Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

The Official Cash Rate has been left unchanged, 2.25%, expected by all the commentators, but perhaps less expected was a dovish view of the future. It was the new Reserve Bank Governor's, well she's not that new I suppose, the newish Reserve Bank Governor's first OCR review, having come on board at the end of '25. She is pretty optimistic about the economy. She said it will continue to recover, but she understands that many households are not feeling it yet. Must be rather annoying being told, no, everything's fine, everything's turning around, everything's great, while you're looking down the back of the couch for coins to get the kids' school lunches.   But there are great numbers coming out of our primary industry sector and thank God for you. Just take a moment on your tractor, in your shed, on the motorbike, in the fields, just take a little moment to have a big deep breath and consider yourself congratulated and thanked. Kiwifruit, dairy, sheep, beef, yet again that sector, our primary industry sector, is doing the heavy lifting to keep the engine of the economy running. How many times? And we should point out, you were doing it with one hand and one leg tied behind your back for much of the past decade. So thank you again for keeping us going, producing stuff that the rest of the world wants.   However, we can't depend on you, we shouldn't be as reliant upon you as we all are. Trends change, markets change, you know, all of a sudden, the world will decide that, oh I don't know, refined sugar is the way to go, not protein, and all of a sudden, the world will change. Unlikely to go for refined sugar, but you know what I mean. You're also vulnerable to climate, you know, a good season needs good weather. You're vulnerable to external markets. To a certain extent you are not the author of your own fortune, you are very dependent on outside and external sources. And if you're dependent on that, so too are we. We need to find other strands, other sectors to build up. You know, technology would be ideal and we've made some great marks in that, bioscience, fantastic, but not houses.   Let's not look at an unproductive sector of the economy to provide us with wealth again. House prices have come back a little in the North Island, Auckland's average asking price is once again over a million dollars, and you should see the tat you get for that. That's up 9% from December. Tale of two islands: Christchurch, Queenstown, Otago, Southland, all seen significant increases in prices. But the “drop in value” has seen a drop in confidence. Reserve Bank's Paul Conway says the reduced prominence of the wealth effect from higher house prices is a risk to the economic recovery. It's a big change, he says, for the New Zealand economy to not have that increase in house prices as a kicker to aggregate demand. He says there may well have been structural changes in the housing market that means an increase in demand for housing no longer equates with higher house prices.   And it's true, for a couple of decades Kiwi property owners have been living off the wealth of their main asset. There were astronomical rises in the value of homes around the country and people felt wealthy and spent like they were wealthy. A chronic undersupply of homes, high migration, low interest rates saw huge rises in the value of homes around the country and so people spent like they were rich. All of a sudden, a home became far more than a place you lived in, it was an asset with equity which you could use to springboard yourself into wealth, as so many of the ads that we ran on this station told you. People spent like drunken sailors and the economy boomed. Fast track to the post Covid slump and people have seen their house prices drop – in some horrible cases they owe more on their house than they can sell it for. And as Paul Conway says, there may well have been structural changes to the housing market. High prices for the essentials means there's less disposable income in households and if one of you has been made redundant, it has been a tough few years. We've lost our groove. But as Reserve Bank Governor Dr. Anne Bremen told Mike Hosking this morning, there's enormous potential in the New Zealand economy and there are reasons to be optimistic.  “I think it's a great economy. I think New Zealanders are underestimating actually the potential going forward in the New Zealand economy. We're already seeing some sectors doing really well, agriculture, manufacturing is starting going, and I do expect this to broaden in this year. So I'm very positive. We actually think there's quite a lot of what we call spare capacity in the economy, so we think that the economy can grow at a higher pace without causing so much inflationary pressure because there is still high unemployment, firms can increase, you know, manufacturing without having, they're starting to invest actually, which is also really good to see. So we do think there is spare capacity. And I know people, there is a lot of good potential in this economy. People should be a bit more optimistic.”  There you go. So many people are telling us to be optimistic. We must be optimistic. We're all going to be optimistic, we're going to stay after class until we're all optimistic. Okay, I mean, a little bit hard when you've got the, you know, the infrastructure plan coming out yesterday which said that pretty much we need so much and we can't afford it. But there is room to grow in the economy as Dr. Bremen said, and as people know. But if you're not feeling it, you're not going to be spending.   Back in the day when we were using our houses as ATMs, I mean I was one of them, we bought a house in Grey Lynn because it was the only place we could afford. I think it was about $250,000 —might have been closer to $300,000— which seemed a fortune at the time, but then the house price just went up and up and up so you could afford to do the renos. We could take it from an uninsulated place where the floorboards were open to the bare dirt floor underneath, as it had been since 1890. You could do the renos, you could do the landscaping of the garden, you were spending and New Zealand businesses were the ones who benefited from that.   So if you're not doing that, where are the sustainable businesses going to get their work? If people don't feel confident enough about improving their homes or, you know, using the money that they've built up in their homes, how do you replace that quite significant chunk of money go round? Do you feel confident? Do you feel optimistic? Can you see light at the end of the tunnel? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government will today reveal its back down on controversial Auckland housing intensification plans amid fierce public criticism.   New planning rules would currently allow another 2 million homes in Auckland.  But last month the Government announced it'll water down the rules with an announcement expected this afternoon.   Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told Kerre Woodham a balance needs to be struck.   He says Auckland has to grow with affordable housing, but quite rightly some Aucklanders have said they don't want big buildings next to their homes.  He’s also allaying concerns about a proposal for a $9 toll on Auckland's Harbour Bridge.  The Infrastructure Commission recommended tolling the existing bridge, and second new crossing, to reduce construction costs on the Crown.   But Luxon told Woodham it's only an idea.   He says the Government hasn't decided whether it'll be a new bridge or a tunnel yet, and decisions on how to fund it will come later.  He says tolls are the only way to pull forward the development of new roads, faster.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The National Infrastructure Plan was released yesterday, and it makes for grim reading. I don't think anyone expected good news, but nonetheless a cold hard dose of reality is always unwelcome, especially when you've been wilfully ignoring the obvious for years. The plan looks at 17 sectors covering central government, local authorities, and commercially regulated utilities, and lays out a 30 year outline looking at how New Zealand can improve the way it plans, funds, maintains, and delivers infrastructure. So far, so very grown up, but really this is something that should have been done 30 years ago because in a nutshell, we have a huge infrastructure deficit. We need hospitals, we need roads, we need bridges, we need alternatives, we need cycleways, we need sewage, we need water pipes, we need electricity, we need alternative electricity, huge infrastructure deficit across all of the sectors.   But even if we had billions of dollars, which we don't, throwing money at the problem doesn't seem to be the only answer, because we are very, very poor at getting bang for our buck as was highlighted in the plan. Over the last 20 years, New Zealand has averaged spending about 5.8% of its GDP on infrastructure, which is one of the highest rates of spending in the OECD. Yet we rank near the bottom of the OECD in terms of efficiency of spend and we came fourth to last in terms of asset management. So we spend all this money, get very little for it, and then don't look after it when we have it. I mean look at Moa Point – it's a brilliant example of what happens when you do not spend money on the boring stuff like maintenance and upkeep. The whole country is basically a Moa Point waiting to happen.   The plan recommended that 60 cents of every dollar of infrastructure spend should be allocated to renewals and maintenance. A key theme of the plan was that governments have tended to underfund maintenance. That funding's routinely deferred in favour of the “new and shiny”, to quote the authors of the plan. It's like looking at your house and thinking, God, that plumbing needs fixing, that pipe's looking a bit iffy, we really need to paint the house because those weatherboards are going to get rotten otherwise. Oh boring, let's take the kids to Fiji. That's pretty much what we've been doing as a country for far too long. And it's not just one government, it's successive governments, National and Labour, who have let us down. And they've let us down because we have let them let us down. We don't want to hear the news either. Voters are as much to blame as the governments because we don't want to hear the hard messages. The plan says we cannot afford to have everything we want and in fact need as a country and the infrastructure jobs that we do need to do will have to pay for beyond our general taxes.  “The reality is asking people to pay for things is difficult and we've pushed the boat out quite a bit as a government on tolling and that's because ultimately roads have to be paid for. And we've tried to move the system towards more of a user pays model and we think that's fair. The original Harbour Bridge in Auckland was of course paid for with a toll and we've just signalled quite clearly that when you're dropping billions and billions of dollars, which is what the second harbour crossing will be, it will be the biggest infrastructure project ever built in New Zealand, that's a project where we do think it will end up being tolled because that's a fair way of paying for the project.   “Here's the reality, roads and in fact all infrastructure has to be paid for. It has to be and you can use user charges for that through tolling or through petrol tax or a combination of both, which is essentially what we do. You can borrow for that, but of course that has to be paid for too. Money is not, despite what the Labour Party think, debt is not free. We already have a huge amount of debt that was built up during the Covid years that has to be repaid and we are desperately as a government getting the books back in order so that when the next shock comes along, the next Cyclone Gabrielle or whatever, we're in a position where we could actually deal with it. At the moment of course we're in a very vulnerable situation and the Treasury says we've got to keep the debt levels under control, otherwise our international borrowing costs will go up and then everybody's interest rates will go up and then you're in banana republic territory. Then you can't even meet the debt repayments on what you've already borrowed.”  That was Minister for Infrastructure Chris Bishop talking to Mike Hosking this morning. So it's grim reading. As I say, successive governments are at fault and so are we voters. We want everything done for us and we want the government to pay for it. We don't want to pay more in tax though when we want the government to pay for it. We want all the benefits our great grandparents had in the 60s without being willing to pay the sort of tax they were paying in the 60s. We have to wake up and be willing to vote for governments that are going to make tough decisions. And to help us do that, National and Labour need to join forces, get together and agree on the tough stuff. That the age of universal Super needs to go up, allowing for people to collect less early, sure, when you've got the tough jobs, but you know, we can dither around this but ultimately that's what needs to happen. We need to agree on an infrastructure program that will involve maintenance and building and won't be subject to the whims of politics. We're going to need to see more governance, less politicking. We need that to start this election, otherwise the main parties will be fighting it out to govern a country that isn't worth living in. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An ACT MP is looking to improve and extend the End of Life Choice Act.  Todd Stephenson has proposed a member’s bill that would incorporate all 25 of the recommendations made by the Ministry of Health in their review of the Act.   He wants to restore the original intent of David Seymour’s earlier bill, addressing the “overly restrictive” six-month prognosis requirement.   Stephenson told Kerre Woodham some elements of the Act are working really well, but there are others, such as the six-month requirement, that aren’t working and aren’t taking into account some people’s circumstances.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Act MP Todd Stephenson has been looking to improve and extend the End of Life Bill since around August of last year. His new bill, for which he's seeking support across the House or has his fingers crossed it'll be drawn from the ballot, would incorporate every single recommendation made by the Ministry of Health's review into the End of Life Choice Act. He wants to restore the original intent of David Seymour's earlier member's bill by addressing what he calls the overly restrictive six-month prognosis requirement.   So along with the recommendations, he wants to see the End of Life Bill extended. He says the narrow threshold has excluded people with terminal diagnoses who are suffering intolerably despite being in an irreversible decline. They are not going to get better. It's just going to take them a very long time to die. His new and improved bill would replace the arbitrary cutoff at six months with a test that reflects what he calls medical reality, recognising that death doesn't always follow a calendar.   The review into the Act, which was released at the end of 2024 found that the Act was working pretty much as it was intended. More than 2,400 people had requested an assisted death at the time of the review. More than 970 had received an assisted death since the Act came into force on the 7th of November in 2021. There were some minor tweaks that could be made and those would be incorporated into Todd Stephenson's bill, but overall, the review found that the bill was achieving its primary purpose.   However, a report out today from Alex Penk, who is the CEO of Ethos, a registered charity that offers advice, advocacy and education to promote the rights of conscience, religion and belief, says the law already goes too far and certainly does not need to be extended. The report, Penk's report, says assisted dying is already highly controversial. He says most doctors don't want to be involved. I can certainly believe that some doctors would not want to be involved, but I'd be interested to know if that is in fact correct. There would be a range of views across the medical profession when it comes to assisted dying, just as there is in the general population. I can understand some who would not want a bar of it and some who would be happy and see it as a as a generous service.   Penk says the bill would introduce euthanasia for long term conditions and disabilities like chronic heart conditions, frailty, diabetes, renal failure, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease. He says this would force doctors and care facilities into more conscience conflicts. He says doctors have to use ethical judgment all the time, but the bill sends a message they're just supposed to do what the State tells them and there'll be a real risk it'll force ethically minded people out of medicine. I cannot see it as the State dictating. How is the State dictating? The State has put a framework in place to ensure that it's only the person who wants assisted dying who can make that request. They have to go through hoops before they can be granted that request. It's not automatic. There are really strict criteria and doctors don't have to administer end of life injections or however it is they do it – I'm assuming it's injections. They don't have to perform the act that would take a life. They can say, No, I don't believe in it. I would rather save a life than end it. Not for me. I'll give you the name of a doctor who does believe in it."   So how is the State dictating? It's not telling doctors they must kill their patients. It's not telling people they must die if they have a long-term degenerative disease. As far as I'm aware, it's about a person's choice. And on the ethics side of thing, why is it ethical to keep a person alive when they don't want to be, but they don't fit that six-month criteria? Alex Penk is perfectly within his rights to choose not to take an early exit. Doctors are perfectly within their rights to say they'd rather save lives than end them. And I want to continue to have the right and have it improved to be able to call it quits when there is no longer any value for me to be here. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Five million dollars is being injected to revitalise one of Auckland's longest-standing shopping locations. The private capital will be used to overhaul the historic Queens Arcade, turning it into a boutique luxury retail precinct. Construction at the lower Queen Street site will begin in April and is due for completion in November. Queens Arcade Property Manager Ian Wright told Kerre Woodham the project has been over two years in the making, but they believe the timing is absolutely right. He says there’s a lot of positive things happening in the CBD – foot traffic is returning, the new convention centre has opened, the CRL is opening soon, and cruise ships are still coming in. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We thought we'd start with Eden Park given that the number of concerts allowed annually at the Auckland stadium will almost triple. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, and Nick Sautner, CEO of Eden Park, among others, confirmed the details of a State of Origin fixture at a press conference at Eden Park this morning, along with the news that Eden Park will host up to 12 large concerts, 20 medium sized concerts per year on any day without having to go through the hoops of resource consent. At the moment, they can host 12 concerts and they can't be from more than six different artists or acts. So Ed Sheeran does two nights or the Hot Wheels does two days, but it can only be six artists or acts. Nighttime sport will also be allowed on any day including Sundays as long as the games finish by 10 30 And the first State of Origin match outside Australia in 40 years. That must have taken some negotiating. It is a lot and it's very exciting for Auckland and indeed for New Zealand. It's expected the State of O will attract more than 10,000 international visitors from Australia and when they come, they spend. The changes to Eden Park's rules and settings follow an investigation into whether the current rules for the park as set down under the Auckland Unitary Plan are limiting economic growth. And Chris Bishop said the investigation had found that, well, yes indeed, the rules are overly restrictive, out of step with modern stadium use, and are directly constraining economic activity. Eden Park CEO Nick Sautner says Eden Park has shown it's more than capable of hosting big events and he's pleased the government's giving them the opportunity to make the most of the stadium. This weekend we've got the Edinburgh Tattoo. The Premier of Queensland came out yesterday and said $39 million of economic benefit. Jehovah's Witness delivered 3.5 million visitors to Auckland and New Zealand. So we are a strategic asset for New Zealand and a community asset for Auckland. I do want to acknowledge the community. We have over 97% support. This has been about engaging with the community, transparency, and also careful event management. Yes, so you can understand why he's excited. You can understand why a lot of promoters, festival goers, sports fans are excited. But I do feel for the residents who bought their homes in the area knowing what the rules were at the time they bought the houses. Now they have seen the rules change. But so many people around the country have seen their neighbourhoods change around them. They are not isolated in this. People who bought a home with a lovely house next door, one careful set of neighbours, all of a sudden it's a great big housing development and where there was one house there are now 12 That is a big change for a neighbourhood. Nothing stays the same. It makes absolutely no sense to have a stadium that is only used a few times a year. And I'd go further and say it's immoral to have that amount of land, prime land in the inner city, being underutilised. If you are not going to use it as a stadium, then have the trust give it over to the government and build a Kāinga Ora housing development, put more people into homes in a prime position next to work, near play. You can't have a stadium sitting there doing nothing. That makes no sense at all. And if you've got a motivated trust and a motivated CEO that wants to do as much as they possibly can, and they have contorted themselves trying to come up with different ways to make use of the stadium. Art in the Park, beautiful event, not a traditional use for a sports stadium, but a successful one. There are so many ways to use the stadium. I accept that there will be much more disruption for those who have bought there, and for those who bought when the rules were what they were, I can understand why you'd be a bit grumpy. Nick says 97% of the community's on board, which is a pretty good stat if that is so. You can't hold back that kind of economic growth, that kind of success, that kind of feel good atmosphere because 3% of the neighbourhood's grumpy and doesn't want to share. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. If your neighbourhood has changed and the rules have changed around you, can you understand the concerns that a few of the residents might have? For those who live in and around the area, is it going to be a win for you if you're a business? If you're a resident, can you put up with it for the sake of the wider good? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've been saying every morning to Helen, God, would you look at what's happening in Wellington? Look at what has oh! Like one of those people, usually men, watching the television going, look what she's wearing, come here and have a look at this. Have a look at that. God. Oh, but I'm like that about the waste going into the ocean off Wellington. That's far more important than what a reporter may or may not be wearing. It is hard to comprehend the sheer amount of waste being pumped into Wellington's ocean right now. Who knew humans could produce so much? What does 70 million litres of waste per day look like? Helpfully, the Spinoff broke it down. Moa Point, the writer writes, is sharting out 28 Olympic pools of pure uncut human waste every 24 hours and will be doing so for months. If you want to have an Auckland analogy, the total tank capacity at Kelly Tarlton's Aquarium is 18 million litres. Moa Point is divesting itself of nearly four Kelly Tarltons worth of poos, wees, toilet paper every single day. Cool. You get the picture. Thank you Spinoff. It's an absolute disgrace. And yet really, Auckland can't talk. Every time it rains our beaches are closed. You know, where you hear the sound of rain on the roof, you used to think, oh, how lovely and relaxing. Now I think landslips and I think beach closures. Every year the joy of summer's blighted by beach closures. I mean, we do have help on the way. Helen and I have walked the poo tunnel and that was amazing to see and that's going to be open at the end of the year. But even then they said they're not going to be able to prevent all beach closures. They're not going to be able to say hand on heart it will never happen again because nature does what nature does and if there's an absolute torrent and a deluge they won't be able to cope even with that enormous pipe, but it will certainly mitigate a lot of the damage done. So there has been chronic underinvestment in our infrastructure around the country for decades, but nowhere is it more exemplified than Wellington. On the 27 th of May 2021 remember those times, Wellington City Council's long term plan committee faced a fork in the road. Officers presented councillors with water investment options, including one, water option three, that contained a $391 million wastewater renewals programme. It was designed to reduce sewage pollution, starting with the central city and South Coast catchments that are now making headlines. At the same meeting, officers recommended cycleways option three, a staged programme set out in the consultation document presented to councillors. This is from Peter Bassett in the blog Breaking Views. And as he writes, what happened next is the hinge moment of Wellington's current disgrace. An amendment was moved by then councillor, now MP, Tamatha Paul, seconded by Jill Day, now Labour Party president, to adopt cycleways option four, expanding the programme to 226 million over 10 years compared with 120 million under option three. That amendment passed. Accelerated wastewater renewal did not. Simon Woolf was one of the councillors who voted against cycleways over water. There's been no cognisance of reprioritising. It's just gone down an ideological line. The city's going to suffer for years and years on the back of this underinvestment. Which is putting it mildly. He's ropable. He and the other councillors who voted against it. They could see what was happening. They knew it was imperative and it wasn't one or the other, it was a matter of priority. You could say sure, let's do cycleways, but shall we sort out the wastewater first because that is that's verging on catastrophic. No. No, let's go with the cycleways and what's more, let's spend more money on the cycleways than was recommended and let's not do the wastewater. It'll be fine. Just hold on. It's not fine. It couldn't hold on. To be fair, the previous Labour government understood that the country's infrastructure for the most part is in crisis, hence Three Waters. But yet again they were let down by their own execution of a plan to revitalise New Zealand's waterways. They failed to get the public behind Three Waters. National has come up with its own plan. Three Waters has become Affordable Water Done Well and there seems to be a growing understanding that we just can't kick the can down the road. All councils around the country are going to have to bite the bullet. Some have done, only a few, some have done so. Are you willing to see a rise in rates to clean up our waterways? Do you understand the urgency? Does Wellington's infrastructure crisis underline the urgency and the need to undertake the water reforms? And if we have to pay more in our rates, so be it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After pouring more than $11 million into a Rotorua motel complex for the homeless, Kāinga Ora has decided to tear it down and put the Fenton St site on the market. One year on since Kainga Ora began its turnaround plan, and it's now exceeding its saving targets. Tenancy satisfaction is rising, vacancy rates are lower, fewer tenants are in rent arrears, and Kāinga Ora is doing a better job of managing its tenants to support safe, respectful communities. Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the successful changes.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For those of us with PCT, post Covid trauma, I've just given it a name and an acronym, the news that Nicola Willis is launching an inquiry into the actions of the Reserve Bank during Covid is going to bring back some bad memories, but I guess that's what National's relying on. During the pandemic, you'll recall the Reserve Bank cut the Official Cash Rate to a record low and for the first time printed about $55 billion worth of digital money – $55 billion that was pumped into the economy to keep it afloat. Many other countries did that too. Most didn't do it to the same extent we did, but most countries, most Western economies did the same thing. But they, like we, found that there is a cost to free money. High inflation, massive increase in house prices, businesses struggling to pay the money back. Was the hangover worth it? That's what Finance Minister Nicola Willis wants to find out.  “I think this is about the future. It's less for me about who was to blame and who we can tell was wrong. What it is about is saying, well, if you were doing it again, how would you prevent some of the overspending? How would you prevent some of the overuse of this money printing tool? How would you make sure you got it right? And so actually this is about the future and doing it better in the future. If we were to repeat the mistakes of Covid and just blindly ignore the lessons of history, I think that would be a major failure.  “I fully acknowledge support for the economy was required. And so the question that we are asking is, well, the benefits that occurred because there was this money printing and this borrowing are known, but let's examine what the costs were and then do a weigh up of the benefits of the costs and ask ourselves, did we just maybe go a bit too far? And in future, how would we calibrate that better? And look, I think the idea that New Zealanders shouldn't have this information before the election is really wrong because actually it does have a bearing on the democratic process. It does have a bearing on the way that people position themselves for the future.”  The timing is interesting. Reminding everyone of the Covid experience just before the election – who's that going to work for? You'd have to ask yourself. National promised during the last election campaign that they would order an independent review of the actions of the Reserve Bank and that review did not happen until now, and that's the start of the next election campaign. Willis says, oh come on, it's not about that. I was just really, really busy doing other stuff. I had a lot on my plate, I had a lot to deal with, which is true. I was updating the Reserve Bank's mandate to a sole focus on fighting inflation. I've had a lot on my plate. I'm only just getting round to it now.   Still and all, I am not averse to an inquiry and I don't want it to be a witch hunt. And I think it would be really, really, really good to have a truly independent and dispassionate look at decisions made in the heat of the moment and weigh up whether you would make those same decisions next time. Obviously there'll be slightly different circumstances, but if people have to stay home and businesses have to shut down, how do you manage that? How do you manage that over the short term? How do you manage that over the long term?   I would have really liked to have seen that happen with other decisions made during Covid, like having a long hard look at the way health and Covid health was prioritised over everything else. The decision makers at the time said the hospitals would have been overwhelmed and therefore all health would have suffered. You look now at the cancer waitlists and the deaths from people who weren't picked up while the hospitals were in shutdown mode and you say, okay, alright, so that happened, as a result this happened, was it worth it?   I would love to see a dispassionate, cool, clear-headed look at the decisions that were made and bring into account everything that happened during that time and say was it worth it? I know we've had the Covid inquiries, but I don't really, I don't feel that we've had a clear, concise, dispassionate report. Yes, we would do this again. No, we wouldn't do that. Maybe we'd do this. I'd just like to see it set out a little bit more clearly, a blueprint, because what caused so much pain last time was the fudging and the decisions on the fly and not fully formed decisions. If you're able to get a really good analysis of the decisions made with a cost benefit factor weighed up, an emotional cost, personal cost, as well as the dollar figure, and if you broke it down to the Reserve Bank, to health, to employment, to housing, I think it would be really helpful for future generations to see, okay, they did that, let's not do that this time. It might look like a good idea, but ultimately the cost was just too great. When you look at the children and education and schooling, what was the cost there?   It might have been worth it – that's what we might find. I might have to agree that for all my moaning and bitching and railing under the restrictions, they were the right decisions to make and I might have to accept that, but I don't really feel we've got a clear analysis of the decisions made and whether they were worth it. I mean, perhaps there has been and I just haven't been willing to hear them, but I can't recall seeing anything set out, laid out, simply, clearly, concisely, critically, and coolly. And that's what I'd really love to see. I bet there are some of you, probably in the South Island, who think, oh for God's sake, what a waste of bloody time. This again. And I don't blame you. I'd love to be in that position. I really would. So you might think it's a complete and utter waste of time. If so, I'd love to hear your thoughts too. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Kiwi clothing brand will no longer make plus sized clothing.  In a post on social media, Augustine owner Kelly Coe explained they’re focusing on the core of their business and what works best for them.  “We tried for years to dress our curvy babes and in the end we just got left with so much stock that ends up in our outlet store, it's simply not sustainable."  Coe told Kerre Woodham that in the beginning, there wasn’t the same competition from international brands and cheap fast fashion that there is now.  She says their plus sized garments did really well in the beginning, but they don’t anymore, and they just can’t keep growing bigger and bigger to cater for everybody.   Around 90% of their sales are in the size 8 to 16 range, Coe says, and has been for quite a while.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's announced an independent review of the fiscal response to the Covid pandemic.  Finance Minister Nicola Willis says it will look at any lessons the country could learn to improve its monetary policy response to future events.  It will probe decisions by the Reserve Bank's Monetary Policy Committee and advice it received – including the decision to print $55 billion in digital money during the pandemic.  Graeme, a caller on Kerre Woodham Mornings, decided to break down exactly how the concept of “printing money” works, what impact it has on the market, and the impact it had during Covid.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One renewable energy advocate believes New Zealand would be better off burning our coal reserve than building a liquefied natural gas terminal.   The Government’s aiming to sign a procurement contract for a Taranaki LNG site by mid-year, and hoping to have it running by late next year or early 2028.  An electricity levy of two to four dollars per megawatt-hour will fund the build, which is expected to save each household around $50 a year when up and running.   Rewiring Aotearoa CEO Mike Casey told Kerre Woodham that while he likes to think of himself as a renewable energy advocate, he’s also a pragmatic person.   He says that the dry year problem has to be solved, but we should use the fuel we already have and import, instead of importing a new, incredibly expensive fuel, at a capital cost that would lock us into using it for a very long time.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ah, Winston. Winston, Winston, Winston. He is the embodiment, as his namesake Winston Churchill famously said of Russia, of a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The canny campaigner knew exactly what he was doing when agreeing to job share the Deputy Prime Minister role with ACT leader David Seymour during the Coalition Government's startup. He, Winston, would take the first 18 months, positioning himself as a senior statesman and Foreign Minister par excellence. And indeed, he has done a very good job as Foreign Minister. Then after that 18 months, he would step aside, making way for David Seymour, more importantly, making time to campaign right up to the next election, which is just a matter of months away. It's exactly what he's doing, stirring up xenophobia in the wake of the Government, or rather National and ACT, securing a Free Trade Agreement with India. A Foreign Minister that doesn't like foreigners, all of a sudden, just in the last year.   As Toby Manhire says in his piece in The Spinoff, that Winston Peters and New Zealand First are opposing the Free Trade Agreement with India is no surprise. They also opposed the Free Trade Agreement with China 18 years ago. Then as now, says Manhire, Peters was Foreign Minister. Then as now, he said it was a bad deal for New Zealand. Then as now, he invoked an agree to disagree provision in the governing arrangement. So without New Zealand First support, National will need Labour to get the Free Trade Agreement across the line. Surely that should not be a problem – although you can't blame Chris Hipkins for playing hard to get and maximizing the political capital out of the situation. As far back as 2004 Helen Clark was leading trade delegations to India, although formal negotiations only began in earnest in 2010. It has taken a long, long time and much work from our trade delegates to get to this point. And Trade Minister Todd McClay says although it's inevitable that there will be politicking around the agreement, New Zealanders should understand that this is a very important, very big deal.  “Number one, there was always going to be a bit of politics around this because it is a very big deal. It's 1.4 billion people. You know, I've seen a lot of speculation about tens and tens of thousands of Indians just having the absolute right to come to New Zealand. Mike, this is a trade deal, it's not an immigration deal. They do not have that ability. The New Zealand Government has reserved the right to change visa settings as we need to. And the final point would be, we have now a trade deal, one of the best India's done with anybody. We're 5 million people, they're 1.4 billion. This is a very good deal for New Zealand, and each party in Parliament's going to have to decide how they're going to make the case of where their support lies.”  And on the point of Winston's claims that New Zealand will be overrun with Indian families, Todd McClay had this to say:  TM: The debate at the moment has moved to students, whether or not we can cap the number of students. And actually, there has never been a cap on the number of students. We've never said we want them from Australia, we don't want them from the UK. And I don't think any future government would ever do that. It makes no sense to. But what we have always done is we have changed the visa settings, the conditions that you have to meet to be able to get a visa to come and study in New Zealand. If we jump back to when we were in government previously, there were a very large number of students in New Zealand. As a result of COVID, it went down, but the previous government and we have changed those settings to make sure that actually the number of places and students coming in matches our requirement and what we do. And we can continue to do that.”  MH: But this is general, Todd, this is just immigration policy the way it's always been. Yes?  TM: That's exactly right.  Of course, we need to be aware of making sure the settings are right, that immigrants to New Zealand are coming to fill jobs and maximize opportunities. We don't need more Uber drivers. We need people who are able to come here and who are able to make most of the opportunities that New Zealand has to offer. But as Todd McClay says, if we feel things are getting out of whack, we can adjust settings accordingly. I mean, that happened when, remember all the hue and cry over far too many people arriving on the parent's visa, the parent category. All these people were arriving, didn't understand a word of English, were isolated, dependent on their families, some of whom we heard buggered off to Australia and left them here, isolated, alone, you know, it was a nightmare. So back in 2016, 2017 the number of people approved for residence fell by 8%, the decrease driven by parent category approvals, which fell 63% because the settings were getting out of whack. People realized there was a loophole and so it was plugged.   It's election year, and I suppose you have to expect it. And those who have followed politics for a very, very long time, as Toby Manhire points out, have seen this happen before. This is what New Zealand First does. This is what appeals to their voters. From the outside looking in, the Free Trade Agreement with India is a very good deal for New Zealand. We are fundamentally a trading nation. From the outside looking in, this is Winston doing what Winston does, doing what he does best, coming up to an election with a sail full of hot air, pounding the populist drum of anti-immigration. Where do you stand on this one? Is the Free Trade Agreement with India a good deal or not? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The headline on one of the stories this morning said, "vital or bonkers?". Is the new liquefied natural gas terminal announced by the Government yesterday a vital piece of infrastructure that will save New Zealand households hundreds, shore up gaps in our energy supply, give confidence to our manufacturers, or as the Greens are saying, absolutely bonkers for the planet and for our country's energy resilience?   Energy Minister Simon Watts announced yesterday that the new terminal to be built in New Plymouth should be ready by next year, and will mean that Kiwis no longer need to suffer through an endless series of winter bill shocks. The idea is that liquid natural gas can be imported in large volumes, we'll store it, and then it will be re-gasified to be used when shortages occur during dry years. It's expensive. It's an expensive way of doing it. An expensive “just in case”, but Simon Watts says, well we can't afford not to, otherwise it means the end of businesses.   Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the decision to build a terminal is cooked. Well, you wouldn't be able to cook it unless there was some form of energy supply, so it's not a terribly good analogy because something can only be cooked when there's energy, and what they're doing is providing energy. She said Christopher Luxon has once again chosen to throw New Zealanders' money at fossil fuels, which is bad for power bills, energy security, and the planet. But as Simon Watts told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, this will quite literally power New Zealand's economy and we can't afford not to do it.  “The reality is renewables are nice, but the sun doesn't shine during the night and that's when we need firming capacity and thermal capacity. In a dry year when we don't have enough water in those lakes, we have to make that from either gas, diesel, or coal. Coal only covers 50% of us, we've still got a massive gap. That's why there's a price premium in people's bills. Having the certainty of supply of gas to come into that market when we need it means that that risk is mitigated and therefore that price premium that's in people's bills comes off. That's the rationale of what we're doing here.   “This is a strategic investment also for national security because guess what, if you can't have energy then other aspects of your economy is at risk and we've got to protect those industries that can't run on coal and surprisingly can't run on electricity. There's a lot of industry, heavy industry that needs gas and if we haven't got it domestically in the short term, we need to be able to import it.”  Yeah. Like absolutely phase out fossil fuels, totally, let's do it and we've been talking about it since probably the 70’s – possibly earlier than that. I mean that's when I first started reading newspapers when I was at primary school and that's when I can remember talking about the need not to rely on fossil fuels. All for it. But you have to have a reliable alternative – a sustainable, inexpensive alternative. You can't just stop producing energy without providing another sustainable source of power. Hoping and wishing for something better and nicer and cleaner and greener is not a strategy.   You can't just legislate sustainable energy out of thin air. Look at the disastrous result of various governments around the world legislating to force car manufacturers into producing more EVs to save the planet. Major automakers and EV startups have collectively incurred more than $114 billion , and those are real dollars, $114 billion in losses on EVs in the US and Europe, in basically three and a half years between 2022 and early 2026, driven by aggressive government electrification targets that outpaced consumer demand. People weren't convinced. Show me the electrical network that can sustain me being able to power these vehicles. Show me that they're safe. Show me that they're suitable for all terrains and all weather. As of February 2026, the cumulative financial hit from vaporised EV bets, write downs, and production cuts for the big three Detroit automakers GM, Ford, and Stellantis is estimated at roughly $52.1 billion. You might have heard Mike talking about Stellantis shares going down the toilet this morning.   You can't just make people do things. This is a top down decision from the governments – we will not use fossil fuels. The people at the bottom who are making stuff, generating exports, providing jobs, driving to get from point A to point B, either driving their exports to different ports or driving to work to produce the exports, have to be convinced and confident that there's another source of energy that is reliable, sustainable, and relatively inexpensive that doesn't put their exports beyond the reach of buyers. And until such time, they're not going to they're not going to fall into line because it would be financial suicide.   It's a nice idea, it absolutely is, and we make the most of what we have, the resources around us, where they're renewable, yes let's use them. But the Greens won't let us put in any hydro dams. Can you imagine? I think my grandchildren's grandchildren probably wouldn't live to see that. There's not enough sun, as Simon Watts said, it's dark at night. The wind is not consistent. It's pie in the sky. Until such time as we have sustainable, inexpensive alternative fuel sources, we need to shore up the energy supply we have now. Sure, save the planet, but if there's nobody bloody on it, what's the point? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, we thought we'd have a look at jury duty, given a story in the New Zealand Herald this morning. I've only been called for jury service once, a couple of years ago, before Covid, which isn't really a couple of years, is it? It's like six years ago. I was keen as mustard. Couldn't wait.  Fortunately, I have a very supportive employer who's able to sustain me doing my jury service. So I was able to take the week off and I duly reported to the Auckland District Court on the Monday along with a million other people. So we sort of sat around for a while and then somebody with a clipboard called us all together and I was absolutely chuffed to be selected in the first pool of potential jurors, but I didn't make the final 12 We were sitting in the courtroom, but my name wasn't called. Really did feel like I'd failed an audition. So we trooped back downstairs, those that didn't make it, and I found the person with the clipboard and said, "Look, if I do get called, can we make sure it's a short, sharp jury trial because I'm off to Europe at the end of the week?" And she said, "Oh, don't bother. It's fine. Don't bother coming back." Thanked me for my service and that was that. Couldn't have been easier. There were a lot of people milling around waiting to do their jury service and I knew about three of them. Very convivial. I'd brought a book, but I didn't really need it. One of those who milled recently, though, a 57 year old Auckland chap, is in the Herald this morning. He said it was a terrible time. He's incredulous that we have such an inefficient, expensive way of administering justice. He added up the daily rate paid to would be jurors and the reimbursement for parking fees, and although to each individual it's a pittance, it all adds up. And he says given that it's taxpayer money, there needs to be a better way of doing things. He didn't put this in his calculations, but could have. What about the lost productivity to companies that release their employees or for self employed people who have to give up their work to do their civic duty? Official Information Act figures from the Herald, they were supplied by the Ministry of Justice, shows that 7,138,000 was paid in fees and expenses to potential jurors who attended jury service in New Zealand in 2024 Like, it is an individual pittance, but man, he's right, it does add up. More than $7 million, and how much of that is wasted money? Help is on the way. Acting Minister of Justice, Courts and Justice Services Policy Acting General Manager Megan Noyce said the Regulatory Systems Courts Amendment Bill includes two amendments aimed at making the jury selection process more efficient. The Justice Committee has examined it and it's recommended that it be passed. The first amendment will enable summoned jurors to attend court only when required by the court. It would allow multiple jury panels to be convened in a week, one for each trial, instead of all jurors summoned for that week attending every day. The second amendment would allow the first part of jury selection to take place outside the court precinct, so you don't have to sit there and mill and catch up with old mates and read your book. It can be done electronically. Electronic balloting would be introduced in the future once the bill is passed and only jurors selected in the ballot would need to attend court. The remainder would only need to attend if they're selected for another trial during that week. So that bill's at the second reading stage. Presumably, there would be no strong objections from any party to it passing. Should we take the savings we make on jury selection and pass them on to those who actually make it onto the jury? Defence lawyer John Munro told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning that a decent fee might be a way to reinforce that it's important to do your civic duty. Given the low figures, I'd actually like to see jury members get more money for sitting on juries because You reckon that would fix it? Not necessarily, not won't necessarily fix it, but I do shudder sometimes. I think it's something like $60 or $60 a day for a juror to sit on a jury and I think that's just not enough for people that are self employed. I think a lot of employers need to cover that cost and they should do so in their employment contracts. Yeah, I mean, if you're self employed, how on earth do you justify it? How on earth can you justify doing your civic duty, which is really, really important, when it's $60 a day? You have to see it basically as a donation of your time because you're not going to see the money back. And employers take a big hit when they let their employees off. And yet it is vitally important. You probably don't see it as vitally important when you turn up and see that kind of inefficiency. If you are somebody who's in business for yourself, that kind of inefficiency smacks you in the face, doesn't it? You look at that and think, What on earth's going on here? There's a million ways I could make this more efficient, less costly to the taxpayer, and still get the job done, and in fact possibly get the job done better." I would love to hear your experiences, especially if you have been on jury service in recent times. How would you make it better? Do the bills go far enough? Would you like to see an increase in the fee paid to those who actually make it onto juries? And when it comes to juries, do you trust them? Would you select trial by jury if you found yourself in court up on a serious charge? Do you have faith that your fellow New Zealanders would be able to reach a fair decision, would be unbiased, unprejudiced, understand the court proceedings? How much faith do you have in your fellow man? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In an opinion piece in Newsroom, former United Future leader and Political Commentator Peter Dunne writes about "How to stop NZ First from playing the two main parties off against each other". Under our MMP system, NZ First often holds the "kingmaker" position, allowing them to leverage the two main parties, National and Labour, against each other during coalition negotiations. Currently, NZ First is polling strongly (between 9% and 12%), suggesting they may again be in a pivotal position for the November 2026 election. Former MP and Political Commentator Peter Dunne joined Kerre Woodham to discuss what NZ First's position as 'kingmaker' means for this years' election.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stats New Zealand released the labour market statistics yesterday while I was on air talking to my caller Troy, and the numbers were not good.  KW: The unemployment rate is 5.4% in the December quarter, up 5.3 in September. So we'll discuss that with Liam Dann in a minute. There we go.   T: Interesting in an election year, that will be interesting for sure.  Interesting in an election year for sure, Troy. For a government that campaigned on fixing the economy, getting people back into work, the figures are a cold hard dose of reality. An unemployment rate of 5.4%, total unemployed 165,000 – that's 5,000 extra people without a job since the last quarter. 16,000 without a job since this time last year. The underutilisation figures made for pretty grim reading too. Underutilisation includes the unemployed, the underemployed, part time workers who are wanting more hours – they might have been looking for a full-time job, all they can get is a part time, but they'll take it while they keep looking. And the potential labour force, people who want to work but aren't actively seeking it. I don't quite understand those people, do they just expect somebody to come knocking on their door saying, you're it, you're perfect. 150,000 and a car, come on in"? I don't know how they expect to find work, but there we go. The number of underutilised people rose by 2,000 over the quarter, by roughly 52,000 to 71,000 over the past year depending on all sorts of metrics. What it does end up with is a record high of 409,000 people.   So there's a lot of people doing it tough. The Finance Minister Nicola Willis says, just hold your nerve, we'll come right.  “We have been waiting for an economic recovery and there is some impatience, but all of the signs are there.”  Yes. Well, are they? To be fair, look at the alternative. If you don't like what the Coalition Government is doing, have a look at Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori and think, could they do better? But that's of cold comfort to the thousands of Kiwis that have had to relocate, they've had to pivot, they've had to reevaluate to get themselves into work, to get food on the table, the rent paid, to look after the kids.   Another caller yesterday who had rung me previously told me he'd applied for more than 200 jobs. He's bought himself a business. Others have moved themselves and their families into different regions. The figures don't show the Kiwis who moved to different countries, nearly 73,000 to Australia – imagine how grim the stats would have been otherwise. Now there are some people really who could have expected to lose their jobs. If you were one of the many, many thousands of people who took a job with the public service in Wellington in the last six months of '23, come on. When you've got Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon both saying the public service needs to be cut, if you took a job then really you couldn't have expected to keep it. It would have been luck if you did.   But for others, the slowing down of the economy has had a dramatic effect on them. The youth, because people hold onto their jobs longer, people don't take on trainees, they don't, can't afford to take a risk with a newbie or an apprentice. The business just can't sustain that. People 50 to 60, they might have been laid off. They've got many, you know, 10, 15, 20 years left in them. Try telling that to a prospective employer. Tough. So I would love to hear from those of you who have been looking for jobs, who have found jobs, who have pivoted, like my caller yesterday who after 200 rejections thought, “you know what? I'll do it myself," and bought himself a business. Those who've gone seeking a job in another part of the country. In Canterbury the figures are better than the national average. It's a tale as we've heard before of two economies. South Island's doing fine, North Island not so much. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The job market's remaining tougher, for longer, than many economists were expecting.  Unemployment's reached a ten-year high of 5.4% in the December quarter, and the broader under-utilisation rate is close to a ten-year high as well, at 13%.  Finance Minister Nicola Willis is trying to point out silver linings, saying the data also shows more jobs have been created, and hours worked are increasing.  Frog Recruitment Manging Director Shannon Barlow told Kerre Woodham that it’s a little early to get a clear read on the market, but there are positive signs already.  She says there was a lift in permanent roles and businesses who were keen to hire in December, and January has been solid as well – notable since it’s normally a dead month.   Barlow says it gives the idea that business confidence is beginning to translate into real hiring and growth decisions.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Unemployment's risen again to a ten-year high, with 165 thousand Kiwis currently out of work.  Stats NZ data shows the unemployment rate was 5.4% in the December quarter, up from 5.3% in the September quarter.  It's now the highest it's been since September 2015.  The Herald's Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham while today's rise is small, it's also unexpected.  He says there was some hope we had seen the peak of unemployment, but it appears we haven’t.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.