Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Women are still underrepresented in the trades.  Despite employing more than 300,000 people, women only make up around 16% of those working in the construction sector.   Chair of construction firm Naylor Love, Jackie Lloyd is interested in seeing more women enter the industry and play a role in leading it as well.   Auckland Plumbers Group’s Hera Eruera is one of only fifteen certified female plumbers in New Zealand, and told Kerre Woodham that the sector’s still a bit of an old boys’ club.  When she first came across Auckland Plumbers Group, Director Andrew Durrans was one of the few people looking to take on a female apprentice.  “All the other companies that I had gone to, they were just not wanting to have a bar of it,”  Eruera said .  The stigma of plumbing being a “dirty job” may also be keeping women away from the trade, and while some elements can be, that’s not all they deal with.  “It’s such a huge variety – you've got your hot water systems, you’ve got all your piping systems, guttering, spouting, roofing. We’ve also got gas fitting, draining.”  “It's just a huge variety and it’s not always a dirty job like what most people would think it is, and it’s quite enjoyable as well."   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we thought it would be Fuel Friday because we haven't really touched on the oil crisis so far, have we? I filled up at my local on the way to work and it was certainly more expensive than it was last week, but nowhere near the heights we've reached previously. Back in the day I had to give up driving the Club Sport, which was a beast of a car —loved that car— when fuel topped $3 a litre. I loved her, but I couldn't afford to keep her.   There's a lot of things like that really. With the war in Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, the only tankers going through are the most tenacious or those with a death wish as they attempt to negotiate the waters. I mean, there is oil getting through, but it seems to be a, ‘well, let's give it a bash’ rather than with any kind of certainty. So, one of the main sources of oil and fertiliser has, in effect, been blocked and Iran's doubling down on that. They're just going to shut up shop and that will be that.   The whole world is looking at their country's respective fuel gauges, wondering if they have enough in the tank to see them through the conflict. Ministers here have joined forces and are getting advice on how, well the relevant ministers are joining forces for a special advisory group and getting advice on how low fuel supplies have to go before the Government should introduce demand measures such as reducing the amount of petrol people can buy or only allowing fuel outlets to open on alternate days. So instead of car-less days, we'd have petrol-less days, appealing to people's better natures and saying please only travel if you absolutely have to.   We have about 50 days supply including what we have in the country and what's on its way here, which hopefully will not be diverted to other countries. Shane Jones was on with Heather du Plessis Allan last night and when she said what about other countries? Can't they just divert it? Can't they tell the oil companies come on, we're a bigger customer and we should be able to have that oil that's heading down to that tiny little island nation at the bottom of the world? And he said they were hoping the strength of the contracts they had with the various oil companies would be sufficient to withstand that sort of pressure from other countries to in effect hijack our shipments. The Associate Energy Minister told her the Government had asked officials to come up with all sorts of contingency plans and yes, car-less days were included in the briefing, but they weren't a likely option.  SJ: No, it's too early to identify any specific intervention. I mean, perhaps this thing's all over in a week, who knows? But the reality is.  HDPA: But why are you taking advice on it if you're not seriously considering it?  SJ: Well, no, Kiwis expect their government to be proactive. Kiwis expect us to deal with the fact that other countries are hoarding their fuel. They're introducing export restrictions. So what we need to do is ensure that we've exhaustively looked at every option so if things do deteriorate and we make decisions, they're made on the basis of quality information, not some grasshopper attitude.  I thought he answered that pretty well and you know, of course car-less days makes great headlines and that seems to have been dominating the media over the last 24 hours, but I thought Shane Jones was quite right. They're looking at every single option that's on the table and they're weighing the relative merits of each option, which makes sense. So those of you with EVs, I don't know if you feel like you'd like to join the discussion, feel free. It probably doesn't have much to do with you as we all pile into the petrol station and try to get the petrol on the specials days, everybody refreshing their Gaspy, seeing which petrol station in your neighbourhood has the cheapest petrol. But it's so much more than that.   It's more than just the petrol in the car to get us from point A to point B. It's the petrol within the supply chain and the diesel within the supply chain to get our goods around the country. It's the growers and their fertiliser and the farmers and their diesel stocks. How are you feeling? It's very easy to whip yourself up into a panic and a frenzy, but it is sensible to be prepared. You don't have to panic, but you can, I would have thought, certainly be prepared if you can. There was a petrol special on at my local service station so I filled up on the way to work and got the 95 for $2.88, which I was relatively happy about – who knows what it will be next week. And while I'm not in the habit of Sunday drives, I probably won't start them until this particular conflict is over.  I think we can take sensible measures as your average commuter-consumer without panicking. If you're dependent on fuel for your work, like farmers, like growers, like Uber drivers, it might be a different story. There might be a higher level of fuel anxiety and if so, I'd love to hear from you. You know, have you been here before? Do you have reserves of your own? Probably not the Uber drivers, but perhaps the farmers might and the growers might. When it comes to the fertiliser, will you have enough? I suppose going into winter, I don't know enough about farming cycles, but would you be using fertiliser now anyway or would that be more a spring thing?   The narrative is that it's not over yet despite what Donald Trump is saying. Iran is saying they're going to double down when it comes to closing off the Strait of Hormuz and basically hoping to strangle the enemy as they call them, whoever they perceive the enemy to be. We are a tiny country at the bottom of the world. We're going to have to get by and make do and we're just simply not used to doing that, not even during Covid I don't think. Where's your level of fuel anxiety, fertiliser anxiety, diesel anxiety at and what do you think the most sensible measure would be if we have to start looking at reducing the amount of fuel, diesel, fertiliser we consume in this country? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For nine months now, the Public Service Commission has been negotiating with the primary school teachers union over pay and conditions. Every other union in the education sector has settled, but not the NZEI Te Riu Roa. There have been strikes, there have been rejected pay offers, in some cases offers haven't even been presented to union members to vote on, and there have been accusations of bad faith from both sides. In interviews, the Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche has sounded increasingly grumpy and frustrated, and when he spoke to Mike Hosking last week, he said that he was exploring options, looking for a way to offer non-union teachers, about a third of the primary teacher workforce, a pay increase so they didn't have to wait for the union to find an offer acceptable. And now he has, as he explained to Heather du Plessis Allan last night.  BR: There are 10,000 non-unionised teachers who have been deprived of a settlement. In the normal course of events, we would have kept going with the NZEI, and we are still keeping going with them, but I got to the point where I could no longer justify withholding an offer. So they, the non-union members, have the option now of accepting or not accepting. I don't think it impacts at all on our good faith bargaining and our strong commitment to reach a settlement with NZEI.  HDPA: Is it lawful?  BR: Of course, but it is risky and that's playing out now. But this is a question of equity. Why would somebody who's not in the union be deprived of being able to benefit from something? They're under no obligation to accept it, I fully respect that, but 10,000 people where I can make their lives better and get greater stability is worth doing.  So that was what Sir Brian Roche was doing, looking at the legality of it, whether they could do it. He's found a way that they can, and he says it's risky because he fears the unions will kick off. They'll go hardline, they'll take the strikes and go all sort of waterfront union on it. The union says it will cause a division, but as Education Minister Erica Stanford told Mike Hosking this morning, she thinks it's fair and reasonable that nearly a third of primary school teachers who are not part of the union should be offered a contract now so that they can receive the pay increases now that the government has already offered.  ES: I know that the unions, of course they're not happy with it, and they're trying to say, look, it's causing division. But I would say there's already division. A third of their workforce are not in a union, you know, and if they seriously think it's about division, they should ask themselves why a third of the workforce don't want anything to do with them.  Interesting. This will equate to approximately 50 to 76 bucks every week, which is not inconsiderable. And it's pay that teachers could be receiving already, were they not impacted by the ongoing holdout from the union. They would say that it's the Government's failure to meet their perfectly reasonable demands, so there'll be stories from both sides. But good on the Public Service Commission. I mean, if unions want to keep going because they believe they can get a better deal for their union members, that's what their members pay their dues for, that they want to get the best possible conditions for their members, fine, fill your boots, keep going. But if I was a non-union teacher, I'd be getting more and more brassed off.   It's not just the parents and young people too who are fed up with the ongoing negotiations and ongoing industrial action. Plenty of teachers are too, if the text traffic is anything to go by. A number of teachers told me they were only in the union for the legal protection it afforded them. They certainly didn't agree with the hardline stance being taken by negotiators. Will it cause friction? More friction than there already is in the staffroom when you have some teachers earning more while others are having to wait for their union to settle? I mean, when we were talking about the waterfront workers’ strike lockout depending on which side you're on, there were people who would cross the street to avoid scabs, you know, in Huntly or Otahuhu and different parts of the country. Those old resentments lingered and lingered and lingered.   Surely we're beyond that now. You shouldn't have to join a union to be able to negotiate fair pay and conditions, and I wouldn't have thought teachers particularly would need one. They know their worth, they're articulate. Why would you need a union per se? I bet, as a number of them said, they're only there for the legal protection. If there was a way of insuring yourself privately for a reasonable fee against malicious lawsuits, then perhaps there'd be no need for the union at all. How many of you belong to unions and why? Do you see the benefit it brings you? How many of you would like to be in a union and how many of you are perfectly confident that you can negotiate the best pay and conditions for you?   I'd be really interested to hear from those of you who benefit from union membership and whether you think in this particular case there is going to be friction. I don't think, like if the NZEI can negotiate better conditions for their members, I don't think the non-union staff should get that. Like if you get non-contact time, whatever it is you're holding out on, you know, the non-union members shouldn't necessarily get that. You didn't want to join the union, you wanted to accept the pay offer, that's what you were concerned about, fine, fill your boots, you go for it. But if the union members say no, it's about the conditions, not the pay, and they get better conditions, I don't necessarily think that the non-union members should get it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand’s economic response to the Covid pandemic is under scrutiny.  The second phase of the Covid Inquiry found New Zealand’s overall pandemic response effective, but some restrictions went too far, and the Government moved too slowly in some areas.  It highlights our Covid increase on health spending was one of the OECD's largest.  ANZ Chief Economist Sharon Zollner told Kerre Woodham that debt is likely going to be permanently higher, and we have a lot of medium-term fiscal challenges as a result.   She says in broad terms, we’ve used up two crises worth of buffer for a single crisis.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Comparisons are being drawn between New Zealand’s approach to Covid, and Sweden’s.   The findings of the second phase of the Covid Inquiry were released yesterday, and the response was found to be broadly effective, but slow to adapt and poorly communicated.  It also found some mandates to be overly restrictive, and the Auckland lockdown went on too long.   In Sweden, they had a less restrictive approach, focused on keeping life moving as normal as much as possible.  Cato Institute Senior Fellow Johan Norberg told Kerre Woodham that the population voluntarily engaged in social distancing and reducing travel, and so they only felt the need to briefly enforce limitations when a new wave hit in 2020.   He says the focus was on normalcy, as they didn’t know what would happen next, but they knew it would be a bad idea to hurt themselves further by shutting down schools and the economy.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We all seem to be suffering from Long Covid. It's lingering as the findings of the second phase of the Covid-19 response inquiry were released yesterday. And what its findings were pretty much depends on what media you read. According to RNZ, it found the Government's response was effective but late and not communicated well enough to people. From Newsroom: ‘Lockdown, vaccine decisions considered and appropriate, Royal Commission’. So looking at that headline, you'd think nothing to see here, no criticisms, excellent, well done. ‘Covid-19 inquiry commission criticises length of Auckland lockdown and government spending’ – that's from the New Zealand Herald. Maybe read it yourself and see what you think. It's on publicly available on websites. There are video explainers, there are findings there. See for yourself.  If you were anti-the infantilisation of the country, as I was, you will read it and wonder why the commission was so temperate in its findings. If you believed the Government was your saviour and without their instructions you would have died, you will read the excuses and the findings and nod along and say, “Yes, didn't we do well?" The second phase of the inquiry tested whether the Government took a balanced approach and found overall it largely did, but said the public was not brought on board —maybe they didn't want to be on board, maybe they could start to see through the nonsense— and the public must be brought on board in the next pandemic.   One of the 24 recommendations made yesterday said that there should be more open decision making in future around the impacts on people's isolation, health, and incomes. And that's really, really important because surely, we must be allowed to question decisions, we must be able to debate them and argue against them without being considered treasonous or a conspiracy theorist or a granny killer. Look what happened when then leader of the National Party Simon Bridges grilled Ashley Bloomfield over the Ministry of Health's decision-making transparency and data at the Covid Response Select Committee hearing. In effect, just by daring to question the Director General of Health, just by asking him some tough questions, he lost his job. Cost him the job as leader of the National Party.   We have to be able to question and debate, even if the decisions are ultimately the Government's based on the best possible advice. The report confirmed, as reported at the time, that the Auckland lockdown in late 2021 went on six days longer than recommended by Ashley Bloomfield. I think Aucklanders would argue it went on six weeks longer than it should have, but hey ho, there we go. That's what they found. It also found that advice from health experts that under 18s in work shouldn't be mandated to have two vaccine doses because of the risk of cardiac myocarditis wasn't followed. Another finding was that the Auckland Northland border stayed in place over the 2021/22 Christmas period when it was advised it could be reopened.   There was also criticism of the then Labour Government's economic approach, saying policies around stimulus and inflation became unaligned from mid ‘21. For unaligned, I'd have put unhinged, but again, hey ho, it's their report. And that was despite the best advice from Treasury that spending must be temperate, timely, and targeted. The people of New Zealand are now vulnerable for at least the next 40 years to another shock, another pandemic, an earthquake. We're built on the shaky isles, you know, there's bound to be another, and we are now really vulnerable because too much money was not just spent but wasted by the previous Labour Government.   And it's not just Treasury or the Inquiry that have pointed the finger at Labour for their financial sloppiness. Auditor General John Ryan, as he was then, heavily criticised the $15 billion infrastructure spend up during the pandemic. He said he decided to look at the funding because of the scale of the investment and the potential intergenerational impacts. His criticism and list of failings by officials and ministers are many. This is from a man who could ask the hard questions and get the answers that he needed to get, unlike journos who had to go through the OIA to get any kind of answers to any pertinent questions. They were far too busy saving lives to give answers to genuine questions around lockdowns, around vaccinations, around mandates and the like. But even with the hard data in front of them, Chris Hipkins and the like just recycle the “it's hard to be sorry when you've saved lives" trope.   The inquiry finishes: “These lessons do not detract from the overall success of the pandemic response. Indeed, our findings, lessons, and recommendations are offered in the hope that they will assist decision makers to be as successful in fighting a pandemic in the future." Well, with what you know now, do you believe that the response was a success? Do you believe that when all is said and done and you look at other countries and they've done their reports, it was a success? I'll be talking to an economic policy analyst from Sweden, I spoke to him before the show and we'll be playing that next hour. They've conducted a rigorous review of their response and, you know, given the choice next time, I think that's the one we should be following. And certainly, Europe would be looking long and hard at it. Despite Sweden coming under so much criticism and heavy fire for having a light touch and open policy, they had the lowest death rate amongst all the European countries. So, there are alternatives, there are options. This is not the way, the truth, and the light. And I don't think it's treasonous or misogynist or conspiracy theoretical to say there is another way of doing things and, do you know what, it might actually be better.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government is doing its bit to protect children from themselves by banning the use of smartphones during the school day and by moving to bring in legislation restricting social media use for children under 16. The schools are doing their bit, although it's more mopping up than prevention, by bringing in counsellors to help children, some as young as eight, who've been exposed to extreme online content.  The question is what are parents doing to protect their own children? Teachers talk about hearing students discussing their gaming exploits late into the night and doom scrolling TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram, repeating objectionable things they've heard online that they don't really understand.  I'm not in the position of having to deal with young ones and smartphones, not in terms of setting the rules. The young ones in my house, the just-turned-nine year old and seven year old, love using my phone to look at videos or to add music to their playlists on Spotify, so I've put controls on the phone, but then we couldn't get some of Eminem's stuff, so we had to go for the radio edit version of Eminem. And that's fine, we work around that, but I have put controls on the phone just in case. It's not them looking for it, it's the accidental discovery of things that you cannot unsee. But I don't have to set the rules around how many hours they can have and when they can view it – that's for their parents to do.  But surely, and that's the way it works in our house, you set limits on what the kids can access, how much time they have to access it, when they can access it, and if they break those rules, their rights are rescinded. That hasn't happened yet, but they're not old enough I suppose to go looking for trouble. But surely that's the way it works. It always has worked. You set the rules and if the children break the rules, then there are consequences for that. Or has parenting suddenly been turned on its head since the year 2020?  Why on earth should schools have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counsellors to mitigate the harm children have exposed themselves to outside of school hours when they're supposed to be under parental supervision? One parent talked about getting up to go to the loo in the middle of the night and seeing the light behind the closed bedroom door – their daughter was on the phone at 1am. That's not the school's problem if she has access to material she finds harmful or if she's been exposed to material that's disturbed her.  When you're looking at the amount of money that schools say they're having to spend because the kids are so upset and beside themselves, surely that money could be better spent on activities or resources for the school that all children could enjoy, rather than have it spent on a small number of traumatised late night scrollers.   I'd really love to know what the rules are, what rules you've set. According to the Greens, it's pointless putting any kind of restrictions on children and social media use. Pointless having legislation around it because the kids will just get around any restrictions placed on them by the government. But as a parent, can you say that you have put protections in place that work, that you have got rules in place for your house that work, or has the whole concept of parenting as I understood it completely and utterly changed, that there are no rules and there are no consequences? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shipping prices could soon be rising for cheap online stores like Shein and Temu.  Changes from next month will add fees and levies to small parcels crossing the border, making them fairer and helping cover Customs costs.  It should save taxpayers $70 million in parcel subsidies.  Customs Minister Casey Costello told Kerre Woodham Mornings border control can't cope with the more than 24 million packages entering New Zealand each year.  She says the relationship between retailer and couriers may need changing, and could increase the price of some goods.  LISTEN ABOVE   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was a glorious weekend. Somewhat marred when I read this story from Anna Leask in yesterday's New Zealand Herald. I really had to I really had to reset myself after reading this. Anna writes, urgent calls for change are mounting after a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and a raft of prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe. Which it didn't. Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Chantal McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes. All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders. Men who were released under supervision and conditions designed to keep the public safe. Nathan Boulter murdered Chantal McDonald in front of her kids, 13 days after he was released from prison where he'd been sent after terrorising, abusing, and kidnapping other women. In 2022 Juliana Herrera was murdered by a convicted rapist, Joseph Brider. He'd been released on parole 72 days before he crept into her house while she was sleeping and subjected her to a prolonged sexual and physical assault before stabbing her to death. And Nicole Tuxford was murdered by Paul Pounamu Tainui, otherwise known as Paul Russell Wilson, who was on parole for the earlier rape and murder of his girlfriend. The girlfriend he'd previously killed had told her mother it was just a matter of time before she ended up dead. She knew he was going to kill her. She knew he was going to do it sooner or later, and he did, and then he was sent to prison, and then he did it again. After each woman's murder, Corrections mounted a review. Corrections confirmed it communicated and worked with police and others in a multi agency group to monitor the parolees' risk and compliance with their conditions. Clearly they haven't learned any lessons. Not after the first one, not after the second, not after the third. There'll be a fourth and a fifth. And primarily, primarily it's because these men have been given sentences where they have to come out eventually. And then it's on Corrections to try and monitor them, and they can't be monitored. They have shown through their actions that they cannot be rehabilitated, if they could be habilitated at all. If they were given preventive detention, we, the community and women in particular, wouldn't have to worry. Have a look at Australia. You know, they are not considered a particularly backward, primitive society. You wouldn't think of Australia and think, oh yeah, but they're nutters, you know, they chop people's hands off in the square. No, they don't do that. But what they do do, is keep the community safe. A man who raped and killed an international student was sentenced to 30 years minimum jail term.  The Crown appealed that because they said despite the fact he was 20 at the time of the attack, that he pleaded guilty, he had no criminal record and had not premeditated the offence, the Crown said its sheer violence meant the safety of the community needed to be placed above the limited prospect of him being rehabilitated when he was released. They argued the minimum 30 year sentence was manifestly inadequate for a 20 year old who pleaded guilty, who'd never had a history of criminal offending. And what do our judges do? Nine years, 10 years, 12 years for people with long, documented histories of violence and abuse. Another one, Derek Barrett, 32 initially sentenced to at least 34 years in jail in 2017 in Sydney for killing his 26 year old niece who was boarding with him and his wife at the time. It's 46 years. That's what the judge handed out, 46 years, and he's eligible for parole in 34 He probably won't get it because they found out later he'd done all sorts of unspeakable things when they found a USB. That's what that's how much the courts in Australia value the lives of women. Innocent women who have their lives completely and utterly destroyed in prolonged assaults by men who are very, very sick. Now, in our case, over the ditch in New Zealand, we knew these men were sick. They'd shown they were sick. They'd shown they had absolutely no interest in rehabilitation, and they'd been recalled to jail a number of times for assaults against women before they murdered again. Had our judges applied the same consideration in sentencing these men with their proven history, the other two in Australia had never put a foot wrong that anybody had found out about. They might have been deviant creeps in their in their private life, hadn't commit you know, they hadn't shown to the judges that they'd done anything wrong. These ones have. Join the dots. Could we make it any clearer? All three of those women named in Anna's article and many, many other women would still be alive today if we applied the sort of sentencing that Australian judges think is perfectly reasonable to apply to monsters who are sick and depraved and see women as a means of satisfaction. What will it take for our judges to hand down sentences to offenders that truly reflect the horror of their crimes. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Over the weekend, a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe. Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Shantelle McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes. All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders. Professor Emeritus in Sociology at University of Canterbury and Criminologist Greg Newbold joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the importance of NZ courts cracking down on violent crime, including a call to issue 'life without parole' sentences.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An explosive poll shows National has reached its lowest result since forming a Government, as Labour climbs ahead. The Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll has Labour on 34.4% as National drops six points behind to 28.4%.  The Greens are on 10.5%, with NZ First trailing slightly on 9.7%, ACT on 7.5%, and Te Pati Māori on 3.2%.  Director of Sherson Willis, Trish Sherson told Kerre Woodham the poll is a warning light.  She says 28% isn’t a death certificate, but it does indicate that National has a connection problem as well as a numbers problem.   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The medicinal cannabis industry could be worth billions of dollars to the country in the not-so-distant future, if regulation's improved.   ACT leader David Seymour says he's looking at further improvements to speed up processing for exports of the plant.  He's open to improving regulation domestically as well.  Co-founder of NUBU Pharmaceuticals Mark Dye told Kerre Woodham New Zealand was one of the first countries to start cultivating cannabis for medical use.  He says the sooner we lean into it, and back it, the sooner New Zealand could become known one of the best cannabis growing regions in the world.    LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When I heard David Seymour talking up the potential of New Zealand's medicinal cannabis industry, I was immediately transported to a world where the Far North was once again a thriving powerhouse of the New Zealand economy, as it used to be. Where bright young people could get meaningful jobs without having to leave home, where once again New Zealand's brilliant scientists combined with primary producers, just as they do in agriculture, to innovate and disrupt.  Now, I realise I was getting a little ahead of myself, but only a bit. The medicinal cannabis export business is growing. A Ministry of Health paper released under the Official Information Act showed we exported more than a tonne of cannabis flower in 2024. That document was obtained by Newstalk ZB and showed that was more than double the 485.6 kilograms exported in 2023 So, you know, there is potential for growth there.  I had the pleasure of visiting ANTG's cannabis growing facility in Armidale in New South Wales towards the end of last year. I had no idea what I was expecting to see when I went to see a cannabis growing lab, but it was just like visiting a high-level medical research lab, which is what it is. It's not a couple of old stoners growing some weed in the back garden. The security is military level. The level of hygiene and sanitation is exactly as you'd expect to see in a medical laboratory.  Before you go in to where the bud has been dried and then is taken off the plant and put into the sterilised capsules to be sent off to its buyers, you have to go into a hermetically sealed room and then you have to put on outerwear and outer shoes and masks and then you can only go through one at a time. You're not allowed to pick anything up or put anything in your pocket. When you come back, you have to take off your outerwear. Like, it's the full rig. It's a full operation, as it should be.  There's an entire research branch where you've got young graduates and young doctorate young people going through their doctorates working on they're either working in medicine, alternative therapies, horticulture, so there's a wide range of skills where they've been given research grants to either come up with ways of alleviating common conditions, get more out of the plant itself, find new ways of growing that are more that need less electricity or, you know, less of the anyway, it was amazing. I can't even begin to explain what I saw. Unless you've seen it, you probably unless you have been to something like this, you probably wouldn't appreciate the level of sophistication, the level of technology, the level of security that goes into exporting cannabis.  We're so used to seeing cannabis as a way of gangs making money and people being sent to jail and it being something dirty and underhand. It's a complete reset of your thinking when you see it in this particular setting and this particular environment. In an interview, Seymour noted that people have said the industry could be the new high value export similar to New Zealand's wine industry. He said medicinal cannabis is some people's drug of choice and they're prepared to pay a lot of money for it. New Zealand could become, just as we are with wine, a high value powerhouse.  He said the Government was looking to give exporters more permanent licenses to reduce red tape and bureaucracy and saw the rise in exports as a positive for the New Zealand economy. We need to get money into the country. Not everybody likes this stuff, but there is definitely a market for it, Seymour said. I would venture to suggest that not everybody likes the idea of cannabis being sold as a recreational drug. Some people really don't like that. Some people don't like the stuff because it's gang currency. Some people don't like the stuff because there are turf wars over it.  But that's illegal cannabis. What we're talking about is medicinal cannabis, which is a whole universe away from the underhand drug dealing that goes on and is undertaken by gangs. This is next level with doctors, with scientists, with horticulturalists, with exporters putting their back into it and turning it into a billion-dollar industry. I think Seymour's quite right. I think we need to get absolutely in behind it and the very areas that would grow it best, where the investment should be, are the areas that need the jobs and the economic boost the most.  The place I visited in New South Wales is just one of many, but is in a small rural area. Their primary industry appears to be private schools where farmers' daughters can take themselves and their ponies and be educated. And apart from that, it's medicinal cannabis. And it keeps really bright young minds in the district. There's a university there and the really bright ones get the research grants to be able to stay and work on cures for epilepsy and irritable bowel syndrome. There's a whole range of things they're working on. So I'm all for it. I see a golden future or a green-gold future.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'd be getting seriously brassed off if I was a primary school teacher, especially if I was a non-union primary school teacher. The NZEI has been in protracted negotiations with the Public Service Commissioner and the Government over pay and conditions. Every other teaching union has negotiated its own deal for its teachers, its principals, and its support staff, but not the NZEI. The Treaty of Waitangi was a big sticking point for them for a while, but according to Sir Brian Roche, who was on with Mike Hosking this morning, that's no longer the major roadblock it has been.   At the moment, primary teachers are teaching the new curriculum, and it's amazing. I've seen the homework books. If you've got little ones in your house, primary school students in your house, you will have seen them too. It's your building block stuff. The kids are responding to it because the teachers are presenting it well. They're doing the job already. They're presenting the curriculum, and in my case, I can see that they're doing it well. The children are engaged, they're excited. The older siblings are like, “why didn't we get these books? Why didn't we have these?" They feel like they've missed out, and to a certain extent they have. A whole generation of kids has missed out.   So they're doing a great job, but they're not getting paid for it because the NZEI is holding out. They're refusing to budge on the pay and conditions negotiations. They chose not to present the latest offer to its members, so the primary teachers couldn't even decide for themselves whether this was a deal they could accept or not. Sir Brian Roche, the Public Service Commissioner, sounds increasingly brassed off. He told Mike Hosking this morning that there is no question that the union works hard for its members, but he does wonder whether the union's acting in the best interests of teachers by failing to even inform its members of the conditions of the latest offer.  “They work very hard for their union members. There's no question about that and provide a range of services. But on this particular issue, I find it deeply frustrating that our offers are not being put directly to their members.”  Why would you not? Members of the union have now rejected three proposed settlements. An offer agreed in December was comparable to what secondary teachers accepted last year, but ultimately, when the union took it back to its members, they didn't ratify it. Teachers know there are no lump sums or back pay available in this bargaining round, according to Sir Brian, so every week without settlement is money the teachers aren't receiving – between $50 and $76 per week.   What exactly is it? What is it that the unions find so repugnant that they cannot bring themselves to even bring it to their members? And if you are a union member, do you accept that your delegates are qualified to make the decisions on your behalf? Do you trust that they will do right by you? Surely, you'd want to see what was being offered, wouldn't you? Or is that what you pay your union dues for? Sir Brian says that he's looking at a way to present the pay and conditions offer to non-union teachers. We've been trying to find how many non-union teachers there are. Apparently that's secret squirrel stuff and it's buried deep – not even AI has the answer to how many non union members of NZEI there are. We're trying to find out. So if you're a non union member, you'd be getting even more frustrated. Apparently, he's bound by confidentiality agreements where he can't present to the non-union members what he's presenting to the union. But he says he's looking for workarounds on that to allow the non-union members to get on and get that extra money in their pockets right now for the work they're doing right now, and many of them are doing really well right now.   Presumably primary teachers are in the classroom teaching, doing what they do best, so they can't respond. Maybe there's a few home with, you know, head colds or what have you for whatever reason. But I would love to hear your view on whether your union is doing right by you, whether you're like, “Absolutely, hold fast, stay firm, don't give in to the government overlords on this one." But if you are a union member, do you feel that your delegates do right by you? Are you getting value for money from the dues that are deducted from your pay every month or every two weeks?   When you look at this, it just seems so old fashioned. And I totally get that unions are there for people who don't have a voice, who can't speak up for themselves, who haven't got the bargaining power. But surely articulate, intelligent, capable, self-possessed teachers would be able to bargain their own pay and conditions. Why would you need a union? Why would you need a union delegate to do it for you? And I guess the same goes for, I don't even know who's the big unions anymore. I think you've got the ones for the cleaners, home help. They do a great job because a lot of those people wouldn't be in the position to throw their weight around and demand better pay and conditions. So good if you're doing it on their behalf. But seriously, unions are going to negotiate themselves out of existence soon. They're halfway there already. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I just want to get your opinion. This follows a, shall we say, spirited discussion in the office around people who are trapped overseas and how they get home. I'd love to hear from people who might have been in this position before, trapped overseas because of acts of war or closed borders or forces of nature. What did you do and what was your expectation? Did you think it was the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home? And if you had chosen to live overseas and then the world turned mad, again, is it the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home?   I find it really interesting and a little bit sad that people are complaining the government taxpayer should be doing more to help family members trapped in Dubai because of the enormous disruption to flights caused by the Iranian conflict. Sure, the Government sent a Defence Force plane to Iran last year during the Israel-Iran conflict, and during Covid we partnered with Australia to get stranded travellers out of Wuhan in 2020, but I really don't believe there should be an expectation that if you have chosen to travel or chosen to live in another country and then the mud hits the fan for whatever reason, that you will automatically and immediately be rescued.   I had family living overseas in London for a while, and if they had suddenly found themselves in the middle of a war, I'd be doing all I could to get them out. And if there was a plane there, I would want them on it, whether it was a government plane, a commercial aircraft, whatever, I would be doing all I could to get them out of there, absolutely. But I wouldn't expect the government taxpayer to do it for me. I have been stranded overseas before when the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull blew up. I was in Paris doing the Paris Marathon, airspace over Europe was closed, travel insurance didn't help, and you were on your own. And there are worse places to be than trapped in Paris in the springtime, I will grant you that. And it was ash blowing into the cities, not Iranian missiles, but statistically right now, although that could change at any minute, there would be more chance of me being run over on the Champs Élysées back then than killed by a missile in Dubai right now.   But that's statistics and that emotion doesn't come into it, I get that. When your loved ones are stranded overseas, you want them home and you want them safe. But is it on the taxpayer to provide that? I don't think so, but am I being a heartless moll? I've been accused of that before. But I just, you know, I get the emotion, I totally do, because I've been there. You want your loved ones home, you want to get home, but I never assumed that my first port of call would be the Government. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I was listening to the podcast ‘The Rest is Politics’ last night. The speakers were saying that Trump's inclination to invade countries at will, will almost certainly result in nuclear proliferation and will drive countries to find protection in the shadow of Russia and China. The thinking being, what will stop the big orange guy from invading me? Nuclear warheads. Or a mate as big as he is. And then what do you know, a couple of hours later President Macron announced that France is to boost its nuclear arsenal and extend the deterrent to cover other European countries. It's a major development of its nuclear defence policy. The next 50 years, he said, will be an era of nuclear weapons. He said eight other European countries, the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, and Denmark had agreed to participate in a new advanced deterrent strategy. The aim, he said, is to convince potential adversaries that if they have the audacity to attack France, there will be an unsustainable price to be paid.  Anyway, back to the future we go. Remember MAD magazine, the American satirical magazine? It was huge in the 60s and 70s and took its name from mutually assured destruction. Sure, press the button, but if you press the button, I press the button and we both go. The catchphrase for MAD magazine was “What, me worry?" And yep, we're back there. You just watch those Golden Visas fly off the shelf as wealthy Americans and Europeans look for a safe haven. Our isolation can work to our advantage.   At the moment, when it comes to nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads, there are nine countries that have them. Russia has around 5,500, the US just over 5,000, China 600 – they're rapidly expanding their stockpile. France has 290 stable and mostly sea based as of yesterday, but today it'll be a different story. The UK 225, India 180, they're increasing their stockpile, Pakistan 170, increasing their stockpile. Israel has kept shtum about how many it has, and North Korea, who would know? But experts say they're actively testing and expanding. You've also got countries that host nuclear weapons: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey host US and NATO weapons. Belarus has Russian tactical nuclear weapons.  So, 50 years of nuclear weaponry Macron is predicting, where mutually assured destruction is the only thing stopping people from pressing the button. It happened before and we got through it. And it does, I mean, you would have to have a death wish for yourself and your people and your country. But are there any guarantees on human behaviour these days? Given our isolation, will that work to our advantage? Hopefully, to a certain extent. We don't have anything of major military strategic importance. No minerals that you can only find here that can be used to make a super bomb, and then we should be relatively safe.   As of late February this year, the Active Investor Plus, the Golden Visa program, has seen 573 applications received, 196 applications approved, and you can imagine that that will increase. Coming back to The Rest is Politics’ theory that as a result of America going into Venezuela and attacking Iran, that will see smaller countries looking to buy nuclear weapons to keep themselves safe or looking to cosy up to Russia and China. That theory is all well and good, but we should remember that having nuclear weapons didn't stop the US from attacking Iran. They just neutralised the nukes before they went in. And having Russia as your mate, “don't attack me, I've got Russia in my corner," is all very well and good, but as Syria's Bashar al Assad and Venezuela's Maduro and now the mullahs in Iran have found, Russia right now is all talk and no trousers. It can do a great line in rhetoric and they've given their friends a lot of verbal support, which will be pretty cold comfort, but when it comes to on the ground troops and military resources to go in and back up their mates, they're all tied up in Ukraine right now and Russia won't want to commit to wars on two fronts in two different zones.   So, mutually assured destruction, the threat of one keeping someone pressing the button keeping you from pressing yours, worked before. Tensions eased and there was a relative period of peace. Can you see the same thing happening again? Tensions will rise, tensions will get high, people will get very nervous, and then we can all relax. Do you see New Zealand's isolation as its best defence?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Golfer Daniel Hillier's won the New Zealand Open by two strokes at Millbrook, eight days after getting married. The 27-year-old finished at  22-under overall after a final round four-under par 67, marking the first time a Kiwi has won the tournament since 2017. Hillier told Kerre Woodham that the crowds were among the best he's played in front of. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When it comes to telling stories about what I did in my weekend, I thought I had a pretty good one, but Donald Trump takes the cake. Bombing the hell out of Iran and taking out the Ayatollah Khamenei and other key members of the ruling theocracy surely trumps what most of us did. As you will know by now, the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran beginning Saturday. There were talks going on between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear programme, or what remains of it. But the US and Israel decided the talk was going nowhere, and so on Saturday the strikes began. Iran responded to the attacks with missile and air strikes across the region, including in Israel, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq, creating havoc across the Middle East. Hundreds have been killed, the majority in Iran. Despite that, that's nowhere near as many have been killed Iranians as have been killed by their own government's agents in the form of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Donald Trump says the operation is ahead of schedule. Commentators have said it's difficult to know what will happen next in Iran, what the outcome of taking out the top tier of Iran's rulers will bring about. But it's difficult to know what President Trump's endgame is too. We don't know what's going to happen next with him, as Middle East correspondent at The Economist and political author Gregg Carlstrom said this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast. We've heard wildly different stories from Donald Trump about what he's trying to achieve here. His video message announcing the the war on Saturday morning suggested that the aim was regime change, that he wanted Iranians to come out into the streets and overthrow the government and take control in Iran. But then in an interview with The Atlantic magazine that was published just about an hour ago, he said that the Iranians want to talk, and so he's going to talk to them. Maybe there's a diplomatic deal that he can make with this regime that just a day ago he was suggesting to overthrow. So I think it's hard to assess whether this is, you know, successful or not from the American perspective because it's not entirely clear what the Americans want. Indeed, or what will happen next. It's an ongoing situation. There is apparently a complex but clear process to select a successor to Iran's Supreme Leader, who was also the Commander in Chief. In line with Iran's constitution, a three member interim leadership council is now in charge. They will rule until the body tasked with selecting the top cleric, the Assembly of Experts, completes its work. They can choose an individual or they can choose a leadership council. Trump just a few hours ago told a reporter from The Atlantic that the country's new leadership, so it would be this interim leadership council, wants to talk with him. He plans to do that. He said they want to talk, I've agreed to talk, so I'll be talking to them. They should have done it sooner. They should have given what was very practical and easy to do sooner. They waited too long. There is no great love amongst the people of Iran for the current regime. There are reports of Iranian citizens rejoicing in the streets in the midst of the strikes, ecstatic that the Ayatollah is gone. And you can understand why, as I referenced, since the beginning of the 25 26 Iranian protests, there have been widespread massacres of civilians at the behest of the Iranian government. According to the Iranian government, oh, we've only killed 3,117 which is a hell of a lot more than the combined US Israeli air strikes. The people themselves say we think it's around 36 and a half thousand machine gunned down in the streets, making these among the largest massacres in the modern history of Iran. There's been a near total internet shutdown by Iranian authorities as part of their crackdown on the protests, restricting communication inside the country and limiting the flow of information about the killings to the outside world. They are bad people, which has put the which has put the lovies in a quandary. Hate Trump, but Iranian leader bad too. What do we do? Incredibly, the world is more complex than a black and white scenario. So what happens next? Nobody knows. Ideally, the Iranian people would decide for themselves in a peaceful transition from theocracy to democracy, but I would not put money on it. Iran holds the world's third or fourth largest proven oil reserves, representing about 12 to 13% of the global total as of early 2026. That makes it of interest to many, many countries. And you'd have to wonder whether this is the end of the United Nations and the re-emergence of the strongest country wins. Might makes right. There is absolutely no doubt that the UN is a rotting, corrupt, inept gravy train full of mediocre international officials who are I'm sure there are some who are there for very, very good reasons. The vast majority appear to be there to feather their own nests. It's failing and has been failing for a very, very, very long time. For a couple of decades it did good work. It kept the world peaceful. It hasn't been working for a long time, utterly ineffectual and costing countries a fortune to maintain for nothing.  But is Trump invading countries on a whim the best option? The next best alternative? There's got to be something in between. He even went against his own constitution by going, you know what, Iran, I'm in. I'm going in. I don't know. The world is an uncertain and uneasy place right now, and I see no solution anytime soon. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The 105th New Zealand Golf Open has teed off at Millbrook.  It’s a unique Pro-Am event, where 156 professionals compete alongside amateur partners, and is the only Open tournament in the world to be played in this format.  Australian Ryan Peake won the title in 2025, and has returned to defend it in 2026.  Chairman John Hart told Kerre Woodham the Pro-Am format is the reason the tournament is so successful, and that if it were solely professionals, they’d struggle to hold the funding.  He says it’s established itself as one of the leading Pro-Am tournaments in the world, and has gotten fantastic recognition from tours they work with and professional players.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Another way of keeping older folks safer on the roads.  Aucklander Boyd Steel has started a business producing ‘S’ plates – a car sticker designed to let other drivers know there’s an older driver behind the wheel.  The blue sticker is similar to the yellow ‘L’ plate for learner drivers, signalling that the driver may be slower or less confident and asking for patience.   Steel told Kerre Woodham it was inspired by his nana, for who driving was an important part of her freedom, but had become slow driver towards the end of her life.  “It wasn’t until sort of after she passed, and I sort of started seeing other senior drivers on the road, I just started thinking, God, I hope no one ever gave her a hard time.”   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.