Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

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.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis all but invoked the old adage ‘the beatings will continue until morale improves’, when commenting on the state of the economy yesterday. In a stand up with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon after the Reserve Bank cut the OCR by 25 basis points to 3%, she blamed the sluggish economy on doomsayers from the opposition benches who were talking the economy down, and all but instructed Kiwi households to be more jolly.   “I'm always conscious that households listen to merchants of misery everyday, most of whom sit on the opposition benches, who like to be doomsayers and talk down the New Zealand economy. I think it's been a really tough time for Kiwi families, there's absolutely no denying that, but we kind of have a choice – do we talk ourselves into an ongoing funk? Or do we look ahead and recognise that things will get better?”  “People need to feel it, and I fully appreciate that. You know, some parts of New Zealand are feeling it, and other parts are not.”   So that was Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon. All well and good, but on the same day she told us to pull up our socks and perk up, Fletcher Building announced a $419 million loss. Kitchen Things, a premium appliance store that goes back to 1986, announced it was closing 12 stores (there is a Kitchen Things in Hamilton that's trading by itself and doing very well and would appreciate the support) and they asked ASB to appoint receivers. And Carter Holt Harvey is proposing to close its Nelson sawmill with the loss of 142 jobs.   Willis and the rest of her government are exasperated and frustrated that things have not got better faster. When you're elected on your promise to turn things around, voters, not unreasonably, expect to see results. And yes, it was always going to be a big job, but they said they were up to the task, that they could do it. I don't think it is the opposition benches being doomsayers. They've done their damage. They're not saying much of anything at all. Labour knows all it has to do is stay schtum – the moment it opens its mouth and gets into trouble. So all they're doing is watching the Government trying to put its shoulder behind the big, sluggish beast that is the economy, and they're shoving it, and they're pushing it, and you've got the Finance Minister out the front dangling her carrots saying come on, up you get New Zealand economy, let's get cracking. And it's hibernating. It's in hibernation and it's not moving. And that must be very frustrating.   There's a very good piece by Danyl McLauchlan in the New Zealand Listener, where he says at the moment the Coalition Government really only has itself to blame. I put that same question to Christopher Luxon when he was in. You're just waiting for the economic cycle. You're not doing anything magical or brilliant or wonderful. Yes, I like what you're doing with education very much. I like what you're doing with law and order very much. But when it comes to the economy, so far all I can see is that you're waiting for the natural cycle. There's not a lot going on. The Reserve Bank is confident lower interest rates will eventually help that inert, sluggish economy get off the front porch and start moving. It's identified numerous reasons why the cuts it's delivered in a year haven't spurred as much growth as some expected. That said, the Chief Economist Paul Conway said yesterday it's not our job to grow the economy. We're here for price stability. He said if you want to get growth going in the long run, it's about improving productivity in the economy. Monetary policy is not the instrument for that. We're about controlling demand to keep inflation low and stable. Don't look at us, he was basically saying, there is only so much that we can do. And sure, by lowering interest rates, by lowering the cash rate, thereby allowing banks to lower mortgage interest rates, that will leave some people who are coming up to setting mortgages with a bit more money in their pockets. It will allow some people to borrow money a bit more easily.   But what is it going to take? I think people are a bit shell shocked after the past four years. And it is an economy of two halves – some people are doing really, really, really well, and good on them. But others, their pay packet arrives in their account and whoosh out it goes. You think you're getting ahead and then in comes the rates bill, or the insurance bill, or school fees, or what have you, and there is no extra for households to be jolly on. Others who might have got their noses ahead and have seen business start to pick up don't want to go through that again, so they're stockpiling like sensible squirrels. There was a lovely woman who rang in a couple of days ago and she was in painting and decorating. She said, I love people having money. I love people who've earned a lot of money, and have worked hard, and been lucky, or however they've got their money, because they spend it with us. And without them spending, we don't have a company. I don't have a business.   That's right. You've got to have that extra money so that the money-go-round can continue. And right now, people either don't have that money, or if they do, they're a bit nervous about spending it. I would love to hear from you if you are in business, if you are a member of a Kiwi household, where are you at? Are you in a funk? I don't think I'm being talked down by the opposition. That's not how I feel. They're not ruining my buzz, they're not dragging me down. I just need to get ahead of the rates and the insurance. The mortgage rates have come down a bit, so that's good. I think 2026 will be okay, but that won't be any thanks to the Government or what it's done to be perfectly honest. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More students are attending school regularly.   Figures released today show 58.4% of students regularly attended school in Term 2 - the highest since 2021.   It's a drop from Term 1 where 66% of students showed up regularly, but this is partially explained by winter illness.   Associate Education Minister David Seymour says messaging from the government has changed to remind parents school is important.  However no prosecutions have been launched against parents of truant kids.  Seymour told Kerre Woodham 15 prosecutions were explored but later dropped.   He says it's clear the threat of prosecution is changing parents' behaviour.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former Speaker Trevor Mallard is returning early from Ireland, ending his job as Ambassador.  Winston Peters has appointed senior foreign affairs staffer Angela Hassan-Sharp as his replacement, saying his behaviour during the anti-mandate occupation at Parliament should've disqualified him from the role.  Peters says only experienced diplomats, not former politicians, should be posted overseas.  Former MP and former diplomat Maurice Williamson told Kerre Woodham the idea that politicians should never be appointed as diplomats is too black and white.  He says that often those with political weight behind their name have advantages regular diplomats don't, such as with former Trade Minister Tim Grosser, who became the Ambassador to Washington.  However, Williamson says, they do need to be diplomats first and foremost and understand how diplomatic processes and channels work.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The secondary teachers are out again.   They're appalled and insulted by the Government's latest pay offer. For the record, the Governments offered a 1% pay rise every year for three years in collective agreement negotiations. PPTA President Chris Abercrombie says the offer is the lowest increase in a generation and 18-19,000 teachers will be out protesting today. Chris Abercrombie said the Government's offer was appalling, and argued that it failed to help efforts to recruit and retain teachers within the workforce. The Government's also failing, he says, to address other PPTA claims – more pastoral care staffing, professional development for curriculum and assessment, more support for curriculum leaders who will be working on upcoming NCEA changes. If no progress is made, we have been warned, the PPTA says they will roster students home and not teach certain year levels on specific days from September 15th.  If this all sounds familiar, it is. Here's a press release from Jan Tinetti in 2023, basically two years ago, when she was Minister for Education. The Government has agreed to support the independent arbitration panel's recommendation to increase secondary teachers' base salaries by 14.5% by December 2024. The increase will see beginner teachers receive an annual increase of almost $10,000 in addition to their $7,210 lump sum payment. The offer provides an increase of 36% for teachers at the top of the pay scale. She acknowledges the disruption to students, young people, and their parents who were kept out of the classroom. The panel's recommendation adds an extra cost of approximately $680 million to the $3.76 billion already set aside in the budget to settle teachers’ and principals’ agreements. That money includes an increase to other education collective agreements which will flow on from the decision.  So where are we at? Surely the PPTA doesn't expect 14% increases every bloody year. I mean, that's farcical. And if the strike and the promise of more strikes and rostering students home and not teaching certain year levels sounds familiar it’s because in 2023, that's what happened from March, all through the school yea —never the holidays— there were strikes. Year levels were rostered home. There were national strikes. As the teacher said, we haven't received enough from past governments and this Labour government, so it went to independent arbitration and the panel recommended that the base salaries be increased by 14.5%. Which came in in December 2024. Eight months later, they're striking again?   Does this happen every year? Every year we get this. Surely if you're striking and the deal is set that you get pay increases and they come in in December 2024, wouldn't you be factoring in that this will last you for a bit? That that this will do you for the next couple of years? Or parents and teachers going to be seeing kids locked out every year over months and months and months. This kind of disruption is completely, I would have thought, utterly unacceptable. If there hadn't been a pay settlement in 2023, which came into effect in December 24, fill your boots. I'd be out there with a bloody placard with you. But how can you justify going out again and closing the classrooms again after the enormous disruption of Covid? And then the enormous disruption of 2023 with national strikes and rolling strikes. How can it be in the best interests of young people and the profession to disrupt the schools in this way? You know, for $3.76 billion for teachers’ and principals’ salary and package agreements, maybe we could spend that a different way. You know, with AI here now, the PPTA has to be very, very careful that they don't strike themselves out of existence.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two stories in the Herald today - one about the announcement from Christopher Luxon and Chris Penk yesterday, changing the building liability settings so ratepayers aren't burdened with picking up the tab that shonky developers, builders, or architects are responsible for. In the Herald story, they cite a case in Queenstown: the Oaks Shores body corporate filed a $160 million claim for weather type defects. The developer had been placed into voluntary liquidation and was not sued, so that meant every ratepayer in the Queenstown District was liable for the bill. If the case hadn't been settled privately, ratepayers could have faced rates increases of $300 a year for 30 years. I hate to think of what it's cost the Auckland Council when it comes to remediation of weather type defects, and it's still going on.   Under the new rules, described as the biggest change to the building consent regime since it came into force in 2004, there'll be partial liability amongst the various parties involved in the development. At the moment, not only is it the cost, but councils have become increasingly risk averse because they don't want to sign off building consents and inspections if it means that they are liable if anything goes wrong and then ratepayers will have to pay.   There's a real blockage in the system, Chris Penk says, and by having everybody share in the liability then that will help (they hope) clear blockages in the current system. Currently building owners can claim full compensation from any responsible party if there's something wrong with the home. If one of the parties can't pay because they've gone into voluntary liquidation, you can go to the other two, and usually that's the Council – deepest pockets, no option to walk away. The government's going to scrap the current framework and replace it with proportionate liability. Under this new model each party will only be responsible for the share of the work they carried out, which is great for ratepayers, great for councils, great for builders. Is it great for the homeowner? I wouldn't have thought so – you can only get the money back if the company is still there to sue. And if they've gone bust and if the Council's only liable for its bit, then you're not going to ever get anywhere near what you paid for a shonky building.   This comes into the spotlight because we're looking at intensification and higher density of houses, which means throwing up more houses quickly. Chris Bishop, the RMA Reform Minister, has already told councils in our larger cities that they can opt out of the medium density residential standards that were introduced by the last government, that allowed for three storey developments on almost every residential property. But you can only abandon that if you adopt new planning rules to allow for an equivalent number of homes.   In Auckland, that will mean the Council has to come up with two million homes over the coming decades. And how are they going to do that? Well, they've decided that they will build them along the transport lines, which makes sense. The suburb of Kingsland, for example, will see the removal of around 70 to 80% of the special character designation that preserves the cottages and villas, and 15 story apartment buildings will be thrown up in their instead because the suburb is close to the station on the Western line. Ten storey and 15 storey developments will be allowed within a 10 minute walk of some train stations, rapid bus stations, the edge of town centres. In Auckland, there's 44 walkable catchments. Height limits will be raised to six stories along more major transport corridors. And 12,000 properties will be down zoned, meaning it'll be harder to put new developments on them, or they won't be permitted at all because of natural hazards like flooding. If adopted, the plan will be open for public submission —this is specifically for Auckland— before the Council makes a final decision later this year.   Auckland councillor Christine Fletcher is one who is vocal in her opposition to the density requirements, concerned that if it's not done well, it will give intensification a bad name. And when you look at some of the horrors that have been constructed around Auckland, you can understand why there would be concern. Bad enough to have a 15 story apartment building next to your bungalow bathed in all day sun, but if it's just in a constant state of remediation and fixing and disrepair and people having to abandon their apartments because it hasn't been done right and can't be fixed, it'll be even worse.   It does have to be done right. There are areas of extreme ugliness, hideous apartments, townhouses jammed together with very little in the way of green spaces, no public transport nearby, few amenities. But then you have developments like Stonefields and Hobsonville Point in Auckland, which I would argue have been done very well. You might be able to point to parts of Hamilton and Napier where there has been intensification of housing. Outside of Christchurch, farmland has become residential in its nature, with developments there.   Those that are done well are done very well. Those that are done poorly are just a blight on the landscape and a burden around the neck of anyone who buys them. How on earth are you going to have any confidence in buying a new build when partial liability is being introduced? When you can't get back what you spend because each party is only responsible for their little bit and so many of them will be able to do a flit? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It seems hard to believe, but the Maxim Institute reckons New Zealand can lead the world in sustainable AI infrastructure. They warn, however, that the window of opportunity is closing quickly because everybody wants to be in on it.   Every other country wants the rewards that come from hooking their carriages to the AI machine, the choices we make now will determine whether New Zealand becomes a leader in the AI economy or is stuck in competing for the rats and mice that are left.   Much hinges on being able to generate the electricity needed to power the massive warehouse sized computers driving the AI economy. Right now, those data centres use 2% of global electricity - more than 10 times New Zealand's annual generation capacity and demand is only going to get greater.  The institute argues that New Zealand has nearly 90% renewable electricity, a temperate climate that reduces cooling costs and strict privacy laws, and thus that makes us an attractive destination for global tech firms. ‘But we haven't got any electricity’ I hear you cry. We're having to burn coal to keep the lights on. Nanas going to bed at 6pm because her power bill is so high. And here is where the Maxim Institute makes its recommendations.    We need to double geothermal generation, explore emerging energy sources such as supercritical geothermal. Small modular reactors, which are next generation nuclear technology that offer safe, scalable zero carbon power. We need to streamline, consent and incentivise investment.    Speaking to the Mike Hosking Breakfast, Thomas Scrimgeour, researcher at the Maxim Institute, is all for exploring the nuclear energy option.   ‘Small nuclear reactors are an excellent source of energy that we should be exploring. The International Energy Agency's report earlier this year was titled A New Era for Nuclear Energy. The world is heavily, heavily investing in nuclear power.   Over 30 countries have signed a pledge to triple nuclear power production by 2050. The world is returning to nuclear power because it is clean, because it is reliable, because it is always there for you.  Nuclear power is something we should be looking at. New Zealand's opposition to nuclear power is quite recent. In the 1970s, so not that long ago, we had a Royal Commission on Nuclear Power, and it released a report in 1978 that was expecting a significant nuclear power programmes in New Zealand by the early 21st century.   It's only since the 1980s that we became a country that reacted against nuclear power because of its associations with weapons testing in the Pacific. But nuclear energy is not the same thing as a nuclear bomb, and New Zealand hasn't always been opposed to nuclear energy. Once upon a time, we were expecting to get nuclear power, and we can talk people back into that.’   Can we though? That was Thomas Scrimgeour, one of the researchers at the Maxim Institute, talking to Mike Hosking this morning.   He says, basically, that the David Lange ‘no nukes’ identity around which we wrap ourselves, it's an anachronism, a thing of the past, it was a blip in history. One moment we were all for nuclear power, next thing we decided it was absolutely abhorrent.   We were never going to have anything to do with nuclear power ever again, even though we have X-rays, and even though our hospitals leak more radiation than the most efficient nuclear-powered vessels, he thinks that we can forget about those Lange years.   He thinks that we can forget about the fact that much of how New Zealand sees itself – pragmatic, humble, innovators, #8 wire mentality, no nukes, no nonsense, give everyone a fair go - he thinks that we can differentiate between no nuclear weapons and the need for nuclear power.   On the surface, it would solve all of our problems. If we can make ourselves an attractive market to global tech firms and being able to store all this massive amount of data in our country, it would solve our problems around electricity too. Is it worth having the discussion or are you not prepared to even talk about it? S  Surely the younger generation, those who weren't around when we got this frisson of excitement when David Lange took us to the world. We took a stand, and we were noble, and we were principled and the whole world knew who we were. Surely the younger generation don't have their identity as a Kiwi tied up in that. Or do they?  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.