Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Education Minister’s pressing ahead with a major overhaul of NCEA, scrapping the current system and replacing it entirely.  Cabinet’s signed off on a move to subject-based assessments in Years 12 and 13.  The first changes will roll out from 2028, when NCEA Level One will be axed altogether.  Erica Stanford says English and Maths will be compulsory for all Year 11 students under the new model, and is seeking more information on making Science compulsory in Year 11.  She told Kerre Woodham she believes the work they’ve done in implementing the new system has set them up for success and longevity.   Stanford says they put in the work to understand what the sector and parents thought so they could accurately highlight the problems with the system, and build a curriculum and qualification that works.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So help is on the way from the Government, as expected. The announcement came around 12:30pm yesterday. Thought it might be too late, because according to Donald Trump, “me and the Ayatollah are going to be controlling the Straits of Hormuz”. Be open very soon, he says. Well, that's good, isn't it? But in the meantime, while we wait for that to eventuate, Donald Trump and the Ayatollah cutting the ribbon over the Straits of Hormuz, 140,000 New Zealand families with kids will receive an extra $50 per week through the boost in the in-work tax credit.  Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis outlined the support package at Parliament yesterday. They said there will be some people who'll be disappointed, but it's a responsible decision that avoids hiking inflation, which the Reserve Bank Governor was warning about yesterday. The increase will begin from April 7th and it'll be paid weekly or fortnightly, depending on when people are paid. There'll be 143,000 families receiving it, as well as about 14,000 families who'll receive the credit but not as much – it'll be an abated rate. Beneficiaries and superannuitants won't receive the boost. The Government says, well, your payments are going to be adjusted from April 1st as per normal, so you'll be getting slightly more anyway.   The in-work tax credit is a payment to families with dependent children where at least one parent is in paid employment and neither parent receives a main benefit from Work and Income. The cutoff for receiving the tax credit is around $89,000 of annual family income for a family with one child, $112,000 for a family with two children, $135,000 for a family with three. The added payment will last for one year or until the price of 91 octane petrol drops below $3 a litre for four consecutive weeks. It'll be estimated to cost around $373 million for the year, and Willis has promised the cost will be met within the government's operating allowance.   So there you have it; that's the detail. It's pretty much as we expected, isn't it? And it's not perfect. There'll be some who feel overlooked and left out, others who'll say, you're all going soft, suck it up, put your head down, get through it like we used to, stop spending money on coffees and Netflix and you'll be fine. And others like me who see it more as a morale booster than an income booster. An acknowledgement that there have been tough times for the past five years and that many young families who are in the lower income because of where they are at their stage in life have been literally paying the price for the failings of well-paid public servants who made decisions that impacted on them and had absolutely no impact on the decision makers. When the going got tough, they took the money and they ran – they're sitting pretty now, thanks very much. And in the meantime, the reverberations and the repercussions and the ramifications of the decisions they made are literally being paid for by young Kiwi families. As the Finance Minister told Mike Hosking this morning, although they don't know the vehicular or transport circumstances of each individual low-income family, they know they'll be feeling the pinch from increased fuel prices across the board.  “You are right that those families' circumstances will vary, but regardless of their circumstances, they will be facing increasing costs and many of them will be car users and many of them will experience other price pressures. In terms of diesel users, yes, we are very conscious that diesel prices have gone up massively. They're a huge input for our agricultural, manufacturing, industrial industries. The challenge we have there, Mike, is our number one goal is to make sure those industries have enough diesel to keep going, because that's what would do the most harm to the economy in terms of jobs and incomes. And so it would be wrong for us to be sending a price signal down now by reducing the price of diesel when actually, in future, if worst case scenarios played out, we might be having to preserve our supply of diesel. So that's what we're very focused on.”  Which is a fair point. Lowering the price of diesel, allowing for a spend up on the diesel, is probably not a sensible thing if we have to bring in rationing. So I'd really very much like to get your feedback on this. As far as I see it, it's a morale booster. It's like, hang in there. Things are getting better. Things were getting better, just, and then along comes the attack on Iran and the tightening up of the Straits of Hormuz and the tightening up of the fuel supply, which is absolutely essential not just to the Western world, but to the entire world at the moment. It'll be over quickly or it won't. Hopefully it will. It won't last forever. The Reserve Bank Governor said she sees it hopefully as temporary and that good times are a coming. We've been promised them for so long we probably, we're probably a bit cynical. But the good times are coming, they are improving. This, I see, is a morale booster to those who are doing the hardest, doing it the toughest, who don't have the wiggle room, who don't have the disposable income, and I'm okay with that. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If Trump's envoys weren't talking to Iranian officials, who the hell were they talking to? When you get older, you expect that you can make more sense of the world, but I've got to be honest here, I am struggling to make sense of anything. I was reading the headlines at about 5 this morning. Trump talking about the good and productive talks having been conducted by special envoy Steve Witkoff, his son in law Jared Kushner. There'll be no nukes. No, the Iranians have said, yep, absolutely, we'll open the Straits of Hormuz and there's no nukes.  So that's good. It's a great way to start the day, until you then read that Iran's Parliamentary Speaker says, um, no, no talks have happened. It's all fake news. Normally, you could understand perhaps that talks have taken place and that people might take different messages out of the discussions or things might be highlighted and others glossed over to show respective countries in good light. But in this case, they're saying it didn't happen at all.  Got to admit, that was a head scratcher. Whether the talks happened or not, Trump's announcement that somebody had talked to somebody on Truth Social led to a US stock market rally and global oil prices to drop as fears were assuaged that Trump would now not go ahead with his threat to bomb Iranian nuclear power facilities. Who knows? Honestly, who knows what's true and what is not? There's very little we can do. We don't even, we can't even begin to speculate as to who might have been talking to whom.  In the meantime, here at the bottom end of the world, as we deal with the fallout and wait for sanity to prevail, the Government's expected to announce a support package for families today with an emphasis on low to middle income households and working families with children. The emphasis is on low to middle income. It's also on temporary support, so that temporary, timely, targeted support.  If you are in a low to middle income household, if you are working parents with children, do you welcome such support? Is it right and proper that the focus be on working families rather than all and sundry? I tend to think it is. Is it right and proper that any such support is offered at all? I know there are grave fears from some that this is just another Covid situation where money is being sprayed everywhere. That is not the case.  There are no payments being made to everybody. Remember the payments that were made to dead people? The IRD said and Treasury said, I don't think this is a very good idea. No, no, let's just dole out the money. There were Covid payments made to businesses on a high trust model. Payments were made to everybody under a certain income at one point. Remember those? Even to dead people. We're not doing that. This is not what it's about. It's about targeted assistance for working families who are having to pay through the nose at the pump to get to work, to get the kids to school.  And all of those who say, well, we weathered stock market crises and the global financial crisis. Yep, sure you did. High interest rates. Absolutely you did. But this is coming on five years of just knock after knock after knock after knock for people trying to do the right thing. So I'm okay with it. It's not normally something I would advocate, but in this instance, I think it is necessary for all those workers who are absolutely essential, who have to live out of the main centres because of the cost of housing, who don't have public transport to be able to get from point A to point B, who need to get their kids to school, who just want to be able to go to work and earn enough to look after themselves and their family. A little bit of targeted assistance out of the enormous extra tax money that's coming in from the government's fuel tax is fine by me. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's edition of Fuel Watch, the Green Party is offering its votes to the National Party to get on with passing what the Greens call a sensible and urgent fossil fuel crisis relief package. And you know what, it is quite sensible. They're not suggesting a horse and cart for every home - that's sensible. With the Greens and National's combined 63 votes, the Greens say you don't need any other political party to get this through. Their proposed package includes making public transport free for users, not forever, just while the Straits of Hormuz are compromised, a relief payment for low income people or people who live rurally to help meet additional transport costs, a windfall profits tax to prevent corporate price gouging, that's particularly Green, I think you'd be fair to say, reversing changes to school bus eligibility and routes, temporary expansion of eligibility for school buses, reversing the government's intended reduction in total mobility support for disabled people, and increasing the mileage rates to the 23,000 care and support workers to meet their actual travel costs, which we discussed the other day. Now, none of these are particularly silly, are they? Chlöe Swarbrick, the Green Party co leader, says New Zealanders expect politicians to do everything we can to support people through this immediate crisis and to minimise future vulnerability by reducing fossil fuel dependence. And she's not wrong. You know, normally we would probably be able to weather this particular storm. It won't last forever, there'll be a resolution one way or the other. And, normally families would be able to accommodate this, but it's been five years of scrimping and saving and compromising for many, many working families. You know, they've had to cope with inflation and increases in mortgage payments or rents, increased food costs, increased insurance, increased rates, things that you simply cannot compromise on. These are things you have to have, they're not nice-to-haves, they're must-haves, and it's been tough going. And for many families, this is like the straw that breaks the camel's back. It wouldn't be forever, the sort of relief they're talking about. It wouldn't be, I suppose they'd quite like to see, you know, public transport being free forever, but you know, I think that's not what they've said. They've said that there are people right now who are hurting, who cannot, cannot make any further compromises in their budgets, and they need assistance. I don't think there's a lot wrong with what they're suggesting. I know this coalition government, quite rightly, is wary of throwing money out to all and sundry, as we saw with the Covid spend up, but I'm absolutely certain they have the tools and the philosophy to target assistance where it should be targeted, as the Prime Minister bangs on, you know, timely, targeted, and temporary. So that's precisely what the Greens are suggesting. Nicola Willis, the Finance Minister, has ruled out across the board price cuts, fair enough, not everybody does need support. We grabbed the PM on his way out after chatting to Mike and said, well come on, what about the Greens? And he said, "yes, yes, yes, we're already working on some of these measures", but all very well and good.  The people who need support needed it last week, not yes, yes, yes, we're working on it, you know, in the future. People need it now to get to work. And people are willing to use the buses. I don't know what's happening in your city, but in Auckland, it recorded its busiest day on public transport in seven years, and that was last Tuesday. 7,000 more trips than the previous busiest day, which was two weeks ago. So people are, are feeling it. And if they can make alternative transport arrangements, they will. And if they find, through trying out public transport, that it actually works for them, that's got to benefit everybody. The road users, public transport, people's pockets. Just because the Greens suggest something, I don't think it should be dismissed or snorted at, you take every suggestion on its merits, and in this particular case, I think the Greens have got a point. I note that their targeted assistance didn't cover the food producers, and I think they could probably do with a break. I think John talked about that when he was doing the show. You know, and they may well be able to get through this without having to hoick the prices up too much. I suppose it's a bit much to expect the Greens to offer targeted assistance to food producers. They seem to think we should all be breatharians, but does this cover off the Green's suggestion, the public transport free for users for a certain amount of time, a relief payment for low income people or people who live rurally, increasing the mileage rates for the care and support workers? I don't see that as being particularly egregiously extravagant or silly or nonsensical. These are the people who need help, who need it now, and who need that help while the oil prices are going through the roof and consequently the price at the pump is going through the roof. There's only so much people can take, and they've taken a lot, these working families, for the last five to six years. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Green Party is offering its support to National to fast-track a fossil fuel relief package, bypasssing other parties with their combined 63 votes. The proposal includes three months of free public transport, a windfall tax on fuel companies, and targeted payments for rural and low-income earners. The Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick told Kerre Woodham, "we have put a sensible and urgent fossil fuel crisis relief package on the table, and we're really willing and able to work with the National Party to make it happen." LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.