/on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/rss 九一星空无限 Tue, 06 May 2025 09:28:49 Z en /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-need-to-be-part-of-the-solution-to-retail-crime/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-need-to-be-part-of-the-solution-to-retail-crime/ A new report from Retail NZ has revealed the state of retail crime in New Zealand - 99% of the membership of Retail NZ has experienced some form of crime or antisocial behaviour in 2023/24, that's up from 93% the year prior.   I remember thinking that's a lot, National want to be working on that because they were very strong in opposition and in the election campaign saying they were going to get tough on retail crime – it seems to have got worse. It ranges from credit card fraud, shoplifting, threatening behaviour, criminal damage, or physical assault. Retail NZ’s membership recorded 140,746 incidents of retail crime over that period.   What I find really interesting from the report is that almost 40% of those retail crimes were not reported to police. There were a range of reasons why respondents didn't report to police. Apparently it was because of low value items not being worth the effort, the retailer discovered the offence too late, or they dealt with it directly. There were also concerns that what was the point? What was the point of telling the police? Nothing's going to happen.   I would love to know from retailers at what point do you give up caring? 40% of retail crimes are not reported to police. That's a hell of a lot. When do you reach the stage of simply shrugging your shoulders and saying, what are you going to do about it? Have you become so inured to retail crime, to abusive language, to people just putting something in their pocket or putting something in their bag and walking out, you're like, well another day?  I remember Chris Quinn from Foodstuffs when we were talking about people walking out with trolleys full of groceries. And I said, well, why don't you put in the measures that people have told me about overseas, where you scan your receipt and then the gates open, and your trolley and you, can walk out. If you don't have a receipt, the gates don't open – make it jolly hard to walk out with a trolley full of groceries. He said, I just don't think the public could put up with that. Yeah, we would, wouldn't we? I thought that was a really defeatist attitude. He said, you know, the majority shouldn't be punished for the minor, obviously, but I mean that is the way society works. We have rules and legislation to cater to the numpties and the low lifes and the stupid and the criminal.   I personally don't mind putting my receipt to a scanner and having the gates open if it means that some arrogant arse is prevented from walking out with a trolley full of groceries and sticking two fingers to us all. I really don't mind. It would be minimal in terms of hassle, in terms of hold up. The same would be true of many retail security measures. It makes more sense to have security measures in shops and supermarkets than it does at the airport. Me taking my boots off does not help us find the Malaysian Airlines plane that crashed. It makes more sense to me to be held up slightly at the supermarket, ever so slightly if it means that people aren't getting away with it.   They seem to take great delight in it, and that's what annoys me. We've got to have a zero tolerance policy to this sort of retail crime. And that means you and I have to be part of the solution. It's not just retailers, it's not just police that are going to make a difference. It's when you and I are willing to accept a little bit of inconvenience to tell the toerags and the freeloaders and the criminals that up with this we will no longer put. Draw a line in the sand and for once let the good guys prevail.    Tue, 06 May 2025 00:23:46 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-northland-desperately-need-police-boots-on-the-ground/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-northland-desperately-need-police-boots-on-the-ground/ I don't know if you caught the story over the weekend - Ngāpuhi, the iwi of Northland, are calling for police to round up the drug dealers in Northland using the same strong tactics they used in drug raids on Ōpōtiki last year. You'll remember there was criticism of how the police dealt with some of the individuals in Ōpōtiki, mainly coming from the individuals and their families themselves. Now Ngāpuhi is saying bring it on. The leader of the country's largest iwi, Mane Tahere, said he asked the Police Minister for decisive action after recently seeing a group of youngsters smoking a meth pipe in broad daylight in the Main Street of Kaikohe, just down the road from the police station. As somebody who has been going to the Far North for the past eight or nine years, I've certainly seen a change for the worse in Kaihohe. There are tiny little fragile grass shoots of hope, but the meth is a huge problem there, an absolutely huge problem. Locals in Opononi stand outside the local dairy, the local shops on benefit day to try and stop the dealers from getting to the kids first. The community is trying to do what it can to stop the dealers getting a strong hold in the community, to try and thwart their attempts to get more young people hooked on the drug. But they are a tiny, tiny, tiny bastion against what is a multimillion-dollar business. The cold, harsh reality is that Northland has the highest consumption of methamphetamine in New Zealand. Nearly 2000milligrammes per day consumed per 1000 people. And Mane Tahere has said we are doing what we can as a community, as an iwi, as a people but we can't do it on our own and we need the police to step in. He said a crackdown isn't the solution to all problems in Northland but it's a major part. He knows he is calling down a whole heap of criticism on his head by asking the police to step in, but he says our hard, staunch kind of hate for the police is not the future. Compare his pragmatic, proactive hard line on drugs with the words of Green MP Tamatha Paul. You'll remember she criticised Wellington's beat patrols. She accused the police of rounding up the homeless, without providing any evidence other than the musings of a couple of street people themselves. She said some people felt less safe because of the police’s presence. Right. This is a very bright young woman, Tamatha Paul has won numerous scholarships for academic excellence. She has graduated with the Masters in Resource and Environmental Planning. This is a very bright young woman talking to other very bright young people on a university campus, postulating and theorising and coming up with all sorts of grand plans about how a different world could look, and that's what you do at a university when you're young, when you're bright, when you've got all the answers, when you're at a peace action conference. You have the luxury of theorising. I would venture to suggest most of the young people there were just like Tamatha Paul. They may not have started in a world of privilege, but they've taken the opportunities offered to them, they've worked to realise a future for themselves. And that's a future that looks very, very different to the lives of the same young people in Kaikohe. The sort of people that Mane Tahere is trying to help every single day. He knows to combat the absolute evil of drugs, his people don't need to read another thesis on colonisation, Hauora and whenua in Aotearoa published in 2019, among many. He knows what they need are not the academics, but addiction and rehab specialists. They need to keep up that community involvement, that community fight against the drugs. And they desperately, desperately need police boots on the ground.  Mon, 05 May 2025 00:32:37 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-whats-the-point-of-a-minister-without-a-budget/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-whats-the-point-of-a-minister-without-a-budget/ David Seymour is absolutely on the money with his call to cut the number of ministers in Cabinet and outside of Cabinet. In his speech yesterday, he proposed capping the number of ministers at 20 —currently there are 28— and scrapping the position of minister outside of Cabinet.   “Right now, there are ministers that have seven different departments. There are departments such as MBIE that answer to 19 different ministers. There are portfolios, just to give you one example, not to pick on it, but the Minister for Auckland that Labour created – there's no Auckland department, there's no Auckland vote in the budget, it's just a made-up thing, frankly. And I think that really, we should be moving to a world where each department has only one Minister, no portfolios exist unless they have an actual department with a budget and a thing to do, and there should be no ministers outside of the Cabinet, everyone should be sitting around the same table. That's going to take a lot of people making a concession, but if we could get there, I think the whole thing would just get stuff done faster.”  Couldn't agree more. I've always seen the roles of Minister for Women, Minister for the Voluntary Sector, Minister for Auckland, Minister for the South Island, sops to lobby groups. As David Seymour said in his speech, it's symbolism. Portfolios, he said, should not be handed out like participation trophies.   Could not agree more. Michael Wood was made Minister for Auckland at the beginning of 2023 in Chris Hipkins government. Did he do anything? No. Did he have any power? Not really, no. As David Seymour said, there's no budget. So why create it? Because Chris Hipkins realised he needed to get Auckland back on side after the Covid response, after the crime waves that affected so many retailers in Auckland. It was a sorry guys, here's a Minister for Auckland we prepared earlier. Didn't work, too little, too late. Later on in ‘23, the red wall crumbled in Auckland and Labour strongholds went to National. Labour knows they need to win them back and Chris Hipkins understands they need to do more than appoint an Auckland spokesperson, but I suppose it's a start.   Not everybody sees them as a waste of time – when the very sound James Meager was made Minister for the South Island, the Ashburton Mayor Neil Brown said it was a good move. South Island councils had told the government they felt their voice wasn't being heard, having a local MP promoted to minister outside of cabinet would provide a more direct connection with Wellington. Again, I don't think there's any real merit in having a minister for the South Island other than as a sop to South Islanders. You think we neglect you? You think Auckland's getting all the attention here? He is a minister, a fine young man we prepared earlier, have a Minister!   In fact, everybody have a Minister! Minister for Hospitality, Minister for Racing, Minister for the Voluntary Sector. It nullifies the effect of having a Minister. If you don't have a budget and you don't have a vote, what is the point? If you make everybody a head prefect, what is the point? It devalues the position. It might make the minister themselves feel a little bit better, a little bit special, but if everybody's special, nobody is. The only good reason, perhaps to have a minister for anything, other than as a sop, is because you do have fine young talents like James Meager who are given a bit more responsibility. But are they? It's like an apprenticeship for becoming a real minister. It's an absolute nonsense.   I couldn't agree with David Seymour more. We've had our disagreements in the past and this one I'm absolutely on board with them. There should not be a minister unless they have a budget and something to do. And government departments should only have one minister to report to, not 19. How could anybody argue with what David Seymour has proposed?  Fri, 02 May 2025 01:01:12 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-does-a-right-to-privacy-trump-the-right-to-safety/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-does-a-right-to-privacy-trump-the-right-to-safety/ It was really disturbing to read the opening paragraph of this story on the murder of Juliana Bonilla Herrera. Truly frightening. It reads that high risk offenders are regularly being paroled from prison and into the community. It came from a senior Corrections staff member who was speaking at the coronial inquest into the murder of the Columbian woman. There is a shortage of suitable rehabilitation and accommodation options for high-risk offenders coming out of prison, and accordingly, other high-risk offenders, those with an even greater risk profile, are regularly being released into the community. And the public is not allowed to know who these high-risk offenders are.   At the coronial inquest, Miss Bonilla Herrera's sister asked whether officials considered it necessary to warn neighbours of any possible danger when a high-risk offender comes out of prison and into the neighbourhood? The coroner said this was beyond the scope of the witnesses to answer. But it begs the question, and it's been asked before, and we're asking it again, when does an offender's privacy trump the public safety?   I'm sure there are plenty of people who come out of prison who realise that they have committed a grievous wrong against an individual and against society, they have paid the price, and they are ready to assimilate into the community, having learned their lesson. But there are so many examples of individuals who come out of prison who have learnt nothing, who are perhaps incapable of learning any lessons.   An example, and there are many, for more than a decade, Elliot Cameron had been a familiar sight for a small group of Mt Pleasant neighbours who had him do their gardens. Unbeknown to them, he was actually a mental health patient who had been living at Hillmorton Hospital for many years. Last year Elliot Cameron murdered 83-year-old Faye Phelps, who was one of those who employed him to do the garden in her own home.   Another example: a man has been found not guilty of murder by way of insanity two decades after being found not guilty of murder by way of insanity. Another example, a 501 deportee who murdered a woman had a string of convictions in Australia, but police were unable to monitor him because the crimes had happened in Australia and he'd served his time for them, and therefore to all intents and purposes he was just another human. But he isn't and wasn't.   I really do get that when people serve their time they should be given the opportunity to get on with their lives. Not everybody who comes out of prison needs to be monitored, needs to have a layer of security around them to protect the public from them. But when you have Corrections staff and probation officers and psychologists who know the individual, who know the calibre of the person and they deem them to be high risk, and they say that there are very grave concerns about the releasing this person back into society, there needs to be all sorts of monitoring around them, they need to be in a special rehabilitation centre before they can feel comfortable about releasing them back into the community.   When they deem them to be high risk, how can they be allowed back into society? We know that the support measures simply are not there. Once they're released from prison, it's ‘Jesus, take the wheel’. Will they gert the bed at the rehabilitation centre, who knows? Probably not. It'll be full. Will they get the strict monitoring that's necessary? Chances are not really. In this particular case at the coronial inquest, the probation officer found that the probation arrangements hadn't been entered into the computer properly. Oops. Soz.   You can have no faith in the system that when there's high risk individuals come out of prison that the protections will be there for them and for the public. I don't have any faith they'll be there at all, and anybody who works in the system doesn't have any faith they'll be there. And yet, the public can't be warned because they have a right to privacy. And again, I asked the question: why did their rights to privacy trump the public's right to safety? If there are no guarantees, if they are still considered high risk then unfortunately, they're going to have to stay in prison because their rights should not trump ours.  Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:51:15 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-why-would-the-government-interfere-in-the-aviation-market/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-why-would-the-government-interfere-in-the-aviation-market/ We know airfares are expensive, right? Everybody, and I mean everybody, I know who's booked flights recently has made the comment that an overseas flight is cheaper than flying just about anywhere around New Zealand – especially to the provincial centres. Easter was huge in terms of airfares, but even on your normal everyday Wednesday morning, flying to Timaru, flying to Tauranga, it's going to set you back a fortune.   We've been complaining about Air New Zealand's pricing now ever since we could get back in the air again after Covid, but what can we do? Air New Zealand says its experienced more cost inflation in the past three years than was typically seen in a decade, with Covid, a weak New Zealand dollar, and geopolitics all to blame.   Richard Thompson, Air New Zealand's Chief Financial Officer says their costs over the past 3.5 years have gone up by roughly 30%. Domestic airfares on average have gone up by around 24%, so they're trying to absorb the costs, they say. He argues that flying is still a relatively affordable way to get around the country, with every $400 or $500 fare, he says, there are thousands of examples of $129 fares or even $99 fares. He said I was speaking with someone before Christmas who wanted to get from Timaru to Napier. They were paying $600 or $700 one way.   But what's the alternative? You drive to Picton. It'll cost you $100 in gas. If you take the ferry across, that's another $250 or $300. Then another $50 or $60 in gas to get to Napier. He said driving isn't cheap either. But now the government's getting in on the act. Associate Transport Minister James Meager is not ruling out underwriting the expansion of small regional airlines to help maintain routes and keep the price of flying competitive. But truly, the thing is we simply do not have the population base to support viable competition. How many airlines have tried and failed to establish themselves in the market? Just thinking back, in the last couple of decades, Freedom Air, Kiwi Air, and Ansett - they came, they tried, they failed.   Don't get me wrong, competition is a good thing. We do have Jetstar, bless them and where they fly, you'll generally find the routes are the most competitive in terms of airfares, and the most reliable – because let's not forget about reliability. And I don't think that's a coincidence. I'm supposed to be flying to Tauranga in a couple of weeks for the day, for a job. And I'm supposed to be flying down on Saturday morning and flying back on Saturday evening. I have absolutely no confidence that that will happen. None. I mean, I hope it does, because there's a film crew down there and it will be a costly exercise if I fail to make it. I'm not planning anything for that particular Saturday night because the last time I flew to Tauranga, I got down there fine and then sat for just under 7 hours in the regional lounge waiting for a plane that never came, or it didn't come for a very, very long time. And yes, you can drive, but it's a horrible drive. But what do you do? It's a horrible drive or you accept that there's a very real chance that the plane won't take off when it says it's going to.    Why, though, is the government interfering in the market? I found it really interesting that successive governments, Labour and National have wanted to tinker with privately owned businesses like supermarkets, and petrol companies, and banks, and now the airlines. They want to sort of tweak and fiddle around to try and bring prices down and make things more competitive, and it's all about the consumer and you know.   Fabulous. Why don't they bring down the price of power? That's something they do control. The governments are in charge of that. Not everybody flies, we all use electricity. It is what it is. It's expensive to run an airline. Really expensive now in the wake of Covid and it's all been outlined as to why it's so expensive. Flying is expensive. We know that. We baulk at paying the prices if we can. They will allow some subsidies if you're going for a funeral, if there's humanitarian reasons for getting somewhere quickly.   Air New Zealand can allow for cheaper airfares, but ultimately, do we want the government, that is the taxpayer, subsidising competition in the aviation industry?  I wouldn't have thought that was a good use of taxpayer money. Why on Earth should other taxpayers who don't fly, subsidise those who want to flit off to Hawkes Bay or Queenstown for a jolly. I just don't see why the government should be interfering with the business of flying planes.  Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:38:59 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-when-did-weather-become-such-a-big-deal-that-it-dominates-the-news/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-when-did-weather-become-such-a-big-deal-that-it-dominates-the-news/ Speaking of the bad weather, it brings me to the emergency mobile alerts. The emergency mobile alerts came about because Fire and Emergency and the National Emergency Management Agency and other agencies including New Zealand Police, Ministry of Primary Industries and Ministry of Health use emergency mobile alerts to alert people if their lives, property or health are at serious risk. I'm pretty sure they came about during Covid, I can't recall them before then you might, but I think it was pretty much a Covid response and that's continued to include any other times where lives, property or health are at serious risk. Over the past week. Aucklander’s have received about four or five emergency alerts on their phones, and I'll tell you what, they give you an absolute conniption when they start screeching. You know it takes you right back, the adrenaline surges through, you think, fight or flight ... okay there's bad weather coming. Well, yes, a cyclone had been forecast to be arriving over the North Island. So, you would imagine with a tropical cyclone bad weather comes - thunderstorms, the potential for flooding. And then the next lot of emergency alerts came to warn of the potentials of dangerous gases as a result of a recycling plant in a suburb of Auckland going up in flames and once that fire started, many, many suburbs around the fire were advised to stay inside and then another alert gave the all clear sometime later. I do understand that Civil Defence is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Some Aucklander’s were asking why they weren't warned about the severe thunderstorms and deluges on the Friday night of Easter weekend. But surely, we all knew that a cyclone was sitting over the North Island, and cyclones bring rain and thunderstorms. But there was criticism because they hadn't been warned, so therefore we got warnings up the Ying Yang in response. Meteorologists defended themselves, saying well, thunderstorms are notoriously difficult to predict, and weather is notoriously difficult to predict. We saw that with Gabrielle as well. In February 2023, the Esk River in Hawkes Bay burst its banks and flooded the entire valley. Hundreds of Hawkes Bay residents woke in the middle of a nightmare, with water surging through their homes, and there was no alert, no warning, they hadn't been evacuated from the area, and yet the cyclone had been predicted. Schools had been closed in Hamilton and Tauranga and those areas were unaffected but Hawkes Bay was absolutely hammered. It's an imperfect science, an imprecise and inexact science. Are we depending far too much on meteorologists who can give you a broad spectrum? - we can expect thunderstorms, we can expect electric storms, we can expect heavy rain over the next week, we can't tell you that it's going to arrive at your house at this time, so be prepared. And I wonder if too many people are expecting that from authorities and from decision makers. We've become very used to having people tell us what we should do, how we should do it, to keep ourselves safe. I'm not entirely sure you can do that with weather. It is unpredictable. It changes. Meteorologists will tell you that they can really only give you a broad spectrum. And if you're depending on government agencies to tell you what to do and where to go and how you should cope, I think that way lies disaster, really. Because you'll think, well, I haven't had a warning, so I should be fine. People will let me know if I'm in danger and you start to lose your Spidey instinct, you start to lose your Spidey senses. Too many alerts are going to mean that people will just switch off. They'll either switch off their phones and say I'm not going to have my heart racing and my pulse racing and the adrenaline surging through me for a fire that's happening ten suburbs over that really doesn't affect me. If we start to switch off, then again, emergency services will be blamed because they sent out too many. I suppose it's helpful having someone to blame other than God and the weather? But when did weather become such a big deal that it dominates the news. Meteorologists are becoming the new public health officials. And when did we stop using our common sense and relying on government agencies to tell us what to do in weather. Do you need to know through your emergency mobile alerts, what is happening? Does that give you the opportunity to take precautions? What purpose does the agency serve? I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this one. Sun, 27 Apr 2025 23:51:50 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-what-do-you-think-about-most-at-pre-school-drop-off/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-what-do-you-think-about-most-at-pre-school-drop-off/ If you’ve ever done a pre-school drop-off, what’s been the main thing going through your mind? Aside from ‘am I going to get to work on time?’.   Have you been more concerned about the safety and wellbeing of your child, grandchild, niece or nephew? Or have you been more concerned about the qualifications of the people working there?   For me, qualifications don’t even enter the equation.   I’ve had three kids go through pre-school or early childhood education and I can honestly say that I was never concerned about the pieces of paper that the teachers might have had sitting in a drawer or up on the wall at home. I was never bothered about that.   Which is why I am liking what the Government’s doing to loosen the qualification requirements and get rid of some of the complexities that the people who run these centres have to deal with.   At the moment, there 98 different criteria for early childhood centres – which include things like keeping the temperature inside at 18 degrees.   But I think one of the best changes the Government plans to make is to give the people who run these places more flexibility when it comes to hiring staff in terms of what qualifications they need to have.   Generally, I think we have become over-obsessed with qualifications. I think qualifications are used to weed people out as a starting point.   And the real downside of our over-obsession with qualifications is that, sometimes, the best person for the job —or the best people for the jobs— don’t get a look-in. Example from the early childhood sector: someone who might have a truckload of practical experience or might have been out of the workforce for a few years having a family, do you think they could be the perfect person to have at an early childhood centre? Of course. That kind of person would be a great catch. Someone who genuinely loves kids, who knows about all the practicalities of looking after little kids day-in, day-out. Give me someone like that any day over someone who has done all the assignments and passed all the exams but doesn't necessarily have the temperament to deal with pre-schoolers. And let’s not forget the anecdotal reports we keep hearing about kids turning up at pre-schools who need a lot more attention than kids might have needed a few years ago. Especially in relation to their behaviour. Qualifications don’t prepare you for that. And if these qualified early childhood teachers are so necessary, why is it that kids are turning 5 unprepared for school? About three weeks ago, Dr Stuart Deerness —who’s a senior education lecturer at AUT— wrote a piece in the NZ Herald where he said that the blame for kids not being ready for school can’t all be put on parents. He’s right. And I’m going to draw a link, you might say it's more like a long bow, but I’m going to draw a link between this obsession that early childhood teachers be formally qualified and the fact that some of the kids they’re responsible for not being school-ready. Because for me, you don't need a qualification to have empathy. You don't need a qualification to solve problems. You don't need a qualification to deal with over-anxious parents. And you don’t need a qualification to keep a little person safe and happy, and to get them ready to take on the world. Thu, 24 Apr 2025 01:09:41 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-where-im-torn-on-gender-identity/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-where-im-torn-on-gender-identity/ There’s a chance you'll think I sound like I’m contradicting myself with my views on NZ First jumping on the gender identity bandwagon.     Politicians love a good bandwagon and that’s what NZ First is riding with its members’ bill to legally clarify the definitions of man and woman.   I say they’re riding a bandwagon because it comes on the heels of the Supreme Court in Britain doing pretty much the exact same thing last week. It ruled that it all comes down to a person’s biology, and that’s NZ First’s thinking as well.   I’m not so black and white. But first, let me say that, of all the things New Zealand is dealing with at the moment, this plan by NZ First is not a priority. We don’t need this.    Yes, some people think the transgender community is leading us to hell in a handbasket. That’s why NZ First is saying things like its members’ bill being all about fighting “cancerous social engineering and woke ideology”.   But I think only a minority of people feel as strongly about it as that language suggests.   And will it do anything to get the economy sorted? No it won’t. Will it get kids out of poverty? No it won’t. Will it reduce power prices? Not it won’t. Will it get more life-saving drugs for people? Nope. See what I mean?   But, aside from thinking that NZ First is barking up the wrong tree or barking at a passing car, and that we don’t desperately need this clarification, my overall view is that inclusion is way better than exclusion.    What I mean by that is however we might feel about someone being transgender —however comfortable or uncomfortable we are about it— does how we feel really matter? I don’t think it does.   What does matter is that someone who, for whatever reason, feels so uncomfortable in their own skin —or who feels alien in their own skin, in terms of gender— then why shouldn’t they be free to do something about that?   Well, they should be free. And, by being free, they should also enjoy the same privileges and freedoms as everybody.   That’s the inclusion versus exclusion part of it.   But, at the same time, there are parts of this freedoms and privileges bit that I really struggle with, and this is where I’m going to start to contradict myself.   I’m not saying here that I advocate any sort of antagonism or discrimination or worse towards anyone who lives their life as a transgender person. But I understand why some people aren’t as open to the possibility that not everyone wants to be the person they were when they born.   And I understand that because I’m not black and white on it myself.    Yes, I’ll preach inclusion instead of exclusion and I’ll tell people who get wound up about drag queens reading stories to kids that they’re indulging in unnecessary moral panic. But often, the question people ask me if they disagree with me is how I feel about a transgender person using public facilities provided for people of particular genders.    And —I’ll be totally honest with you— that is my stumbling block.    But, despite that, I don’t support what NZ First is doing because it doesn’t seek to include, it seeks to exclude. I also don’t support it because I don’t think people are crying out for it.   But what do you think?  Wed, 23 Apr 2025 01:01:24 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-what-surprises-me-most-after-the-popes-passing/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-what-surprises-me-most-after-the-popes-passing/ There’s only been one pope’s death that has really shocked me – and I don’t think it was because I was only 10 years old at the time.   It was September 1978 and I remember the shock vividly. John Paul I died just 33 days after becoming the Pope.   We were a Catholic family so it was all everyone seemed to be talking about. Not just because he had died, but because he died so soon after his inauguration.   So last night when the news that Pope Francis had died came through, I wasn’t shocked or surprised. And I think most people will be like that.   Especially when he’s been so unwell. Pretty much for most of this year.   Nevertheless, his passing is significant. And, of course, first thing I did was get on the phone to mum. Because even though I haven’t been what they call a practising Catholic for quite some time, it stays with you. It’s a sense of belonging that never really leaves you.   It won’t be the same for everyone who grows up a Catholic, but that’s me.   So he was the first Pope from South America. He was 76 when he was elected.   As all Popes do, he chose a name. And he chose Francis in honour of St Francis of Assisi, the 13th-century Italian friar who got rid of all his  wealth to become a man of peace and poverty.    Which brings me to what I’ve been surprised by the most. It's not the fact that the Pope has passed away, it’s what’s being said about his achievements during his time as Pope.   I’ve seen headlines quoting all manner of people and they've been saying things about how he was a pope for the poor. That he’d had a lifelong commitment to the poor.   He was anti-capitalism. He was big on the environment. He promoted tolerance. In fact, one of the last things he did was wash the feet of young people locked up in prison.   This was just before Easter.   But I didn’t know that. Which is why, when I consider whether the pope (whoever it is), is a leader for all of us —Catholics, non-Catholics, everyone— I would have to say that the role of the pope doesn’t have the same global leadership or impact that it once did.   That’s how I see it.   Which, in a way is surprising. Because it is so much easier to get the message out to the world these days.   And I think that the church is going to have to do more to promote the values and work of the next pope. Because if it doesn’t, there will be no shortage of people making noise about what they’re up to and the pope’s global influence will diminish.     Maybe my ignorance of the work and achievements of Pope Francis reflects the fact that I’m not engaged with the church.   Maybe practising Catholics will be right up with the play. And maybe practising Catholics are quite happy not to see the pope popping up on Instagram and TikTok all the time.   Two years after becoming pope, Pope Francis issued what’s called an encyclical letter —this was in 2015— and he said then that poverty and ecological destruction were two things the world needed to confront.   Linking the two together, of course, because coming from South America, he was acutely aware of the link between ecological destruction and poverty.   And, according to a German Catholic relief organisation, one the Pope's major achievements was the attention he helped to focus on the environment.   Which is news to me, and it raises the question: is the Pope's global influence what it used to be?  Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:37:09 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-whats-so-bad-about-ex-mps-being-on-local-councils/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-whats-so-bad-about-ex-mps-being-on-local-councils/ I’m starting to wonder who isn’t running for mayor in Wellington.   Former Labour leader Andrew Little is the latest one joining the race to oust current mayor Tory Whanau.   And, just in case you think so, I’m not endorsing Andrew Little in any way, shape, or form. But I do think having former MPs on local councils is a very good thing.    Because whether we like it or not, local councils cannot operate in isolation and knowing how things in Wellington work is invaluable.    Andrew Little isn’t the first ex-MP wanting to get into local government. Former National MP Nick Smith is the mayor of Nelson. Phil Goff was mayor of Auckland. In Christchurch, former Labour politician Lianne Dalziel was elected mayor three times. Maurice Williamson —who was a National MP and minister— is on Auckland Council these days. John Banks. The list goes on.   And they don’t admit it at the time, but when these ex-MPs stand for their local councils, it’s not just their political experience they're banking on. They also know full well that they’re making the most of apathetic voters who look for a name they know and end up voting for them.    When it comes to name recognition, I reckon an ex-MP has way more chance of being successful in the job than some of the other people you see milking their name recognition to get elected to their local council.   People in my game do it. In fact, it seems to me that if media people don’t go on to be marriage and funeral celebrants, they go on to be a local councillor.   Not that you will ever catch me doing that. Last thing I’d want to do.      Sportspeople milk their name recognition too.   I’m not in Tauranga and don’t know all the ins-and-outs, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the reason Mahe Drysdale is the mayor of Tauranga is because of his brilliant rowing career.   He’s got none of this so-called “business experience” that some people think is essential for someone to be good at running a town or a city.  He’s got no prior political experience. He’s just a name. Voters obviously thought he was a good Kiwi bloke, he’s done well in his sport, so they voted for him.   Not that, from what I’ve seen, it’s been all plain sailing for him so far. I’ve seen a few stories with him getting heat for stuff – and that is where people’s lack of political experience shows.   And why I think it’s a very good thing to have people former MPs on our local councils.    They’re not perfect —Lianne Dalziel was far from perfect— but they know what they’re getting themselves into.    They generally don’t set the world on fire, but I don’t care about that. Because, whether we like it or not, local and central government are intertwined. Local government is way more dependent on central government than it would like to admit.   Especially, when they’re in the schtuck. When they need to get Wellington on their side.   Which is why having people as mayors and councillors who know exactly how to get the government on side —because they've been there and done that— that’s why it is so beneficial.   And that’s why I’ll take an ex-politician over an ex-media personality or an ex-sporting hero any day, when it comes to who I want to see on my local council.   Thu, 17 Apr 2025 01:26:11 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-lets-not-go-all-misery-guts-over-these-crime-stats/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-lets-not-go-all-misery-guts-over-these-crime-stats/ How are you feeling about the world, now that we know the Government’s goal of having 20,000 less violent crimes by 2029 has already been achieved? Four years early.   Anyone who tries to pick holes in this result would be a bit of a misery guts, because who could find anything possibly wrong with there being 20,000 less victims?    Try Ginny Andersen. Labour’s police spokesperson is saying today that the numbers raise more questions than they provide answers.   Which is a bit like a school kid getting excellence in their NCEA and their parents asking how they managed it when they seemed to be on their phone all the time.   That doesn’t matter, does it? The kid’s got NCEA with flying colours. Just like it doesn’t matter why there’s been this decrease in violent crime, there just has.     Although, I kind of hear what Ginny Andersen is saying. In Canterbury, there’s been a 43% decrease – 15,000 fewer victims of violent crimes. And no one seems to know why that is. But I’ll take it, thanks.    And Ginny Andersen doesn’t seem to be excited by the fact that the Government has released these numbers in a different way. Normally, they're released once a year, but the Government is now releasing them every three months.   But however this decrease has happened, why it’s happened, and whoever can take the credit for it happening, is irrelevant.    Because the data tells us that something is working.     We could go down a rabbit hole of trying to work out what particular bit of government policy might have actually done the trick, but I don’t even think the Government can put its finger on that one.   Which is pretty much what Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith was saying on 九一星空无限talk ZB today.   But, for now, the target has been reached, which I’m going to the vibe that’s been coming from the Government regarding crime, because I think that’s as important as any specific policies themselves.   I’ve always been very doubtful about the gang patch ban, for example. I’m not convinced yet on that one, and I don’t actually think that will have much of an impact on violent crime stats.    Just like the boot camps for bad kids – I’m not a fan.    But, despite my misgivings on those things, I won't be giving the Government a hard time today about these crime numbers.   I reckon a big part of it is the increased visibility of the police.   I don’t know how they’ve done it —because the numbers haven’t shot up or anything— but certainly in Christchurch, the police are way more visible.   I spend a lot of time in the central city, and I would say that I haven’t seen as many police on patrol in that part of town for years.   It wasn’t all that long ago when I’d have business owners in the central city telling me about assaults and things and the cops being nowhere and not even turning up when they called them. Even though the central police station was a hundred metres away.   Fast-forward to today, and it’s a very different story.   So that’s one thing I reckon has definitely made a difference and is part of the reason why violent crime is down.   Wed, 16 Apr 2025 01:23:24 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-new-sex-ed-curriculum-is-a-great-start/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-new-sex-ed-curriculum-is-a-great-start/ I’m liking the sound of Education Minister Erica Stanford’s approach to sex education. But it won’t be plain sailing, and she knows that.   But there’s a glaring gap in this new framework she’s put out for consultation, with ideas of what kids might be taught and when from year 1 to year 13.    I’ll come back to the glaring gap. But Erica Stanford is going into this with her eyes wide open, knowing how fraught this can be – with some parents thinking that it’s not a school’s job to teacher their kids about sex and relationships.   I’m the complete opposite. I think there is a role for parents in sex education, but it’s in the area of values. Because a curriculum can't teach values – that’s the sort of stuff kids learn from parents and caregivers.    So let the kids get a consistent sex education at school and let the parents discuss how what they’re being taught fits with their personal and family values.   I’ve had a read-through of the draft guidelines which are all about making sure kids up and down the country —from the time they start school at age 5 to whenever they finish school— are taught the same stuff at the same time about sex and relationships.   The Education Minister has been at pains to say that NZ First hasn’t had its hands on the drafting of the framework, but it may as well have.   Because I've read through the document and, from what I can see, the word “gender” is mentioned only once. And it’s not used in a way that means kids being confused about their gender identity.   There’s pretty much nothing in there about gender identity, but there should be. Because, whether we like it or not, there are kids crying out for this.    But that is something NZ First has been big on. With its demand —as part of its coalition deal with National— that the Government remove and replace the previous gender, sexuality, and relationship-based education guidelines. And as a result of that, we have these new guidelines which are out for consultation.   But nothing in there about gender identity, which I think is a major shortcoming. Because, surely, our sex and relationship education needs to reflect the real-world, not one particular view of the world.   And, surely, kids who are struggling with this can only benefit from what they’re experiencing being acknowledged in the education they and their mates get.   I’m not expecting you to get that if you haven’t necessarily been through the experience of having a child with gender issues. I haven’t, but I know people who have. And I reckon that, unless we’ve been through that experience, we have no real idea about the need for this to be included in the curriculum.   I'm talking about the need for our sex education programme to be honest and realistic and to include some of the things that some of us would rather ignore.    Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:36:50 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-how-do-you-operate-in-an-environment-like-this/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-how-do-you-operate-in-an-environment-like-this/ The phrase “may you live in interesting times” is bestowed not as a blessing, but as a curse. And living in these most interesting of times, you can see why that might be. That's not even taking into account the previous five years – if we just take 2025 as our year of living in interesting times, you can see why it might be a curse.    Donald Trump raised tariffs on goods from China to 125%. Tariffs against seventy-five other countries are paused for 90 days with a 10% tariff because they were getting “yippy”. US share markets, which had been in freefall, have now rocketed higher. The Dow closed up 7.9%, the S&P500 closed up 9.5%, and the tech heavy NASDAQ was up 12.5% – this was all happening overnight. The normally phlegmatic Eric Crampton of the New Zealand Institute was about as ruffled as I've ever heard him this morning, talking to Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast.   “Well, I was expecting more chaos and we're still getting it. So I had a bit of insomnia – wake up at 4am, okay tariffs are still on. Wake up at 6:30am, okay tariffs look like they're gonna be off. It is really hard for any business to plan in this kind of environment – the chaos is just going to continue. The guy who's responsible for administering the tariffs was talking for two hours about how great the tariffs are and how they're going to keep implementing them, and was told during his speech that Trump had put a 90 day pause on the tariffs. He presumably hadn't known before Trump did it. I don't think that there's any plan here at all.”  Yeah. As for New Zealand exporters, well, I don't know. Founder of Egmont Honey, James Annabell told Ryan Bridge last night they're scrambling.  “We've got five or six containers on the water which I believe are exempt actually, which is great, but I know that for a fact that we've got about 10 containers due to leave sort of end of April/May, which will all be subject to 10% tariffs. So we were obviously scrambling when we got the news last week. I believe anything that left before Saturday last week, we're exempt. I could be wrong there – an expert will probably ring in and say I'm wrong, but we understand that what's on the water now is okay, but the containers to come are all going to be subject to that 10%.”  So how do you operate in an environment like this? For those of us not directly affected by the goings on in the United States —we're all ultimately affected, but not directly for many of us— it's a case of grab the popcorn and watch it play out. Take the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's approach: shrug and say boys will be boys, pass the popcorn. But for many Kiwis, they are having to try to make sense of all this to survive.     The PM's just delivered a speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, where he said, among other things, that the events of the recent days are the most significant challenge to the rules-based trading system since the general Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was formed in 1947. He told attendees that the direct impact on the New Zealand economy from the US tariffs announced last week is likely to be around $900 million, or roughly 0.2% of GDP. But the second order consequences of a region and a world retreating from trade and increasingly uncertain about its economic future will be more significant, despite the welcome news of de-escalation this morning, he said.   I know for many businesses keeping an eye offshore and for those New Zealander’s watching their KiwiSaver accounts, that could be confronting. He said, the exporters I've spoken to in recent days remain buoyant, rightly confident in the quality of their product and their ability to navigate choppy waters. But for countries whose prosperity is underpinned by global trade, the months ahead will be challenging for their economic interests, and many commentators will see these events as the next step in a longer-term trend towards economic security and national resilience, as countries ensure themselves against emerging geopolitical threats. He said he's not ready to throw in the towel and declare an end to the era of free market and free trade. He said, Kiwis have worked too hard and for too long to give up on the values and institutions which have seen our country and the region we live in thrive.    If you lived in the 70s and remembered the 70s, we were one of the most closed economies outside of Eastern Europe, outside of the Communist nations. Anybody who bought anything overseas cut off the label and hoped they weren't picked up by customs, otherwise a tariff was applied when you brought it back into the country. Because we made our own bras, and we made our own T-shirts, and we made our own Swanndris and rugby jerseys – everything was produced in New Zealand. And people had wages, and they lived in small towns, and they there were factories everywhere, and then it exploded. The old New Zealand was gone and a new world order came in, for better and worse. I'm not entirely sure we can go back to those days, nor indeed would we want to. And perhaps it will all calm itself down over the next, but who knows? Like I say, grab the popcorn.  Thu, 10 Apr 2025 01:00:48 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-policing-is-a-community-minded-calling/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-policing-is-a-community-minded-calling/ Now the police have been in the spotlight in the past few weeks. It should have been criticism, with Wellington Central MP Tamatha Paul's comments and the criticism of police pulling back from attending mental health call outs, but in fact, the attention has highlighted just how much our men and women in blue are valued.   I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original intention of Tamatha Paul when she made her much publicised comments that people in Wellington didn't want to see police officers everywhere: “for a lot of people, it makes them feel less safe”. She said it's that constant visual presence that tells you that you might not be safe there if there's heaps of cops. She also accused police of waiting for homeless people to leave their spot, packing up their stuff and throwing it in the bin. She doubled down on her comments later and said it was no wonder some people didn't trust police because they were quick to use force against people with mental distress.   To give her comments some context, she was speaking at a panel with the University of Canterbury Greens and Peace Action Ōtautahi, where alternative forms of policing were being discussed. So you can imagine it wasn't a police love-in. These were people who were anti-establishment outside of what they would conceive of as a patriarchal, oppressive society, and they have their views their own experiences. And that's what it was. She might well have had anecdotal experience of people having unsatisfactory dealings with police, but plenty of us had our own anecdotes of more than satisfactory dealings with police, and that's what came out. It wasn't a police pile on, in fact, people came very quickly from all corners to defend the police.   When we were discussing mental health last week, for example, and whether people were now more able to access the care they needed, we had about four or five texts and callers tell us they didn't receive much help from mental health professionals. Where they got the most help and support, tangible help and support, was from the police. Far from being quick to use force against people with mental distress as Tamatha Paul would have it, the police officers they encountered were kind, compassionate, patient, and able to offer practical solutions for friends and family members.   So there were criticism of police responding to mental health events, and now they're getting in the neck for withdrawing their response to mental health events. I do not blame them for not wanting to be the first port of call – that is not what they signed up for, and that is not what they were trained for. But because every other agency and organisation abrogated the responsibilities, the police were last men and women standing. And police have announced they will be delaying the changes and will stagger the withdrawal of services across districts to give the appropriate agencies more time to prepare, as Police Association President Chris Cahill explained to Mike Hosking this morning.   “Police have agreed to just slow down and do it by district. I mean the best thing Mike, is finally Health at the national level are recognising they've got to step up and take responsibility for what is a health problem, not a police problem. Originally people in the health area just didn't want to take responsibility and that's what we learnt from overseas, unless police draw a line in the sand and say, nope, you're going to do it, the people suffering mental distress won't get the right care, from the right people, at the right time. And that is not police officers sitting in in hospitals for six hours. That's not good for anyone. So we had to push it. We pushed it, so now we're engaging, and I understand – we want to slow down and just make sure we get it right. We don't want anyone falling through the cracks. But remember, police will still go to anyone who's at risk of harming themselves or the public.”  Exactly. I was really interested to see, given the pile-on and given the fact that there was a change in the way police were being asked to police under the last Police Commissioner —that's now come back to more of a perhaps orthodox understanding of how police operate— whether policing was still an attractive option for young New Zealanders? And what it is that draws men and women to the job? And I was staggered to see applications for Police College – 1371 for the 80 to 100 places. That's in a month. I thought that was a year when I first looked at the figures. That's in a month – in July of 2024, there were 1371 applications to join the police, the highest since data was gathered in 2014. In August of 2024, it was the second highest – 1037 in the month of August of 24. So on average they're receiving last year about 526 applications per month. Obviously, they'd go down January, December, so that's where you get the figures levelling out. That's up a couple of 100 per month, more than in 2023.   That's a hell of a lot of people who see policing as a really important career, that they feel they can offer something to, that they feel they can get something out of. And I would love to know, given how much attention has been put on police, what the role should be of police in our communities? Whether they are an oppressive tool of the patriarchy, or in fact that they are, as I see them, compassionate, tolerant, amazing men and women who are incredibly efficient at what they do and are doing their level best. They're not heavy-handed. I mean, I'm old enough to remember what it was like in the 80s when it was a bit young cowboys going in their truncheons ahoy. These days, it's a whole lot more nuanced and complex, and that's the way.   In a day and age where we are so self-obsessed, we're so insular, we're all about the self, the ego, being a police officer is a really community minded calling. How is it that there are so many people who feel it’s a calling for them?   Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:55:57 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-have-to-be-willing-and-prepared-to-play-our-part/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-have-to-be-willing-and-prepared-to-play-our-part/ Well, we were a little in advance of the day yesterday, weren't we? If you were with me yesterday, I was looking at the armed forces lowering their standards to try to attract more people into the services. They're leaving in droves, finding it very hard to recruit new people, men and women, to join the services. And instead of lowering standards, I said, why not make the Defence Force more attractive as a career? Address the poor pay, the substandard housing and the lack of opportunities for career advancement for servicemen and women to stop them leaving in their legions. And what do you know? Twelve hours later they have.   A huge investment into our services, $12 billion over the next four years for a modern combat capable New Zealand Defence Force, $9 billion of that 12 is new money. Where is it going to come from? Who knows? All will be revealed. It's an unprecedented investment into services and it will certainly bring them into the 21st century. Morale must have gone through the roof. So to the grandad that texted in yesterday and said we've just encouraged our grandson onto a Pathways Programme into the Navy, have we done the right thing? This time yesterday morning, no. Today? Abso-bloody-lutely!    The Defence Capability plan released yesterday afternoon will see all sorts of things. It will see the ailing Boeing 757s replaced – that'll cost between $600 million to $1 billion. Other smaller vehicles, including light armoured vehicles, will get around the same – $6 million to $1 billion in funding. The maritime helicopters will be replaced, that'll cost $2 billion plus. There'll be uncrewed autonomous vessels. There'll be javelin anti-tank missile upgrades, enhanced strike capabilities, long range remotely piloted aircraft, space capabilities. You name it, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. The Governments chosen not to replace the two Anzac frigates, Te Mana and Te Kaha, certainly not in the first part of the plan. Instead, they're going to spend around $600 million to keep them going.  Former Defence Minister Ron Mark says he sees NZ First’s hand in the defence commitment. He said there would have been a lot of nudging, a lot of feeing on, a lot of encouragement from NZ First, and he told Mike Hosking this morning that this significant commitment to our defence will only enhance our standing with our long term allies.   “This will play well with our strategic partners globally. I mean I'm thinking right now ASEAN, FPDA, and the Indo Pacific. I'm thinking of security comfort that the South Pacific Defence Ministers will get. Five Eyes also, and NATO, can't forget NATO. But it's also going to enhance the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs ability to secure our economic future. You can't have prosperity without security and right now we're living in possibly the most insecure times that we've seen since the Second World War.”  Amen to that. He also told Mike that he wanted to get the contract signed as soon as possible so that in the event of a Labour/Greens coalition there wouldn't be a U-turn on this defence commitment. But Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he broadly agreed with the plan as it stood on Monday. He was interested in seeing how it would be paid for, as indeed are we all, but what would he care about that? Didn't bother him in the past where the money came from. He basically sees an increase in defence spending as an extension of Labour's 2019 plan, and they did put in a considerable sum of money, again, probably as part of the coalition commitments.   I guess when you see Chris Hipkins saying he broadly agrees with it, political leaders with an ounce of experience and pragmatism, who are not blinded by ideology, understand that the world is indeed a precarious place. We have to be willing and prepared to play our part in helping ourselves and helping our friends, and with that commitment yesterday we're certainly showing that we're willing to do so.   Tue, 08 Apr 2025 01:10:23 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-nzdf-has-compromised-standards-not-fixed-the-problem/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-nzdf-has-compromised-standards-not-fixed-the-problem/ I find it incredible that within a few days of a report into the sinking of the Manawanui - a damning report that revealed the crew and the Commanding Officer of the Navy ship were under trained, ill-prepared, not up to the job, the boat wasn't up to the task it was doing when it grounded on a Samoan reef - we learn that the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) has lowered its standards to make it easier for people to apply for a job. This is an RNZ story and documents obtained by RNZ show that last year the Defence Force quietly removed some entry requirements for NCEA levels 1 and 2, which you would have hardly thought were the most onerous of qualifications to get. To apply to train as an army combat specialist, an auto technician, a plumber, a Navy diver and logistics specialist, and an Air Force firefighter- among other roles - you'll now need three years of high school up to year 11, you don't have to pass Level 1 credits. The Defence Force says the changes prompted a surge in applications in 2024, however, it's unclear whether that surge is continuing or whether it has had a marked effect on enlistment numbers. The drop in standards - because however you dress it up, that's exactly what it is - came about because people were leaving the army in droves and bosses needed to get boots on the ground however they could. There's a great piece in North and South Magazine from 2023 looking at just this problem, the attrition within the Army and the decline in standards and the decline in it being an attractive career option. More than one in 10 military personnel left the organisation in 2023. In the interview with North and South, Chief of Defence Force Air Marshall Kevin Short, estimated that the attrition rate for the most skilled personnel was even greater, somewhere between 20 and 30 percent. So you're losing the experienced people, those who are able to be good leaders, they're going. It's almost certainly higher now. Short said “We cannot sustain that loss.” Then defence Minister Peeni Henare said these are some of the worst rates the Defence Force has seen in its history. The consequences of that, the Royal New Zealand Navy idled three of its nine ships for lack of people to crew them. A recent briefing to Henare explained that the NZDF was experiencing significant fragility and presumably the new Defence Minister, Judith Collins, has got that briefing as well. When asked whether Defence Force could maintain a peacekeeping operation in the South Pacific - the organization's most important task after after civil defence - Short says it would struggle. And that's despite the most significant boost to military spending in living memory. However, the boost -  that money  - was all spent on new planes, ships and vehicles. Money needed to be spent on them, you couldn't keep some of those planes in the air and the dear old Manawanui was bought and that disappeared. The problems causing the mass exodus of personnel weren't addressed. And that is the poor pay - they're about 7% to 16% percent less than civilian counterparts - substandard housing, the lack of career advancement and the lack of leadership. So those are the problems, that is why people are leaving. They can't see any way to advance their careers. It used to be a great career option - if you wanted to get you go to university, if you wanted to learn a trade, you'd join the forces, you'd have subsidised housing, you'd put in your service to the country, and in return you'd have a great career. You'd have options after you've done your time. If you decided to leave, you could go into Civvy Street, you'd be snapped up in no time because they knew that training was great, that you'd be a benefit to any organisation. That's just no longer there. The reason why people are leaving is the poor pay, the substandard housing, the lack of career advancement, the poor leadership. And that simply hasn't been addressed, other than to dumb down, lower and compromise standards. And we've seen what happens when you do that. Loose lips might sink ships, but so too do loose standards and loose training. Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:35:28 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-are-our-mental-health-services-working/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-are-our-mental-health-services-working/ The Access and Choice Programme, biggest investment in mental health in a generation, has now been in place for five years. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission released its final report on the programme rollout yesterday. The programme was funded from the 2019 wellbeing budget. You'll remember that, where more than a billion dollars, nearer to $2 billion, was committed to mental health support, to provide support for ‘mild to moderate’ needs relating to mental health and problematic substance use or gambling in primary care and community settings. That’s the official name for it. So you turn up to your GP, the GP says your corporeal self is not the issue, you need to shore up your mental wellbeing and instead of sending you away and then you have to make an appointment and wait, they can just hand you over to a mental health worker who's parked up right next door. It’s is a really sound idea in principle.   Did it work? Is it working? The answer appears to be, looking at the report, up to a point, yes, it is. The number of people seen per year by services has increased steadily over the last five years to more than 207,000 for the 23/24 financial year, but it does fall short of the programs target of 325,000. CEO of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, Karen Orsborn defended the program on the Mike Hosking breakfast yesterday and says the program is achieving what it's set out to do.   “It does work. And we've heard some really, really positive feedback from the people who use these services. And so it is working for many people, it's just not getting to the number of people that it really needs to. And some of this is the way the service was designed – so having people in individual practices and people being able to access on the day and that's, there's not a steady flow of people always needing those services. So what we also need to use is some of the digital virtual tools to make sure that people are being fully utilised across the country. So there are some strengths in the model, but there's also some areas that need to improve.”  And that's pretty much what the Minister for Mental Health Matt Doocey said when he spoke to Early Edition yesterday. He said that when he was in opposition, he was broadly supportive of the Access and Choice Programme, but since becoming Minister, he's seen ways to improve it and to broaden its reach.   “Looking forward, I think part of the solution is going to be digitising the Access and Choice Programme, shifting it online so that will enable the staff to have higher utilisation rates and see more people. What I want to see is that programme rolled out further. We want to hit its target of seeing 325,000 people. Not only that, one of my first targets, I've set five targets for mental health —first time in New Zealand would have mental health targets— is for people to be seen within one week of the service, so I want more people to be seen and seen quicker.”  I guess the questions I have are, given the conversations we've had around the lack of support for parents looking for help for their children, for people looking for help and dealing with their mental wellbeing is, is it fit for purpose? Are you able to access the help when you need it?   When it comes to the substance abuse, that's one aspect of mental health and wellbeing. When it comes to the problem gambling, it's another, when you've got children who are in pain that's a whole other area. When you've got people who are just struggling with the day-to-day life, that's a whole other area as well. There are so many different ways, just as there is with physical ill health, that you can be mentally unwell. Are the services there for those who need it across the broad spectrum?  Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:27:14 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-paying-the-piper-by-turning-down-the-americas-cup/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-paying-the-piper-by-turning-down-the-americas-cup/ Here we go again – the America’s Cup. How many times have you heard the debates for and against the America’s Cup? The Government, as you will have heard, has declined the opportunity to invest in hosting the America's Cup in 2027 and the usual arguments are raging over the wisdom or otherwise of that decision. Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) chief executive Nick Hill said it was with great disappointment that they were confirming that Auckland would no longer be bidding to host the 2027 America's Cup, explaining that Auckland's bid was contingent on a three-way funding partnership between Auckland Council, central government, and the private sector.   MBIE informed TAU that the government is unable to provide the funds required and, on that basis, he said, he bid cannot proceed. He said the situation illustrates the need for a long-term, sustainable funding model in New Zealand to support major events, and there, I would agree. Rather than having it on an ad hoc, piece meal, “hey, what about this guys?” kind of a basis, having some sort of structure to provide funding for major events as they come along would be a very good idea. Viv Beck, from Auckland's Heart of the City, also expressed her disappointment ruing a missed opportunity.   “The reason it's so disappointing is it's ripe for the picking. I mean, we've got the infrastructure, the economic benefits would be there and if there had been quicker action on finding alternative funding. I mean we understand that there are other priorities for the government, but growth is also a big opportunity, a big priority and you know the reality is that the GST alone could pay for that money. So I think with some imagination and will and determination it could have been a different result.   “We know we don't compete internationally now. Often, we don't, we're a small country, we get that. But I think we do have to have the energy and drive and will to try and find ways to actually grow this, because events are a great way of attracting people here. It's not just a one-time wonder that people come and have a great time. I mean the benefits from trade and jobs, international profile. You look at Barcelona. I mean, imagine if we had that in 2027, something along those lines at a time where we really do need to have something that actually excites people, that we actually are growing and not just full of problems.”  Yes, yes, yes. But at risk of stating the obvious, we aren't bloody Barcelona, are we? We're not in the middle of Europe, surrounded by nations who are just a fair wind filling a spinnaker away. We're at the bottom, next stop, Antarctica. The last time New Zealand hosted our economy was left $293 million worse off. That was the 36th America’s Cup in 2021, and that was according to an official cost benefit report. Auckland's economy alone was left with a financial deficit of $146 million, with a financial return of 72 cents back for every dollar put in. I am a financial and economic numpty, but even I can see that that does not make sense.   To be fair, we were severely hampered by Covid-19, and according to the Trevor Mallard and the Clarke government – they crowed about the 2003 event, they said that generated around half a billion dollars of economic activity into the New Zealand economy which made the investment of around $10 million worthwhile. They said back in 2003, an extra 9360 full-time equivalent jobs were created. And while 85% of the extra economic activity was generated in Auckland, there was still a substantial effect in other regions as international visitors travel to other parts of the country.   That was 22 years ago. The world is a vastly, vastly different place. Right now, an America’s Cup is a nice to have. It would be lovely, it feels great. I've been in Auckland for a number of Americas Cup’s, and they were fantastic, feel-good affairs. They boost morale, and the bars and restaurants do a roaring trade, and everyone with a bit of cash has a jolly good time. It's an absolute jolly. But then I'd like to put a pool in the backyard too, and I think ultimately it would have economic benefits, ultimately it would pay off. I could make the case that if I put in the money now, then I could put in the pool and get the pay off later. Well, except it's a nice to have right now. There are other priorities, and I would say the Government is absolutely damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.   This is the price we pay for spending up over the last few years. I'm sure we could find the money. Admittedly, this Government doesn't have Grant Robertson's knack of finding millions down the back of the couch – he always seemed to pop up with $460 million just when it was needed. But what do the optics look like? Cutting the ribbon at a pared down Dunedin hospital while Auckland has a knees up on-board boats and drinking champagne, sure that's going to look fantastic, isn't it? Labour would be bleating away about “unnecessary expense” and “look at the waiting lists”. They're absolutely damned if they do, damned if they don't.   We were warned. Wise souls told us on the show, during Labour’s hoot's wahay spend up that ultimately, we would have to pay the piper, and this, turning down the opportunity to host an America's Cup is what it feels like.  Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:40 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-theres-got-to-be-a-happy-medium-in-health-and-safety/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-theres-got-to-be-a-happy-medium-in-health-and-safety/ The war on road cones has ratcheted up, with the coalition government setting up a hotline for people to report the overzealous use of road cones and no, it's not an April Fool's joke. The hotline is part of a first tranche of measures introduced by Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, designed to reform the country's health and safety laws so businesses can focus on the necessary and the essential - not on the “senseless and superfluous” as Brooke van Velden told Mike Hosking this morning.   “One of the things I heard from travelling from Whangarei to Bluff, talking to small business and workers, was that most of them don't know what to do to comply. We're going to make it a lot clearer, so you only need to focus on your critical risks. Things that will actually cause people harm, rather than posters saying warning hot water or warning here is a staircase. We've got to bring some common sense back to New Zealand and to business.    “A lot of it is companies finding they're spending a lot of money on over compliance because they are fearful of prosecution. You know, and we've heard it even in the case of traffic management that sometimes some companies are spending nearly half of their project cost on temporary traffic management. So, we're bringing some common sense back and saying look, in some cases you're doing too much and in some cases, we need to focus less on the paperwork and making sure that WorkSafe has a paper trail and more on how you actually reduce harm in your workplace. Let's go back to what you can recognise as things that could cause death or serious illness and injury and not sweat the small stuff.”  So businesses will now only notify WorkSafe when significant events occur, such as death, serious injury, and illness, which is a good thing. I remember coming out of the studio door a couple of years ago and a bit of loose metal cut the top of my foot. Not seriously, I required a Band-Aid, not stitches, but I had to fill out a workplace health and safety form. It was an incident.   However, the Opposition spokesperson Jan Tinetti says the Government is weakening workplace health and safety reforms and is being reckless. She says health and safety is not a political game, and everyone must get home safely. And whenever I think of the words “getting home safely”, I think of Jahden Nelson. The 28-year-old scaffolder had to have both of his arms amputated after a metal pole he was carrying touched a live overhead power line. The workplace he’d been working on had been given a Close Approach Consent – that's required when work is being done near overhead power lines. The consent required the crew that put up the scaffolding to be the same crew that took it down for safety reasons, so they knew where the power lines were, they knew they were live – it makes sense.   However, WorkSafe found none of the four man dismantling crew, including Jahden, had been involved at the outset. The initial crew received a safety briefing – not the dismantling crew. So the company was sentenced, and the fine was reduced to nothing because they couldn't pay it. And you know, ultimately it doesn't really matter what sort of fine they got or what sort of punishment they got because Jahden’s the one who is living without his arms. A 28-year-old man, fit, strong, healthy, goes to work, spends six months in hospital, his life has changed forever because some numpty didn't bother to assess the critical risk and tell the dismantling crew ‘make sure the overhead power lines are switched off’. Or you don't go near them, or they're insulated. And that, I guess, is what Brooke van Velden is talking about, that if firms are focused on the critical risk factors involved in the business it makes much more sense than saying be careful of the Zip, the water's hot.   We have an absolutely shocking record of work-related deaths. An estimated 10,000 people, men, women, and, in some cases, children have died from occupational ill health or workplace fatalities since 2010 – in 15 years, 10,000 people have died. And then you've got people like Jahden: didn't die. Has his life changed? You betcha. 420,000 people were injured at work.   So I think some of these dumb rules came as a result of people just desperate to ensure that workers went to work and came home safely. I think they were trying everything, throwing everything at it. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has data from 2022, and it allows comparison between countries that use a risk management framework, which we've done since Pike River since 2010. According to this, almost three times as many people die at work in New Zealand than in the UK. So more rules, the word soup, hasn't made us safer. What will? What is it going to take to prevent the deaths of 10,000 more people over the next 15 years and having 420,000 people's lives changed - some irrevocably? Fewer rules and thinking for yourself? Well, that was a very laissez-faire attitude – that was the she'll be right attitude that some of the old timers still have. Surely there's got to be a balance between the she’ll be right and the word soup. There's got to be a happy medium that sees workers go to work and come home safe. Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:10:13 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-cannot-let-people-get-away-with-their-crimes/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-cannot-let-people-get-away-with-their-crimes/ Law and order was a major concern of voters going into the 2023 Election – to be fair, it's usually on the minds of voters going into any election campaign, but particularly the last one.   Voters had had a guts full of doing things a different way. Of policing by consent, of giving authority to the gangs and then seeing them take over towns. We had guts full of seeing young kids ram raiding, of seeing neighbourhood crime increase. You saw numerous community Facebook pages showing kids as young as 10 being driven around by older people, breaking into homes, stealing what they could find. People were sick and tired of it, and they were sick and tired too of judges letting young punks walk away from their crimes and their responsibilities. They wanted the authorities to ensure consequences were in place when offenders broke the law. The coalition partners may have their differences, when it comes to law and order though, National, Act, and New Zealand First were, and still are, singing from the same song sheet. They all wanted to go hard in direct contrast to Labour who wanted to and did empty the prisons. Under Labour, incarceration rates plummeted from 213 people per 100,000 in 2018, which is near the highest in the OECD to 149 per 100,000. Although victims of crime increased by 12%. So unfortunately, treating people kindly, nicely with compassion didn't seem to be working terribly well.   Labour's reforms were part of an overall goal to reduce the prison population by 30% by 2033. In one area where it achieved success, it achieved that 10 years early. In the 23 campaign, then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins saw that the writing was on the wall and in a stark illustration of pragmatism over ideology, showing that power to him was more important than Labour's principles, he scrapped the target as part of the policy bonfire. But it was too little too late. Labour was voted out, the Coalition voted in, and now tougher sentencing laws have been passed by Parliament.   The changes kept the discounts that judges can apply during sentencing to 40% – which still sounds an awful lot. It also scraps repeat discounts for youth and remorse and absolutely – that makes sense. How many times can you be bloody sorry? How many times can you say, oh, look, I'm sorry, I was only 16, I was only 17, I was only 18, I was only 19. I have absolutely no doubt that the dreadful upbringings that many of these offenders have contributes to the reasons why they offend, but how many times do you get to play that card? It is awful. It's unspeakable. It shouldn't happen. But you can't keep saying sorry and getting away with it and having it apply.   There are three new aggravating factors: penalizing offenders who target sole charge workers, good, those who aid and abet young people, good, and those who live stream their crimes, double good. The changes also encourage longer sentences for people who offend on bail, in custody, or on parole, and implement a sliding scale for early guilty pleas, so an offender can only get a 5% discount if they change their plea to guilty during the trial.   This is common sense that absolutely discourages bad behaviour. But as Julie-Anne Kincaid, the Law Association Vice President told Mike Hosking this morning, the changes are all very well and good, but we're running out of places to put the lawbreakers.   “Our prisons are full. We have these new things coming into play, which are designed to make prison sentences longer and people to be imprisoned longer, as well as 3 strikes coming into play on the 17th of June this year. And these will lead to an increase in our prison population, which is already at breaking point.   “It costs $150,000 about to keep a person in prison for a year in New Zealand. So that's 10 more people in jail for one year each is $1.5 million, and that would pay, I'm sure for a palliative paediatric doctor to come to New Zealand.”  It absolutely would. There are so many ways we as taxpayers could spend $150,000. If I had $150,000 per person, I would love to use that money to rehabilitate them. To rehabilitate especially the young punks, so they didn't cause any further harm and pain. Prison, I think we can all agree, isn't where rehabilitation happens – that has to happen within the person themselves. They decide, all of a sudden they grow up. Age seems to happen, and that's when offending stops. They fall in love, they have children, they decide they don't want the kids being brought to see dad or mum in the prison. So they decide to grow up and change their ways. They decide that they are worth more and deserve more than being some dumbass fall guy for the gangs.   But, where is that rehabilitation going to happen? Where are the rehabilitation programs that work? Can we all sit around waiting for the muse to strike some young punk? Because it seems to be an epiphany that they have – this is not working, this is stupid. Doing the same thing over and over again is dumb. I'm worth more, I'm going to go out and have more. We can't.   And we cannot let people get away with their crimes because that really starts to rip the fabric of society, not just strain it, but tear it. The people who are doing good get increasingly furious, increasingly brassed off, increasingly intolerant – and you can't blame them. How many times do you see people walking out of the supermarket with the trolleys loaded high when you have been agonizing over how much you have to spend, and trying to feed the family with that? So they have to be punished. Ideally, they don't commit the crime in the first place, you nip it in the bud. And that's where I guess the social investment policies come in, but they take time.   I think we're just gonna have to put up with overcrowded prisons for a while, because I don't know about you, but after six years of attempts to do things differently —I don't know how they thought that reducing the prison population was suddenly going to make society safer, it didn't— I want to see good old-fashioned justice and retribution. Little bit of hellfire and brimstone for a couple of years, no matter the cost, I'm okay with it.  Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:45:23 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-is-our-obsession-with-shiny-new-stadia/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-is-our-obsession-with-shiny-new-stadia/ What is this mania for the building of stadia when this country has so many already and very, very few of them are economic assets? The decision over whether to upgrade Eden Park in Auckland or to build a brand spanking new stadium on the waterfront is such an old debate. And before I go on, I will say I've been a guest of Eden Park, but it does take more to buy my opinion than a very nice lamb chop and a glass of non-alcoholic rosé, I promise you.  The contest for Auckland's main stadium yesterday ended with neither Eden Park nor Te Tōangaroa proving feasible without public funding. Eden Park's upgrade is technically feasible but requires $110 million from the Government. Te Tōangaroa’s proposal lacks technical and commercial feasibility. So right there I'd say, “well, I'm gonna stop you there” if I was a councillor. If it lacks technical and commercial feasibility, wouldn't we go, “well, thanks very much, bit of a waste of our time, ka kite anō” to the people behind it? Anyway, they plan to progress land acquisition over 12 months.    Now, most of you will be familiar with Eden Park, even if you're from around the country. Te Tōangaroa is more ambitious, includes a 50,000 seat stadium —which is the capacity of Eden Park— that can be scaled down to 20,000 capacity for smaller events. It’s the centrepiece for the redevelopment of Quay Park with up to four hotels, hospitality, scope for 2000 apartments, plus commercial offices.    Different parties have been trying to build a waterfront stadium for years now. You'll remember Trevor Mallard had a plan to build a stadium in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup, and that came to naught. Another proposal in 2018 was floated and came crashing down to earth. Developers would build a shiny new waterfront stadium, in exchange, they'd get the land at Eden Park, plus the ability to build apartments on the waterfront land. There's always something in it for the people behind the developments. Of course, there is, otherwise, why would they do what they do? And it ends up being chumps like you and me who pay for it. We have stadia. We have stadia up the Yin Yang, all over the country, all over Auckland that are underutilized and uneconomic.   As the chief executive of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, Martin Snedden told Mike Hosking this morning we need to get over ourselves and consolidate into just one stadium.    “It's time people really got collaborative, and I know, you know, you may not agree with me here, but the Warriors, Auckland FC, they should be incorporated into the program at Eden Park, so that, you know, that venue is... This is what's happened, you know, places around the world is the multi-use of one venue.   "Look at what happened at Eden Park over the weekend, where on Friday they had White Ferns and Black Caps internationals played there, Saturday it was the Crusaders and the Blues, and Monday it was the All Whites qualifying for the World Cup. That's the right use of the stadia, and that's what we need to move towards. We don't need to keep propping up other stadia that are just not fit for purpose, let's just concentrate it all on what we've got.”  Absolutely. But why is it too, that every city around the country, every large town, big city, wants its own stadium when they don't make economic sense? There's a great piece in the conversation by Robert Hamlin and he points out, there have been just 30 major events at Forsyth Bar in Dunedin since 2014. He wrote the piece last year, so that's three a year. Te Kaha in Christchurch is being funded mostly by ratepayers —the Crown's put in a bit— and the stadium was solely responsible for a 2% increase in rates last year.   We come to Hamilton, and these figures are from 2015 so there might have been a remarkable turnaround – I doubt it, but there might have been. Since Claudelands Event Center opened in 2011, it has run at around a $10 million deficit per year. And who pays for that? Ratepayers. Palmerston North: in the 2021 10 year plan, it showed a budgeted income of $19 million, but expenses of $73 million. Come on. It does have facilities for some indoor sports, but much of the money that's going to be spent is on the main stadium in sport of stock car activities, including $4 million budgeted for new pits and more millions for a new grandstand on the south end. Non-stock car income is negligible because the stadium struggles to attract higher level rugby matches or large concerts because of the car track.    Invariably, if you do end up building a bloody stadium, It's not good for something else. So, they're not multi-purpose, they can't be used for other events. You build this stonking great white elephant, and we pay for it, us, and then we're not allowed in it unless we pay a fortune for a ticket to go to something that's on inside the stadium that we built. As a ratepayer, you should get a free ticket to anything that's in there for the rest of your life.    I just don't get why we're so obsessed with wanting new shiny stadia. In Auckland, we've got Eden Park, Go Media Stadium (formerly Mount Smart), Western Springs, Spark Arena, North Harbour Stadium. No, we don't need another one. Bowl the others, and everybody can play nicely together in one big stadium. At the moment, it looks like Eden Park's the most likely – there you go, I've paid for my lamb chop.   But imagine your family budget at the moment: Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we built a beautiful new swimming pool at the back because the kids are getting a bit older now? Be lovely, with a nice little pool house next to it. Yes, it would be lovely. Can we afford it? No. And that's what the Waterfront Stadium is.  Honestly, as Robert Hamlin said, the reason why is that people just get so excited, the decision makers get so excited, with all these reports of the extra economic benefit that's going to come to the city, and it's gonna prosper and it's just gonna be the making of the city.    No, it's not. No.    Ratepayers end up paying and paying and paying for generations for a white elephant that nobody's allowed to ride unless you pay a bloody fortune to get on its back.  Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:19:53 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-completely-fair-tax-system/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-completely-fair-tax-system/ Is there any such thing as a completely fair tax system?   Surely the most you can hope for is a least unfair tax system. I ask this because a UN report is calling for countries to check taxes are being applied proportionally to the wealthiest individuals, and questioning the fairness of GST. The UN Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said a tax policy that maintains a low personal and corporate income taxes without adequately addressing high income inequalities is an example of a regressive and ineffective policy, and consumption taxes —of which GST is one— can have adverse impacts on disadvantaged groups, such as low-income families and single parent households, because they typically spend a higher percentage of their income on everyday goods and services. They don't have the option of withholding spending; they have to buy the basics.   In New Zealand, personal income tax rates went to a high of 69 cents in the dollar in the late 70s/early 80s until the Fourth Labour government came crashing in with a hiss and a roar and made changes that are reverberating to this very day. One of them being the major changes to our tax system. They standardised indirect tax and introduced an across-the-board tax on goods and services that is GST. It started at 10% and went up to 12% and is now 15%.   Tax incentives were removed, personal income tax rates were simplified. At the time, there were just two personal income tax rates, 24 percent on income, up to $30,000, 33% above that. The introduction of GST was sold as a tax that would get those who didn't pay it. It would collect those in the black economy, those who took part in cashier's drug sales, that sort of thing. You know, they might not pay tax, they might not declare income, but they had to buy stuff. And once they bought food and once they bought cars, that sort of thing, then they had to pay GST on it.   But even then, when it was introduced, it was slammed as a regressive tax, hitting those who had to buy the basics the hardest. It was interesting that David Lange, towards the end of his life, had a great deal of regret about how New Zealand had changed with the introduction of his government. It wasn't him leading the charge so much —he was the public face of the changes— it was Roger Douglas and Rogernomics that caused the greatest change. He said for those who wanted little personal involvement with government, those who did not want government in their lives, it was a fantastic thing. But for the uneducated, disabled, the disadvantaged, it was an absolute tragedy. And there was, I think, much regret towards the end of his life as to the changes that he had been a part of.   New Zealand's tax system is widely regarded as a sensible one, in as much as you have to have taxes —that's how governments raise revenue and that's how they pay for the roads and the schools and the hospitals and the police and the like— it's straightforward, there's little room and little need for tax avoidance. The international tax competitive index rates 38 OECD countries on the best tax environment for investment, as well as for workers and for businesses and New Zealand ranks third in that because it is so straightforward.   But again, it comes down to the least unfair tax system. I think there are always going to be people who feel that they are hard done by when it comes to the taxes they pay. They feel that they pay too much. They pay a disproportionate amount of their income towards tax, while others aren't pulling their weight. And then you also look at the way governments use your money. That was one thing that really ripped my nightie during the Labour Government’s last six years. We're getting up early, we're going to work, we're doing our bit, and they were squandering tax money, just burning it at a rate of knots with very little to show for it. You're always going to get people who say no, the government is spending money on projects I don't agree with it, I don't want my tax going to that. But I think the last government, the last Labour government, really took it to the nth degree and that's when you start resenting paying taxes. You don't want that in a society.   Can you tax your way to a fairer society? I really don't think you can. You can certainly create an environment where those who cannot work, who need assistance get it. You can create an environment where it's easier for people to do business, to get work, for businesses to do well. I think the more you make it complicated and try and right inequities, the more room there is to evade tax to avoid paying it altogether. GST, most countries have it because it is a way of addressing the black economy – is that enough justification to maintain it?    Sun, 23 Mar 2025 22:58:56 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-covid-loans-are-proof-high-trust-models-dont-work/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-covid-loans-are-proof-high-trust-models-dont-work/ Chris Small from ABC Business Sales summed up the business loan scheme beautifully on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning: it was a balls up that was going to, has indeed, and will continue to cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars.   Let me take you back to March 2020. Business loans were made available in May – the announcement was made in March for small businesses affected by Covid-19. Businesses were offered up to $20,000, plus $1800 per full time employee. More than 129,000 businesses took out loans worth $2.4 billion. Borrowers had five years to repay the loan, and many would reach that limit from June.   It was never going to work. And the worst thing was everybody could see that it was not going to be a boon for the businesses that they thought it was, that it was not going to be a temporary stopgap, that the audits that Grant Robertson said would be put in place to protect the scheme were not going to work. Everybody could see that, everybody that is, but the previous government.   “In hindsight if the previous regime could look back, I'm sure they would wind it back and put a few more bells and braces in there because what they're now finding is people basically took the money thinking it was unlikely they were going to pay it back. And sure enough, they haven't paid it back, with little consequences. No security was taken in the way of PG's (personal guarantees) or any GSAs over their businesses, so it was a real free hit for the business owner at the time.   “Because there was no security taken, so the houses aren't at risk, no personal guarantee, so they can't get personally bankrupted, all the IRD, from what I've seen or read, can do is put in this default interest rate. Yes, that will keep mounting up and capitalising, and certainly a sole traders position, may just walk away and set up new entity or just ignore it. But I don't think it's realistic for the IRD to go around and just from an administration perspective, there's 120-odd thousand people to chase. It's just not going to happen. So it's just it was a balls up that’s going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, unfortunately.”  Yep, another one. That was Chris Small from ABC Business Sales on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. Utter madness. And at the risk of triggering those of us who did not have a good time under the previous administration, we do have to discuss it as the mistakes made then must never be made again. They have to be acknowledged – that it was a balls up. He put it beautifully. There were many of them and we mustn't do them again.   I think we can take it as read that high trust models don't work, we tried that experiment, didn’t work. Didn't work for the business loans, didn’t work for MIQ stays. BusinessDesk wrote back in 2023 that hotels that provided rooms for the government's controversial quarantine system received more than $1 billion. Just $187 million has been recovered by the government from people who had to pay for their MIQ stay, another $26 million is outstanding. So it didn't work there. High trust didn't work when it came to policing. It didn't work when it came to allowing troublesome tenants to stay on in Kainga Ora accommodation. I can't think of a single sector where it actually worked.   I remember my accountant saying to me, she had businesses who were taking the loan and saying, oh, we're not going to pay it back. Why should we? There is absolutely no need to – if they're stupid enough to give us the money, we're not going to pay it back. Surely there is a moral authority that if you can, you should. And if you can and you won't, then you must never, ever talk about beneficiaries bludging off the system ever again. Same with student loan defaulters, you have no moral high ground at all.   We can't move on. It'd be wonderful to be able to move on, but we can't move on when we are paying and paying and paying for stupid, ill-considered poorly advised decisions. And we're all going to be paying for a very, very long time to come.  Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:49:12 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-investment-summit-is-filling-me-with-real-hope-and-optimism/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-investment-summit-is-filling-me-with-real-hope-and-optimism/ Speaking of the Investment Summit that's been convened by the government – or really the Prime Minister, because this Infrastructure Investment Summit is the PM's baby. What I really love is the positivity around it. It must be killing some media organisations, having to reluctantly spit out some good news. But there's optimism and there's hard bitten trillion-dollar asset fund managers saying yes, this all looks really promising. It's not just hearing about the very real possibility of getting essential works done, but it's the encouraging words from those fund managers with their trillions of dollars worth of assets.   And even more so, I love the talk of bipartisanship. That really warms the cockles of my hard, old heart. Investors are not going to commit their clients' funds if works are going to come to a grinding halt in 18 months or so and then three years later, we attempt to lurch them back into life. As Chris Bishop explained to Ryan Bridge last night, the investors needed to be reassured that there was bipartisan agreement when it comes to committing to big ticket projects.   “That's been a constant theme of today, hearing from the delegates, they like the fact that you've got National and Labour in the room being mature, grown-up adults, agreeing on, working on a pipeline, and also the funding model. Barbara Edmonds wrote a forward to the PPP document that we released as a government. That is really important and I'm working with her on the 30-year plan for infrastructure in New Zealand and I actively want to involve the opposition in that.   “And I think, the reality is, we need as a country to do that, right? Because these guys want long term certainty, they want to invest in New Zealand, they need to understand that their investments are safe and secure, and that there's also a pipeline so they can invest in human capital, and they can invest in the kit and the machinery. That is really important. Frankly, if we're honest about it, we haven't been very good at that as a country. Governments come and go, and the project’s come and go. Let's get mature about, let's be adults in the room and build for New Zealand.”  Amen to that. I don't know if you heard Chris Bishop with Ryan last night, but it was really positive, forward-looking – there was no negativity, no sniping. It was fantastic. It was wonderful to hear. Before the election, Christopher Luxon was talking about drawing up a bipartisan agreement with Labour on what infrastructure works were essential, works that whatever government came to power would support. And there'd be a bit of wriggle room for pet projects to appease ideologues within the various parties, who might not understand the importance of pragmatism. So Labour could come in and yes, they would still have to keep going with the expressway or the planned motorway or motorway extension, and the ideologues within their party would be unhappy about that, but there was a little bit of money in the kitty for a few cycleways that would appease them, or funded public transport fees, that sort of thing.   At the time I thought it was a bit pie in the sky, but seeing Labour's finance spokesperson there, having Barbara Edmonds actually being part of the process —a competent, capable woman who's untarnished by being part of the previous administration— fills me with real hope and optimism. And it's been a while since I've felt that.  Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:23:53 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-briscoes-boss-has-buyers-remorse-and-i-can-see-why/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-briscoes-boss-has-buyers-remorse-and-i-can-see-why/ When the Prime Minister is doing all the shake and howdy at the investment summit in Auckland, I bet he’ll be feeling like a harassed parent who —despite all the chaos behind the scenes— somehow manages to arrive at a family wedding with the kids in tow looking cool, calm and very happy to be there.   Even though one of the kids had been refusing to leave the house and you all had a big bust-up in the car on the way to the church.   “But we’re here now guys - smile everyone”. I bet you that’s how Christopher Luxon is feeling.   And what will be making it worse is the fresh criticism coming from Briscoes Group managing director Rod Duke who’s telling Luxon and his government to “get their A into gear” and “actually do something” to help the economy. And I agree with him.    Because are you really doing any better than you were a year or 18 months ago?   This isn’t the first time Rod Duke has made these kinds of comments. I remember him saying a while back that he was prepared to give the Government until this month to deliver some results and, if he didn't see results, he’d be putting a rocket under them.   And that’s what he’s doing now.    He’s obviously had a gutsful of the Government blaming everything on the last government and he wants more action.   He says: “I think they’re of the view that up until now they’ve been able to blame the prior government, which is typical of a lot of governments I guess. But you know, the time has just about come where you’re going to have to make your own mark.   “You’ve had enough time to study, to tighten, to understand what the books look like, and now you’ve got to put some policies into place.”   He says everyone’s aware of the situation Luxon and Co. inherited from the previous government, but they’ve had enough time and should be able to show more for their efforts of the past 15 or so months.  Duke doesn’t seem to be doing what Luxon would probably ask him to do. You know, the line CEOs like to use about not going to them with problems but going to them with solutions.   But I think Rod Duke is right. The Government hasn’t delivered when it comes to the economy and it does need to get its “A into G”.    The problem is though, the Government has fallen into the trap that pretty much every government falls into – especially first-term governments. The trap of trying to do too much.   When you're in opposition, it’s very easy to sit there and have all these big ideas. Because when you’re in opposition, that’s all you have to do.   Different story when you get into government, though. For starters, you realise that the things you promised to do aren’t quite so easy to do in reality. So it takes way longer to achieve something.   And when you get into government, you have to deal with all the stuff that blows up in your face on a daily basis. You can lurch from one crisis to another and see your quarterly plan targets disappearing in front of your eyes.   So if Christopher Luxon said to me: “Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions” - here’s what I’d tell him.   I’d tell him to decide what his government is actually going to focus on and to stick with it. If it’s the economy, then make that your priority between now and the election.   And be honest about it, this laser-like focus that the Prime Minister talks about can't go in all directions.    I’d tell the PM to be upfront with us and say that if we want better health services and better education facilities and everything else that governments get lost in —as this government has— I’d tell the PM to be courageous and tell us that we’re going to have to wait for all those other things.   Because for now, it’s the economy and only the economy we’re going to worry about.   That might sound simplistic, but unless the Government ditches this idea that it’s going to fix everything ASAP, then it’s going to fail in all of them.   And people like Rod Duke won’t just be telling the Government to get its A into gear, he'll be telling it to get its A out of here.  Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:50:39 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-government-contract-changes-make-sense-to-me/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-government-contract-changes-make-sense-to-me/ Patriotism or profit.   Essentially, that’s what these changes the Government is making to the way it hires companies to do work for it come down to.   It’s like “Buy NZ-Made”. The Government wants to make it easier for local companies to get on its books. But what’s more important? Getting the cheapest price from (potentially) an overseas company or paying a bit more to hire a local company?   Patriotism versus profit. For me, when it comes to things like government contracts, patriotism wins hands-down every day.  It’s like that argument people sometimes make about Kiwibank and why the Government doesn’t use it as its official bank. The answer to that is simple - the government can’t shop locally when it comes to its bank, because Kiwibank doesn’t provide the full-scale banking services that it needs.   But it wants to buy locally more, and that is a good thing – even if it means paying a bit more for it.     It is kind of weird though that —on the one hand— we’ve got the Government bringing all these foreign outfits to the big investment summit tomorrow and Friday. But today, it’s saying that it wants to give local businesses a leg-up or make it easier for local companies to get government contracts, by making changes to the hoops businesses have to jump through to get them.   Nicola Willis kind of explained-away the weirdness on 九一星空无限talk ZB this morning, saying that she wants overseas companies coming here to invest, hire locals, and grow the local economy.   So, what that would look like is we’d have a big foreign outfit coming over to build a motorway or some other piece of big infrastructure, and they’d have a whole lot of sub-contracts with local companies like Fulton Hogan and all the other usual suspects.   But what I’m hoping these changes will mean is that we’ll see less of the usual suspects getting government contracts and the others —that probably feel on the outer a bit— getting their share of the work too.    If you’ve ever put a bid in for work with the government —like I have, in a previous life— you’ll know that some of the hoops you need to jump through are ridiculous.   In fact, my impression has been that if you’re already in the system, you’re sweet – if not, then the hoops can be enough to make you pull the plug.  Which is why the Government plans to ditch 24 of those hoops.   Big picture, it wants to prioritise hiring local outfits. It also wants to ditch some of the requirements that companies have to agree to, to get government contracts. Which are worth more than $50 billion a year.   One of the proposed changes is doing away with the requirement that companies providing catering, cleaning, and security staff pay their workers the living wage.   That’s one of the changes that I’m a bit torn on – because governments bang-on all the time about wanting to create a high-wage economy. And while the living wage isn’t a high wage (it’s currently $27.80 an hour), it’s better than the minimum wage.   But a company that gets work with the Government probably does work for other people too and has staff working on other things other than the government work. So, the requirement to pay a living wage probably has quite a significant impact across the whole business and is probably enough to put some smaller businesses off going for government contracts.   You can tell that Nicola Willis is taking to her new-ish job as Minister for Economic Growth, because one factor she wants the government to consider when awarding contracts is what’s called “the economic benefit test”.   So government agencies will look at contract bids and base their decision on who to go with based on the economic benefit to New Zealand.   So it would sign a potentially more expensive contract with a local company because it would deliver more economic benefit to the country. More local workers getting work, more work for local subbies and the profits staying in New Zealand.   As opposed to a cheaper contract with a foreign outfit that might bring its own workers into the country and take its profits overseas.   I'd choose patriotism over profit, any day.  Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:11:25 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-governments-failing-to-sell-the-sizzle/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-governments-failing-to-sell-the-sizzle/ There's an old saying in advertising - to be successful you don't sell the sausage, you sell the sizzle. Christopher Luxon may have a great sausage, but he's not selling its sizzle. The Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll released yesterday afternoon had National up 1.7 points to 33.6%, but Labour had moved past it, jumping nearly three points to 34.1%. The Greens fell to 10%, down 3.2 points. ACT went down 2.3 points and Te Pati Māori rose 2.1 points to 6.5%. NZ First went down 1.3 points to 5.1%. So when we translate this number soup into seats in the house, both Labour and National are up three each to 42. The Greens are down four to 12, ACT is down two to 10, NZ First down to to six, Te Pati Māori up two to eight. That would mean the centre left block of Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Māori would have 62 seats to the centre-right's 58 and thus could form a centre-left government.    Now, before anyone starts booking a one-way flight to Australia, the only poll that counts is the one on Election Day. And these opinion polls, midway through a government's term, generally show a disgruntlement with the current lot that's in, rather than an overwhelming desire to see the other lot take over. But this is the third poll, in a row, that puts the opposition ahead.   And you might know, and I might know that the government's doing a good job of trying to re-establish some semblance of fiscal propriety, that they're redrawing boundaries about what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour within a decent society, and they've taken the first steps towards restoring a world class education system. But you and I also know that we live in a democracy and every vote counts. The lady who called in and wanted taxpayers to buy everyone a house and a car because that would give them a sense of belonging  —she wasn't quite sure how to pay for it, but she thought it would be cheaper in the long run than jail terms— her vote counts the same as yours.   There is no denying that the three-headed coalition beast makes it difficult to govern. The Treaty Principles Bill has been a divisive distraction, the bloody school lunches are yet another Labour well-intentioned, misguided initiative that has become this government's problem. People still aren't feeling better off, and they're still waiting a long time for a hip replacement. Dissatisfaction, disgruntlement, disengagement, that's all part of the midterm blues. Speaking to the Herald, Christopher Luxon said New Zealanders are going to have an opportunity in 2026, which is not that far away, to make a decision around Chris Hipkins or myself, he said, and our respective governments. My job is to make sure New Zealanders see that they're better off under my Government, we've come through a very tough time, there are some green shoots that we're really encouraged about on the economy ultimately, he said, New Zealanders are going to judge me at the election in 2026 as to whether we've delivered for them on rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order, delivering better health and education.    So do you agree that this is the government not being able to sell its sizzle. The sausage is there, but without the sizzle there will be no successful selling story. I could understand why some within National could feel brassed off. We've got the policies, the building bricks, the foundations, to get New Zealand cracking again and that will better everybody. But if people don't believe that, if they don't believe the message, then they go to vote Labour and we're going to get a centre-left government. Mon, 10 Mar 2025 23:16:50 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-does-everyone-have-their-price/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-does-everyone-have-their-price/ The Government's not here to shag spiders, is it? It's planning to turbocharge its fast-track regime, speeding up the process to acquire private land for major infrastructure projects, and they intend to do that in part by offering cold, hard cash. Sweeteners or “premium payments” will be offered to private landowners, whose land is acquired under this new accelerated process. Changes to the Public Works Act, announced yesterday, would see owners paid a bonus 5 percent of the land's value —up to $92,000— for acquisitions. Those who chose to sell before a Notice of Intention would also get an extra 15 percent - up to $150,000 - on top of that, for a total of up to $242,000, as Chris Bishop told Mike Hosking this morning:   “Paying a bit more upfront will massively lower costs in the long term, so we're offering a 15% incentive payment. If the Government comes along and basically says, look, we're going to build a Road of Natural Significance here or another piece of infrastructure listed on the Fast-track Act, we're going to give you a 15% incentive payment and then a 5% recognition payment as well. That will massively lower the cost of doing that infrastructure because it means we've got the certainty that you can plan the construction out, you can sequence it properly.   “At the moment there are a number of examples around the country, it just causes huge delays because of the length of time it takes to acquire the land. And so it's just another step we're taking to fast-track infrastructure projects. Much of the projects we're talking about here are New Zealand Transport Agency projects, so this is central government coming along and saying, look, we're building a road of national significance here, here's the route, we need your land.  “And look, no one likes taking land, we don't do it with a great degree of passion, but the reality is if we want to build stuff in this country and get those roads going that we need, and public transport projects that we that we need, it will require taking land, that’s just the simple reality of it.”  So most of those who object to land acquisition for critical infrastructure projects won't be able to go to the Environment Court. Instead, they'll submit their objections directly to the relevant decision maker for faster resolution. Under the changes announced, the Crown will be able to acquire private land much faster for some public projects listed in the fast-track legislation, as well as Chris Bishop said. the government's Roads of National Significance. So the overhaul of the Public Works Act is already underway and expected to be completed by early next year.   Infrastructure New Zealand is welcoming the government's land acquisition incentive payments and a faster process for objection. It says it's going to really get things cracking. The government says this kind of turbocharging is needed to rebuild the economy. Do you support this? Would it make a difference? Does everybody have their price? Would an extra quarter of a million, there or thereabouts, make you realise that your house is not necessarily a castle, but a valuable asset? I mean, isn't that fabulous Australian film, ‘The Castle’, built around the whole concept that infrastructure has its place, but not when it's a man's home, it’s his castle? And there are stories of landowners who have held up major works for years and years and years because they don't want to leave their home. It's their home and no amount of money would make them change their minds.   But Governments weren't talking about extra payments of nearly a quarter of a million dollars, were they? Does everybody have their price? If you have land or property that's either been acquired or in the firing line, does this make a difference? If you're a developer, is this exactly the sort of change and turbocharging you wanted to see?  Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:23:19 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-phil-goff-stuffed-up-royally-and-paid-the-price/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-phil-goff-stuffed-up-royally-and-paid-the-price/ Crikey, I barely stepped away from the microphone yesterday and we had a double whammy news-wise. Phil Goff sacked as High Commissioner to London for an intemperate comment and question, Greg Foran resigning as Air New Zealand CEO. I heard someone on The Huddle with Ryan Bridge last night saying Greg Foran can now become the High Commissioner, Adrian Orr would become Air New Zealand CEO, and Phil Goff will take over as Reserve Bank Governor - all change.   Boy, will Phil Goff be kicking himself all the way back to New Zealand, all the way back to the farm at Clevedon. You are on the pig's back when you get a gig like that – it is a sweet deal. And one intemperate comment ...  I think he was just trying to be a bit too clever, showing he's done his homework, showing that he was well read, making appointed remark about somebody the world regards as a graceless buffoon (well, members of Phil Goff's world regard as a graceless buffoon), and he loses his gig, and rightly so.    He was asking a question of the Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister at a Chatham House event in London. Goff said he'd been rereading a speech by former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill after the Munich Agreement. “He turned to Chamberlain, he said ‘You had the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, yet you will have a war’,” Goff then said “President Trump has restored the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office. But do you think he really understands history?” So Phil Goff was making it well researched, clever-dick, pointed remark about the American president. What on Earth did he think was going to happen? He was stripped of his position immediately by Winston Peters. The Foreign Affairs Minister said Phil Goff’s comments were deeply disappointing. They did not represent the views of the New Zealand Government and made his position as High Commissioner to London untenable.    So a number of comments around that. Phil Goff was sacked by Winston Peters immediately. Winston Peters did not have to consult the Prime Minister before doing so – there was no need for him to consult. He was presented with a problem in his own department, and he dealt with it in the appropriate fashion. That's why you have managers, that’s why you have ministers. Everything doesn't filter up to the CEO. Imagine in your own organisation if every single decision in your department had to go to the CEO. Why have a dog and bark yourself? So there was no need to consult.    Was he sacked because the Government's sucking up, particularly to Donald Trump in the US? No. As Winston Peters pointed out yesterday, and as numerous foreign affairs experts have concurred, Phil Goff would have been sacked if he had made the comment of any foreign leader. When you're in a diplomatic role, you have to be diplomatic, and that wasn't.    And what about the Chatham House rules? Chatham House is an actual place where people congregate to debate, discuss ideas primarily around foreign policy, but also about other things. It's a meeting place for pointy heads where they can float and toss ideas around, and they don't have to worry about it being attributable back to them. The rules say when a meeting or part thereof is held under the Chatham House rules, participants are free to use the information received but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speakers, nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. So Chatham House rules guarantee people can speak freely within the walls.   But in this case, the Chatham House rules had not been invoked because it was being live streamed, so you're not going to be able to shield the identity of the speakers because it's being live streamed. So that's why the comments became public, despite the fact they were in Chatham House – oh irony of ironies. The rules have to be invoked. They weren’t, and apparently, according to Chatham House, it's not terribly often that they are. So there we go. That's what happened.   He stuffed up royally and he’s paid the price. And nobody will be more disappointed, I imagine, than Phil Goff except Mrs Goff because that would have been a lovely reward for a long period of time being an uxorious, fabulous support. Being a politician's partner or spouse would not be an easy gig. So you get the cushy number in London, feet up, gorgeous little holidays popping off around Europe. Now back to the farm in Clevedon, tail between the legs. Back on the ride on mower, no gardener for you anymore. He's had his punishment. He's heading home and Winston Peters did exactly the right thing. Ten out of ten for the Foreign Affairs Minister.  Thu, 06 Mar 2025 23:57:43 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-its-hard-to-find-anyone-sorry-adrian-orrs-gone/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-its-hard-to-find-anyone-sorry-adrian-orrs-gone/ Well, the announcement yesterday was on a par with John Key’s resignation. The Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, pulled the plug on his career yesterday with no real explanation as to why – although it's no secret that there is friction between the Governor and the Finance Minister. You know, I know and certainly Adrian Orr knows that if she could have sacked him, she would, rather than inherit him with his five-year term as given to him by the former Labour government.   Thomas Coughlan has written an excellent piece in the New Zealand Herald on the tension between Adrian Orr and Nicola Willis. He says while Willis observed the conventions of respecting the independence between the Beehive and the Bank, under questioning on Wednesday, she referred back to comments she made as the opposition finance spokeswoman when she was unmuzzled by ministerial warrant. When you're in opposition, you can say pretty much anything, you can criticise anybody you like. Once you become a minister, there are conventions to observe. So when she was asked questions about Adrian's resignation yesterday, she said, “I refer you back to earlier times when I could say what I liked”. And the comments she made back then were critical in the extreme of Adrian Orr’s handling of the economy.   Speaking of critical, if this is not the most withering, excoriating, damning assessment of a professional performance, I do not know what is. Former Reserve Bank senior staffer Geof Mortlock shared his thoughts on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning:  “I was thinking that going through all of the Governor’s since 1934, I would rank him as the worst in terms of competence – based really on the monetary policy results. You look at the inflation burst. Now some of that was external, but some of it was definitely a function of monetary policy actions. He's left taxpayers with over $10 billion of debt that could have gone into the public health system and other such things. He's nearly doubled the staff numbers of the Reserve Bank, and he's jacked up bank capital ratios to levels that I think are going to make it more difficult for the economy to actually start growing again.”  Yikes. I heard that on the way into work this morning and let out a little nervous giggle-squeak in the car. I felt like I was back at school listening to a tongue lashing from Sister Clare, thinking, I'm glad it's not me, glad it's not me. ‘I've gone to 1934 and without a doubt, he is the worst in terms of competence.’   There's been no explanation as to why Orr has resigned. It fits, I suppose, with his maverick nature that he'd just push off and stick two fingers to his colleagues and his staffers and indeed, the New Zealand public. The worst thing about the mess that's been left behind is that people are not criticising him with the benefit of hindsight. Even as he was making the decisions at the time, you might recall we had people ringing in saying this is going to cost us, it's too much, he's going too hard. There were people ringing in almost immediately saying we're going to pay for this and we're going to be paying for a very long time. There's going to be hell to pay along with $10 billion. And they were right. And they were calling it at the time.   As a result of decisions made by Adrian Orr, and let's not forget: Grant Robertson. They were yoked together in tandem making those decisions, and a lot of Kiwis suffered. Interest rate increases in response to post pandemic inflation pushed the country into a recession and unemployment increased sharply - the words of Paul Bloxham from the HSBC who talked about the rock star economy a million years ago, when New Zealand used to have a good economy. He said, across the developed world HSBC’s estimates suggest New Zealand's economy had the largest contraction in GDP in 2024 as a result of those decisions. And it's the real people, with families and jobs and bills to pay that suffered as a result of the poor decision making from the Reserve Bank Governor. It's hard to find anyone who's sorry that Adrian Orr is gone.  Wed, 05 Mar 2025 23:29:20 Z