Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Are our patient consent rules making it harder to train the next generation of doctors?  An article in The Conversation argues that the strict requirement for patients to content to the involvement of junior doctors in their care is hindering medical training.   Author and Associate Professor of Primary Health Care and General Practice at Otago University, Dr Ben Gray says it’s limiting hands-on learning, especially in critical situations.  He told Kerre Woodham the interpretation of the rules has narrowed over time, and doesn’t include situations where patients are unconscious or distressed.  Gray says it means students potentially won’t have the chance to learn about those patients and how to treat them, if they can’t get consent.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guess what? New Zealand's in economic trouble. I know, I know, who would have thought it? Well, we did. You know it, I know it. We've known it for a very, very long time, right from the very start when Labour began throwing money around. There were the Cassandras coming on the radio saying, “Oh, you're going to have to pay it back. All very well and good now, probably the right thing to do, but at some point we're going to have to pay it back."  “The outlook is negative, so it indicates that there is a chance of a downgrade.”  Okay, and what does that mean? Well, it's not just national pride, it means that it will cost us more to borrow money, which will add even more to our outstanding debt. And it's all very well and good for Finance Minister Nicola Willis to start putting the brakes on now. As has become common these days, the Budget will be no surprise. You know the details of the Budget pretty much before it's announced. But I would argue her budget is a budget that should have been presented three years ago. She told Mike Hosking this morning that getting the books back in order is more important than ever.  “We have to be very careful about the choices we make. And gone are the days, I think, when political campaigns will be about what new spending program you can design to dish out more lolly in a creative way. We're now in a time where the task for sensible leaders is to say, “What are the investments required to drive the things that will support growth, living standards, and affordability into the future?" And that's why, of course, we've made that decision. Actually, the Fees Free program, it doesn't cut it in this new age. It's not delivering results. That is investment that should be made elsewhere in things that really matter. And there have been choices like that throughout this budget process.”  Good, but I would argue the tax cuts were a dumb choice. It was an election bribe. Spending on capital infrastructure, which is an investment in the future, that's not dumb spending. Silly tax cuts that made no meaningful difference to people's lives, I'd say that was a dumb choice. National came in saying that they had the answers, they had the lever, they knew which levers to pull to get the economy back on track. I think they made some dumb choices along the way, and this is the Budget that should have been delivered in Nicola Willis's first term as Finance Minister.   They are streets ahead of a Labour-Greens coalition in terms of economic prudence. I mean, there is just absolutely, absolutely no choice if you're looking for economic prudence. Labour hasn't even got a plan, hasn't even released the plan – at least the Greens have released a plan. You might not agree with it, but they do have a plan. Labour, no, they're waiting till after the Budget and let's see what miracles they can put up. But how the hell are they going to pay for pay equity, which is going to cost billions and billions of ongoing dollars? If they promise that, then that should be enough to consign them to oblivion. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It will be the single biggest piece of infrastructure that New Zealand will build. Remember when Shane Jones' Northport was going to be the single biggest piece of infrastructure? Well, now that's gone the way of the dodo. So the single biggest piece of infrastructure that New Zealand will build in our lifetimes, will come when the Government makes the decision on what a new Auckland Harbour crossing will look like. The time for discussion and debate is over, there simply isn't that luxury. We've been faffing around another crossing for decades.   New Zealand Transport Agency released two June 2025 reports relating to the current bridge's —the only bridge's— state of wear, and the documents show that many areas of the bridge are vulnerable and increasingly fraying under use. The annual maintenance and repair costs now surpass $25 million. And I suppose when you're 67 years old, you're not as strong as you used to be and you need a bit of extra work. You might have seen the images of the bridge wobbling and wavering. As someone who uses the bridge just about every single day and makes at least two crossings, I feel like I'm playing Russian roulette on wheels every time I drive over it. I think, well, here we go. She's been a good life. No one can say I was taken too soon. Hoots away and off we go. And then when you get to the other side, you think, well, we live another day.   There are approximately 170–180,000 vehicles crossing that bridge daily, with some days having more than 200,000 crossings. It is considered the busiest section of State Highway in New Zealand, serving as a critical transport connection for more than 64 million vehicles annually. It's not just about Aucklanders; it affects far more New Zealanders than that. But from the day the Harbour Bridge opened in 1959 there have been calls for another alternate crossing. In 1987 and 1988, studies for tunnels and additional bridge structures were conducted. In 2008, Option 2C was developed – a major plan involving two new tunnels. In 2021, I remember that a $785 million walking and cycle bridge was announced, oh, and then cancelled within four months. But the consultants earned themselves a good whack. 2023, the Government revealed five new distinct options including tunnels, light rail, and bridges. And ‘24 to ‘26 continued debate over the bridge versus the tunnel options. And you had Mayor Wayne Brown's Meola Reef Bridge proposal, which seemed absolutely barking to me – none of the benefits of that were explained properly.   So now it's been narrowed down to two options, and Transport Minister Chris Bishop is confident he can make it happen. And as he told Heather du Plessis Allan, he is engaging with all the other parties for their support.  “I do not want to be the Transport Minister who announces, you know, a big pie in the sky plan and says we're going to do this and we're going to do that and it all turns to custard and it doesn't actually end up happening. I'm going about this in a very deliberate way. We're taking a very evidence-led approach. We've been engaging with the market. We've had a barge in the harbour doing geotech work. We've had extensive studies into it. So I'm just going about this in the right way and it's going to the NZTA board for a decision in terms of a preferred option next month, and then it'll come to Cabinet and we'll be engaging with other parties around it.”  Right, so next month, what do you think? What's it going to be? A tunnel or another bridge? It would be great to see other options, like the cycling, like the walking. As a tourist attraction, it'd be fantastic to have the cycling and the walking options. But ultimately, we need to commit. This country, successive governments, and successive generations of voters, has put off doing the hard stuff for far too long. Next month will be about a decade too late, but at least there'll be an option on the table, and we have to act on it, and we have to ensure that there's cross party support. And hopefully, the other parties don't play silly buggers and play hard to get and want all sorts of baubles to get the support, because it is far too important for that. It's time to put on our big girls' and big boys' undies and commit to this sort of infrastructure, the sort of infrastructure we need to future proof New Zealand. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Judith Collins is bidding farewell to politics.  The senior National MP has delivered her valedictory speech, saying goodbye after 24 years in Parliament, as she prepares to move on to heading the Law Commission.  Collins held numerous ministerial portfolios in her time in politics and led National to the 2020 election.  She told Kerre Woodham she feels as though she’s done everything in Parliament that she really wanted to.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We start this morning with something you already know: the number of New Zealanders moving to Australia is at its highest level in 12 years. And most of those moving are going to Australia – around 58% of those who are leaving say they're heading for Oz. Yet in the World Happiness Report, in terms of happiness, we rank ahead of Australia. We're 11th happiest, they come in at number 15 – the Nordic countries always take out the top spots. The report suggests New Zealand's more equal and less corrupt than Australia with greater freedom and social support, but these positives appear to be outweighed by per capita GDP. And if you're looking for reasons why 58% of those leaving New Zealand are moving to Oz, follow the money, honey. When you feel like you're being ground down by life, that you're working every hour God sends but you're not getting anywhere, it would be very tempting to see the pot of gold at the end of a short three hour flight across the ditch as the answer to everything. And sometimes it is. But there are downsides. Jack Tame looked at the reasons why the people he interviewed had left for Australia, what the advantages were, what the disadvantages were, and found that despite the money and the sun, the grass isn't always greener. James Houston left Palmerston North and the New Zealand Police, one of those we were talking about yesterday, to join the Queensland Police Service.  “I did about six years back home in New Zealand in Palmerston North before resigning and coming over here. You've got the lifestyle, you've got the sun, you've got better pay. I think I increased my salary coming over here by about 60% and that's without any overtime. I've got two other officers here at Ferny Grove from my actual station back in Palmerston North, so it's not only me coming over to do it, it's a lot of other people. Some of the challenges I'd say is, you know, you don't have your family support around, especially in a role like this. In all honesty, mate, if we were to get the same perks back home as what we have over here, like you get a better salary, you know, you're looked after a bit better, I'd give up the sunshine, I'd give up the lifestyle. There'd be no doubt in my mind, mate, I'd go home.”  That was James Houston speaking on Jack Tame's 1News special, “You, Me and Aussie”. And that's the thing though, isn't it? Like 60% more in your salary, we're never ever going to be able to offer that sort of money. Australia's economy is so much bigger than ours, there are so many more people, and their money is based on things that we won't countenance in this country, like mining. So we're not going to be able to pay the sort of money and that's the sacrifice you make. You know, as James said, he would he would give it up in a heartbeat if he got the same money back home because of the family support he gets. But he's not going to get that money, so that's the trade off.   My kids sacrificed money for lifestyle, friends, and family support. They were living in London, they always said they would come home when they started a family. And selfishly, I'm very, very glad they did, although they had to weigh it up. They were earning really good money in the UK, but once they had kids, they wanted to come home. Money's important, very, very important, but so too are family ties and friendship groups. I've never lived and worked in Australia or indeed any other country, but I have many friends and family members who have, and it's family and friends that brought them back. As Jack's show referenced, it can be really lonely moving to a new country, especially if you don't have children. If you've got the children, then you can tend to meet people through the school groups, but if you don't have children, all you've got is your healthy salary. You have to work for it too. You know, those who are working in the mines, it is not a doddle. You have to be strong and you have to have a strong relationship to be able to withstand that. If you have no one but each other to share the good times with, it can be really, really tough.  You've got the story of the police officers moving to Australia and the interview with James on Jack Tame's show last night. You've got New Zealanders moving to Oz at the highest level it's been in more than a decade. For those who have family and friends over there, how are they finding it? If you are over there and listening in Oz, and I know there's a number who are, how are you finding it? And if you are young and you are grinding away, why aren't you there yet? Why haven't you made the leap across the ditch? If you can earn 60% more than you're earning in this country? There's no way you can compete on money. No way New Zealand can.   So what is keeping you here? And for those who've been and gone and worked in Oz and come home, what brought you back? Those who have made the move to Oz, love to hear from you or your friends and family. Those who haven't gone, what is keeping you here? For me, when all my friends were heading overseas to live and work, do the big OE, I had a job on Fair Go. I was 20/21 had a great job in television, then at 23 I was pregnant, so I wasn't going anywhere. And then once you have a child, it's somewhat more difficult to move. So if you are still in New Zealand, you know, sort of transferring money between accounts as you wait for payday, what's keeping you here? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New figures reveal hundreds of Kiwi officers are continuing to head across the Tasman, nearly one in three police resignations are now linked to the move. But, the Police Commissioner didn't seem too worried when he spoke to Mike Hosking this morning, saying they prioritise quality over quantity.  Minister of Police Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham "of course we want to pay our frontline police, all of our police personnel as much as we can, but we are limited. We are in a pretty bad fiscal situation at the moment as a country but we'll do our best without a doubt." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, Winston let the cat out of the bag on Friday afternoon with Heather du Plessis Allan. Oh, we're scrapping fees free in the third year, he said, you'll find that in the budget. And Finance Minister Nicola Willis has confirmed that yes indeed, the scheme will be ditched in the upcoming budget.  Those students completing their tertiary studies this year in their final year will remain eligible for fees free. So, all well and good. It was a dog of a scheme, it was an absolute bribe, we all knew that. It was one of those nice policies that Labour brought in and ultimately, yet again, it didn't work. On paper it looked as though it might, but it didn't. It's a nice to have and right now we are a country that cannot afford nice things. Had it been doing what it was intended to do, what on paper it looked like it might do, then the coalition government might have found the money to continue the scheme. However, it never did, never achieved the goal of increasing the number of students participating in tertiary education. It was also really bad at getting people who were disadvantaged to take up the scheme and that was the intention behind it when Jacinda Ardern announced the policy at a decile 5 school all those years ago. Didn't work when it was first year fees free. It was a flagship policy from Labour to pay for the first year of tertiary education and then as the numbers swelled and children from decile 1 schools trooped off to university and raised themselves to the excellence they needed to find within themselves and just be fabulous, it was going to be free for anybody to go to university. Didn't work. The original intentions were to help people overcome economic barriers to higher education while also growing the numbers of those enrolled. In fact, the disparity between university entrance from low decile schools and higher decile schools got worse. The Herald applied under the Official Information Act and it showed that in 2017 the year prior to the scheme being introduced, 38% of first year students at uni came from school deciles 1 to 5, the remaining 62% from deciles 6 to 10. In 2021 that gap had widened, there were just 28% taking up the fees free policy coming from deciles 1 to 5, 72% from deciles 6 to 10. So, you know, there's any number of reasons for that. It was a period of high unemployment in 2021 because we hadn't been opening the borders to workers so you might go straight into work rather than uni. There's a number of reasons for that, but ultimately the reason for the scheme being introduced was to have a greater representation of young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Didn't work. And it also doesn't work having the final year fees free in terms of encouraging people to complete their degrees because we've still got about a third of bachelor's degree level students not completing their qualifications even if they take six years to do it. So that's not working. I thought the final year fees free might encourage people to to stay on. No, data shows it hasn't. So let's be done with it. Absolutely let's be done with it. Put the money where it can better support the education and vocational needs of young people maybe. I mean university just does not have the cachet it once had and that's because it's a bums on seats model. It used to be that universities were centres for higher academic learning. And they're not now. It used to be that only a few people went to university and the taxpayer paid for them, all of their fees. Now hundreds of thousands of people go to university with a third of them never even completing their degree while the taxpayer picks up the tab for 80% of the course costs. Are we getting value for money? I don't think we are. As a model, and because the world is moving so fast, a lot of what young people are learning is out of date by the time they sit down and open their textbooks. It's not for everyone, so put that money, a lot of that money into where it can most be used by young people. I think, you know, universities still have a place, absolutely, but changing the focus away from higher academic learning to, 'hey anyone can have a go', I don't think is serving the young people, I don't think it's serving the universities and I don't think it's serving the taxpayer. The Greens have called the decision outrageous. Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the Greens will fight to reinstate fees free support. They say it's a fantastic, wise and smart investment to invest in tertiary education for students and communities. Is it? The way it is right now, I don't I'm not entirely sure it is. I mean even 25-30 years ago I remember the the guy from Spark saying they don't take people from university in their technology and innovation and, I mean I'm sure they take some from other other areas, but if you're looking at the tech side of things they don't take them from university. They'd far rather have bright young things go from school into their departments, having new ideas, new innovations. And that was 25 years ago. So it's a nice to have the fees free tertiary education. If it was delivering, you might think about finding the money. It's not, not on any metric, not on any level. And if the Greens think it's a smart investment, you'd have to worry about their financial nous, wouldn't you? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand, according to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, needs to reform the electricity sector, expand and strengthen capital markets, speed up digitisation of the health sector, and reform the pension. The OECD joined other international agencies in calling for the age of eligibility for super to be raised by indexing it to life expectancy with measures to take account of different ethnicities and work backgrounds. A bit like in Australia, if you're in a tough job that is tough on your body and you physically cannot work any longer, then you can get the pension a bit earlier, it just won't be as much as the full pension.  If Bill English had been able to form a coalition government when he was leading National, we would have raised the age of super by now to 67. But it doesn't, for those of you who are concerned, go from 65 to 67 overnight. You'll remember when National was looking at raising the age to 67 – it would just increase six months each year and it wouldn't have started until the 1st of July 2037. So it doesn't happen overnight, there's plenty of time for people to get used to it, it's phased in slowly, it's not a huge seismic shock. What is a huge seismic shock is the cost of super to the national economy.  Simplicity Managing Director Sam Stubbs says super is a huge problem that needs to be addressed urgently. He says without change, by 2060 all of our income tax will only be able to pay for health and national super, there'll be no money left for anything else – unless we suddenly get incredibly wealthy. But if things stay as they are pretty much, our GDP stays the same, the increase in the number of people needing healthcare and national Super will be such that our income tax will only pay for that. There'll be nothing for roads, nothing for schools, nothing for any of the things we like to have.  “What about the Cullen Fund?” I hear you ask, and that's a good question. The fund was never a fully funded Super scheme; it was just designed to smooth out some of the population shocks so that it wouldn't completely cripple the economy as a big cohort of the population reached superannuation age. It's expected to contribute roughly 3.3-3.5% of the total super cost by 2040. It may well get up to covering 10% of the costs by 2080, but certainly not 100%  Finance Minister Nicola Willis was sort of trying to calm things down. She told Mike Hosking that changes don't need to be as dramatic as the OECD suggests, but do need to happen.  “In the 1960s there were around seven New Zealanders of working age for every person aged 65 or older. Today there are four and by 2065 there will only be two. So that burden on our taxpayers is increasing significantly. Already between last year and the end of the fiscal period, the cost of New Zealand superannuation will increase by about $6 billion a year. It's rising as a proportion of what we tax you for, so it's currently just over 16%, it's going to rise to over 20%. And every dollar we're spending on superannuation is a dollar not available for education, for health, for infrastructure. So gradually over time some changes will need to be made. They don't need to be as dramatic as the OECD suggests, but some adjustments will be needed.”  Well, it will need to be as dramatic unless political parties bite the bullet. And in this case, there would need to be, and Chris Hipkins said himself, that he was open to having cross party discussions about what to do around the super. Because without change, without sensible, orderly change, it will need to be dramatic. Independent economist Cameron Bagrie told Heather du Plessis Allan last night he's a fan of means testing the super.  “We're on an unsustainable fiscal path. You know, the Government needs to bite the bullet in regards to making some pretty big, hard, bold decisions. We've been talking about this sort of stuff for 30 years. I can remember modelling this sort of stuff in the 1990s when I was at New Zealand Treasury 30 years ago. And all that's happened is that we've kicked the can down the road. You know, a little bit of stuff has been brought in, New Zealand Super Fund, the KiwiSaver contributions, but when push comes to shove here, we need to address the entitlement side of New Zealand Superannuation and that comes through, you know, potentially lifting the age or means testing has to come into the equation.”  So what would you be a fan of? And this is accepting that we cannot continue with the status quo – it’s unsustainable and everybody has said that. You might not believe the media, you might not believe politicians, but independent organisations have said this, Treasury has said this, economists, as Cameron Bagrie was saying, from as far back as the 1980s, 1990s were saying there needs to be provision made, it can't go on the way it's going. The advantage for young people or younger people, I guess, is that they have KiwiSaver, which enables them to contribute a considerable amount towards a comfortable retirement. The longer you're in it, the better it is. So many decisions we should have made many, many years ago. You look back and we'd be in a far better position, far more able to weather economic shocks than we are now had we made those hard calls 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. We need to make a hard call now, not kick the can down the road as we have been doing, government after government, voting cohort after voting cohort.   So what particular poison are you willing to swallow? Bringing back what Bill English proposed, raising the age of entitlement to 67 and starting from the 1st of July 2037, raising the age at which you can get it by six months? So you'll be 65 years and six months. 65 years and six months is not that burdensome, is it? There are other ways of doing it gently without a brutal overnight decision. Is means testing the way to go? I would always want to see an allowance for somebody who's had a really tough job, to be able to withdraw it or apply for it earlier but just get a little bit less. We need to have a sensible discussion. We can't just bury our heads in the sand as successive voters have done over generations, and governments are going to have to be bold enough to make the call. Should it be a cross-party decision? Yeah, I think it should be. There should be a collective agreement from all parties that this is what needs to happen for future generations. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prime Minister's signalling he'd prefer a one-party Government, rather than a coalition.  Parties appear to be moving closer to campaign mode, announcing policies ahead of Election Day on November seventh.  The Government's also promising further cost-savings to be re-invested into the frontline ahead of this year's Budget.  Christopher Luxon told Kerre Woodham New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters could work with Labour – something he calls a risk.  He says if push comes to shove, he can work with ACT and New Zealand First.  And although National’s campaigning on raising the retirement age, it seems as though not everyone is on board.  A major OECD report is the latest to call for the age of eligibility for Superannuation to increase.  Luxon told Woodham the age should be 67, and it will be an election policy.  He says they'd want to do it as soon as they get in for a second term, but other parties need to come on board and say it's a good idea too.  Meanwhile, Labour's leader has said the party's open to a conversation with other political parties about potentially means-testing the pension.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It looks like setting fire to small explosives in the backyard will be one of those wacky stories you'll tell the grandkids about. You were able to set fire to explosives, Grandma? In the backyard? In your own home you let off little bombs? Yes, we did. Those were the days. A Parliamentary Select Committee has finally backed a ban on the public sale and use of fireworks.   No one can really say they're shocked, surprised, knocked over with a feather by this, because momentum for a ban on public sales and use of fireworks has been building over the years, based on concerns over animal welfare, danger to life and property, and the number of police callouts. Danger to life is probably over-egging the omelette – certainly danger to limb. ACC's seen a number of cases every single year. 14 previous petitions have been presented to Parliament calling for a ban, but this is the first time the committee has recommended one. Committee member Greg Fleming, who loved a double happy and a skyrocket in his backyard, was initially against a ban but said the evidence presented was overwhelming.  “We had three petitions come to us at pretty much the same time, and so we did the unusual thing of bundling them all up. So we heard from a range of submitters, and overwhelmingly the advice was to move towards seriously exploring a ban. In the end, the committee felt that we really didn't have almost any choice but to recommend that given the weight of evidence.”  The Government has 60 days to respond to the committee – it's not done and dusted yet. But as well as the public backing, there's been support from Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the SPCA, New Zealand Veterinary Association, Veterinarians for Animal Welfare, and Animates. A formal process including cabinet consideration would follow, and it won't be done before this year's election. It’ll probably end up being an election issue – you can see New Zealand First jumping on this one.   I love fireworks, I absolutely love fireworks, but I do accept that the harm outweighs the enjoyment I get in my backyard. I'm happy to go to public displays, they can afford far better fireworks than I. It makes perfect sense to let off fireworks in Great Britain in winter, which is where the tradition began, but in New Zealand it's spring and it's nesting time. In England the sun sets at 4:30pm in November. In New Zealand it's after 8pm. ACC, as I referred to earlier, accepts roughly 300 new claims for fireworks related injuries in New Zealand every year. The costs exceeded $760,000 in 2023. Most injuries involve burns to hands and wrists, and in a shocking revelation, males aged 15 to 19 are most at risk. Children under 10 make up around 25% of all those injured. There were more than 1,500 firework related service calls for New Zealand Police. I can't even imagine how many there were for fire. Is it worth that kind of cost, that kind of disruption, to cling on to having bangers in your backyard?   It's not an end to fireworks full stop. There will still be public displays of them. People will still be able to enjoy the incredible spectacle of fireworks filling the sky, choreographed fireworks, which are just beautiful. If it was an end to fireworks full stop, then I might dig my toes in, but on this one, this is not a hill I'm going to die on. Is it really worth it? It's the wrong time of year, it's not our tradition. I accept it as fun, but is it, given the cost, given the disruption, given the terrible, terrible injuries inflicted on animals every single year, is it really worth it? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Icehouse is celebrating 25 years of powering Kiwi business growth.  They’re a non-profit dedicated to training and mentoring the small to medium enterprises that make up 97% of New Zealand’s economy.  And today is their Ignite Growth Summit, in which they bring together legendary founders who have gone from the garage to the global stage to inspire the next wave of business talent.   CEO Olivia Blaylock told Kerre Woodham there are so many great businesses around New Zealand, and while some, like Pic’s, are well known, there are plenty that we don’t hear about.  She says we need to tell more of their stories and create a culture where it’s okay to put your hand up and say you’re doing well.   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A brand-new podcast from the University of Auckland’s Centre for Brain Research, journalist Clare de Lore and Newstalk ZB, 'Brainstorming' launched today. Clare sits down with world-class scientists and those living with brain disorders, from dementia to CTE. She joined Kerre Woodham to explain further.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Government ministers gave councils an ultimatum yesterday: come up with your own plans for amalgamation within three months, or the Government will do it for you. Local Government Minister Simon Watts and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop said there was broad support from councils – some were already gung-ho and proceeding with plans to amalgamate. One of them is Nelson Mayor Nick Smith. He's long held the view that merging with Tasman is the right thing to do for his city and cites common interests and unnecessary duplication. Back in 2012, Nelson voted in favour of amalgamation, Tasman voted against it. Tasman Mayor Tim King still prefers an arranged marriage – he wants to wait for the Government's backstop process, which would force reform before the 2028 local elections. King says he'd rather have central government just do it, decide on the country's local government model, rather than have all the arguments that come with trying to hash out, thrash out these sorts of governance arrangements for themselves. As King pointed out, the biggest problem councils face right now is financial pressure, and amalgamation won't necessarily save money, and it won't necessarily make everything magically better.  Come on in, Auckland Super City! A prime example of amalgamation. Did it make things better? Back in 2010, the 1st of November to be exact, eight councils became one. And from that one big Super City Council, 21 local boards were created to focus on community issues. The council managed regional issues like transport and planning. The aim was, as Nick Smith said, to avoid unnecessary duplication and improve services. And I guess on paper it makes sense but back in 2020, on the 10 year anniversary of the Super City, some districts felt amalgamation hadn't really worked for them.  Speaking to Radio New Zealand, former Franklin District Mayor Mark Ball said his community felt like a cash cow for the big smoke, that they had specific regional interests that weren't being represented at council level. He conceded that the water had got a lot better, the drinking water under the new structure was a lot better, but he said vital infrastructure like upgrading roads down south had been passed up in favour of bike paths in Auckland's CBD. He said elected members all love to build the shiny things, they love to have their Aotea Squares and go to the openings of this and that. Nobody ever wants to bury pipes. And he said, as an example of where your own region's specific needs are overlooked or misunderstood or not taken into account, some roads that had been built were too narrow for farming vehicles. Why would you possibly need a wide road? Says somebody driving a smart car in inner city Auckland. Because I've got a whopping great combine harvester, you numpty, would be the answer – and he said the town centres have been stripped of car parks.    The thing that concerns me is that so few people take an interest in local body politics. So few. People could be getting up to God knows what with God knows who and you wouldn't have a clue until it's all too late because nobody takes an interest, nobody goes to the meeting – well, very few. I'm exaggerating for effect. Very few people go along to the council meetings, very few people bother to vote. So they can decide what you like and you go, oh, I don't think this is very good, I don't like this, and well, too bad. You didn't care. You care now. I find it really interesting that when it comes to amalgamation, trying to get these disparate interests all working together as one, and the case that Mark Ball cites is a really good one. Franklin needs new roads. Right then, let's build them. Oh, they're not big enough for farming vehicles – you know it's because nobody knew.  The Far North seems to be quite keen to amalgamate. They're first out of the blocks. Far North, Whangārei, Kaipara, and the Northland Regional Councils are looking to merge into one or two authorities. But the difference between the West Coast and the East Coast is phenomenal. There's a line you cross when you're driving from Hokianga to Kerikeri and you know that you've crossed it, that you're on the East Coast now. How do you get fair representation and, and manage to lobby for what's important in your area when the needs in the other area are so, so different?   On the West Coast of the South Island, they're also keen. Grey and Hokitika District Councils are considering merging into a unitary authority with Westland Regional Council. Buller's like, no thanks very much. Not for me. They'll go at it alone. So if you are one of the few in the country that is taking an interest in local body politics, if you are one of the few in the country that cares about what happens in your region, where your rates go, how they're spent, whether you'll get fair representation when a merger happens because it's a matter of when, not if. Is it going to work for your area? Can you see a case for it? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Auckland Council is aiming to reduce drownings and improve safety by upgrading its Navigation Bylaw.  The most significant change would make life jackets mandatory for everyone on vessels under six meters long whilst it’s in motion.  Current rules only require for them to be carried, with the person in charge of the vessel making the decision on whether it’s necessary.  Auckland Councillor and Bylaw Review Panel member Alf Filipaina told Kerre Woodham this is the first review since the bylaw’s approval, and five years on, they want the community to have their say.  He says they’re hopeful the majority will come in and say wearing life jackets while a vessel is on the water and in motion is common sense.   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Auckland Council wants to hear from you. It's consulting on proposed changes to the Auckland Navigational Bylaw. Right now, Clause 20 of the bylaw requires personal flotation devices, also known as life jackets, on vessels six metres and under. Unless, and here comes the thorny bit, unless the person in charge gives permission not to wear one. So that makes it all pretty cloudy, doesn't it? The proposed changes aim to clarify expectations and support safer decisions on the water. The proposed change to Clause 20 makes the rule clear, according to the council, and protects everyone on board.  What they want to change to is personal flotation devices must be worn on recreational vessels six metres or less in length. So no faffing around with, oh, the person in charge says I don't have to – if you're on the boat, you wear them. Submissions opened yesterday and are open until the 7th of June 2026, so you've got a bit over a month to have your say.   Is this sort of explicit rendering of the law necessary? Well, if you look at the stats, yes, it is. On average, between 15 to 20 people die every year in recreational boating accidents. And the majority of the accidents don't happen in rough seas miles from shore, they occur in the northern part of the North Island and in coastal waters within two kilometres of shore, and when you drill down, within 400 metres of shore. Vessel types: kayaks, canoes, small powerboats under six metres are the ones most frequently involved. Capsizing and falling overboard are the primary causes of accidents, often happening suddenly, and over half of those who died in the boating accidents were, guess what, not wearing a life jacket.   So you can understand the frustration from Coastguard New Zealand, from the first responders turning up seeing the devastation that occurs when a loved one dies from what was supposed to be a fantastic day out. And it's all so unnecessary. With the right flotation device, you get wet and you go home, and a family's not torn apart. I understand that for a lot of people, going out on the boat is the last freedom. You know, the wind through your hair, if you've got any, the salt water and sound of the seabirds, the light glinting off the water, and you're catching food for dinner. It's a fantastic experience, but it can all go wrong so quickly. And being sorry is all very well and good. “Oh my god, I should have insisted they wear a life jacket.” Yeah, you should have and it's too late now.  Do we leave it to God's little pruning fork? Like if you choose not to wear a life jacket and you know the stats, for heaven's sake, if you're a boatie, you know the stats. But is it a case of other people? Oh, it'll happen to other people. I'm very cautious, I'm very careful, I know what I'm doing. I can swim well. I was a lifesaver 42 years ago, I can look after the grandkids if anything happens. It's always other people until it isn't. But do you still want to be able to make your own choices and if the worst happens, oh well, there we go, it's just one of those things? Or should people be saved from their own stupidity and poor decisions? Every single boatie I know has really strict rules around their boat. When the kids go on board, they understand that the captain's in charge, you follow the rules, what he or she says goes, and life jackets are compulsory for everybody. It's not just for the kids and the adults don't wear them. Everybody wears them.   I understand people want to go to hell in their own way, but I can also really understand the frustration of first responders and Coastguard who have to deliver the news to people back on shore that because the person they loved was wilful and obstinate and refused to believe that they were mortal, they're not going to be with them ever again.  To me, it seems a no brainer. And I'm sure if you're that sort of boatie, you'd be like, how can you not? How can you not insist that people stay safe? It's not an onerous burden these days. So do you just leave people to, like I say, go to hell in their own way? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Health Innovators' Summit takes place in Auckland tomorrow with this year's discussion centring around ideas to create a world-class, high performing health system for New Zealand. The keynote speaker is one of the world’s foremost health policy experts and author of Which Country Has The World’s Best Health Care?, Dr Ezekiel Emanuel. He joined Kerre Woodham to chat about the state of New Zealand healthcare and how other countries operate differently. "New Zealand is exactly where there's a line how rich a country is versus how much it spends on healthcare, and New Zealand's exactly on that line for the per capita GDP," Emanuel said.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's good to see some parties releasing policies, looking at you Labour, whether you agree with them or not, given it's less than six months to the election. ACT released its immigration policy over the weekend, a six point plan that ACT says will welcome people with shared values and who play by the rules. ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said New Zealand was a settler society that had been built by people willing to make a journey to try and build something better, which is true, wave after wave of immigration has made New Zealand the New Zealand it is. But the six point plan, is it really designed to build a better New Zealand or is it designed to get voters to ACT?  As in the party, not as in to galvanise voters. Deport serious offenders, number one on the list. ACT will ensure that resident visa holders convicted of offences carrying sentences of 10 years or more will be deported, no matter how long they've been here. Well, we already do deport a lot of people back from whence they came if they commit serious crime, and the government has a proposal to extend liability to 20 years, so that if you've been here for 20 years, you'll still get sent back. So, really? Hardly ground-breaking.  Two, skilled visas for skilled jobs. Too often ACT says the gaps close and categories remain wide open. ACT will have each skill category automatically expire every year to remain open, so you can say, look, I need a worker, you have to prove that there is a need, you have to show up to date evidence of demand, which sounds like a lot of unnecessary paperwork and not at all like ACT. ACT will introduce a five year welfare stand down for all residence class visa holders, no jobseeker support, accommodation supplement or income tested benefit for a migrant's first five years here. Fair. ACT will introduce a $6 per day infrastructure surcharge on temporary work visas on top of the existing charges. The fee is expected to raise around 80 million a year while remaining more affordable than comparable visas in Australia and the UK. Stronger English language requirements. Lower standards will still be permitted for seasonal workers. Well, you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink, you can lead a horticulture but you can't make it think. You know, it's like you can demand it, and it would be nice if everybody did speak a lingua franca, but at the same time, it's the same in any migrant countries like the US, there are pockets of the US where they still speak Polish and they still speak Yiddish and they still speak Italian because that's the comfort of home.  And, there are 21,000 non overstayers in New Zealand right now, there'll be a dedicated overstayer enforcement unit within Immigration New Zealand. Right. Fair to say the policies have been met with eye rolling from the business and the rural community. Immigration lawyer Queen City Law Marcus Beveridge was very dismissive when he spoke to Ryan Bridge this morning: I just see it as it's not really worth getting out of bed for this because most of it's already here, it's superfluous, it's posturing. Minister Stanford's actually tidied most of this up already and I thought Mr Seymour could have done much better helping to refine the business categories rather than sort of dorking around with something that's already been fixed. Well, quite, really. And somehow you expect more from ACT. No, you might not agree with it, but you expect it to be better reasoned. Federated Farmers employment spokesperson Karl Dean talked to the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning and he says, well, it's not going to help us compete on the international stage: I think the six bucks a day is one thing, you know, how would that look on the international stage? We struggle to get skilled migrants now, they look at Australia, they look at Canada, they choose those over New Zealand. This is another barrier. But it's also the fact of renewing or looking at the accredited work visas every year. You know, if I was a migrant looking to come into a country, I would not choose New Zealand if we had a yearly sort of allocation system. So from the people who deal with migrants every single day, it seems to be a ho hum from them. The biggest criticism seems to be, well, the work's already done and that we're not really in a position to dictate demands and make it difficult for migrants to come here. There are other places they can go. We talked before about the declining birth rates in the Western world, everybody wants skilled migrants, everybody wants them, and we're not really in a position to make it more difficult for migrants to be here than it already is. I'd love to hear from those who have applied for visas, who have applied to move to New Zealand for a better life. Is it what you thought it was? Does it need to be made tougher? Do we need stronger English language requirements? Does it make it easier to assimilate, to feel like a Kiwi if you can speak the language? I'd just love to hear the migrant experience and what you think because you, more than anybody, will know what it's like to move to a new country, to try and meet the requirements of a new country, to try and make a new country your home. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You'll have heard it in our news, since Monday the 20th of April, 18 people have been killed in 14 separate crashes on our roads. As of this morning, 12 more lives have been lost on New Zealand roads so far this year compared to the same point last year. To give some context though, our road tolls today are nothing like the bad old days. Back in 1973, long before many of you were born, when we had a much smaller population and fewer cars on the road, the road toll was around 850 deaths. And you can only imagine the injuries involved in those as well. In 1975 seatbelts in cars became compulsory and the road toll began to decline. It was around about 625 in 1975 – that was considered cause for celebration. And over time, it's come down to fewer than 300 deaths on the road thanks to seatbelts, thanks to better engineering of cars, thanks to improved medical outcomes and rigorous enforcement of traffic rules.   But the fact that things are better than they used to be will be cold comfort to the families of those killed, to the first responders and to the poor bloody truckies who are travelling along the highway, minding their own business, doing the speed limit, big heavy load on the back, and then watching as inevitable disaster unfolds right in front of them as a car veers across the centre line and heads towards them at 100km/h. There is nowhere for them to go. They cannot stop in time. They just have to wait for the inevitable, which would be horrific. Preliminary findings found 16 of the 18 deaths over these past 10 days occurred on open roads with 100km/h speed limits and no traffic safety barriers. Of those 18 deaths, six of them weren't wearing seatbelts. So there's an obvious fix – buckle up.   The other must be looking at wire median barriers. There's a barrier stretching around three and a half kilometres on the Kapiti Coast along Centennial Highway. That used to be a dreadful section of road – there was nowhere to go. There was a sheer rock face on one side and the sea on the other. A very narrow stretch of road around the coast. In the decade before the first part of the wire median barrier went up in 2005, 16 people were killed, 14 seriously injured in 15 major crashes. So the $15 million barrier was extended in 2007, and between 2007 and 2015, there were no deaths or serious injuries on that part of the highway. The barrier had been struck 122 times since it was installed, but no deaths or serious injuries. Goodness knows what that number would be today in 2026, 11 years later.   I know motorcyclists are wary of the cheese cutters. There are all sorts of dreadful stories about decapitations from the wire barriers, but the numbers don't lie. They save far more lives than they take. Even so, you cannot put a barrier down the length of New Zealand. I mean, even if we had the money, would it be advisable to do so? You just have to look at the numbers I suppose and see where the most fatals occur, and put the wire barriers there. And in the meantime, as a road user, you just have to rely on people doing the right thing. You have to rely on them driving roadworthy cars, not driving while they're tired, not driving under the influence of drugs and or alcohol, and paying attention to the conditions. That doesn't seem too much to ask.   But in the meantime, what are your fixes? You know, the police are tearing their hair out and I just feel for the truckies. You more than anyone must see the near misses, must know how bad those figures could really be, were it not for divine providence. What would you like to see as the people most on the road, most at risk of being an unwilling and faultless participant in fatal crashes? I mean, buckling your seatbelt, I thought as a generation we all did. We all grew up where you buckled your seatbelt and you told your parents because they hadn't grown up with that. Everybody knew. The boss was reminding me of the olden, olden days, and I can vaguely remember where there were no retractable seatbelts. That must have been a wow invention when that happened. Used to have to hang the seatbelts up by their hook in the old Holden Kingswood. But they saved lives almost immediately. From the time they were introduced, the road toll came down by 200, and in the last 10 days, six lives could easily have been saved had they buckled up. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know it's an election year, don't you? You know it's an election year when Winston's fermenting merry mischief, when the leader of the opposition is happy to put himself up for an hour of questions on talkback, and when lobby groups are releasing their election wish lists.  The Cancer Society has released its election manifesto and is calling on the next Government, however it looks, to spend dollars to save them. For example, if you invest $5.5 million a year to deliver a national skin cancer prevention and early detection programme, more than 90% of cases will be prevented – nearly all cases are treatable when detected early. Every dollar invested, according to the Cancer Society, returns $11.90 in savings.   And when you think of friends and family who have been through cancer treatment, you can understand how that would stack up. If you don't have to go through the torturous and expensive and generally lifesaving treatments, you are saving so much. So much of your own energy, so much time, so much money as a result of not getting cancer in the first place or early detection. As Cancer Society Chief Executive Nicola Coom told Mike Hosking this morning, given that cancer's New Zealand's biggest killer, it makes sense to invest in early detection and treatments.  “One in three of us in New Zealand will receive a cancer diagnosis in our lifetime, but what's startling is one in three can also be prevented. So 81 people today around New Zealand are going to hear that they've got cancer. What this manifesto is about is we want those people to either A, not have that news in the first place, or B, be told it's okay, we've detected it early, your prognosis is good.”  So the Cancer Society also wants to see cervical screening fully funded at a cost of $21 million per year and deliver on the 90% HPV immunisation target by 2030. You get that immunisation rate up and that eliminates cervical cancer. Invest the $5.5 million a year to deliver the skin cancer prevention and early detection programme, fund a lung cancer screening programme and begin rolling it out over the next three years, lower the bowel screening starting age to 50 and protect children and families from the commercial drivers of cancer. It all makes sense. If you can spend a dollar to save 11, why would you not? And you can say well the money's not there, but it is. It is there within the health budget. Imagine. Imagine if you didn't have to go through that whole gruelling process of trying to treat a cancer which could have been detected early, which could have been prevented in the first place when you look at the HPV immunisation.  Cancer does not have to be a death sentence anymore. Breast cancer used to be, once you got the news about that, it was basically “set your affairs in order”. But as a result of new treatments, as a result of detection programmes, you no longer see it as a death sentence. 86% of people who are diagnosed with breast cancer survive 10 years or longer now. With skin cancers, if they're detected early, bowel cancer if you have the screening programme and can pick up the polyps that can turn into something life threatening, there is no reason for us to go through the agony of seeing somebody sicken and die.  There will still be some that are just the anomalies of cancer cells being in your body and it's just your DNA and your bad luck and hopefully next life round you have a better run of it. But for many people it's detectable and if you have the early screening, you find it, the treatments are less severe, less harsh, less gruelling, less expensive. No brainer. I'd absolutely back the Cancer Society's election manifesto on that and I'll ask Chris Hipkins about that, but I'd love to hear from those of you who know exactly what this is all about, who've been there, who've done that, who've either had early detection or because of gaps in the system did not have the early detection and had a poorer outcome, tell me your story. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins is standing by the decision to wait until after the Budget to announce the party's election policies.   The party has come under fire from the Coalition for its lack of policies so far.   Labour's has revealed plans for a Capital Gains Tax, a Future Fund, and a plan to boost the video game sector rebate from 20% to 25%.   It's promised three free doctors visits a year, a change to GP funding, as well as a Family Doctor Loan Scheme.   Hipkins told Kerre Woodham he doesn't want to make promises that can't be kept, and waiting till the Government sets out the finances is the responsible thing to do.  He’s also signalled he’s open to discussions around potentially means-testing Superannuation.   The party is calling for the Super age to remain at 65, but at the same time, government briefings suggest keeping it the same would result in more spending.   Hipkins told Woodham he doesn't back full means-testing, but there are questions about whether someone working full-time on a six-figure salary should get the pension.  He says a conversation would have to be held in a constructive, bipartisan way.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you have to get your car serviced by the dealer to avoid voiding the warranty?   While you don't necessarily have to, manufacturers require specific equipment and supplies to be used during the servicing process, and using alternatives can impact the warranty. The independent mechanic also has to adhere to the servicing schedule and keep complete documentation.  Motor Trade Association Dealer Expert Larry Fellowfield told Kerre Woodham that while dealerships often cost more than independent mechanics, it comes down to the specific training and equipment they’re required to have.   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The topic of tax has been in the news recently and it will stay in the news. It’s set to become an election issue with one of the few policies that Labour's actually committed to being a Capital Gains Tax – possibly more taxation/revenue measures. Watch the politicians dance on the head of a pin in the lead up to the election. The Fitch report, which looks at New Zealand's ability to pay its bills, said that a Labour Party coalition with the Greens and Te Pāti Māori would emphasise revenue measures as a means of making ends meet. The authors of the report said the National Party-led coalition would focus on expenditure constraint. There's been all sorts of argy bargy and we can go into that a little bit later, but already, even when we start talking about tax and about Labour introducing a Capital Gains Tax and more tax, it's said like it's a bad thing. Like it's a dreadful thing to contemplate more tax.  And yet, how else are we going to pay for the sort of country that we want, that we used to have, that we hear mythical stories about around the fireside from our forebears? Liam Dann has a column in the New Zealand Herald, Inside Economics, and in the column this morning, a correspondent writes that on a tax per capita basis, New Zealand is running materially behind Australia – roughly $13.6 billion annually. Now obviously, Aussies earn more, so their governments are going to take more tax. If you earn more, there's more to take on a percentage basis. But the correspondent writes that even closing a fraction of the tax would meaningfully shift the balance of our books into a positive light and it would change the way we talk about infrastructure and services. Even a tiny bit of that $13.6 billion would make a huge difference.   The correspondent is a blogger and, in his blog, he also writes that one of the reasons why Aussies are prepared to pay more in tax is that they have accepted a basic truth: the country they want costs more to run. And I don't know that we are willing to accept that basic truth. We are still living like some crusty old goat on our former glory. Like the Bruce Springsteen song of 'Glory Days'. We used to be somebody. We used to have a great country. We used to have a country where Jack was as good as his master, where there were no huge extremes between wealth and poverty, where if you worked reasonably hard, if you lived a good life, if you obeyed the rules, you had a great life. You could be assured of a future; your children could be assured of a future. And we're still living on the glory days.  Now obviously not everything that has happened in New Zealand is as a result of what New Zealand has done. We're a global economy now and the winds of change and fortune affect us without our politicians having to do anything at all. But over the years, successive governments have failed to invest in basic infrastructure, and the chickens are coming home to roost – Wellington's Moa Point is a metaphor for the entire country. Our politicians are to blame for a lack of political courage and a lack of political foresight, and we as voters are to blame because as soon as anybody mentions tax, we throw up our aprons and run for the hills. Never! I work hard for my money! I've paid my way, I pay more than enough, have a look at those bludging people on the dole, sort them out first! You can make all the excuses in the world, but are we willing to accept a basic truth that the country we want costs more to run than we're willing to pay. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The headline in the Herald read “New Zealand population bombshell” – but is the news really that much of a bombshell? We know we have an ageing population. We know that we're not replacing ourselves with babies. And we know that there's going to be a real crunch when it comes to finding sufficient workers in the next 20 odd years.   According to a report that the Herald quotes from Sir Peter Gluckman and Emeritus Professor Paul Spoonley, their new report People, Place and Prosperity says the colliding trends of a slowing population growth and a reliance on immigration to drive workforce and population growth, an ageing population requiring more public services, and growing ethnic diversity presents both opportunities and challenges. The opportunities include making the most of the skills, innovation, and creativity that such diversity can offer, but this can be undermined by political populism appealing to xenophobic tendencies – looking at you New Zealand First.   We've known for some time now that we're not having enough babies to replace ourselves. In the late 19th century, women settlers had on average seven children, but this rate halved by the early 20th century. Births per women doubled after the Second World War, then dropped in the 1970s. By December 2017, it had fallen to an average of 1.81 live births per woman, below the 2.01 average maintained between 1980 and 2015 and now annual population growth has dropped from 1.7% in 23/24 to 0.7 in 24/25 and it’s projected to remain below 1% in the coming decades.   Emeritus Professor Spoonley said the total fertility rate was at replacement level a decade ago, but last year it was the lowest it's ever been. You can't really blame young couples for not having families of five or six. I mean, what was normal a couple of generations ago seems aberrant now. Student loans, cost of housing, cost of living, an uncertain world. It's hardly surprising that families are restricting, that young couples are restricting their families. But the fact remains that even if AI fills some of the worker shortages, we're still going to need real life people to keep the country going. And if we're not making those people ourselves, then we're going to have to import them. And that's where Professor Spoonley says we have to have a reasonable, sensible discussion about what that will look like.  “Let's have an adult conversation about this. Let's not descend to pointing fingers or making jokes or you know this is a serious issue. So I think we should all be involved and interested in this debate and let's try and keep it up. We're going to need a lot of workers in the future because our population is turning at this point because of declining fertility and ageing. So we're getting people exiting out of the workforce at the top end and we're getting fewer entering the workforce at the bottom end. So immigration becomes super important. I mean you and I rocking up to a hospital today, 40% of our nurses, I don't know what the number is for doctors, are overseas trained.”   Yes, quite. I mean what would we do with a number of the essential services without our migrant workers? So less of the not particularly clever jibes from Shane Jones and a bit more respect for the people who do choose to come here and contribute to our country and our wellbeing. Because remember, other countries are facing the same issue, or the same issues – an ageing workforce, a declining population. So we will be in competition with them for migrant workers.   And it's no good thinking we can bribe or blackmail or entice or lure young women into filling their wombs. That's been tried overseas and it hasn't worked. Poland introduced a zero-income tax law for families with two or more children. Hungary, mothers who have four or more children are exempt from personal income tax. Hungary also offers a state subsidised family housing loan that provides low interest mortgages and partial debt forgiveness for married couples who commit to having children. Imagine. France, anyone who has two or more children receive a means adjusted payout depending on the number of children. Italy, Estonia, Turkey, I mean you name it. South Korea, Japan, they've all tried to entice women, couples to have more babies and it's not working.   I don't know. Certainly talking to couples in their mid 30s, they would have more children if they felt they could afford them. Would zero income tax do it for you? Low interest mortgages? Would that do it for you? Is it an uncertain world that's putting you off bringing children into it? What is it that has meant that you have stopped at the children you have or chosen not to have children at all? Is it simply a matter of money? And when it comes to enticing people to come and live here, sure AI might fix some of the shortages, we're still going to need people, and we need to welcome them. Otherwise we really will just be a poorly serviced retirement village at the bottom of the South Pacific and that's all we will be. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The New Zealand Liberation Museum – Te Arawhata, located in the historic fortress town of Le Quesnoy, France, commemorates one of New Zealand's most daring and successful military feats of World War I. The museum opened on 11 October 2023 to provide a permanent place of remembrance for New Zealand's contributions on the Western Front. Patron of the New Zealand Memorial Museum Trust, Sir Don McKinnon, joined Kerre Woodham to chat about the 'living memorial'.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I like David Seymour's idea of teaching children the basics of money management by giving them $500 each. He floated the idea during a speech at a business event in Christchurch. The way it would work: the roughly 60,000 Year 11 s in this country would be given $500 in a controlled investment account with a structured pathway into real investing, possibly supported by investment platforms Sharesies or Blackbull. In term one, they choose a term deposit, a safe investment, but one that introduces the basic idea of storing capital so it can be used by someone else to produce, earning a return for the investor. In term two, they invest in a managed fund. This introduces the idea of risk. In term three, they invest in New Zealand equities, which introduces the idea of companies, and in term four, they're able to invest in assets from around the world, and all of a sudden, they learn about exchange rates and how much they matter.   The ACT Party Leader said there would be regular tests of students' knowledge, which would establish whether they could progress to riskier investments. He suggested any returns could be placed in a student's KiwiSaver, it could be a credit on their student loan, or be given to them in cash. He proposed the initiative, which would cost about $30 million, could be funded from the roughly $600 million KiwiSaver annual subsidy. He said, well, you might be surprised to see ACT coming up with a policy giving out money. They normally stand on your own two feet and haul yourselves up by your bootstraps, but he argued the benefits would be realised. It's not a handout; it's an investment in young Kiwis to grow their own wealth. I really like it as an idea, and I'm not the only one. Neil Edmond is the CEO and co-founder of MoneyTime, a financial literacy programme for schools, and he was really positive about Seymour's idea when he spoke on the Mike Hosking Breakfast.  “The Ministry of Education has done a great thing by making financial literacy mandatory in schools from next year, and so students from Years 1 to 10 are going to be learning the basics of personal finance and the basics of investing. But then the next logical step is to give them hands-on real life experience, and I think just even with $500 you can learn an awful lot just by having that practical hands-on experience.   “There's a lot of that sort of entrepreneurial type experience where they have the bake stalls and the school fairs and they sell products and things like that. That's a business focused type activity, which is fantastic and it's really good that they do that. But what Seymour's suggesting or proposing is giving them experience around investing, which is a different type of creating wealth. And I think so many kids don't get that sort of opportunity, certainly not early on, and the earlier they start investing, obviously the better off they're going to be later on.”  Well, yes. I think that's quite right. I mean, there are, it's not a completely unheard of idea for schools to do these kinds of programmes. There are schools before who've used their own initiative and kids have invested in share markets either with real money or with pretend money. They each have a share portfolio once they get to the senior level at school and follow the progress of the shares they've chosen throughout the year. And as Neil referred to, they set up businesses and involve themselves in marketing and that sort of thing as well. So it's not a completely off the wall idea. At the moment it is just that, it is not ACT policy yet. It was David Seymour saying, what do you think? We can make it policy, we'll listen to feedback, we'll see what you think.   For those who are thinking, well, I'm on the bones of my bum trying to eke out daily meals from a loaf of bread and a can of baked beans, what's this bloody nonsense about giving kids $500? Well, maybe this sort of education would prevent that kind of poverty in the future. If we learnt how to manage what money comes in and learnt how to invest it properly, if we learnt how to save and make the money work for us, if you do have money left over, it's going to do more, according to those who know, for the country's financial maturity than any other scheme if all New Zealanders understood how money worked.   There are a lot of people, I mean, I was the daughter of a bank manager, and I would call myself a financial illiterate. I'm a complete moron when it comes to money. Absolutely hopeless. I kind of, you know, pay my bills and I understand how that works. You pay your bills or you go to jail, and that's kind of basic. And I understand about capital, I've invested in KiwiSaver and I haven't got into debt and run up, so I mean, I'd probably give myself just a pass mark, but when it comes to creating wealth, no. Wouldn't have a clue. Pay my bills, save for my retirement in KiwiSaver, and that's about it. It'd be great to be able to hone the skills of those who already have innate talent as entrepreneurs and to give other people the kind of basics they need to understand how to make the most with what they've got. I'd really love to get your thoughts on this, as indeed would David Seymour. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It’s another slow patch for the property market, with some who bought in the post-Covid boom now tossing up their options.   Cotality's latest data shows property sales down 2.4% in March, compared to the same time last year – the third consecutive month to fall.   Property investment coach Steve Goodey says they’re seeing a large number of people struggling with whether to swallow a paper loss or rent out the property.   He told Kerre Woodham when it comes to waiting it out, people don’t necessarily do the numbers and account for how long that may take.  Goodey says someone could be losing $200 a week in cash and be down $200,000 in equity, and recovery may take quite a few years.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour's written to the Prime Minister supporting the India Free Trade Deal being signed in New Delhi next week.  National needed their support to pass the deal into law, since it was opposed by coalition partner New Zealand First.  But Chris Hipkins remains concerned about the commitment to promote billions of dollars of investment in India, saying it's not affordable.  Labour’s Trade Spokesperson Damien O’Connor told Kerre Woodham the slow dribble of information was frustrating, but they’ve reached a point where the balance looks good for New Zealand.  He says it does come with risks, but there are huge opportunities as well, and they needed to make sure the Government was going to commit to them.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Remember back in February, the Government announced it was proposing to give police officers the power to issue move on orders to deal with, as it's described, disorderly behaviour in public places. What they mean is antisocial homeless people who are startling the horses, putting people off coming into the city, creating all sorts of disgusting messes for business owners to clean up. People who don't comply with the move on orders could be fined up to $2,000 or face three months in prison. Documents proactively released by the Ministry of Justice show that officials estimate up to six people a year could be jailed for noncompliance with the move on orders.  The Labour Party obtained some documents under the Official Information Act, and those documents quoted Treasury saying it didn't support the orders given the benefits of the proposal are not clearly evidenced and implementation will exacerbate justice sector cost pressures. Treasury also questioned the highly uncertain modelling suggesting six people could be jailed per year. Treasury seems to think there will be far more than six.  I don't know why they would think that. You can kill somebody as a drunk driver and not go to prison. You can commit all sorts of heinous crimes and be excused because you had a dreadful upbringing again, having been excused the previous two to three times you appeared before the beak. So I don't know why Treasury suddenly thinks that all of a sudden the judges are going to grow some cojones and send people to prison, because if they're not doing it for people who kill others because of their drunk driving and dangerous driving, they're not going to do it for some poor hapless soul who's got nowhere to go and addiction issues, are they?  Paul Goldsmith, the Justice Minister, said just like the gang legislation, which prompted similar warnings from similar agencies, the Government was confident in its policy. He said police can operationalise this —what an ugly, terrible word, but nonetheless, that's the one he used— in a way that's highly effective. He said the policy was about reclaiming the streets and city centres for the enjoyment of everybody. He reiterated that only people who refuse the orders will face prosecution and said a move on order is not a criminal charge, although refusing to comply with one is.  I have an awful lot of sympathy for retailers, business owners, those who live in the city or the cities around New Zealand having to put up with antisocial behaviour from very odd people. Not everybody is like that. There are a lot of people who are on the street who are lovely, who are perfectly reasonable humans who have had a string of bad luck – there but for the grace of God go you or I. They are not all the same at all.  But having wandered the length of Queen Street at the end of last year, it was a beautiful day, I had to be somewhere, and I thought I'd take the long way and see for myself what the city was like. Yeah, there are real issues to deal with within, certainly within Auckland, Auckland's Queen Street, and no doubt in your main centre as well. There were drunken shirtless men brawling very close to the Louis Vuitton and the Christian Louboutin shops. There were troubled individuals displaying aggressive and frightening behaviour, the yipping, yelping man that jumped out at passersby. He wasn't bad, he was just sad, but you know, it was alarming, and especially if you had the kids with you while you were doing some last minute Christmas shopping. It wasn't conducive to an easy, pleasant experience. And it should have been, it was a beautiful day, you know, there are some lovely historic buildings, there's some nice parks where you can sit. It should have been lovely.  But because of the unpredictable and in some cases aggressive behaviour of a small number of people, it wasn't. And I haven't been back since. But when the inner-city motels were opened to the homeless during Covid and communities were formed and made, it created a whole new vibe, if you will, in the city. When you have nothing, a routine, a bunch of mates, a place you know can be everything. So once they arrived, they stayed. I have some sympathy for those who are homeless for myriad reasons, but unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable behaviour. When people are brawling, when they're being public nuisances, when they're impinging on the right of other individuals to walk freely, when they're using shop entrances as bathrooms that other people then have to clean up, that is behaviour that needs to be curbed. And if move on orders help restore order to the cities, if move on orders sharpen the focus of social agencies to find permanent homes for those without them, so much the better. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The reputations of the five MPs believed to be frustrated with Christopher Luxon’s leadership are suffering.   Luxon passed a vote of confidence at yesterday's lengthy caucus meeting, but MPs aren't revealing details of the vote, including how many of them supported Luxon.  The MPs responsible for leaks to the media are understood to be Joseph Mooney, Andrew Bayly, Sam Uffindell, Barbara Kuriger, and Tim van de Molen.  However, they’re all denying their involvement.  Senior Political Correspondent Barry Soper told Kerre Woodham that there are bound to be disgruntled people in the party, but you have to take people at their word if they deny their involvement.   He says that whoever it is, they’re in politics for the good of the country, not their own good, and it’s a pity a few of them can’t seem to get that into perspective.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was a masterful piece of politicking yesterday from the Prime Minister. The first time I think I've seen him as a politician rather than a CEO. He told his caucus to put up or shut up. He sent a message to the disaffected and the dissatisfied in the party to lay their cards on the table. And when it came down to it, the halt, the lame, and the dispossessed simply didn't have the numbers, the alternative, or the cajónes to make a challenge.  If you're a member or a supporter of National, of course you're not going to like the numbers the polls are delivering. You're not going to like seeing your leader languishing in the doldrums in the preferred Prime Minister poll. But I would venture you would like even less backbenchers fomenting dissent and giving the media a reason to write about the party for all the wrong reasons. Mike named the feckless five yesterday. They claim they had nothing to do with any leaks to the media. They have all pledged their fealty to their leader, Christopher Luxon, and I only hope he made them kiss his ring yesterday to prove their faithfulness and their loyalty. I think, but then I would, wouldn't I, that Christopher Luxon has come out of yesterday's caucus meeting looking stronger than he did last week. He stared them in the eye, said show me what you've got. Not quite enough is it lads and lasses? And off they went.   But what do you do if you're in one of the feckless five's electorates and you're brassed off with them? You might not want to give them your vote, but then if you don't vote for them, it harms the National Party. Do you give your electorate vote to ACT or New Zealand First and your party vote to National? And when you vote for an electorate MP, are you voting for someone who will act in your interests first or in the party's interests? When you look at anybody, I mean these five say they didn't do it. They were named as the ones and when you're talking to the media, the thing is the media know who you are. So it makes it a little difficult. Joseph Mooney, Tim van de Molen, Barbara Kuriger, Andrew Bayly, and Sam Uffindell all say it wasn't me. The old Shaggy song springs to mind. But that's the thing, they say it wasn't them; they've pledged loyalty.  But if you are, and when you look at the previous coups, if you're one of those who jumps on board a coup, who decides that they will put their money on a different horse, you're basically lazy. Because being a backbencher is hard work. There's nothing glamorous about it. It is boring, it is thankless, there are no baubles of office, no perks of the job – it is a hard grind. At least when you get to minister level you get the car, more money, and you get people who kind of respect you and you get to make a difference. You get to make change through the hard work of drafting policy and working with bureaucrats and working with other members of Parliament. But you can actually get things done. As a backbencher you can't. It's really, really boring. So what people who jump ship do is look to leapfrog over other backbenchers because they get rewarded. If they cosy up to somebody who's mounting a challenge, they can expect to get rewarded with a plum job and not have to do the hard graft. So they're lazy as well as feckless.  There are so many people who have benefited from this dissent: Labour, New Zealand First. Although yesterday with his confidence call, I'd argue Christopher Luxon did get some benefit from that. Anybody who is unhappy with the leadership, anybody who is not willing to do the hard graft on the backbenches and get the good jobs through sheer talent and hard work, anybody who is willing to sacrifice the good of the party for personal ambition, anybody who's willing to tell fibs should resign. Put up or shut up and shove off. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Things are getting tougher for Kiwis.  According to ASB’s estimates, households will see an average of $55 a week added to their living costs this year, thanks to global effects of the conflict in the Middle East.   This compounds the struggle for many, with Stats NZ reporting in 2025 that just over half of renters and nearly 40% of mortgage holders didn’t think their income matched their everyday needs.  ASB’s Chief Economist Nick Tuffley told Kerre Woodham the increase isn’t that much different than previous years, it’s just concentrated in one specific area this year – fuel.   He says that means some people will be able to dodge some of the extra spending by changing their behaviour, whereas in the past it was spread out across multiple areas and much more unavoidable.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inflation was higher than it should be, even before factoring in the full impact of the war on Iran.  Stats NZ data shows the inflation rate remained unchanged at 3.1% in the March quarter.  Internationally driven tradeable inflation dipped to 2.5% and the domestically driven non-tradeable rate was unchanged at 3.5%.  The Herald's Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham these figures come before fuel rises really kicked off.  He says it's disappointing we aren't heading into that crisis in a better position.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, aren't they? Last week people were castigating MetService for overhyping the incoming storm. And I would argue it wasn't MetService who were overhyping it, it was the media making an absolute meal out of it. Today, people are calling out MetService for not getting enough warning about the life-threatening rain and winds that are slamming Wellington and the Wairarapa district as we speak.  Whatever happened to looking after yourself? Gathering the information, you need and making decisions based on that? We seem to have descended into a national state of learned helplessness. Were we like that before Covid? Were we getting to that level before Covid or has it been exacerbated because of Covid? People with brains, people with rational capability, just sitting there like inert dummies waiting to be told what to do and when to do it. That is no way to live life.  Perhaps it's a rural-city divide. If you are living somewhere where help is not a 111 call away, where you know that if you need help, you're going to have to help yourself and then you're going to have to help your mates. You're not waiting to be told what to do. Last weekend I knew that the storm was coming, you could hardly avoid it if you were listening to the radio or watching the television. So that was helpful. You know, I knew it was coming, I knew what time it was expected to hit the Far North, and I knew the Far North was in the firing line.  So you get prepared. I knew the power would go off, the power goes off all the time, so that means no cooking, no water, so I made sure I had enough drinking water to last a week, that there was gas for the barbecue. I ran the bath the night before the storm was due to land so there was water to flush the loo. The torch had batteries, a good heavy duty powerful torch, waterproof torch, and I had a grab bag in case the stream on the property flooded or there was a landslide, those were the two risks that I identified on the property.  I knew where the nearest community centre was in case I needed help or in case I could give help. And I made sure there were very few perishable foods left in the fridge, don't you worry about that, we did not go hungry. I could have probably, like a camel, lasted a couple of weeks. So, you know, you get prepared. And then I turned off the radio because I didn't need to hear breathless stories on the hour every hour, and again that's not MetService's fault, that's the media hyping it up. And I made the most of the beautiful lovely calm sunny day.  And I knew it wouldn't last. I'd checked the forecast, I knew the weather would change and when I came inside and saw the barometer had absolutely plummeted, I brought in the outdoor furniture, made sure that everything was tied down and nothing could go flying and settled in for the evening. And sure enough at ten that evening the power went off, and I knew it would and I was ready. The power stayed off until the next afternoon. Around about 4pm it came back on and thank you very much to the Northpower team for working in nasty conditions on a Sunday restoring power to the Hokianga.  And I don't have that much common sense. Nobody would ever, if I had to be summed up at my funeral, say, “Well, there was a girl with common sense." I don't have that much of it, and you don't actually need that much to get yourself ready. I don't want to be helpless, and I don't want to be dependent on other people. I was up there on my own so I made sure that I could look after myself to the best of my ability. It takes very little money, very little effort, very little time, and as it turns out, not that much common sense to be prepared.  Am I the last person in the world to use a barometer? I really think every home should have one because if you're not listening to the radio or you're not watching the television news or the cellphone towers go down and you can't look at the apps on your phone, then you've got the barometer. They've been around since 1645 and have been accurate since then and still are today. And when you look at that barometer plummeting down, you know that the weather is going to change for the worse, so you get yourself ready.  I really think we need to drive home the message that it's not MetService's fault if you are flooded out of your home. They didn't cause the deluge, they cannot predict which house in which street will be flooded, that's unfair to expect them to do that. There are so many ways we can keep ourselves informed, even the good old-fashioned barometer which I absolutely swear by. Do not just sit there waiting for people to tell you what to do and when to do it. Use the brains and the common sense that the good gods gave you and stop blaming other people for natural events that can't possibly be pinpointed to your personal address. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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