Podcasts about kerre woodham

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It seems hard to believe, but the Maxim Institute reckons New Zealand can lead the world in sustainable AI infrastructure. They warn, however, that the window of opportunity is closing quickly because everybody wants to be in on it. Every other country wants the rewards that come from hooking their carriages to the AI machine, the choices we make now will determine whether New Zealand becomes a leader in the AI economy or is stuck in competing for the rats and mice that are left. Much hinges on being able to generate the electricity needed to power the massive warehouse sized computers driving the AI economy. Right now, those data centres use 2% of global electricity - more than 10 times New Zealand's annual generation capacity and demand is only going to get greater. The institute argues that New Zealand has nearly 90% renewable electricity, a temperate climate that reduces cooling costs and strict privacy laws, and thus that makes us an attractive destination for global tech firms. ‘But we haven't got any electricity' I hear you cry. We're having to burn coal to keep the lights on. Nanas going to bed at 6pm because her power bill is so high. And here is where the Maxim Institute makes its recommendations. We need to double geothermal generation, explore emerging energy sources such as supercritical geothermal. Small modular reactors, which are next generation nuclear technology that offer safe, scalable zero carbon power. We need to streamline, consent and incentivise investment. Speaking to the Mike Hosking Breakfast, Thomas Scrimgeour, researcher at the Maxim Institute, is all for exploring the nuclear energy option. ‘Small nuclear reactors are an excellent source of energy that we should be exploring. The International Energy Agency's report earlier this year was titled A New Era for Nuclear Energy. The world is heavily, heavily investing in nuclear power. Over 30 countries have signed a pledge to triple nuclear power production by 2050. The world is returning to nuclear power because it is clean, because it is reliable, because it is always there for you. Nuclear power is something we should be looking at. New Zealand's opposition to nuclear power is quite recent. In the 1970s, so not that long ago, we had a Royal Commission on Nuclear Power, and it released a report in 1978 that was expecting a significant nuclear power programmes in New Zealand by the early 21st century. It's only since the 1980s that we became a country that reacted against nuclear power because of its associations with weapons testing in the Pacific. But nuclear energy is not the same thing as a nuclear bomb, and New Zealand hasn't always been opposed to nuclear energy. Once upon a time, we were expecting to get nuclear power, and we can talk people back into that.' Can we though? That was Thomas Scrimgeour, one of the researchers at the Maxim Institute, talking to Mike Hosking this morning. He says, basically, that the David Lange ‘no nukes' identity around which we wrap ourselves, it's an anachronism, a thing of the past, it was a blip in history. One moment we were all for nuclear power, next thing we decided it was absolutely abhorrent. We were never going to have anything to do with nuclear power ever again, even though we have X-rays, and even though our hospitals leak more radiation than the most efficient nuclear-powered vessels, he thinks that we can forget about those Lange years. He thinks that we can forget about the fact that much of how New Zealand sees itself – pragmatic, humble, innovators, #8 wire mentality, no nukes, no nonsense, give everyone a fair go - he thinks that we can differentiate between no nuclear weapons and the need for nuclear power. On the surface, it would solve all of our problems. If we can make ourselves an attractive market to global tech firms and being able to store all this massive amount of data in our country, it would solve our problems around electricity too. Is it worth having the discussion or are you not prepared to even talk about it? S Surely the younger generation, those who weren't around when we got this frisson of excitement when David Lange took us to the world. We took a stand, and we were noble, and we were principled and the whole world knew who we were. Surely the younger generation don't have their identity as a Kiwi tied up in that. Or do they? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was our gorgeous night last night, absolutely beautiful. The kids were training for football up at the local park, and while I waited to pick up my daughter and grandson, I went for a lovely walk along the estuary – there were Tui and Kereru, families and joggers were out, and it was just glorious. But at the same time, as I was thoroughly appreciating just how lucky we are to have such a gorgeous amenity close by, I was keeping a wary eye out for any off leash dogs, because in our neighbourhood community group there had been a warning about a dangerous dog owner at the local park. And it only takes that one bad apple, doesn't it? To just put a slight tinge on the enjoyment. People who have no business owning dogs, taking them to the local park, completely letting them run wild with no control over them. A woman's dog was attacked and she was bitten badly when she tried to intervene to save the dog. There are far, far more good dog owners. At our local there are dogs of all breeds of all sizes, they all socialise together quite happily and although money might be a little bit tight for some families in our neighbourhood, we are not what you'd call a high socio economic area, we all rub along together. The dogs that I see at the park are always beautifully looked after, glossy coats, great condition, whatever breed they might be. Auckland Council's cracking down on dog owners in a bid to lower a surge in attacks. They prosecuted the owner of a Rottweiler whose teenage son was walking the dog when it mauled a passer-by. The dog owner was very apologetic and the dog was euthanised at the owner's request. Four days later, she offered assistance to the victim immediately, but nonetheless the courts still gave her a 70 hours community service and fined her $500 – which is almost more than you get for taking a life, but there you go. Auckland is taking a tough stance because on the 24/25 financial year alone, nearly 3000 dog attacks and more than 15,000 cases of roaming dogs were reported, and that's an increase from 2020, when there were just under 2000 attacks logged. It's attributed to a surge in dog ownership after the lockdowns, a decline in desexing, and a growing number of unregistered and untrained animals. And it's not just Auckland. I mean, basically pick any area of the country. Last year, locals staged a protest in Kaikohe outside the local council headquarters, demanding tougher action against roaming and dangerous dogs. They wanted to see better conditions in the Council's pounds and a reduced euthanasia. And the demonstration followed a surge in dog attacks across the region, with double the rate of attacks recorded nationwide. Two people were killed by dogs in the space of a year. The message from local authorities is clear. Yet again, it's the dog owners, it generally always is – too many dog owners failing to take responsibility. The Auckland compliance manager said we're seeing a rise in serious attacks and it's clear that many owners do not care and don't believe they should be held responsible. Let us be clear, they will be held responsible. Owning a dog comes with a duty to ensure the safety of the community. If you can't meet that duty, you should not own a dog. There won't be any dog lovers, surely, who would disagree with that?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chlöe Swarbrick's back in Auckland – thrown out of Parliament this week for refusing to apologise for comments in the House. The Greens co-leader said if six of 68 Government MPs with a spine back her bill to sanction Israel, New Zealand can stand on the right side of history. Former Speaker, Sir Lockwood Smith told Kerre Woodham that impugned the Government's integrity and warranted an apology. He says that all Swarbrick needed to do was withdraw and apologise and that would be the end of the matter, but she chose not to. Sir John Key made a similar comment without repercussions in 2015, but Smith says he expects he'd have apologised if he'd been asked. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's an old saying, one generally used by mothers: I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed. Yesterday, hearing that the unholy Triumvirate of Ardern, Robertson, and Hipkins —Ayesha Verrall doesn't count— were choosing not to appear publicly at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 Response, I was both angry and disappointed. The second set of public hearings for the Royal Commission has been axed after key witnesses, including the aforementioned, refused to appear. Chairman Grant Illingworth has the power to summon people to appear before the Inquiry, those living in New Zealand, but said he would not use it. On balance, he said “we are of the view that a summons is undesirable given that the former ministers continue to cooperate with the evidence gathering of the Inquiry”. The writing was on the wall back in early July that Hipkins would not be showing his face publicly, when I asked him about attending to give his evidence in person. You could hear on the 8th of July that there was no way he was going to show his face. It may be true that government ministers have in the past given their evidence privately to Royal Commissioners. The Covid-19 response, I would argue, is different. The “most honest and transparent government ever” relied hugely on the trust and faith of the public to implement the nationwide wholesale measures that they did. We all sacrificed to varying degrees, and with varying degrees of willingness, personal freedoms, livelihoods, children's schooling, mental wellbeing, because the government engaged with us, talked at us, cajoled us, threatened us, reassured us it was a relationship. Every single day those people were up in our grills, in public, telling us what we needed to do, how we had to do it, and giving their reasons for why we had to do it. Enormous sacrifices were made by many, many people, and many of them are still counting the emotional toll. Ardern, Hipkins, and Robertson used their public profiles to ensure compliance with the decisions they were making, which grew ever more ridiculous and unworkable as time went on. I believe they have a moral obligation to front the public and answer the Commissioners questions publicly. Without manipulating the public trust, for better and worse, they couldn't have got away with what they did. Their objections to appearing appear to be Dentons', the law firm's, objections to appearing, but their objections include the convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries in private, and departing from that convention would undermine confidence. In what exactly? I hope I've put up a case that they do have an obligation to answer publicly because the Covid-19 response was unlike any other event where there's been a Commission of Inquiry. They were also concerned that the live streaming and publication of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those recordings being tampered with, manipulated, or otherwise misused. For heavens sake, any time you open your mouth in public your words and image can be manipulated and misused. Look at Neil Finn's erections for heavens sake. Anytime you appear talking about anything, AI can use your image, your words – it's not exclusive to the Commission of Inquiry. They have form, these people, as spineless decision makers, so it should be no real surprise they haven't showed publicly. They never once ventured to Auckland during the pointless, unreasonable lockdowns of 2021. So no huge surprise that they're not willing to stand by the decisions they made then, now. Ardern and Robertson have moved on. They don't need the New Zealand public. They don't need the New Zealand public to have confidence in them, Hipkins does. He wants to be Prime Minister again. He wants another bash at it. He'll point to the polls and say he's a third of the way there, that most New Zealanders have got over Covid, moved on. Some of us haven't. We are living with the decisions the economic, medical, and social decisions that this unholy triumvirate made every single day. And our children will live with those decisions, and our grandchildren. The very least they could do is appear before the same public, whose faith and trust they exploited and explain how and why they made the decisions that they did. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Foodstuffs North Island says it's working hard to re-employ staff from an Auckland New World that caught fire in June. CEO Chris Quin says of 183 people, 121 are working at other stores, 12 have found roles elsewhere, and 10 are taking a break. He told Kerre Woodham that leaves about 40 staff they still need to place. Quinn says they're trying to match employees to about 50 positions in Auckland stores. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So as you will have heard, Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has been barred from Parliament's debating chamber for the rest of the week, unless she apologises for a comment made during a debate over Palestine and the granting of statehood to it. During her speech, Swarbrick called on government MPs to back a Green Party bill that would allow New Zealand to sanction Israel for its war crimes. CS: If we find 6 of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history. GB: No, that is completely unacceptable to make that statement, withdraw it and apologise. CS: No. GB: Then leave the house for the rest of the week. CS: Happily. Gerry Brownlee, the Speaker of the House, said the spine comment was completely unacceptable, ordered her to withdraw it, and told her to leave the House when she refused. Parliamentary debates can be heated, but there are rules about what members can and cannot say. Unbecoming language, insults and accusations of dishonesty are banned. Now obviously unparliamentary language is constantly evolving and changing over time. Going into Parliaments records, you'll find that in 1933 an MP calling another member a shrewd old bird was considered unparliamentary language. In 1936, fungus farmer and pipsqueak were considered unacceptable. In 1946 things got a bit heated ... “I would cut the honourable gentleman's throat if I had the chance”, understandably, the Speaker ruled on that one unparliamentary language. But skite was also considered unparliamentary in 1946. I mean, nobody likes a skite, but unbecoming language and having to apologise to the House? In 1966 the insults flew and the Speaker was kept very busy. Shut up yourself, you great ape – withdraw and apologise. Snotty nosed little boy, cheap little twerp, and ridiculous mouse were all considered unacceptable. In 1977 John Boy was considered unacceptable. Silly old moo, racist, and sober up, which could have applied to any one of a number of MPs in 1977 I imagine, and so on and so forth. We probably don't think many of those insults were unparliamentary or unacceptable. I would say spineless fits in alongside twerp or stupid as Chris Bishop is supposed to have called members of the Opposition. I think stupid is worse than spineless. There are many things I have criticised and would criticise Chlöe Swarbrick for – calling her colleagues across the House spineless is not one of them. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Police Commissioner says he feels for his staff as a top cop faces the courts. Former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming is facing eight charges of possessing child exploitation and bestiality material. He resigned after a period of suspension on full pay since December, during a separate investigation. Richard Chambers told Kerre Woodham he is angry, disappointed, and let-down – and knows staff feel the same. But he says it also shows nobody is above the law, no matter their rank. In terms of police recruits, he hopes work will begin on a second police college wing for Auckland early next year. An Auckland Campus opened last month as an alternative to the Porirua facility. Forty recruits will graduate in coming months. Chambers says it's going exceptionally well, and he's committed to expanding the operation. He told Woodham it gives aspiring officers more flexibility on training. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The speed of decline of our gas supply could be hampering the transition to alternative energy. A Business NZ survey of commercial and industrial users shows average price rises have topped 100% in the past five years. Nearly half made various cuts to their business. Energy innovation centre Ara Ake's Jonathan Young told Kerre Woodham supply's fallen a lot quicker than anyone expected. He says it's hurting as companies try to transition. Young says it's like a relay runner falling short ahead of the baton exchange, and it's leading to de-industrialisation. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The economic doom and gloom continues with rising property rates. Some rural areas are even facing increases substantially higher than the average council rate. One Orewa family is facing a 72% rates rise on their rural property, as it was zoned for new development – development that can't be done for several years. Taxpayers' Union Local Government Campaigns Manager Sam Warren told Kerre Woodham they're strongly pushing for rates capping laws that would stop any rates increases above the level of inflation. He says it would keep the councils focused on the important things, and ensure you can't be costed out of your own home. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The speed of decline of our gas supply could be hampering the transition to alternative energy. A Business NZ survey of commercial and industrial users shows average price rises have topped 100% in the past five years. Nearly half made various cuts to their business. Energy innovation centre Ara Ake's Jonathan Young told Kerre Woodham supply's fallen a lot quicker than anyone expected. He says it's hurting as companies try to transition. Young says it's like a relay runner falling short ahead of the baton exchange, and it's leading to de-industrialisation. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Commentators are telling us that the tide is turning, that we've reached the bottom of the cycle. ANZ has lowered its mortgage interest rates, so other banks will surely follow suit, bringing relief to many households. Spring is almost here. And then the rates bill arrives in the mail. Any financial gains are immediately lost, any lift of the spirits plummets. The Government is well aware that rising rates are adding to the economic doom and gloom. They put councils on notice last year to deliver value for money and promised to name and shame councils who were profligate spenders. They called it a table of spending, we call it naming and shaming. The report is designed to hold councils accountable on six metrics: Rates – the change in rates since the previous year and the forecast change in rates over the next 10 years. Council debt Capital expenditure, including a breakdown by activity class such as roading and water services. Balanced budget – to show whether the Council is actually coping with the rates that come in with the money it has or having to borrow to sustain itself. Road conditions – so ratepayers can compare the state of their local roads with councils across the country. Local Government Minister Simon Watts says communities can now compare how much their council spends on core essentials like infrastructure and see whether their rates are going up more than average. We have been clear, says Simon Watts, that we want to see councils get back to basics, focusing on delivering essential services and infrastructure, improving local decision making, and supporting their communities through the cost of living, not adding to it. He's also introducing a bill to remove four well-being provisions: social, economic, environmental, and cultural. They were reintroduced by Labour in 2019 after being removed by the previous National government in 2012, who removed them after Labour introduced them in 2002. So there's been a bit of political ping pong going on there. It will also impose a requirement on councils to prioritise core services when managing finances and setting rates. The threat of a rates cap too is ever present. If you don't stop increasing rates, then we will put a cap on you, the central government has said to local, so that you can't just hoick up the rates to pay your bills. Simon Watts points to rates caps in NSW and Victoria and says the same could happen here. I'm not sure that is the answer, not without accepting a massive loss in services, but how on Earth do you manage to budget when your rates rise well beyond inflation? What options do you have? There's a story in today's New Zealand Herald of a rates rise of 72% for one family in Orewa. That's because they're living on land that's ripe for development, except, of course it's not, because WaterCare is not issuing any resource consents, because there simply isn't the infrastructure to sustain any more development. So they're facing a huge hike in their rates because of the value of the land, but the value of the land can't be realised. So how on Earth do you cope with the 72% rise in rates? How do you manage? Do you sell the property because you simply can't afford the rates? Do you apply for rates relief? Do you just not pay it? For a long time, those who have bothered to vote in local body elections have voted for councillors who promise there'll be no rates rises, which means that a lot of the work that councils are doing has been delayed. They haven't had the money because homeowners, ratepayers, have elected councillors that have promised there will be no rates rises. But all that's doing is delaying the inevitable. In part, we have brought this on ourselves. You vote for people who aren't going to increase rates, you don't bother to vote. You don't bother to stand for council. When I say you, I mean we. So in part, we've brought this on ourselves. And because there haven't been the cheques and balances to monitor the spending, irresponsible councils have been able to do exactly as they wish - vanity projects wasteful spending. And those within the infrastructure of Council too have spent like drunken sailors. I would very much like to hear from those of you who have received your rates bill. Around the country, we've seen massive increases. Are you getting value for money from your Council? And what on Earth can you do about it? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I asked on Friday how anyone could vote for Labour given the latest Treasury report into their irresponsible spending of taxpayer money that came out last week. That irresponsible spending that contributed greatly to the recession, the high mortgage interest rates to unemployment - when so many of the same people, those people who made so many stupid decisions are still there, how could anyone, I asked, think that Labour should get another crack at government? The answer is quite a few of you think they should. The latest Taxpayers Union Curia poll that came out yesterday shows that if an election were held on Sunday, the result would be a hung parliament with the centre right bloc gaining 61 seats and the centre left block getting exactly the same - 61 for National, for ACT, for NZ First, 61 for Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Maori. Labour's up two points, National's down 2 points. It's only a poll - and we all know the Winston Peters dictum, the only poll that counts is the one that counts on election day. But it is a clear indication that when you campaign on fixing the economy, ‘hang on, help is on the way, we're here now, the grown-ups are in charge,' then you have to actually fix it. Things have to change. Cost of living remains voters' most important issue. Closely followed by the economy, then health and employment. All of those hang around the economy, hang around pulling the right levers to get things cracking again. Your average hard-working Kiwi is exhausted and tired of being told that things are coming right, that the ship is slowly turning around and heading in the right direction. So, this latest poll may be an expression of exhaustion and dissatisfaction. It may just be an indication that more people are starting to agree with Greens Co-leader Chloe Swarbrick that capitalism's cooked. The Greens held their AGM over the weekend and Swarbrick urged the party faithful to build the parties fan base. She wants them to be talking to miners and factory workers and farmers to people who are fed up with politics and the two main parties and who are looking for alternatives, alternatives to the main parties and alternatives to capitalism. She also says she wants to have more say in the next government, she and Marama Davidson want to be the ones calling the shots, forming the government and deciding the policies. Chloe's put herself up as finance minister in the next coalition government. And if you want to see what that looks like the Greens, unlike Labour, have put up their economic policies to be scrutinised. They have put up an alternate budget. What this latest poll says is that Green supporters should take heart. People are tired, they are fed up, they can't see the status quo helping them. National, Labour, whatever, they're interchangeable. They're hard workers, they're good citizens, and they're still not getting ahead. The only way they can see a future for themselves and their families is by leaving the country. Does that mean they're ready to put the Greens in the driver's seat? Well, according to this latest poll, they're willing to put Labour there, so surely it's not such a great stretch of the imagination to see the Greens getting the votes they need to call the shots in 2026. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A hit for the Taranaki region, with dwindling gas supply forcing a potential short-term shutdown of a local fertiliser plant. Ballance Agri-Nutrients may have to cease operations at Kapuni for up to four months if it can't secure more gas before its contract expires next month. The company manufactures about a third of the country's urea fertiliser each year. Federated Farmers Arable Chairperson David Birkett told Kerre Woodham it's been an ongoing issue that has just been getting worse and worse. He says that plants like that in Kapuni was built around the gas supplies nearby, and to convert it to another fuel source would be a huge and expensive process. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the face of it, the announcement from Transport Minister Chris Bishop yesterday makes good sense. It's been signalled; it was National Party election policy to move away from a fuel excise duty to road user charges (RUC). Simeon Brown, who was the transport spokesman at the time, said it would be a fairer way to charge for the distance people drive rather than the amount of fuel they use, given the different nature of the way we drive these days and the vehicles we drive. So the current fuel excise duty is expected to be abolished in the coming years, all vehicles moving to road user charges. These are currently paid by owners of diesel, electric, and heavy vehicles. Last year the Government said the transition away from the so-called petrol tax could happen as soon as 2027. Yesterday, Chris Bishop said no date had been set, in order to make sure the changes aren't rushed. Which put this rather in the category of an announcement of an announcement. What was announced yesterday is: Removing the requirement to carry or display RUC licences, allowing for digital records instead. Enable the use of a broader range of electronic RUC devices, including those already built into many modern vehicles. Supporting flexible payment models, such as post-pay and monthly billing. Separating NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi's (NZTA) roles as both RUC regulator and retailer to foster fairer competition. Allowing bundling of other road charges such as tolls and time-of-use-based pricing into a single, easy payment. Currently, the system is mostly paper-based and drivers have to monitor their odometers to check what distance they have driven. It also requires owners to buy RUCs in 1000km chunks. The Automobile Association is broadly supportive of the changes. AA Transport policy director Martin Glynn spoke to the Mike Hosking Breakfast and believes moving to an electronic system is a good idea. MG: “I think absolutely long term, as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people start, you know, there's different ways of powering vehicles, as we all know it's just not sustainable. So yeah we actually do need to make the shift. MH: "The electronics behind it, is the transfer easy? If you get an app or you get a sensor in your car or whatever that turns out to be, is that easy? MG: "The announcements been a little bit vague. Certainly for new cars the Minister's been clear that a lot of that data and the systems are already available in the car itself, so that should be fairly straightforward. But I think that what he seems to be signalling is that we're moving to electronic devices to measure distance, and base, and weight. So that would be actually something in vehicles like we have the heavy vehicles now. And the National Road Carrier Association CEO Justin Tighe-Umbers spoke to Early Edition this morning, and they also think it's a good move. “It's a once in 50 year change. Every country around the world is actually facing this problem where you've got EVs and far more efficient petrol engines just reducing how roading's paid for. New Zealand's actually in, we're in quite a good position because we're world pioneers in road user charges. We were the first to bring it out in the late 70s and we're still a world leader on it with electronic RUCs for how trucks pay for it, so we're actually in quite a strong position compared to other countries.” Who knew? I did not realise that we were world leaders in road user charges. At first glance, it makes sense. The Minister said that as our vehicle fleet has changed, so too must the way we fund our roads. It isn't fair, Chris Bishop said, to have Kiwis who drive less and can't afford the fuel-efficient cars paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often. He said the intent is to make paying RUC user friendly and similar to paying a power bill online or a Netflix subscription. The thing is though, if you don't pay your power bill or your Netflix subscription, the service is cut. You don't get it anymore. You don't pay, you don't get it. You can't do that with roads. It's not as though all of a sudden a barrier is going to appear at your driveway, and you're not allowed to go onto the road because you haven't paid your RUC. And according to number of mechanics, the number of vehicles that turn up where the RUC have not been paid is extraordinary. So the system will only be as good as the technology that can isolate the people who are not paying. I'm sure you'll be able to fiddle the electronics if you can fiddle odometers, and people have been doing that ever since there's been the buying and trading of vehicles. The technology has to be as tamper proof as we can make it. It's the right move, but we just have to ensure we have the technology to ensure that users do indeed pay. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I get texts on the daily from people saying “you're so negative about Labour”. “You never have anything good to say about the last government. You're so critical of Labour.” And I say to them, how can anyone with a brain not be critical of Labour?! The gut feeling I had at the time that the previous administration was out of their depth and hopelessly incompetent has been proved with hard data, time and time and time again. The failure to deliver any kind of transformational reform, the failure to deliver on the absolute basics, the arrogance around co-governance, the breathtaking and utterly tragic waste of taxpayer money, more on that later, Treasury's report that came out yesterday slamming the governments spending during the pandemic just confirms everything we knew – but now this. Labour's absolute refusal to even acknowledge changes taking place within NCEA. The Herald has the story and its a good one. The Government offered Labour multiple opportunities to be briefed on the NCEA change process, but the party's education spokeswoman Willow-Jean Prime initially didn't respond to these invitations and then flat-out declined them. This after Hipkins said to the Herald last month that the Labour Government consulted with the then-Opposition to ensure changes were “going to be enduring” and expressed a desire for the current Government to do the same. A text message appears to show Stanford reached out to Prime about NCEA after the Labour MP took over the education portfolio from Jan Tinetti in March. “Hey Willow-Jean, congrats on the new role! Will need to get you up to speed with the NCEA change process. Jan and I had started working cross-party on this given the importance of our national qualification,” Stanford wrote, according to a screenshot provided. “Would be good if we could meet first and I can run you through where we are at and what the process is. There is a policy advisory group of principals who are working on the details and you can have access to them when they meet as well as my officials and also NZQA.” The Minister said her office would get in touch with Prime's “if that's ok?”. Nothing. Tumbleweeds. Now I get that she doesn't have to like the changes. She doesn't have to agree with the change. But a letter along the lines of 'Thanks Minister, but I am philosophically and intellectually opposed to the changes you intend to make and I will be rolling them back once I am Minister. Nga mihi, Willow Jean' would have let everybody know where they stood. Nothing? No response at all?! Stanford's office reached out again in May. Again, nothing. In mid June, Stanford reached out personally and then when again, there was no response, Stanford emailed Chris Hipkins office on July 1. “I've sought on multiple occasions to get input from your education spokesperson on NCEA curriculum reform, with no response,” Stanford wrote to Hipkins on July 1. “It is important to have cross-party collaboration regarding a national qualification, and the offer remains open to arrange a briefing from officials or from the Professional Advisory Group.” The next day, an adviser for Prime emailed Stanford: “I acknowledge your email regarding NCEA curriculum reform." “Willow-Jean has considered your email and declines the invitation." That is Labour's education spokesperson. Some one who is so rude, so out of touch, so out of her depth she refused to be part of transformational change. But no, this is not just Labour's education spokesperson, this is Labour. Out of touch, out of their depth, and while Chris Hipkins remains as leader, they should never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power ever again. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Economic recovery is taking longer than many hoped. Unemployment's risen to a five-year high of 5.2%, up from 5.1% in the March quarter. New Zealand officially moved out of recession last year. The Herald's Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham the job market is taking longer to catch up, so many people may not be feeling better off. He says economists can tell us numbers are improving, but it takes longer for life to improve. Dann says anxiety about job security and AI is having ripple effects across the economy. He says a lot of professional people are uncertain about the future, and that's putting them off spending money. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prime Minister's blaming New Zealand's rising unemployment on the last Government's economic management. The rate's hit a five-year high of 5.2%, just shy of Treasury's predicted 5.4%. Christopher Luxon told Kerre Woodham when inflation rises, interest rates go up, the economy shrinks, and people lose their jobs. He says Labour had a lovely big spend-up party, but it's left a significant hangover. Luxon says we have to work our way through the economic cycle, which is what we're doing now. China's doubling down on its deal with the Cook Islands. Ambassador to New Zealand, Wang Xiaolong says China wants to co-operate on seabed mining research, an inter-island cargo ship between the two countries, and infrastructure. The partnership has prompted backlash from New Zealand, which has a special relationship with the Islands, including the withdrawal of aid. Meanwhile, Luxon told Woodham the Governor-General is visiting the Cooks to celebrate our 60 years free association. He says he's proud of the people, but has an issue with their Government's moves. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An artificial intelligence expert says the tech will always need human input for marking school exams. Education Minister Erica Stanford says AI's already partly used to grade assessments, and it could do most of them by 2028. It's alongside Government plans to replace NCEA with entirely new qualifications. New Zealand AI Founder, Justin Flitter, told Kerre Woodham the tool should supplement a teacher's process, not become it. He says the teacher should apply the AI assessment to their lived experience and knowledge of the student. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.