundreds of thousands have signed up, but they're not contributing. They're not saving. And so it's not as easy as some of the journalists thought, just to work out what's going on. But we're going to make it compulsory and we're going to ensure this is phased in at a level which you'll see comprehensively is followed overseas. We need to turn this into a super, super saving fund and a super investment fund at the same time, but not in the control of politicians. And when you talked about yesterday tax cuts, that's literally a tax cut for a person who's contributing to KiwiSaver, or is it a rebate or how would it work? That's a tax cut for the person contributing to Kiwi Saver and also for the employer. Right, so I would pay less tax if I'm contributing to Kiwi Saver. You still with us? Yes, I said exactly, yeah. I think there must have been a drop out on the line. That was Winston Peters talking to Mike Hosking this morning. There was more preaching to the converted. Winston Peters called for new migrants having to sign a Kiwi values document, incorporating respect for the flag, respect for democracy, one person, one vote, that sort of thing. I imagine it'd be much like the Australian values statement that migrants to Australia must sign. And Peters said the party was responsible for getting cabinet to agree to bring legislation to the House very shortly, making English an official language of New Zealand. As is generally the case with election campaign promises, there wasn't a great deal of specific detail. No costings from Peters on how much the Kiwi Saver policy would cost or how it would be implemented, other than to say the rise in contributions would be staggered, first 8% then 10%. But let him be perfectly clear, there is life in the old boy yet and he is determined to get himself and NZ First back into Parliament and back into government with even more sway than he had this time around. As far as Winston Peters is concerned, ‘25, as in 2025 is done and dusted. It is 2026, baby. NZ First is on the road, looking to win over voters who are unimpressed and underwhelmed by National and Labour. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government is cracking down on serious immigration breaches. It's announced it will strengthen deportation settings on the same day that Immigration New Zealand revealed there are more than 20,000 people who have overstayed their visa. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford says there are gaps in the current system. For example, under the current rules, someone who commits a serious crime can't be liable for deportation if they've held a residence visa for more than 10 years. Stanford says they're fixing that. Where migrants don't follow the conditions of their visa, she says, I've made it clear to Immigration New Zealand compliance and enforcement actions are a priority. Immigration New Zealand said on Thursday that as of July 1, there were around 20,980 people, call it 21,000 people, in New Zealand who have overstayed their visa. This is the first estimate to be carried out using a new methodology, which the agency believes has better accuracy than the previous one used in 2017. From what I understand, Immigration, New Zealand was going through a major overhaul of its computer systems, so there will be new methodology and more accurate numbers. So in terms of nationalities, there are 2,599 individuals from Tonga who are believed to be overstayers. Remember the Tongan under 21 rugby team who were on tour here in 2003? Almost half the team failed to show when the 30 strong squad checked in for their flight home. And I don't think many of them were found. So for 22 years, these young men have grown into middle-aged men and have been living and working in New Zealand. There were 2,577 from China, 2,213 from the US, which was a bit of a head scratcher for most of us. The Greens have called for an amnesty for overstayers. They've long called for amnesties – they think there should be one every year just to sort of tidy things up, if you will. And better residency pathways for migrants, and they really want the Government to announce on this time. And do you know what, I think they should. Because if you look back to what a mess immigration New Zealand was, let me take you back to the bad old days. Iain Lees-Galloway was Minister for Immigration and was failing miserably in that job. It was a mess. Labour and New Zealand First had campaigned, saying we're going to restrict the number of migrants coming to New Zealand. It's going to be a New Zealand first, kind of a country, and we're going to cut the number of migrants. But when they came in, they realised just how important overseas labour is, globally and in New Zealand. If you turned off the flow of migrants coming into the country there'd be a big hit to Kiwi businesses, the profit margins of employers, to New Zealand's economic performance overall. So once they formed their coalition government, they thought, oh bloody hell no, we can't really make good on that. What are we going to do? So they decided to pull the handbrake on the number of residency applications that could be approved, but they increased the number of people on temporary visas. People on temporary visas can apply to become residents, so there were more and more people joining the residency queue, and it got bigger and bigger and bigger. In 2020, there were 38,787 skilled migrant applications stuck in the residency queue. When Labour took office with New Zealand First, there was just 10,000. So that you had people coming in who were on temporary visas and then got stuck because they couldn't apply for residency. You had skilled migrants and with people on the low wage all applying, none of them given priority. Then they created two queues, the priority and the non-priority, because they realised that doctors and skilled engineers were leaving the country because it was just taking too long. All politicians do this. You make a promise, you get in and you realise that it's unsustainable, so you just have to try and fudge it. So when you have been waiting and waiting and waiting for years and years and years, I can kind of understand where there might be a few overstayers. You've made a life for yourself, you're confident that you'll be accepted if and when Immigration New Zealand gets around to processing your application, and in the meantime, life goes on. And all of a sudden you find that you're an overstayer. I can kind of see how it happens. So I'd be for an amnesty and anybody who's kept their nose clean, who has been working, who has been living an exemplary life. Let them stay. Anyone who so much as shoplifted a packet of chewing gum – they can go back from whence they came, but anybody else of these overstayers, I'd say give them a chance. It was Immigration New Zealand from start to finish who was in chaos. Part of that was to do with an incompetent minister, or an incompetent series of ministers, part of that was to do with unsustainable election promises that they then had to fudge. And part of that is to do, I think, with the change over to a new computing system which caused unconscionable delays for people who are trying to get residency. You might know more about it than I if you were one of those who was desperately waiting for Immigration to process whatever application you might have had in force. So I would love to hear from you if you have had experience of dealing with Immigration New Zealand. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The battle over intensification of housing has reached cabinet level, with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing Minister at odds over Chris Bishop's plan to get hundreds of thousands of houses built in the super city. “It's 2 million,” I hear you say. “They want to build two million houses.” Well, the Housing Minister addresses this in his column in this morning's Herald. There will be the ability for the council to consent two million homes. That doesn't mean they will all be built, as he says, the Auckland unitary plan enabled around a million homes. Ten years later, only around 10% of that enabled capacity has actually turned into new housing. The idea that a plan change that enables two million homes is suddenly going to result in two million homes being built in the short term is nuts, he says. Housing capacity does not immediately mean construction. It means the ability to do it, and it means infrastructure can be sequenced and coordinated to support it. He said, "I expect that the housing capacity the Auckland Council is enabling through this new plan change will support Auckland's growth over the next 30 to 50 years." Chris Bishop says in the past week or so we've seen an almost unprecedented level of misinformation spread about the new draft plan change. He says Auckland is not about to be overrun with sky-riser apartments. The tree-lined streets of the suburbs are not about to be destroyed. Raw sewage will not be bubbling up onto the footpaths or into the Waitematā. The Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the MP for a suburb of tree-lined streets, says the new plan is flawed and he will lobby for changes. He told a public meeting last week that he and supporters must impress on Chris Bishop that this plan is not necessary and it will have negative unintended consequences, as he told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. “The plan that has been produced by Auckland Council, as Chris Bishop noted in his column this morning, that requires almost no greenfield development, all intensification. It requires half of Parnell to have 50-metre buildings. Now, I just make the point that, you know, it's only two years ago that we had a building fall into a sinkhole because a 120-year-old brick sewer underneath Parnell imploded and everything fell down into it and we had two years of fixing that up. So, the idea you're going to intensify at that rate there, doesn't make sense. “So, we've got an improvement, but now we've got, an obligation, I think, to make sure that we really go through this from an Auckland perspective and make sure that the plan actually makes sense.” I think, David Seymour, as the MP for Epsom, makes a very good point. There was a great big sinkhole in Parnell because the pipes imploded. Their necessary infrastructure wasn't there. And I wish every single time the government or the council or developers talked about houses, they added the words ‘and the supporting infrastructure'. I can see where both ministers are coming from. We need more housing and supporting infrastructure in all of New Zealand cities. Chris Bishop is passionate about this. He wants to get housing affordability down, the best way to do that is to increase the supply of houses and the supporting infrastructure. But I'm wary of his comment in his column that cities aren't museums, that our streets should not be shrines to the past. Chris Bishop was only a baby when the wholesale destruction of Auckland's Victorian and Edwardian buildings took place. He didn't experience the horror of seeing beautiful old buildings torn down and replaced with priapic smoked glass monstrosities erected in the name of men's egos. Hideous. Not all old buildings are created equal. Not every single building born and erected before 1900 should be saved and preserved in aspic, but we need to keep some links with our past. To know where we're going, we need to know where we've been. We need more housing. We need more affordable housing. We need a variety of housing. It can't all be created equal. Chris Bishop says too in his columns, that he's perplexed by the council's aversion to new greenfield housing, big new subdivisions on the city fringe. He says that he's in favour of greenfield housing where the infrastructure costs can be recovered from new residents. He says in his view, the council should be zoning more for this sort of housing. The new draft plan is a missed opportunity, he says, but it's a draft and the council has a chance to improve it. But I guess the council's looking at arable land. You can't just soak up the land where food is produced to plonk more people there. So, what would you rather? Go up, the high-density apartment buildings? Go out? The greenfield housing on the outskirts of the city where you contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure needed to have long-term viable housing there? Can we have a little bit of everything? A little bit of the old buildings, a little bit of the heritage buildings, a few tree-lined streets, apartment living for those who, who want it and love it. I'm wary of more big subdivisions on the city fringe because I'm mindful that land is usually good land for growing food. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT Party Leader David Seymour has set the cat among the pigeons, or the Huntaway among the cattle, by calling for New Zealand to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a pact that's part of the UN's framework convention on climate change, which started in 1992 with the Rio Earth Summit. The main goal of the Paris Agreement is to keep long-term global temperatures from warming 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, and if not that, then well below 2 degrees Celsius by slashing planet-warming emissions from coal, oil, and gas. It's not working, the numbers are still too high, but who knows what they would have been had the Paris Agreement not been in place. It works as a binding but voluntary programme for the member countries. Every five years, countries are required to submit a goal or a plan for what it will do about heat-trapping emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases. And these goals are supposed to get more ambitious every five years – you're supposed to improve on what you did last time. The countries themselves decide what's in those goals, and there is no punishment for countries who miss the goals. Despite this, despite the fact that there are no teeth and no punitive measures if you don't meet the self-imposed targets, ACT says that the Paris Agreement needs to change, or New Zealand needs to leave. David Seymour says it demands targets that are disconnected from science and blind to New Zealand's realities. Net zero targets have been set without regard for the real cost to firms, farms, and families, they say, so they want New Zealand out, like the US. “At the moment, we face being punished for being a methane-heavy economy. I think it's about time that we, perhaps along with like-minded nations, I'm thinking South American nations like Uruguay that have a lot of livestock, also a lot of Southeast Asian nations which produce a lot of rice, which it turns out actually produces a lot of methane – we should be going to Paris saying, "hang on a minute', instead of our government officials making representations to the public that pay them on behalf of these global institutions, maybe they should actually be going on our behalf overseas to say, ‘you guys need to give a fair deal to methane-heavy economies,' because methane's a very different gas. It has a much different effect on climate because it breaks down over time, and therefore that scientific reality needs to be recognised.” So that was David Seymour talking to Heather du Plessis-Allan last night. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it's not going to happen; we're not going to leave. It would only hurt and punish and damage our farmers. He says our competitor countries would like nothing more than to see New Zealand products off the shelves, and he added that, having worked in multinationals, the companies would just move to another supplier, a more public-friendly, a more agreeable, a more green-friendly supplier. He does have a point. Well, both men have points, really. David Seymour is quite right in that methane is a different sort of a gas, that New Zealand does it the best in the world. New Zealand produces food better than anybody else in terms of accounting for climate change targets and goals. But Christopher Luxon has a point too, because green and social accounting is part of global financial reporting. We're seeing it right down to the smallest business in New Zealand. Your bank wants to see you committing to various environmental targets, goals, achievements. If you don't, the money comes at a higher rate. And it's the same for them. Their masters, their overlords, want to see that the banks themselves have required their clients to commit to environmental goals. It's absolutely entwined within the way the world does business. I don't know how you can separate one from the other. It would be very easy for New Zealand to be made an example of, far harder for the US because it is a global powerhouse. Notwithstanding Modi, Xi, and Putin all getting together to try and form another cabal or block of power, but the US is too powerful to punish. Were we to say, "You know what, we're out," it would be very, very easy for us to be made an example of. We're small, quite loud, there would be some people around the world who would have heard of us, so if we're made an example of, it would only hurt us. Nobody else would care. Furthermore, Christopher Luxon says that New Zealand has taken farming out of the ETS, the Emissions Trading Scheme, and promises there'll be an announcement on methane targets in the very, very near future. So where do you stand on this one? As I'm aware, farming as an industry and farming as a science is constantly working to improve efficiencies in the way they do things. Our scientists and our ag researchers are working overtime to try and bring down any harmful gases caused in the manufacture of food. Farmers are implementing all sorts of measures, and if they don't, they're off the books. They are no longer clients of places like Fonterra. So you have to meet really high standards before you can consider yourself a farmer in the modern age. I would have thought farming as an industry understood the global realities, given that they are a major global player. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A former Climate Change Minister believes New Zealand should stay in the Paris Climate Agreement. ACT leader David Seymour's announced a policy to leave the global pact unless rules are loosened for our farmers. New Zealand First has also floated the idea of withdrawing, as some larger nations have ditched it. Tim Groser told Kerre Woodham this goes against public sentiment. He says polls indicate a large majority of Kiwis believe we should do our share on climate change. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement could cause more problems than it solves. Act and New Zealand First have expressed interest in pulling New Zealand out of the agreement unless more realistic emissions targets are produced. Sir Lockwood Smith, former MP and Diplomat, says he sympathises with famers and Seymour on the subject, but we just pull out of the accord. He told Kerre Woodham that there are clauses in free trade agreements, such as the one with the UK, that would enable them to take action or to seek remedies if New Zealand were to withdraw from any international agreement around climate change. He says we do have to be careful, however, that doesn't mean we don't do anything. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The number of emergency housing applications being declined has soared as the Government tightens restrictions. Data obtained by our newsroom under the Official Information Act shows applications have dropped significantly to the end of June, but the number being declined continues to rise. More applications are being declined than granted in Auckland. Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka told Kerre Woodham they have a range of measures either in place, or that they're putting in place, to deal with housing insecurity and homelessness. He says that building a house or just having housing isn't necessarily an enduring solution, as homelessness has a number of fathers and mothers, such as poverty or substance abuse issues. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You might remember, those of you who were listening around about a month ago when the Prime Minister was in the studio, taking your calls. Steve rang in and gave the PM a bit of ginger over the economy. He said, "I know you're between a rock and a hard place, Prime Minister, with the economy. Not really any more levers you can pull to do much, and you guys are just treading water. It's a PR machine to gloss over while you pray that somehow the economy's going to pick up." He said to the Prime Minister, "There's one lever you have yet to pull, and I think you know that for the short-term sugar that will bring something into this economy, that's a foreign buyers' ban. If that comes off, you know that will bring a bit of money in, and that will have a proper, tangible effect rather than just being all talk, talk." But of course, that's not going to happen with Winston. CL: On foreign buyers, that is a conversation that Winston and I are having, so watch this space. Let's see whether we can make some progress through that one. KW: Interesting. How will you get him to change his mind? What bauble are you able to offer? CL: No, no, no. I think actually both of us recognise that if people are going to come to this country and make an investment and partner with a New Zealand company, you know, think about a technology person in San Francisco wanting to come out here. They don't want to rent a house in Auckland. They want to be able to buy a house, and you think about what's happening in places like Tara Iti up the road from Auckland. You've got massive investment, 140 Americans here building, you know, $20 million plus homes, all that sort of stuff. So there has to be a way through that. So, you know, watch this space. It might be a bit more positive than Steve thinks. And what do you know? That was on the 7th of August. We watched the space, and on the 1st of September, the announcement came. Foreigners spending $5 million on approved investments in exchange for residency visas will be able to buy homes. But not just any old tat. They will only be able to buy homes that are $5 million plus. The Prime Minister said the changes aim to attract rich immigrants who find the thought of having a home in New Zealand attractive, without opening the market to widespread foreign property ownership. And he's right. I mean, there are some Kiwis looking at the $5 million plus homes, but it's not me. Is it you, Helen? No. No, she's not in the market for a $5 million home. Young Olivia, who's just joined us, no. No, she has yet to buy her first home, so it won't be in the $5 million plus category. It is not the majority of us, I would venture to suggest. And apparently, offshore buyers have responded immediately. High-end real estate agents say the word has gone out that New Zealand is welcoming people back into the country – but then you become a high-end real estate agent by talking up the market, don't you? So, you know, but you take them at their word. The word goes out from the Prime Minister that if you want to come to New Zealand and you want residency, guess what? You can buy a house, which makes sense. But it's got to be $5 mil plus, which for some people is what they would spend on a bach. You know, these kinds of high-end investors, it's the sort of money you'd spend on a bach in New Zealand. The Labour-New Zealand First coalition banned most foreign buyers in 2017 out of a belief they were contributing to skyrocketing house prices. The New Zealand First of that coalition is now the New Zealand First of this coalition that has reversed that ban. But Winston Peters is adamant that the ban actually remains. He says, "We have ensured that there are tight restrictions on eligibility and on what these current residence visa holders can purchase," including that existing restrictions, excluding the sale of rural farm and sensitive land, will still apply, as well as ensuring we don't get a repeat of the Canadian experience where there is a constant recycling of the same investment funds. The visa holders will be restricted to only one home, either purchasing an existing home or building a new one, with the value of that home being a minimum of $5 million. This will exclude over 99% of New Zealand homes on the market, protecting the vast majority from sale to foreigners and will not affect the wider housing market for Kiwis. He says that New Zealand First supporters understand that this is not a U-turn, that the ban remains – except it doesn't. The ban remains except for those who are buying houses over $5 million. So, shall we call it a clarification, Winston? Not a ban per se, just a clarification. Is he right? If you are dyed-in-the-wool anti-immigration, and you swallow a dead rat, as Winston has done, by accepting migrants who can afford to drop $5 million in investment money and $5 million on a new pad? Are those migrants okay? The ban in general remains, but for a very few people in the rarefied position of having $10 million to spend, then they are welcome, the welcome mat is there for them. So, the only thing that really does make me wonder is what Christopher Luxon and possibly David Seymour had to give Winston Peters to get this over the line? That experienced old horse trader doesn't give it up for nothing. You know, you want it, you pay for it. So, I want to know what the cost was to get that, let's not say U-turn, let's not say reversal, let's say clarification. And I also want to know what New Zealand First voters think. I know you love him, you'd follow him over the trenches. There's no man like Winston. He's probably up there next to Michael Joseph Savage on the wall, the framed print with some plastic roses in a vase underneath, gathering dust. But do you understand that he has made this decision for the right reasons? To me, it makes sense. I'm sure there will be some cashed-up Kiwis who are a little brassed off that their dream home may now go up in price by half a million dollars more because you've got foreign buyers bidding on the same property. But I'm not going to cry in my cornies over them. There's not going to be that many affected. So, I get where they're coming from, I just want to know how much it cost National and Act to get New Zealand First agreement because you don't get something for nothing. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's offering up to 30-million dollars in loans from the Regional Infrastructure Fund to smaller airlines. It's also approved funding for a digital development that will allow regional transport bookings to be integrated with the platforms of major carriers. Associate Transport Minister James Meager says most regional airlines couldn't opt to charge more as a solution to tough times. New Zealand Airports Association Chief Executive Billy Moore says this is a ‘smart strategy' from the government to improve regional airlines. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's confidence the right balance can be found when it comes to housing intensification in Auckland. A public meeting was held in Mt Eden last night, over proposals to allow 10 to 15-storey developments near transport hubs and town centres. Most of the meeting was civil, but things got tense when a young planning student suggested older people were standing in the way of change. Mt Hobson Group urban planning expert Hamish Firth told Kerre Woodham he thinks the city have high-rise buildings and keep the character. He says Auckland has six months to a year to discuss this like adults, to get it right. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Around 200 people packed out the Mt Eden Village Centre in Auckland last night, and they were pretty riled up. In fact, many were furious over plans for high rise apartments and the loss of special character status for hundreds of villas and bungalows in the wider neighbourhood. And this is the kind of feeling that is being felt across many different Auckland suburbs, and it will be coming to a city or town near you. As we were discussing last week, draft plans for Auckland City would see Auckland's skyline in for a major makeover, increasing the city's capacity for new builds from 900,000 under the 2016 unitary plan to accommodating two million new homes. That's a lot. And it might be easy to dismiss the concerns of residents as being those of Boomer NIMBYs just worried about the house prices, but there are very real concerns that intensification on that level could be disastrous if there isn't careful planning. Communities aren't just about putting a roof over a head – you need infrastructure that can support those homes, like stormwater, like wastewater, like schools. It's estimated that if you want two million further dwellings, you'll need 56 more primary schools, 23 more secondary schools – good luck with that. I would argue you'd need loads of green spaces as well – lungs for the city. And I am not convinced that we have learned lessons from the past. Chucking up shoe boxes is not good for anyone, any neighbourhood, any city. Thoughtful, well-designed, high-density developments can be built and can live alongside those established character homes. I'm just not entirely convinced that we can do it in New Zealand. I would love to see evidence of it. I mean the closest I can get to is Stonefields and possibly Hobsonville Point. Perhaps some of the developments around Tauranga, they look to be reasonably well done, although there have been issues with the amount of traffic that suddenly appeared on the roads and the congestion that is caused. Give me an example of where thoughtful high-density development has taken place and I'd love to hear it. I'm just not convinced that when we go up, we know how to do it properly. We need more homes for more people. Absolutely we do. We need a variety of different homes, we need them to be near public transport and cycleways, hence the suburbs that are under question. We cannot simply keep up swallowing arable land. We need to go up. And I think the communities who are close to public transport hubs close to the city know this, they just want to know that the developments will be well planned and well supported by the necessary infrastructure. Who can blame them for being sceptical that this will happen? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Education Minister says there was no option to do nothing when it came to changing NCEA. The proposed changes include replacing the qualification with a system emphasising literacy and numeracy more. Erica Stanford told Kerre Woodham changes were already underway with Labour updating the Level 1 curriculum, so there was no option to do nothing. She says they either had to continue rolling out Labour's plan, or look at what a better plan could be, and that's what they've done. Labour's education spokesperson has only just been briefed on changes to NCEA. Willow-Jean Prime initially ignored, then later declined repeated offers from Stanford to give feedback on the changes. Labour leader Chris Hipkins later said Prime was wrong to decline the offers. Those offers were made as far back as March, but Stanford told Woodham Prime first met with officials last week. She says she's asked lots of questions, but has yet to come back with any feedback, so they'll see where that goes. WATCH ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A new visa to attract businesspeople to New Zealand has been established by the Government, and really, it's only a matter of days, perhaps weeks, before a loosening on restrictions for foreigners being able to purchase residential property here is announced. Christopher Luxon, the Prime Minister, when he was last in-studio with me, said we'll be announcing that shortly. I said you'll never get that past Winston Peters, but he said watch this space. So, he's been dropping very heavy hints for some time now that the restrictions on foreigners being able to buy property here were about to be lifted. In the meantime, the Government's announced the Business Investor Visa, and that will give foreign businesspeople investing $2 million into an existing business here a fast track to residency in New Zealand. A $1 million investment comes with a three-year work to residency pathway. It also comes with conditions, as Immigration Minister Erica Stanford told Mike Hosking this morning. “This is more about people who have got business experience of running businesses –we will check that. Investing in a business, that they have to be here at least 184 days a year, be a tax resident, and actively run the business. They have to be able to speak English, there's an age limit. Whereas the Active Investor Plus is more about their capital and their business connections and they only have to spend a week a year here in order to get their residence – so very, very different. We're not talking huge numbers. This is not like an Oprah-style everyone gets a visa as I think you mentioned this morning, we're thinking probably in the first year between sort of 100 and 150 potentially.” So there are conditions associated with this particular visa such as requiring applicants to speak English, and that's something that I know concerned a number of you when we were talking about schools and the changes to the curriculum in education. When we've had discussions about that, a number of you have been really concerned about the number of young kids arriving here who don't speak English and the challenges that puts on a classroom, and more specifically, a teacher. So hopefully they are policing that English language criteria quite strictly. There are also conditions to meet alongside of health, character, and business experience, and certain businesses are excluded, such as adult entertainment, convenience stores, and fast-food outlets. Now I know that a number of people are dead against having more people coming into the country. You've told me that, and you've certainly sent me plenty of text messages about having more people coming into the country. We haven't got enough houses for the existing people. We've got wait lists up the wazoo. It's just going to put more pressure on our health system. It's going to drive house prices up. I think we have seen that the biggest driver of house prices was locking people inside their own country, lowering interest rates, and allowing speculation to boom. That did more damage to the housing and the property market than any migrant businessperson could ever do. So, we're building more houses, we're opening up pathways for consent so that even more houses can be built. To clear up the waiting lists, we do need to bring in doctors, nurses. We didn't have enough at the time. We didn't have enough workers at the time, and even in a time of high unemployment, businesses still aren't finding the people that they need to make their businesses more productive. I'm for it. I mean $1 million, as we heard yesterday when we were talking about how much you need to retire, $1 million to become a Kiwi doesn't sound like a lot of money, does it? Especially when you open it up to the global market. But if there are conditions there, it they're required to live in New Zealand for much of the year, to pay their taxes to be working in the business, to be growing the business, if certain businesses are excluded so that we steer people into productive businesses, surely it can only be good for New Zealand. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More money could soon circulate through the economy as the Government opens up the country to more overseas businesspeople. Under its new Business Investor Visa, foreign investors who put at least $2 million into a Kiwi business will be granted a 12-month fast-track to residence pathway. People who invest $1 million will be given a three-year work-to-residence option. ABC Business Sales Managing Director Chris Small told Kerre Woodham more capital needs to be brought in. He says when it starts going towards business owners, it'll be recycled back into our economy. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We all know that New Zealand is a trading nation. We need to sell stuff to make the money we need to build hospitals, pay our teachers and police officers, pay for benefits and Super, pay for roads and cycleways, and the like. To maintain our standard of living we have to earn our keep, and that's what our exporters do. We need good exporters, and we need to be able to get our stuff to market. However, port inefficiencies around the country could undermine New Zealand's goals to double its export earnings. I think there have been polite snorts of derision when that bold claim has been stated, especially given what's been happening in recent times. The Cargo Owners Council says there's been a 30% drop in productivity since 2019. Chair Brent Falvey says there needs to be a comprehensive reset of our ports and a strategy for the whole supply chain. The International Container Alliance Committee (ICLC), representing international container shipping lines in New Zealand, has got in on the act too, calling for a lifting of productivity across all ports in the country. They say, “we note that overall the ship rate is reduced from 68 moves per hour in the first quarter of 2019 to 55 moves per hour during a similar period in 2025, across the four largest ports.” That's close to a 20% reduction in productivity and is very concerning, says the ICLC. Brent Falvey told Mike Hosking this morning that we just aren't keeping up with the rest of the world. “As you probably know, there's more than 400 ports around the world and New Zealand, from a productivity point of view, is in the bottom 20%. The majority of our ports are congested and poor productivity. Since 2019, productivity declined by up to 30%, and costs have gone up, and things are a mess. “What we think we need to do is actually have a reset. We're talking to the government, we're saying we need to have a hub and spoke model around the ports, the hub is actually big, deep-sea ports that are really efficient, and the spoke with small ports moving cargo to those large ports and that would be done by coastal shipping, it would have to be hand in hand with rail and road. I mean you've probably noticed that there's been some good work done at rail. They've had a bit of a reset, but to go to the next level for rail, they need volume that will drive efficiencies and cost.” We have, according to the industry, a five year window to get the supply chain back on track or we risk being serviced out of Australia. The shipping companies just won't bother coming here. It's not worth their while and that would add costs to exports and increased time to market. Some shipping lines say it's already too late, with shipping companies scaling back direct New Zealand services and hubbing out of Australia. Port companies say health and safety changes, as well as ships not arriving when they're supposed to, as contributing to the productivity question. But you can't really blame unions taking a long, hard look at health and safety processes, given the number of deaths on ports around the country. Sure, increase our productivity, but not at any cost, not at the cost of lives, because you haven't got things right. People don't have to die to make the ports more efficient. In the Blue Highway series that Business Desk produced, the shipping lines and the New Zealand Cargo Owners Council supported a move to that hub and feeder network that Brent Falvey talked about. A small number of ports would serve as the main ports of call for larger international vessels, and the remaining regional ports would play a feeder role. And again, that use of coastal shipping would transport cargo to and from the international hub ports. Now there may need to be regulatory changes to allow foreign operators to play a greater role in the coastal network, there may not be enough domestic flagships to do that, but that's tinkering around the edges. Right now, we have a very small window of time to improve our productivity in our ports so that our exporters can have a chance of competing on the international global markets. It is absolutely vital that our ports are productive and safe and efficient because the international shipping companies simply do not care. We make up 1% of their business, cutting us off would mean very little to them. It would mean quite literally the world for us. When it comes to making these big, deep-sea ports, this is where you need to fast track it. Can you imagine if five years from now we'd still be going through the consent process? There's been much talk in recent years about how to improve our ports because the decision makers know just how important it is to get our goods to market. We've talked about trying to increase the ports in Auckland, and that is indeed what they're going to do, expanding some of the wharves there. The automation was tried that didn't work for very obvious reasons. There's been talk of moving the port north, I think that's dead in the water despite Martua's best intentions. Port of Tauranga has been trying to grow its space. It is monolithic already. When you go to The Mount, it is dominated by the wharf. But size doesn't matter in this case. We need productivity. We need efficiency. We need to get these ships in and get them out far more quickly than we're doing now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do younger Kiwis still have that No.8 wire mentality? While some are concerned the younger generation is settling as opposed to striving and investing in their ideas and futures, others believe the worry is unfounded. Icehouse Ventures, a venture capital company that backs Kiwi startups, hosted their 15th Annual Showcase last week, in which nine Kiwi founders presented to over 1,500 investors. CEO Robbie Paul told Kerre Woodham young founders are coming in droves. He says that founders tend to be inspired by looking at other success stories, and there's more of those now, which is creating more start-ups. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a call to completely reset our supply chains. The Cargo Owners Council says there's been a 30% drop in productivity since 2019. Chair Brent Flavey says New Zealand is in the bottom 20% for port efficiency, and we aren't keeping up with the rest of the world. NZ Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Federation CEO Sherelle Kennelly told Kerre Woodham without some hard conversations, we aren't going to get to a point where we can support our export goals going forward. She says if we don't improve our efficiencies, New Zealand won't be able to meet the global market. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't know about you, but I was truly surprised to hear Judge Russell Collins send a young drug driver to jail on Friday. In the Napier District Court, Judge Collins heard Alexander Kerr had dope in his system when he crashed his car - killing his mate and leaving another in a wheelchair for life. Kerr had no previous convictions. His mate, the one in the wheelchair, the one he didn't kill, had forgiven him, but Judge Collins sent Kerr to jail for two years and three months. In sentencing, Judge Collins said if people asked the question, “What would happen if I killed someone through driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol?” The answer should be “expect to go to jail.” Criminal lawyer Steve Cullen on Early Edition this morning said a sentence of imprisonment is not unusual. If people are being killed due to drug drivers or drink drivers being on the road, then a harsh penalty has to be imposed to send the message to everybody. Really?! Steve Cullen, I can give you many, many, many, many instances of people who have killed innocents on the road and have not been sent to jail. A repeat drunk driver who killed another motorist has successfully appealed her prison sentence and got home detention. Samantha Allen was described as weaving on the road, SH3 in the King Country, crossing the centre line multiple times before the head on collision in March 2022. The crash killed Abigail Johns. It was Allen's fourth drink driving conviction. She successfully appealed her sentence of two years and seven months imprisonment, and it was replaced with a sentence of 9 1/2 months home detention. Ten weeks after he hit and killed an Irish national, Declan Curley, while drunk driving, Callum Wither was again on the road and drunk. He's now been sentenced to home detention to the disappointed murmurs of Curley's friends and family. Wither, 23, who had hit Declan at the intersection of Taranaki and Dixon streets in central Wellington in 2022, was drunk enough to have a friend tell him he should not be driving. But after killing Declan on April 21, Wither was again in Wellington CBD drink driving and he got home detention. Samuel Paterson killed surfer, builder and cyclist Andrew Milne. It was an avoidable killing, and Paterson simply had no business getting behind the wheel when he was fatigued, drunk and with cannabis in his system. Paterson's car was unwarranted and unregistered at the time of the fatal collision. The judge gave Paterson credit for his early guilty pleas, his engagement with the restorative justice, his remorse, his efforts at rehabilitation and his offer of significant reparation that reduced his sentence from a starting point of three years and six months imprisonment to 11 months home detention and 200 hours community work. And in 2023, I mean there are so many more, but this is my last one. Jake Hamlin finished work at 4pm and drove from Ruawai to a house near the Sherwood Golf Club in Whangarei and began consuming a box of Maverick bourbon, ready-to- drink-mixes. He left the house, began driving towards Managawhai, still consuming drinks, was captured on CCTV crossing the centre line. A driver called police, observing Jake Hamlin drifting across the road and almost colliding into three other vehicles. The driver said he followed him for a period but gave up when he hit a speed of around 130kms. Fifteen minutes later, Hamlin came along the Uretiti straights, crossing the centre line and ploughing straight into Samantha Williams. She was killed on impact and suffered injuries she would find hard to be able to survive. After listening to the lengthy submissions, Judge Davis accepted that Hamlin was among many young men in New Zealand caught up in the peer pressure of an excessive drinking culture. He acknowledged his rehabilitative efforts, offers for restorative justice, which were declined, and his remorse. The end sentence was 12 months home detention, which upset multiple members of the victim's family, who left the courtroom. So, Steve Cullen, I would say that absolutely it is a surprise to me, and probably to many others, and probably to the young man himself, to be sent to prison. The answer absolutely should be, as you say, what happens if I kill somebody? When, through my own deeds and actions, my choice to drink, my choice to take drugs, my choice to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, I kill somebody else. The answer absolutely should be I go to jail. All these people and all the many others I haven't got time to mention should be in prison, every single one of them. Some of them are really, really sorry. For some of them it's a nightmare they'll never wake up. From some well you know ... some of them seem to be, “well I was pissed, I was stoned, it was an accident, these things happen.” No. Yes, they happen, but they shouldn't. And when they do happen, a life has got to be recognised. The person who took the life of another can't just be inconvenienced, a bit bored, brassed off at home. Life as they know it should come to an absolute halt. They should lose their rights, they should go to prison and they should stay there for a period of time. Your liberty should be taken from you. If not forever, at least for a period to acknowledge that you have stolen the life of another person, and that's got to count for something. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour's Tāmaki Makaurau candidate Peeni Heare is standing by a comment that he'd repeal the gang patch ban. He agreed with the notion at an event on Wednesday night. Now, this is despite Chris Hipkins saying no, no, that's not true, we're not going to repeal the gang patch law. Peeni Henare told RNZ he was asked his personal view on the issue, which is informed by whanau experience. He understands that differs from the Party's view, but when an audience member at the Waatea-hosted debate at Favona asked the Tāmaki Makaurau candidates, will you repeal the gang patch law if you come into government, yes or no? The Te Pati Maori candidate said yes. Henare could also be heard saying aye. No wonder Labour is staying schtum and not releasing any policy yet. They don't have any. Individual Labour MPs have reckons, but they all seem to have different divergent reckons. For the record, Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins told me they would not be repealing the gang patch ban when he was in studio a couple of months ago. KW: Are you going to bring back gang patches? CH: No. And y'know, I think it's one of those things where it hasn't ultimately y'know, changed the nature of gang activity. Gang business is still booming. They're still selling more methamphetamine than ever. But what it has done is people feel a bit safer with not seeing patched gang members walking down the street. So no, absolutely not. But Peeni Heare says he personally wants to see the law repealed. Presumably he wants to see the gang patches back out on the streets and the roads and in our neighbourhoods. And that would surely, surely be a backward step. Remember what the Police Commissioner, Richard Chambers, had to say about the banning of gang patches when he was in having a chat last week: "I'm very, very proud of my staff across the country who have embraced the new legislation, the wearing of gang insignia, and I'm not sure how many it is now, but I think it may be over 700 prosecutions for the wearing of insignia that has helped us to address the gang issues. And in fact, whilst the gang insignia is one aspect, the reality is that gangs are responsible for a very high and disproportionate number of other serious criminal offending. So we're addressing that too, and we have thousands of additional charges that have been presented to the court because as we go about our police work, and we may well be policing things like patches, then we inevitably are dealing with other things as well. And I look at that. “So I know that there's been a lot of commentary about gang numbers and stuff like that, but the reality is my teams across the country are focused on holding gang members to account. And I'm very, very proud of their hard work. And I think we would all agree that that legislation has definitely gone extremely well, and the compliance level is something that I'm very, very pleased with.” Chambers says the gang patch ban has actually helped police to do their job, and I simply do not see how wearing patches enhances the lives of the gang members. Anecdotally, we've heard from people who say that without the patches, they feel safer. You don't have to staunch up, live up to the branding on your back. You don't, quite literally, have a target on your back. Rival gang members kill each other. Not all of them, but you are at risk. If you're wearing a colour or a gang patch that a rival gang member does not like, then you're at risk. Without that target on your back, you can just be you. A father, a son, a footy player, a worker. What possible good can come of repealing the gang patch ban? How is it going to help anybody? If this is an example of where Labour's at policy wise, then you'd have to say that the coalition government, with all its faults and missteps and imperfections, definitely deserves another three years. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis all but invoked the old adage ‘the beatings will continue until morale improves', when commenting on the state of the economy yesterday. In a stand up with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon after the Reserve Bank cut the OCR by 25 basis points to 3%, she blamed the sluggish economy on doomsayers from the opposition benches who were talking the economy down, and all but instructed Kiwi households to be more jolly. “I'm always conscious that households listen to merchants of misery everyday, most of whom sit on the opposition benches, who like to be doomsayers and talk down the New Zealand economy. I think it's been a really tough time for Kiwi families, there's absolutely no denying that, but we kind of have a choice – do we talk ourselves into an ongoing funk? Or do we look ahead and recognise that things will get better?” “People need to feel it, and I fully appreciate that. You know, some parts of New Zealand are feeling it, and other parts are not.” So that was Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon. All well and good, but on the same day she told us to pull up our socks and perk up, Fletcher Building announced a $419 million loss. Kitchen Things, a premium appliance store that goes back to 1986, announced it was closing 12 stores (there is a Kitchen Things in Hamilton that's trading by itself and doing very well and would appreciate the support) and they asked ASB to appoint receivers. And Carter Holt Harvey is proposing to close its Nelson sawmill with the loss of 142 jobs. Willis and the rest of her government are exasperated and frustrated that things have not got better faster. When you're elected on your promise to turn things around, voters, not unreasonably, expect to see results. And yes, it was always going to be a big job, but they said they were up to the task, that they could do it. I don't think it is the opposition benches being doomsayers. They've done their damage. They're not saying much of anything at all. Labour knows all it has to do is stay schtum – the moment it opens its mouth and gets into trouble. So all they're doing is watching the Government trying to put its shoulder behind the big, sluggish beast that is the economy, and they're shoving it, and they're pushing it, and you've got the Finance Minister out the front dangling her carrots saying come on, up you get New Zealand economy, let's get cracking. And it's hibernating. It's in hibernation and it's not moving. And that must be very frustrating. There's a very good piece by Danyl McLauchlan in the New Zealand Listener, where he says at the moment the Coalition Government really only has itself to blame. I put that same question to Christopher Luxon when he was in. You're just waiting for the economic cycle. You're not doing anything magical or brilliant or wonderful. Yes, I like what you're doing with education very much. I like what you're doing with law and order very much. But when it comes to the economy, so far all I can see is that you're waiting for the natural cycle. There's not a lot going on. The Reserve Bank is confident lower interest rates will eventually help that inert, sluggish economy get off the front porch and start moving. It's identified numerous reasons why the cuts it's delivered in a year haven't spurred as much growth as some expected. That said, the Chief Economist Paul Conway said yesterday it's not our job to grow the economy. We're here for price stability. He said if you want to get growth going in the long run, it's about improving productivity in the economy. Monetary policy is not the instrument for that. We're about controlling demand to keep inflation low and stable. Don't look at us, he was basically saying, there is only so much that we can do. And sure, by lowering interest rates, by lowering the cash rate, thereby allowing banks to lower mortgage interest rates, that will leave some people who are coming up to setting mortgages with a bit more money in their pockets. It will allow some people to borrow money a bit more easily. But what is it going to take? I think people are a bit shell shocked after the past four years. And it is an economy of two halves – some people are doing really, really, really well, and good on them. But others, their pay packet arrives in their account and whoosh out it goes. You think you're getting ahead and then in comes the rates bill, or the insurance bill, or school fees, or what have you, and there is no extra for households to be jolly on. Others who might have got their noses ahead and have seen business start to pick up don't want to go through that again, so they're stockpiling like sensible squirrels. There was a lovely woman who rang in a couple of days ago and she was in painting and decorating. She said, I love people having money. I love people who've earned a lot of money, and have worked hard, and been lucky, or however they've got their money, because they spend it with us. And without them spending, we don't have a company. I don't have a business. That's right. You've got to have that extra money so that the money-go-round can continue. And right now, people either don't have that money, or if they do, they're a bit nervous about spending it. I would love to hear from you if you are in business, if you are a member of a Kiwi household, where are you at? Are you in a funk? I don't think I'm being talked down by the opposition. That's not how I feel. They're not ruining my buzz, they're not dragging me down. I just need to get ahead of the rates and the insurance. The mortgage rates have come down a bit, so that's good. I think 2026 will be okay, but that won't be any thanks to the Government or what it's done to be perfectly honest. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More students are attending school regularly. Figures released today show 58.4% of students regularly attended school in Term 2 - the highest since 2021. It's a drop from Term 1 where 66% of students showed up regularly, but this is partially explained by winter illness. Associate Education Minister David Seymour says messaging from the government has changed to remind parents school is important. However no prosecutions have been launched against parents of truant kids. Seymour told Kerre Woodham 15 prosecutions were explored but later dropped. He says it's clear the threat of prosecution is changing parents' behaviour. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former Speaker Trevor Mallard is returning early from Ireland, ending his job as Ambassador. Winston Peters has appointed senior foreign affairs staffer Angela Hassan-Sharp as his replacement, saying his behaviour during the anti-mandate occupation at Parliament should've disqualified him from the role. Peters says only experienced diplomats, not former politicians, should be posted overseas. Former MP and former diplomat Maurice Williamson told Kerre Woodham the idea that politicians should never be appointed as diplomats is too black and white. He says that often those with political weight behind their name have advantages regular diplomats don't, such as with former Trade Minister Tim Grosser, who became the Ambassador to Washington. However, Williamson says, they do need to be diplomats first and foremost and understand how diplomatic processes and channels work. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The secondary teachers are out again. They're appalled and insulted by the Government's latest pay offer. For the record, the Governments offered a 1% pay rise every year for three years in collective agreement negotiations. PPTA President Chris Abercrombie says the offer is the lowest increase in a generation and 18-19,000 teachers will be out protesting today. Chris Abercrombie said the Government's offer was appalling, and argued that it failed to help efforts to recruit and retain teachers within the workforce. The Government's also failing, he says, to address other PPTA claims – more pastoral care staffing, professional development for curriculum and assessment, more support for curriculum leaders who will be working on upcoming NCEA changes. If no progress is made, we have been warned, the PPTA says they will roster students home and not teach certain year levels on specific days from September 15th. If this all sounds familiar, it is. Here's a press release from Jan Tinetti in 2023, basically two years ago, when she was Minister for Education. The Government has agreed to support the independent arbitration panel's recommendation to increase secondary teachers' base salaries by 14.5% by December 2024. The increase will see beginner teachers receive an annual increase of almost $10,000 in addition to their $7,210 lump sum payment. The offer provides an increase of 36% for teachers at the top of the pay scale. She acknowledges the disruption to students, young people, and their parents who were kept out of the classroom. The panel's recommendation adds an extra cost of approximately $680 million to the $3.76 billion already set aside in the budget to settle teachers' and principals' agreements. That money includes an increase to other education collective agreements which will flow on from the decision. So where are we at? Surely the PPTA doesn't expect 14% increases every bloody year. I mean, that's farcical. And if the strike and the promise of more strikes and rostering students home and not teaching certain year levels sounds familiar it's because in 2023, that's what happened from March, all through the school yea —never the holidays— there were strikes. Year levels were rostered home. There were national strikes. As the teacher said, we haven't received enough from past governments and this Labour government, so it went to independent arbitration and the panel recommended that the base salaries be increased by 14.5%. Which came in in December 2024. Eight months later, they're striking again? Does this happen every year? Every year we get this. Surely if you're striking and the deal is set that you get pay increases and they come in in December 2024, wouldn't you be factoring in that this will last you for a bit? That that this will do you for the next couple of years? Or parents and teachers going to be seeing kids locked out every year over months and months and months. This kind of disruption is completely, I would have thought, utterly unacceptable. If there hadn't been a pay settlement in 2023, which came into effect in December 24, fill your boots. I'd be out there with a bloody placard with you. But how can you justify going out again and closing the classrooms again after the enormous disruption of Covid? And then the enormous disruption of 2023 with national strikes and rolling strikes. How can it be in the best interests of young people and the profession to disrupt the schools in this way? You know, for $3.76 billion for teachers' and principals' salary and package agreements, maybe we could spend that a different way. You know, with AI here now, the PPTA has to be very, very careful that they don't strike themselves out of existence. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two stories in the Herald today - one about the announcement from Christopher Luxon and Chris Penk yesterday, changing the building liability settings so ratepayers aren't burdened with picking up the tab that shonky developers, builders, or architects are responsible for. In the Herald story, they cite a case in Queenstown: the Oaks Shores body corporate filed a $160 million claim for weather type defects. The developer had been placed into voluntary liquidation and was not sued, so that meant every ratepayer in the Queenstown District was liable for the bill. If the case hadn't been settled privately, ratepayers could have faced rates increases of $300 a year for 30 years. I hate to think of what it's cost the Auckland Council when it comes to remediation of weather type defects, and it's still going on. Under the new rules, described as the biggest change to the building consent regime since it came into force in 2004, there'll be partial liability amongst the various parties involved in the development. At the moment, not only is it the cost, but councils have become increasingly risk averse because they don't want to sign off building consents and inspections if it means that they are liable if anything goes wrong and then ratepayers will have to pay. There's a real blockage in the system, Chris Penk says, and by having everybody share in the liability then that will help (they hope) clear blockages in the current system. Currently building owners can claim full compensation from any responsible party if there's something wrong with the home. If one of the parties can't pay because they've gone into voluntary liquidation, you can go to the other two, and usually that's the Council – deepest pockets, no option to walk away. The government's going to scrap the current framework and replace it with proportionate liability. Under this new model each party will only be responsible for the share of the work they carried out, which is great for ratepayers, great for councils, great for builders. Is it great for the homeowner? I wouldn't have thought so – you can only get the money back if the company is still there to sue. And if they've gone bust and if the Council's only liable for its bit, then you're not going to ever get anywhere near what you paid for a shonky building. This comes into the spotlight because we're looking at intensification and higher density of houses, which means throwing up more houses quickly. Chris Bishop, the RMA Reform Minister, has already told councils in our larger cities that they can opt out of the medium density residential standards that were introduced by the last government, that allowed for three storey developments on almost every residential property. But you can only abandon that if you adopt new planning rules to allow for an equivalent number of homes. In Auckland, that will mean the Council has to come up with two million homes over the coming decades. And how are they going to do that? Well, they've decided that they will build them along the transport lines, which makes sense. The suburb of Kingsland, for example, will see the removal of around 70 to 80% of the special character designation that preserves the cottages and villas, and 15 story apartment buildings will be thrown up in their instead because the suburb is close to the station on the Western line. Ten storey and 15 storey developments will be allowed within a 10 minute walk of some train stations, rapid bus stations, the edge of town centres. In Auckland, there's 44 walkable catchments. Height limits will be raised to six stories along more major transport corridors. And 12,000 properties will be down zoned, meaning it'll be harder to put new developments on them, or they won't be permitted at all because of natural hazards like flooding. If adopted, the plan will be open for public submission —this is specifically for Auckland— before the Council makes a final decision later this year. Auckland councillor Christine Fletcher is one who is vocal in her opposition to the density requirements, concerned that if it's not done well, it will give intensification a bad name. And when you look at some of the horrors that have been constructed around Auckland, you can understand why there would be concern. Bad enough to have a 15 story apartment building next to your bungalow bathed in all day sun, but if it's just in a constant state of remediation and fixing and disrepair and people having to abandon their apartments because it hasn't been done right and can't be fixed, it'll be even worse. It does have to be done right. There are areas of extreme ugliness, hideous apartments, townhouses jammed together with very little in the way of green spaces, no public transport nearby, few amenities. But then you have developments like Stonefields and Hobsonville Point in Auckland, which I would argue have been done very well. You might be able to point to parts of Hamilton and Napier where there has been intensification of housing. Outside of Christchurch, farmland has become residential in its nature, with developments there. Those that are done well are done very well. Those that are done poorly are just a blight on the landscape and a burden around the neck of anyone who buys them. How on earth are you going to have any confidence in buying a new build when partial liability is being introduced? When you can't get back what you spend because each party is only responsible for their little bit and so many of them will be able to do a flit? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.