Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

There's confidence the right balance can be found when it comes to housing intensification in Auckland.  A public meeting was held in Mt Eden last night, over proposals to allow 10 to 15-storey developments near transport hubs and town centres.  Most of the meeting was civil, but things got tense when a young planning student suggested older people were standing in the way of change.  Mt Hobson Group urban planning expert Hamish Firth told Kerre Woodham he thinks the city have high-rise buildings and keep the character.  He says Auckland has six months to a year to discuss this like adults, to get it right.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Around 200 people packed out the Mt Eden Village Centre in Auckland last night, and they were pretty riled up. In fact, many were furious over plans for high rise apartments and the loss of special character status for hundreds of villas and bungalows in the wider neighbourhood. And this is the kind of feeling that is being felt across many different Auckland suburbs, and it will be coming to a city or town near you.   As we were discussing last week, draft plans for Auckland City would see Auckland's skyline in for a major makeover, increasing the city's capacity for new builds from 900,000 under the 2016 unitary plan to accommodating two million new homes. That's a lot. And it might be easy to dismiss the concerns of residents as being those of Boomer NIMBYs just worried about the house prices, but there are very real concerns that intensification on that level could be disastrous if there isn't careful planning. Communities aren't just about putting a roof over a head – you need infrastructure that can support those homes, like stormwater, like wastewater, like schools.   It's estimated that if you want two million further dwellings, you'll need 56 more primary schools, 23 more secondary schools – good luck with that. I would argue you'd need loads of green spaces as well – lungs for the city. And I am not convinced that we have learned lessons from the past. Chucking up shoe boxes is not good for anyone, any neighbourhood, any city. Thoughtful, well-designed, high-density developments can be built and can live alongside those established character homes. I'm just not entirely convinced that we can do it in New Zealand. I would love to see evidence of it. I mean the closest I can get to is Stonefields and possibly Hobsonville Point. Perhaps some of the developments around Tauranga, they look to be reasonably well done, although there have been issues with the amount of traffic that suddenly appeared on the roads and the congestion that is caused.   Give me an example of where thoughtful high-density development has taken place and I'd love to hear it. I'm just not convinced that when we go up, we know how to do it properly. We need more homes for more people. Absolutely we do. We need a variety of different homes, we need them to be near public transport and cycleways, hence the suburbs that are under question. We cannot simply keep up swallowing arable land. We need to go up. And I think the communities who are close to public transport hubs close to the city know this, they just want to know that the developments will be well planned and well supported by the necessary infrastructure. Who can blame them for being sceptical that this will happen?   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Education Minister says there was no option to do nothing when it came to changing NCEA. The proposed changes include replacing the qualification with a system emphasising literacy and numeracy more. Erica Stanford told Kerre Woodham changes were already underway with Labour updating the Level 1 curriculum, so there was no option to do nothing. She says they either had to continue rolling out Labour's plan, or look at what a better plan could be, and that's what they've done.  Labour's education spokesperson has only just been briefed on changes to NCEA.  Willow-Jean Prime initially ignored, then later declined repeated offers from Stanford to give feedback on the changes.   Labour leader Chris Hipkins later said Prime was wrong to decline the offers.   Those offers were made as far back as March, but Stanford told Woodham Prime first met with officials last week.  She says she’s asked lots of questions, but has yet to come back with any feedback, so they’ll see where that goes.  WATCH ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A new visa to attract businesspeople to New Zealand has been established by the Government, and really, it's only a matter of days, perhaps weeks, before a loosening on restrictions for foreigners being able to purchase residential property here is announced. Christopher Luxon, the Prime Minister, when he was last in-studio with me, said we’ll be announcing that shortly. I said you’ll never get that past Winston Peters, but he said watch this space. So, he's been dropping very heavy hints for some time now that the restrictions on foreigners being able to buy property here were about to be lifted.   In the meantime, the Government’s announced the Business Investor Visa, and that will give foreign businesspeople investing $2 million into an existing business here a fast track to residency in New Zealand. A $1 million investment comes with a three-year work to residency pathway. It also comes with conditions, as Immigration Minister Erica Stanford told Mike Hosking this morning.   “This is more about people who have got business experience of running businesses –we will check that. Investing in a business, that they have to be here at least 184 days a year, be a tax resident, and actively run the business. They have to be able to speak English, there's an age limit. Whereas the Active Investor Plus is more about their capital and their business connections and they only have to spend a week a year here in order to get their residence – so very, very different. We're not talking huge numbers. This is not like an Oprah-style everyone gets a visa as I think you mentioned this morning, we're thinking probably in the first year between sort of 100 and 150 potentially.”  So there are conditions associated with this particular visa such as requiring applicants to speak English, and that's something that I know concerned a number of you when we were talking about schools and the changes to the curriculum in education. When we've had discussions about that, a number of you have been really concerned about the number of young kids arriving here who don't speak English and the challenges that puts on a classroom, and more specifically, a teacher. So hopefully they are policing that English language criteria quite strictly. There are also conditions to meet alongside of health, character, and business experience, and certain businesses are excluded, such as adult entertainment, convenience stores, and fast-food outlets.   Now I know that a number of people are dead against having more people coming into the country. You've told me that, and you've certainly sent me plenty of text messages about having more people coming into the country. We haven't got enough houses for the existing people. We've got wait lists up the wazoo. It's just going to put more pressure on our health system. It's going to drive house prices up. I think we have seen that the biggest driver of house prices was locking people inside their own country, lowering interest rates, and allowing speculation to boom. That did more damage to the housing and the property market than any migrant businessperson could ever do.   So, we're building more houses, we’re opening up pathways for consent so that even more houses can be built. To clear up the waiting lists, we do need to bring in doctors, nurses. We didn't have enough at the time. We didn't have enough workers at the time, and even in a time of high unemployment, businesses still aren't finding the people that they need to make their businesses more productive.   I'm for it. I mean $1 million, as we heard yesterday when we were talking about how much you need to retire, $1 million to become a Kiwi doesn't sound like a lot of money, does it? Especially when you open it up to the global market. But if there are conditions there, it they're required to live in New Zealand for much of the year, to pay their taxes to be working in the business, to be growing the business, if certain businesses are excluded so that we steer people into productive businesses, surely it can only be good for New Zealand. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More money could soon circulate through the economy as the Government opens up the country to more overseas businesspeople.    Under its new Business Investor Visa, foreign investors who put at least $2 million into a Kiwi business will be granted a 12-month fast-track to residence pathway.  People who invest $1 million will be given a three-year work-to-residence option.  ABC Business Sales Managing Director Chris Small told Kerre Woodham more capital needs to be brought in.   He says when it starts going towards business owners, it'll be recycled back into our economy.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We all know that New Zealand is a trading nation. We need to sell stuff to make the money we need to build hospitals, pay our teachers and police officers, pay for benefits and Super, pay for roads and cycleways, and the like. To maintain our standard of living we have to earn our keep, and that's what our exporters do. We need good exporters, and we need to be able to get our stuff to market.   However, port inefficiencies around the country could undermine New Zealand's goals to double its export earnings. I think there have been polite snorts of derision when that bold claim has been stated, especially given what's been happening in recent times. The Cargo Owners Council says there's been a 30% drop in productivity since 2019. Chair Brent Falvey says there needs to be a comprehensive reset of our ports and a strategy for the whole supply chain. The International Container Alliance Committee (ICLC), representing international container shipping lines in New Zealand, has got in on the act too, calling for a lifting of productivity across all ports in the country. They say, “we note that overall the ship rate is reduced from 68 moves per hour in the first quarter of 2019 to 55 moves per hour during a similar period in 2025, across the four largest ports.” That's close to a 20% reduction in productivity and is very concerning, says the ICLC. Brent Falvey told Mike Hosking this morning that we just aren't keeping up with the rest of the world.   “As you probably know, there's more than 400 ports around the world and New Zealand, from a productivity point of view, is in the bottom 20%. The majority of our ports are congested and poor productivity. Since 2019, productivity declined by up to 30%, and costs have gone up, and things are a mess.   “What we think we need to do is actually have a reset. We're talking to the government, we're saying we need to have a hub and spoke model around the ports, the hub is actually big, deep-sea ports that are really efficient, and the spoke with small ports moving cargo to those large ports and that would be done by coastal shipping, it would have to be hand in hand with rail and road. I mean you've probably noticed that there's been some good work done at rail. They've had a bit of a reset, but to go to the next level for rail, they need volume that will drive efficiencies and cost.”  We have, according to the industry, a five year window to get the supply chain back on track or we risk being serviced out of Australia. The shipping companies just won't bother coming here. It's not worth their while and that would add costs to exports and increased time to market. Some shipping lines say it's already too late, with shipping companies scaling back direct New Zealand services and hubbing out of Australia.   Port companies say health and safety changes, as well as ships not arriving when they're supposed to, as contributing to the productivity question. But you can't really blame unions taking a long, hard look at health and safety processes, given the number of deaths on ports around the country. Sure, increase our productivity, but not at any cost, not at the cost of lives, because you haven't got things right. People don't have to die to make the ports more efficient.   In the Blue Highway series that Business Desk produced, the shipping lines and the New Zealand Cargo Owners Council supported a move to that hub and feeder network that Brent Falvey talked about. A small number of ports would serve as the main ports of call for larger international vessels, and the remaining regional ports would play a feeder role. And again, that use of coastal shipping would transport cargo to and from the international hub ports. Now there may need to be regulatory changes to allow foreign operators to play a greater role in the coastal network, there may not be enough domestic flagships to do that, but that's tinkering around the edges. Right now, we have a very small window of time to improve our productivity in our ports so that our exporters can have a chance of competing on the international global markets. It is absolutely vital that our ports are productive and safe and efficient because the international shipping companies simply do not care. We make up 1% of their business, cutting us off would mean very little to them. It would mean quite literally the world for us.   When it comes to making these big, deep-sea ports, this is where you need to fast track it. Can you imagine if five years from now we'd still be going through the consent process? There's been much talk in recent years about how to improve our ports because the decision makers know just how important it is to get our goods to market. We've talked about trying to increase the ports in Auckland, and that is indeed what they're going to do, expanding some of the wharves there. The automation was tried that didn't work for very obvious reasons. There's been talk of moving the port north, I think that's dead in the water despite Martua's best intentions. Port of Tauranga has been trying to grow its space. It is monolithic already. When you go to The Mount, it is dominated by the wharf. But size doesn't matter in this case. We need productivity. We need efficiency. We need to get these ships in and get them out far more quickly than we're doing now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do younger Kiwis still have that No.8 wire mentality?  While some are concerned the younger generation is settling as opposed to striving and investing in their ideas and futures, others believe the worry is unfounded.  Icehouse Ventures, a venture capital company that backs Kiwi startups, hosted their 15th Annual Showcase last week, in which nine Kiwi founders presented to over 1,500 investors.  CEO Robbie Paul told Kerre Woodham young founders are coming in droves.  He says that founders tend to be inspired by looking at other success stories, and there’s more of those now, which is creating more start-ups.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s a call to completely reset our supply chains.   The Cargo Owners Council says there's been a 30% drop in productivity since 2019.  Chair Brent Flavey says New Zealand is in the bottom 20% for port efficiency, and we aren’t keeping up with the rest of the world.  NZ Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Federation CEO Sherelle Kennelly told Kerre Woodham without some hard conversations, we aren’t going to get to a point where we can support our export goals going forward.  She says if we don’t improve our efficiencies, New Zealand won’t be able to meet the global market.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't know about you, but I was truly surprised to hear Judge Russell Collins send a young drug driver to jail on Friday. In the Napier District Court, Judge Collins heard Alexander Kerr had dope in his system when he crashed his car - killing his mate and leaving another in a wheelchair for life. Kerr had no previous convictions.   His mate, the one in the wheelchair, the one he didn't kill, had forgiven him, but Judge Collins sent Kerr to jail for two years and three months. In sentencing, Judge Collins said if people asked the question, “What would happen if I killed someone through driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol?” The answer should be “expect to go to jail.” Criminal lawyer Steve Cullen on Early Edition this morning said a sentence of imprisonment is not unusual.  If people are being killed due to drug drivers or drink drivers being on the road, then a harsh penalty has to be imposed to send the message to everybody.   Really?! Steve Cullen, I can give you many, many, many, many instances of people who have killed innocents on the road and have not been sent to jail.   A repeat drunk driver who killed another motorist has successfully appealed her prison sentence and got home detention. Samantha Allen was described as weaving on the road, SH3 in the King Country, crossing the centre line multiple times before the head on collision in March 2022. The crash killed Abigail Johns. It was Allen's fourth drink driving conviction. She successfully appealed her sentence of two years and seven months imprisonment, and it was replaced with a sentence of 9 1/2 months home detention.    Ten weeks after he hit and killed an Irish national, Declan Curley, while drunk driving, Callum Wither was again on the road and drunk. He's now been sentenced to home detention to the disappointed murmurs of Curley's friends and family. Wither, 23, who had hit Declan at the intersection of Taranaki and Dixon streets in central Wellington in 2022, was drunk enough to have a friend tell him he should not be driving. But after killing Declan on April 21, Wither was again in Wellington CBD drink driving and he got home detention.    Samuel Paterson killed surfer, builder and cyclist Andrew Milne. It was an avoidable killing, and Paterson simply had no business getting behind the wheel when he was fatigued, drunk and with cannabis in his system. Paterson's car was unwarranted and unregistered at the time of the fatal collision. The judge gave Paterson credit for his early guilty pleas, his engagement with the restorative justice, his remorse, his efforts at rehabilitation and his offer of significant reparation that reduced his sentence from a starting point of three years and six months imprisonment to 11 months home detention and 200 hours community work.    And in 2023, I mean there are so many more, but this is my last one. Jake Hamlin finished work at 4pm and drove from Ruawai to a house near the Sherwood Golf Club in Whangarei and began consuming a box of Maverick bourbon, ready-to- drink-mixes. He left the house, began driving towards Managawhai, still consuming drinks, was captured on CCTV crossing the centre line. A driver called police, observing Jake Hamlin drifting across the road and almost colliding into three other vehicles. The driver said he followed him for a period but gave up when he hit a speed of around 130kms. Fifteen minutes later, Hamlin came along the Uretiti straights, crossing the centre line and ploughing straight into Samantha Williams. She was killed on impact and suffered injuries she would find hard to be able to survive. After listening to the lengthy submissions, Judge Davis accepted that Hamlin was among many young men in New Zealand caught up in the peer pressure of an excessive drinking culture. He acknowledged his rehabilitative efforts, offers for restorative justice, which were declined, and his remorse. The end sentence was 12 months home detention, which upset multiple members of the victim's family, who left the courtroom.   So, Steve Cullen, I would say that absolutely it is a surprise to me, and probably to many others, and probably to the young man himself, to be sent to prison. The answer absolutely should be, as you say, what happens if I kill somebody? When, through my own deeds and actions, my choice to drink, my choice to take drugs, my choice to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, I kill somebody else. The answer absolutely should be I go to jail.   All these people and all the many others I haven't got time to mention should be in prison, every single one of them. Some of them are really, really sorry.  For some of them it's a nightmare they'll never wake up. From some well you know ... some of them seem to be, “well I was pissed, I was stoned, it was an accident, these things happen.” No.   Yes, they happen, but they shouldn't. And when they do happen, a life has got to be recognised. The person who took the life of another can't just be inconvenienced, a bit bored, brassed off at home. Life as they know it should come to an absolute halt. They should lose their rights, they should go to prison and they should stay there for a period of time. Your liberty should be taken from you. If not forever, at least for a period to acknowledge that you have stolen the life of another person, and that's got to count for something. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour's Tāmaki Makaurau candidate Peeni Heare is standing by a comment that he’d repeal the gang patch ban. He agreed with the notion at an event on Wednesday night. Now, this is despite Chris Hipkins saying no, no, that's not true, we're not going to repeal the gang patch law. Peeni Henare told RNZ he was asked his personal view on the issue, which is informed by whanau experience. He understands that differs from the Party's view, but when an audience member at the Waatea-hosted debate at Favona asked the Tāmaki Makaurau candidates, will you repeal the gang patch law if you come into government, yes or no? The Te Pati Maori candidate said yes. Henare could also be heard saying aye.   No wonder Labour is staying schtum and not releasing any policy yet. They don't have any. Individual Labour MPs have reckons, but they all seem to have different divergent reckons. For the record, Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins told me they would not be repealing the gang patch ban when he was in studio a couple of months ago.    KW: Are you going to bring back gang patches?   CH: No. And y'know, I think it's one of those things where it hasn't ultimately y'know, changed the nature of gang activity. Gang business is still booming. They're still selling more methamphetamine than ever. But what it has done is people feel a bit safer with not seeing patched gang members walking down the street. So no, absolutely not.   But Peeni Heare says he personally wants to see the law repealed. Presumably he wants to see the gang patches back out on the streets and the roads and in our neighbourhoods. And that would surely, surely be a backward step. Remember what the Police Commissioner, Richard Chambers, had to say about the banning of gang patches when he was in having a chat last week:  "I'm very, very proud of my staff across the country who have embraced the new legislation, the wearing of gang insignia, and I'm not sure how many it is now, but I think it may be over 700 prosecutions for the wearing of insignia that has helped us to address the gang issues. And in fact, whilst the gang insignia is one aspect, the reality is that gangs are responsible for a very high and disproportionate number of other serious criminal offending. So we're addressing that too, and we have thousands of additional charges that have been presented to the court because as we go about our police work, and we may well be policing things like patches, then we inevitably are dealing with other things as well. And I look at that.   “So I know that there's been a lot of commentary about gang numbers and stuff like that, but the reality is my teams across the country are focused on holding gang members to account. And I'm very, very proud of their hard work. And I think we would all agree that that legislation has definitely gone extremely well, and the compliance level is something that I'm very, very pleased with.”  Chambers says the gang patch ban has actually helped police to do their job, and I simply do not see how wearing patches enhances the lives of the gang members. Anecdotally, we've heard from people who say that without the patches, they feel safer. You don't have to staunch up, live up to the branding on your back. You don't, quite literally, have a target on your back. Rival gang members kill each other. Not all of them, but you are at risk. If you're wearing a colour or a gang patch that a rival gang member does not like, then you're at risk. Without that target on your back, you can just be you. A father, a son, a footy player, a worker.   What possible good can come of repealing the gang patch ban? How is it going to help anybody? If this is an example of where Labour's at policy wise, then you'd have to say that the coalition government, with all its faults and missteps and imperfections, definitely deserves another three years. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.