Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Our Government is asking the US for more details on its new import rules for New Zealand.  Donald Trump's announced 10% tariffs on almost all goods entering the country from around the world – including New Zealand.  Many countries face much higher tariffs, with goods from China being hit by a combined 54% levy.  Trade Minister Todd McClay has confirmed officials are still seeking information.  He told Kerre Woodham that while a trade war isn’t ideal, New Zealand has a very diverse trade strategy, with agreements with most parts of the world.   He says that trade will adapt, and exporters will have other opportunities.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kiwis seem to be on the move.  Ministry of Housing and Urban Development data shows that half of New Zealand tenancies are less than two years old, and just 1% have been in place for more than 18 years.  The average tenancy is now 50 months long, up from 28 in 2010, and the median has reached 25, up from 14 in 2010.   Residential Property Managers Association Chairperson Tony Mitchell told Kerre Woodham that it comes down to flexibility – mostly on the part of the tenant.  He says most landlords would prefer a long-term agreement, but tenants prefer the flexibility of shorter contracts as it allows them to move or upsize as needed.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour's leader says the US tariffs on New Zealand aren't justified in a retaliatory sense.   A US chart states New Zealand imposes 20% tariffs on US imports, and Chris Hipkins is wondering if this includes GST, which isn't a tariff.   He told Kerre Woodham New Zealand's one of the world's lowest no-tariff countries.  Hipkins also says New Zealand won’t just be impacted by the tariffs directly imposed on us, but we could be hit harder by indirect knock-on effects from the higher amounts Trump is imposing on other countries.   The Labour leader says the party’s learned from its last stint in Government.   Hipkins says the Labour Government tried to do too many things at once, preventing them from doing many things well enough.   He says watching the current Government has made him reflect on another lesson.   Hipkins told Woodham the Government had also spent too much consulting and asking people what they thought, and sometimes people just want them to get on with it.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here we go again – the America’s Cup. How many times have you heard the debates for and against the America’s Cup? The Government, as you will have heard, has declined the opportunity to invest in hosting the America's Cup in 2027 and the usual arguments are raging over the wisdom or otherwise of that decision. Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) chief executive Nick Hill said it was with great disappointment that they were confirming that Auckland would no longer be bidding to host the 2027 America's Cup, explaining that Auckland's bid was contingent on a three-way funding partnership between Auckland Council, central government, and the private sector.   MBIE informed TAU that the government is unable to provide the funds required and, on that basis, he said, he bid cannot proceed. He said the situation illustrates the need for a long-term, sustainable funding model in New Zealand to support major events, and there, I would agree. Rather than having it on an ad hoc, piece meal, “hey, what about this guys?” kind of a basis, having some sort of structure to provide funding for major events as they come along would be a very good idea. Viv Beck, from Auckland's Heart of the City, also expressed her disappointment ruing a missed opportunity.   “The reason it's so disappointing is it's ripe for the picking. I mean, we've got the infrastructure, the economic benefits would be there and if there had been quicker action on finding alternative funding. I mean we understand that there are other priorities for the government, but growth is also a big opportunity, a big priority and you know the reality is that the GST alone could pay for that money. So I think with some imagination and will and determination it could have been a different result.   “We know we don't compete internationally now. Often, we don't, we're a small country, we get that. But I think we do have to have the energy and drive and will to try and find ways to actually grow this, because events are a great way of attracting people here. It's not just a one-time wonder that people come and have a great time. I mean the benefits from trade and jobs, international profile. You look at Barcelona. I mean, imagine if we had that in 2027, something along those lines at a time where we really do need to have something that actually excites people, that we actually are growing and not just full of problems.”  Yes, yes, yes. But at risk of stating the obvious, we aren't bloody Barcelona, are we? We're not in the middle of Europe, surrounded by nations who are just a fair wind filling a spinnaker away. We're at the bottom, next stop, Antarctica. The last time New Zealand hosted our economy was left $293 million worse off. That was the 36th America’s Cup in 2021, and that was according to an official cost benefit report. Auckland's economy alone was left with a financial deficit of $146 million, with a financial return of 72 cents back for every dollar put in. I am a financial and economic numpty, but even I can see that that does not make sense.   To be fair, we were severely hampered by Covid-19, and according to the Trevor Mallard and the Clarke government – they crowed about the 2003 event, they said that generated around half a billion dollars of economic activity into the New Zealand economy which made the investment of around $10 million worthwhile. They said back in 2003, an extra 9360 full-time equivalent jobs were created. And while 85% of the extra economic activity was generated in Auckland, there was still a substantial effect in other regions as international visitors travel to other parts of the country.   That was 22 years ago. The world is a vastly, vastly different place. Right now, an America’s Cup is a nice to have. It would be lovely, it feels great. I've been in Auckland for a number of Americas Cup’s, and they were fantastic, feel-good affairs. They boost morale, and the bars and restaurants do a roaring trade, and everyone with a bit of cash has a jolly good time. It's an absolute jolly. But then I'd like to put a pool in the backyard too, and I think ultimately it would have economic benefits, ultimately it would pay off. I could make the case that if I put in the money now, then I could put in the pool and get the pay off later. Well, except it's a nice to have right now. There are other priorities, and I would say the Government is absolutely damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.   This is the price we pay for spending up over the last few years. I'm sure we could find the money. Admittedly, this Government doesn't have Grant Robertson's knack of finding millions down the back of the couch – he always seemed to pop up with $460 million just when it was needed. But what do the optics look like? Cutting the ribbon at a pared down Dunedin hospital while Auckland has a knees up on-board boats and drinking champagne, sure that's going to look fantastic, isn't it? Labour would be bleating away about “unnecessary expense” and “look at the waiting lists”. They're absolutely damned if they do, damned if they don't.   We were warned. Wise souls told us on the show, during Labour’s hoot's wahay spend up that ultimately, we would have to pay the piper, and this, turning down the opportunity to host an America's Cup is what it feels like. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Auckland's chance of hosting the next America's Cup has gone the way of the wind.  Auckland Unlimited confirmed yesterday that the city is unable to proceed with its bid for the 2027 event, as the Government isn’t contributing any funding.   AUT Sailing Professor and former world champion sailor, Mark Orams told Kerre Woodham that the professionalisation of sport has resulted in finances playing a more significant role when it comes to decision making.  He says New Zealand lagged behind the trend as much of our sport remained amateur, but sailing has now caught up to the transition.  “The days of hosting the America’s Cup or having Team New Zealand sponsored by a family of five New Zealand sponsors are now gone.”  “The costs associated with both mounting a competitive campaign and hosting a major international sporting event are just beyond our ability to fund within New Zealand.”  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The war on road cones has ratcheted up, with the coalition government setting up a hotline for people to report the overzealous use of road cones and no, it's not an April Fool's joke. The hotline is part of a first tranche of measures introduced by Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, designed to reform the country's health and safety laws so businesses can focus on the necessary and the essential - not on the “senseless and superfluous” as Brooke van Velden told Mike Hosking this morning.   “One of the things I heard from travelling from Whangarei to Bluff, talking to small business and workers, was that most of them don't know what to do to comply. We're going to make it a lot clearer, so you only need to focus on your critical risks. Things that will actually cause people harm, rather than posters saying warning hot water or warning here is a staircase. We've got to bring some common sense back to New Zealand and to business.    “A lot of it is companies finding they're spending a lot of money on over compliance because they are fearful of prosecution. You know, and we've heard it even in the case of traffic management that sometimes some companies are spending nearly half of their project cost on temporary traffic management. So, we're bringing some common sense back and saying look, in some cases you're doing too much and in some cases, we need to focus less on the paperwork and making sure that WorkSafe has a paper trail and more on how you actually reduce harm in your workplace. Let's go back to what you can recognise as things that could cause death or serious illness and injury and not sweat the small stuff.”  So businesses will now only notify WorkSafe when significant events occur, such as death, serious injury, and illness, which is a good thing. I remember coming out of the studio door a couple of years ago and a bit of loose metal cut the top of my foot. Not seriously, I required a Band-Aid, not stitches, but I had to fill out a workplace health and safety form. It was an incident.   However, the Opposition spokesperson Jan Tinetti says the Government is weakening workplace health and safety reforms and is being reckless. She says health and safety is not a political game, and everyone must get home safely. And whenever I think of the words “getting home safely”, I think of Jahden Nelson. The 28-year-old scaffolder had to have both of his arms amputated after a metal pole he was carrying touched a live overhead power line. The workplace he’d been working on had been given a Close Approach Consent – that's required when work is being done near overhead power lines. The consent required the crew that put up the scaffolding to be the same crew that took it down for safety reasons, so they knew where the power lines were, they knew they were live – it makes sense.   However, WorkSafe found none of the four man dismantling crew, including Jahden, had been involved at the outset. The initial crew received a safety briefing – not the dismantling crew. So the company was sentenced, and the fine was reduced to nothing because they couldn't pay it. And you know, ultimately it doesn't really matter what sort of fine they got or what sort of punishment they got because Jahden’s the one who is living without his arms. A 28-year-old man, fit, strong, healthy, goes to work, spends six months in hospital, his life has changed forever because some numpty didn't bother to assess the critical risk and tell the dismantling crew ‘make sure the overhead power lines are switched off’. Or you don't go near them, or they're insulated. And that, I guess, is what Brooke van Velden is talking about, that if firms are focused on the critical risk factors involved in the business it makes much more sense than saying be careful of the Zip, the water's hot.   We have an absolutely shocking record of work-related deaths. An estimated 10,000 people, men, women, and, in some cases, children have died from occupational ill health or workplace fatalities since 2010 – in 15 years, 10,000 people have died. And then you've got people like Jahden: didn't die. Has his life changed? You betcha. 420,000 people were injured at work.   So I think some of these dumb rules came as a result of people just desperate to ensure that workers went to work and came home safely. I think they were trying everything, throwing everything at it. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has data from 2022, and it allows comparison between countries that use a risk management framework, which we've done since Pike River since 2010. According to this, almost three times as many people die at work in New Zealand than in the UK. So more rules, the word soup, hasn't made us safer. What will? What is it going to take to prevent the deaths of 10,000 more people over the next 15 years and having 420,000 people's lives changed - some irrevocably? Fewer rules and thinking for yourself? Well, that was a very laissez-faire attitude – that was the she'll be right attitude that some of the old timers still have. Surely there's got to be a balance between the she’ll be right and the word soup. There's got to be a happy medium that sees workers go to work and come home safe.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government announced a formal Request for Information looking into what it could take to bring a third supermarket chain to the country.  Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis isn't ruling out a major restructure as she says all options are on the table.  Monopoly Watch Research Director Tex Edwards talks to Kerre Woodham about the announcement.  LISTEN ABOVE. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Law and order was a major concern of voters going into the 2023 Election – to be fair, it's usually on the minds of voters going into any election campaign, but particularly the last one.   Voters had had a guts full of doing things a different way. Of policing by consent, of giving authority to the gangs and then seeing them take over towns. We had guts full of seeing young kids ram raiding, of seeing neighbourhood crime increase. You saw numerous community Facebook pages showing kids as young as 10 being driven around by older people, breaking into homes, stealing what they could find. People were sick and tired of it, and they were sick and tired too of judges letting young punks walk away from their crimes and their responsibilities. They wanted the authorities to ensure consequences were in place when offenders broke the law. The coalition partners may have their differences, when it comes to law and order though, National, Act, and New Zealand First were, and still are, singing from the same song sheet. They all wanted to go hard in direct contrast to Labour who wanted to and did empty the prisons. Under Labour, incarceration rates plummeted from 213 people per 100,000 in 2018, which is near the highest in the OECD to 149 per 100,000. Although victims of crime increased by 12%. So unfortunately, treating people kindly, nicely with compassion didn't seem to be working terribly well.   Labour's reforms were part of an overall goal to reduce the prison population by 30% by 2033. In one area where it achieved success, it achieved that 10 years early. In the 23 campaign, then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins saw that the writing was on the wall and in a stark illustration of pragmatism over ideology, showing that power to him was more important than Labour's principles, he scrapped the target as part of the policy bonfire. But it was too little too late. Labour was voted out, the Coalition voted in, and now tougher sentencing laws have been passed by Parliament.   The changes kept the discounts that judges can apply during sentencing to 40% – which still sounds an awful lot. It also scraps repeat discounts for youth and remorse and absolutely – that makes sense. How many times can you be bloody sorry? How many times can you say, oh, look, I'm sorry, I was only 16, I was only 17, I was only 18, I was only 19. I have absolutely no doubt that the dreadful upbringings that many of these offenders have contributes to the reasons why they offend, but how many times do you get to play that card? It is awful. It's unspeakable. It shouldn't happen. But you can't keep saying sorry and getting away with it and having it apply.   There are three new aggravating factors: penalizing offenders who target sole charge workers, good, those who aid and abet young people, good, and those who live stream their crimes, double good. The changes also encourage longer sentences for people who offend on bail, in custody, or on parole, and implement a sliding scale for early guilty pleas, so an offender can only get a 5% discount if they change their plea to guilty during the trial.   This is common sense that absolutely discourages bad behaviour. But as Julie-Anne Kincaid, the Law Association Vice President told Mike Hosking this morning, the changes are all very well and good, but we're running out of places to put the lawbreakers.   “Our prisons are full. We have these new things coming into play, which are designed to make prison sentences longer and people to be imprisoned longer, as well as 3 strikes coming into play on the 17th of June this year. And these will lead to an increase in our prison population, which is already at breaking point.   “It costs $150,000 about to keep a person in prison for a year in New Zealand. So that's 10 more people in jail for one year each is $1.5 million, and that would pay, I'm sure for a palliative paediatric doctor to come to New Zealand.”  It absolutely would. There are so many ways we as taxpayers could spend $150,000. If I had $150,000 per person, I would love to use that money to rehabilitate them. To rehabilitate especially the young punks, so they didn't cause any further harm and pain. Prison, I think we can all agree, isn't where rehabilitation happens – that has to happen within the person themselves. They decide, all of a sudden they grow up. Age seems to happen, and that's when offending stops. They fall in love, they have children, they decide they don't want the kids being brought to see dad or mum in the prison. So they decide to grow up and change their ways. They decide that they are worth more and deserve more than being some dumbass fall guy for the gangs.   But, where is that rehabilitation going to happen? Where are the rehabilitation programs that work? Can we all sit around waiting for the muse to strike some young punk? Because it seems to be an epiphany that they have – this is not working, this is stupid. Doing the same thing over and over again is dumb. I'm worth more, I'm going to go out and have more. We can't.   And we cannot let people get away with their crimes because that really starts to rip the fabric of society, not just strain it, but tear it. The people who are doing good get increasingly furious, increasingly brassed off, increasingly intolerant – and you can't blame them. How many times do you see people walking out of the supermarket with the trolleys loaded high when you have been agonizing over how much you have to spend, and trying to feed the family with that? So they have to be punished. Ideally, they don't commit the crime in the first place, you nip it in the bud. And that's where I guess the social investment policies come in, but they take time.   I think we're just gonna have to put up with overcrowded prisons for a while, because I don't know about you, but after six years of attempts to do things differently —I don't know how they thought that reducing the prison population was suddenly going to make society safer, it didn't— I want to see good old-fashioned justice and retribution. Little bit of hellfire and brimstone for a couple of years, no matter the cost, I'm okay with it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Westport residents have been berating their council over a plan to move the flood-prone town.  Draft master planning began in 2023 on a proposal to move to Government-owned Pamu-Landcorp farmland southwest of the current settlement.  Buller Councillors yesterday voted to continue to the third stage.  Mayor Jamie Cleine told Kerre Woodham that step enables more conversations.  He says the plan has never been to just pick up and move Westport, it will be an inter-generational process.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What is this mania for the building of stadia when this country has so many already and very, very few of them are economic assets? The decision over whether to upgrade Eden Park in Auckland or to build a brand spanking new stadium on the waterfront is such an old debate. And before I go on, I will say I've been a guest of Eden Park, but it does take more to buy my opinion than a very nice lamb chop and a glass of non-alcoholic rosé, I promise you.  The contest for Auckland's main stadium yesterday ended with neither Eden Park nor Te Tōangaroa proving feasible without public funding. Eden Park's upgrade is technically feasible but requires $110 million from the Government. Te Tōangaroa’s proposal lacks technical and commercial feasibility. So right there I'd say, “well, I'm gonna stop you there” if I was a councillor. If it lacks technical and commercial feasibility, wouldn't we go, “well, thanks very much, bit of a waste of our time, ka kite anō” to the people behind it? Anyway, they plan to progress land acquisition over 12 months.    Now, most of you will be familiar with Eden Park, even if you're from around the country. Te Tōangaroa is more ambitious, includes a 50,000 seat stadium —which is the capacity of Eden Park— that can be scaled down to 20,000 capacity for smaller events. It’s the centrepiece for the redevelopment of Quay Park with up to four hotels, hospitality, scope for 2000 apartments, plus commercial offices.    Different parties have been trying to build a waterfront stadium for years now. You'll remember Trevor Mallard had a plan to build a stadium in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup, and that came to naught. Another proposal in 2018 was floated and came crashing down to earth. Developers would build a shiny new waterfront stadium, in exchange, they'd get the land at Eden Park, plus the ability to build apartments on the waterfront land. There's always something in it for the people behind the developments. Of course, there is, otherwise, why would they do what they do? And it ends up being chumps like you and me who pay for it. We have stadia. We have stadia up the Yin Yang, all over the country, all over Auckland that are underutilized and uneconomic.   As the chief executive of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, Martin Snedden told Mike Hosking this morning we need to get over ourselves and consolidate into just one stadium.    “It's time people really got collaborative, and I know, you know, you may not agree with me here, but the Warriors, Auckland FC, they should be incorporated into the program at Eden Park, so that, you know, that venue is... This is what's happened, you know, places around the world is the multi-use of one venue.   "Look at what happened at Eden Park over the weekend, where on Friday they had White Ferns and Black Caps internationals played there, Saturday it was the Crusaders and the Blues, and Monday it was the All Whites qualifying for the World Cup. That's the right use of the stadia, and that's what we need to move towards. We don't need to keep propping up other stadia that are just not fit for purpose, let's just concentrate it all on what we've got.”  Absolutely. But why is it too, that every city around the country, every large town, big city, wants its own stadium when they don't make economic sense? There's a great piece in the conversation by Robert Hamlin and he points out, there have been just 30 major events at Forsyth Bar in Dunedin since 2014. He wrote the piece last year, so that's three a year. Te Kaha in Christchurch is being funded mostly by ratepayers —the Crown's put in a bit— and the stadium was solely responsible for a 2% increase in rates last year.   We come to Hamilton, and these figures are from 2015 so there might have been a remarkable turnaround – I doubt it, but there might have been. Since Claudelands Event Center opened in 2011, it has run at around a $10 million deficit per year. And who pays for that? Ratepayers. Palmerston North: in the 2021 10 year plan, it showed a budgeted income of $19 million, but expenses of $73 million. Come on. It does have facilities for some indoor sports, but much of the money that's going to be spent is on the main stadium in sport of stock car activities, including $4 million budgeted for new pits and more millions for a new grandstand on the south end. Non-stock car income is negligible because the stadium struggles to attract higher level rugby matches or large concerts because of the car track.    Invariably, if you do end up building a bloody stadium, It's not good for something else. So, they're not multi-purpose, they can't be used for other events. You build this stonking great white elephant, and we pay for it, us, and then we're not allowed in it unless we pay a fortune for a ticket to go to something that's on inside the stadium that we built. As a ratepayer, you should get a free ticket to anything that's in there for the rest of your life.    I just don't get why we're so obsessed with wanting new shiny stadia. In Auckland, we've got Eden Park, Go Media Stadium (formerly Mount Smart), Western Springs, Spark Arena, North Harbour Stadium. No, we don't need another one. Bowl the others, and everybody can play nicely together in one big stadium. At the moment, it looks like Eden Park's the most likely – there you go, I've paid for my lamb chop.   But imagine your family budget at the moment: Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we built a beautiful new swimming pool at the back because the kids are getting a bit older now? Be lovely, with a nice little pool house next to it. Yes, it would be lovely. Can we afford it? No. And that's what the Waterfront Stadium is.  Honestly, as Robert Hamlin said, the reason why is that people just get so excited, the decision makers get so excited, with all these reports of the extra economic benefit that's going to come to the city, and it's gonna prosper and it's just gonna be the making of the city.    No, it's not. No.    Ratepayers end up paying and paying and paying for generations for a white elephant that nobody's allowed to ride unless you pay a bloody fortune to get on its back. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.