Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

ACT Party Leader David Seymour has set the cat among the pigeons, or the Huntaway among the cattle, by calling for New Zealand to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a pact that’s part of the UN's framework convention on climate change, which started in 1992 with the Rio Earth Summit. The main goal of the Paris Agreement is to keep long-term global temperatures from warming 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, and if not that, then well below 2 degrees Celsius by slashing planet-warming emissions from coal, oil, and gas. It's not working, the numbers are still too high, but who knows what they would have been had the Paris Agreement not been in place.   It works as a binding but voluntary programme for the member countries. Every five years, countries are required to submit a goal or a plan for what it will do about heat-trapping emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases. And these goals are supposed to get more ambitious every five years – you're supposed to improve on what you did last time. The countries themselves decide what's in those goals, and there is no punishment for countries who miss the goals.   Despite this, despite the fact that there are no teeth and no punitive measures if you don't meet the self-imposed targets, ACT says that the Paris Agreement needs to change, or New Zealand needs to leave. David Seymour says it demands targets that are disconnected from science and blind to New Zealand’s realities. Net zero targets have been set without regard for the real cost to firms, farms, and families, they say, so they want New Zealand out, like the US.   “At the moment, we face being punished for being a methane-heavy economy. I think it's about time that we, perhaps along with like-minded nations, I'm thinking South American nations like Uruguay that have a lot of livestock, also a lot of Southeast Asian nations which produce a lot of rice, which it turns out actually produces a lot of methane – we should be going to Paris saying, "hang on a minute’, instead of our government officials making representations to the public that pay them on behalf of these global institutions, maybe they should actually be going on our behalf overseas to say, ‘you guys need to give a fair deal to methane-heavy economies,’ because methane's a very different gas. It has a much different effect on climate because it breaks down over time, and therefore that scientific reality needs to be recognised.”  So that was David Seymour talking to Heather du Plessis-Allan last night. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it's not going to happen; we're not going to leave. It would only hurt and punish and damage our farmers. He says our competitor countries would like nothing more than to see New Zealand products off the shelves, and he added that, having worked in multinationals, the companies would just move to another supplier, a more public-friendly, a more agreeable, a more green-friendly supplier.   He does have a point. Well, both men have points, really. David Seymour is quite right in that methane is a different sort of a gas, that New Zealand does it the best in the world. New Zealand produces food better than anybody else in terms of accounting for climate change targets and goals. But Christopher Luxon has a point too, because green and social accounting is part of global financial reporting. We're seeing it right down to the smallest business in New Zealand. Your bank wants to see you committing to various environmental targets, goals, achievements. If you don't, the money comes at a higher rate. And it's the same for them. Their masters, their overlords, want to see that the banks themselves have required their clients to commit to environmental goals. It's absolutely entwined within the way the world does business. I don't know how you can separate one from the other.   It would be very easy for New Zealand to be made an example of, far harder for the US because it is a global powerhouse. Notwithstanding Modi, Xi, and Putin all getting together to try and form another cabal or block of power, but the US is too powerful to punish. Were we to say, "You know what, we're out," it would be very, very easy for us to be made an example of. We're small, quite loud, there would be some people around the world who would have heard of us, so if we're made an example of, it would only hurt us. Nobody else would care.   Furthermore, Christopher Luxon says that New Zealand has taken farming out of the ETS, the Emissions Trading Scheme, and promises there'll be an announcement on methane targets in the very, very near future. So where do you stand on this one?   As I'm aware, farming as an industry and farming as a science is constantly working to improve efficiencies in the way they do things. Our scientists and our ag researchers are working overtime to try and bring down any harmful gases caused in the manufacture of food. Farmers are implementing all sorts of measures, and if they don't, they're off the books. They are no longer clients of places like Fonterra. So you have to meet really high standards before you can consider yourself a farmer in the modern age. I would have thought farming as an industry understood the global realities, given that they are a major global player. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A former Climate Change Minister believes New Zealand should stay in the Paris Climate Agreement.  ACT leader David Seymour's announced a policy to leave the global pact unless rules are loosened for our farmers.  New Zealand First has also floated the idea of withdrawing, as some larger nations have ditched it.  Tim Groser told Kerre Woodham this goes against public sentiment.  He says polls indicate a large majority of Kiwis believe we should do our share on climate change.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement could cause more problems than it solves.  Act and New Zealand First have expressed interest in pulling New Zealand out of the agreement unless more realistic emissions targets are produced.  Sir Lockwood Smith, former MP and Diplomat, says he sympathises with famers and Seymour on the subject, but we just pull out of the accord.  He told Kerre Woodham that there are clauses in free trade agreements, such as the one with the UK, that would enable them to take action or to seek remedies if New Zealand were to withdraw from any international agreement around climate change.  He says we do have to be careful, however, that doesn’t mean we don’t do anything.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The number of emergency housing applications being declined has soared as the Government tightens restrictions.  Data obtained by our newsroom under the Official Information Act shows applications have dropped significantly to the end of June, but the number being declined continues to rise.  More applications are being declined than granted in Auckland.  Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka told Kerre Woodham they have a range of measures either in place, or that they’re putting in place, to deal with housing insecurity and homelessness.  He says that building a house or just having housing isn’t necessarily an enduring solution, as homelessness has a number of fathers and mothers, such as poverty or substance abuse issues.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You might remember, those of you who were listening around about a month ago when the Prime Minister was in the studio, taking your calls. Steve rang in and gave the PM a bit of ginger over the economy. He said, "I know you're between a rock and a hard place, Prime Minister, with the economy. Not really any more levers you can pull to do much, and you guys are just treading water. It's a PR machine to gloss over while you pray that somehow the economy's going to pick up."   He said to the Prime Minister, "There's one lever you have yet to pull, and I think you know that for the short-term sugar that will bring something into this economy, that's a foreign buyers' ban. If that comes off, you know that will bring a bit of money in, and that will have a proper, tangible effect rather than just being all talk, talk." But of course, that's not going to happen with Winston.   CL: On foreign buyers, that is a conversation that Winston and I are having, so watch this space. Let's see whether we can make some progress through that one.   KW: Interesting. How will you get him to change his mind? What bauble are you able to offer?   CL: No, no, no. I think actually both of us recognise that if people are going to come to this country and make an investment and partner with a New Zealand company, you know, think about a technology person in San Francisco wanting to come out here. They don't want to rent a house in Auckland. They want to be able to buy a house, and you think about what's happening in places like Tara Iti up the road from Auckland. You've got massive investment, 140 Americans here building, you know, $20 million plus homes, all that sort of stuff. So there has to be a way through that. So, you know, watch this space. It might be a bit more positive than Steve thinks.   And what do you know? That was on the 7th of August. We watched the space, and on the 1st of September, the announcement came. Foreigners spending $5 million on approved investments in exchange for residency visas will be able to buy homes. But not just any old tat. They will only be able to buy homes that are $5 million plus.   The Prime Minister said the changes aim to attract rich immigrants who find the thought of having a home in New Zealand attractive, without opening the market to widespread foreign property ownership. And he's right. I mean, there are some Kiwis looking at the $5 million plus homes, but it's not me. Is it you, Helen? No. No, she's not in the market for a $5 million home. Young Olivia, who's just joined us, no. No, she has yet to buy her first home, so it won't be in the $5 million plus category. It is not the majority of us, I would venture to suggest. And apparently, offshore buyers have responded immediately. High-end real estate agents say the word has gone out that New Zealand is welcoming people back into the country – but then you become a high-end real estate agent by talking up the market, don't you? So, you know, but you take them at their word.   The word goes out from the Prime Minister that if you want to come to New Zealand and you want residency, guess what? You can buy a house, which makes sense. But it's got to be $5 mil plus, which for some people is what they would spend on a bach. You know, these kinds of high-end investors, it's the sort of money you'd spend on a bach in New Zealand.   The Labour-New Zealand First coalition banned most foreign buyers in 2017 out of a belief they were contributing to skyrocketing house prices. The New Zealand First of that coalition is now the New Zealand First of this coalition that has reversed that ban. But Winston Peters is adamant that the ban actually remains. He says, "We have ensured that there are tight restrictions on eligibility and on what these current residence visa holders can purchase," including that existing restrictions, excluding the sale of rural farm and sensitive land, will still apply, as well as ensuring we don't get a repeat of the Canadian experience where there is a constant recycling of the same investment funds.   The visa holders will be restricted to only one home, either purchasing an existing home or building a new one, with the value of that home being a minimum of $5 million. This will exclude over 99% of New Zealand homes on the market, protecting the vast majority from sale to foreigners and will not affect the wider housing market for Kiwis. He says that New Zealand First supporters understand that this is not a U-turn, that the ban remains – except it doesn't. The ban remains except for those who are buying houses over $5 million. So, shall we call it a clarification, Winston? Not a ban per se, just a clarification.   Is he right? If you are dyed-in-the-wool anti-immigration, and you swallow a dead rat, as Winston has done, by accepting migrants who can afford to drop $5 million in investment money and $5 million on a new pad? Are those migrants okay? The ban in general remains, but for a very few people in the rarefied position of having $10 million to spend, then they are welcome, the welcome mat is there for them.   So, the only thing that really does make me wonder is what Christopher Luxon and possibly David Seymour had to give Winston Peters to get this over the line? That experienced old horse trader doesn't give it up for nothing. You know, you want it, you pay for it. So, I want to know what the cost was to get that, let's not say U-turn, let's not say reversal, let's say clarification.   And I also want to know what New Zealand First voters think. I know you love him, you'd follow him over the trenches. There's no man like Winston. He's probably up there next to Michael Joseph Savage on the wall, the framed print with some plastic roses in a vase underneath, gathering dust. But do you understand that he has made this decision for the right reasons? To me, it makes sense. I'm sure there will be some cashed-up Kiwis who are a little brassed off that their dream home may now go up in price by half a million dollars more because you've got foreign buyers bidding on the same property. But I'm not going to cry in my cornies over them. There's not going to be that many affected. So, I get where they're coming from, I just want to know how much it cost National and Act to get New Zealand First agreement because you don't get something for nothing. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's offering up to 30-million dollars in loans from the Regional Infrastructure Fund to smaller airlines.  It's also approved funding for a digital development that will allow regional transport bookings to be integrated with the platforms of major carriers.  Associate Transport Minister James Meager says most regional airlines couldn't opt to charge more as a solution to tough times.  New Zealand Airports Association Chief Executive Billy Moore says this is a ‘smart strategy’ from the government to improve regional airlines.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.