Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

It was our gorgeous night last night, absolutely beautiful. The kids were training for football up at the local park, and while I waited to pick up my daughter and grandson, I went for a lovely walk along the estuary – there were Tui and Kereru, families and joggers were out, and it was just glorious.   But at the same time, as I was thoroughly appreciating just how lucky we are to have such a gorgeous amenity close by, I was keeping a wary eye out for any off leash dogs, because in our neighbourhood community group there had been a warning about a dangerous dog owner at the local park. And it only takes that one bad apple, doesn't it? To just put a slight tinge on the enjoyment. People who have no business owning dogs, taking them to the local park, completely letting them run wild with no control over them. A woman's dog was attacked and she was bitten badly when she tried to intervene to save the dog.   There are far, far more good dog owners. At our local there are dogs of all breeds of all sizes, they all socialise together quite happily and although money might be a little bit tight for some families in our neighbourhood, we are not what you'd call a high socio economic area, we all rub along together. The dogs that I see at the park are always beautifully looked after, glossy coats, great condition, whatever breed they might be.   Auckland Council’s cracking down on dog owners in a bid to lower a surge in attacks. They prosecuted the owner of a Rottweiler whose teenage son was walking the dog when it mauled a passer-by. The dog owner was very apologetic and the dog was euthanised at the owner's request. Four days later, she offered assistance to the victim immediately, but nonetheless the courts still gave her a 70 hours community service and fined her $500 – which is almost more than you get for taking a life, but there you go. Auckland is taking a tough stance because on the 24/25 financial year alone, nearly 3000 dog attacks and more than 15,000 cases of roaming dogs were reported, and that's an increase from 2020, when there were just under 2000 attacks logged. It's attributed to a surge in dog ownership after the lockdowns, a decline in desexing, and a growing number of unregistered and untrained animals.   And it's not just Auckland. I mean, basically pick any area of the country. Last year, locals staged a protest in Kaikohe outside the local council headquarters, demanding tougher action against roaming and dangerous dogs. They wanted to see better conditions in the Council's pounds and a reduced euthanasia. And the demonstration followed a surge in dog attacks across the region, with double the rate of attacks recorded nationwide. Two people were killed by dogs in the space of a year. The message from local authorities is clear.   Yet again, it's the dog owners, it generally always is – too many dog owners failing to take responsibility. The Auckland compliance manager said we're seeing a rise in serious attacks and it's clear that many owners do not care and don't believe they should be held responsible. Let us be clear, they will be held responsible. Owning a dog comes with a duty to ensure the safety of the community. If you can't meet that duty, you should not own a dog. There won't be any dog lovers, surely, who would disagree with that?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Auckland Council's cracking down on dog owners in a bid to lower a surge in attacks.  It's made more than 611 prosecutions since 2020, targeting owners with dogs that have seriously injured people or other animals.  Nearly three thousand dog attacks and more than 15 thousand cases of roaming dogs have been reported in Auckland over the last financial year.  Jo Clough, Director of The Dog Safe Workplace, told Kerre Woodham New Zealand needs a mandatory dog bite reporting system, as without one the true cost and extent of injuries won’t be known.  She says that education is the best way to mitigate damage, ensuring that people who have no choice but to go into spaces with dogs have the processes to keep themselves safe.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Foodstuffs North Island says it's working hard to re-employ staff from an Auckland New World that caught fire in June. CEO Chris Quin says of 183 people, 121 are working at other stores, 12 have found roles elsewhere, and 10 are taking a break. He told Kerre Woodham that leaves about 40 staff they still need to place. Quinn says they're trying to match employees to about 50 positions in Auckland stores. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's an old saying, one generally used by mothers: I’m not angry, I'm just disappointed.   Yesterday, hearing that the unholy Triumvirate of Ardern, Robertson, and Hipkins —Ayesha Verrall doesn't count— were choosing not to appear publicly at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 Response, I was both angry and disappointed. The second set of public hearings for the Royal Commission has been axed after key witnesses, including the aforementioned, refused to appear. Chairman Grant Illingworth has the power to summon people to appear before the Inquiry, those living in New Zealand, but said he would not use it. On balance, he said “we are of the view that a summons is undesirable given that the former ministers continue to cooperate with the evidence gathering of the Inquiry”. The writing was on the wall back in early July that Hipkins would not be showing his face publicly, when I asked him about attending to give his evidence in person. You could hear on the 8th of July that there was no way he was going to show his face.  It may be true that government ministers have in the past given their evidence privately to Royal Commissioners. The Covid-19 response, I would argue, is different. The “most honest and transparent government ever” relied hugely on the trust and faith of the public to implement the nationwide wholesale measures that they did. We all sacrificed to varying degrees, and with varying degrees of willingness, personal freedoms, livelihoods, children's schooling, mental wellbeing, because the government engaged with us, talked at us, cajoled us, threatened us, reassured us it was a relationship. Every single day those people were up in our grills, in public, telling us what we needed to do, how we had to do it, and giving their reasons for why we had to do it. Enormous sacrifices were made by many, many people, and many of them are still counting the emotional toll.   Ardern, Hipkins, and Robertson used their public profiles to ensure compliance with the decisions they were making, which grew ever more ridiculous and unworkable as time went on. I believe they have a moral obligation to front the public and answer the Commissioners questions publicly. Without manipulating the public trust, for better and worse, they couldn't have got away with what they did. Their objections to appearing appear to be Dentons’, the law firm’s, objections to appearing, but their objections include the convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries in private, and departing from that convention would undermine confidence. In what exactly?   I hope I've put up a case that they do have an obligation to answer publicly because the Covid-19 response was unlike any other event where there's been a Commission of Inquiry.  They were also concerned that the live streaming and publication of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those recordings being tampered with, manipulated, or otherwise misused. For heavens sake, any time you open your mouth in public your words and image can be manipulated and misused. Look at Neil Finn's erections for heavens sake. Anytime you appear talking about anything, AI can use your image, your words – it's not exclusive to the Commission of Inquiry.   They have form, these people, as spineless decision makers, so it should be no real surprise they haven't showed publicly. They never once ventured to Auckland during the pointless, unreasonable lockdowns of 2021. So no huge surprise that they're not willing to stand by the decisions they made then, now. Ardern and Robertson have moved on. They don't need the New Zealand public. They don't need the New Zealand public to have confidence in them, Hipkins does. He wants to be Prime Minister again. He wants another bash at it. He'll point to the polls and say he's a third of the way there, that most New Zealanders have got over Covid, moved on. Some of us haven't. We are living with the decisions the economic, medical, and social decisions that this unholy triumvirate made every single day. And our children will live with those decisions, and our grandchildren. The very least they could do is appear before the same public, whose faith and trust they exploited and explain how and why they made the decisions that they did. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chlöe Swarbrick's back in Auckland – thrown out of Parliament this week for refusing to apologise for comments in the House.  The Greens co-leader said if six of 68 Government MPs with a spine back her bill to sanction Israel, New Zealand can stand on the right side of history.   Former Speaker, Sir Lockwood Smith told Kerre Woodham that impugned the Government's integrity and warranted an apology.   He says that all Swarbrick needed to do was withdraw and apologise and that would be the end of the matter, but she chose not to.  Sir John Key made a similar comment without repercussions in 2015, but Smith says he expects he'd have apologised if he'd been asked.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So as you will have heard, Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has been barred from Parliament's debating chamber for the rest of the week, unless she apologises for a comment made during a debate over Palestine and the granting of statehood to it. During her speech, Swarbrick called on government MPs to back a Green Party bill that would allow New Zealand to sanction Israel for its war crimes.   CS: If we find 6 of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history.   GB: No, that is completely unacceptable to make that statement, withdraw it and apologise.   CS: No.   GB: Then leave the house for the rest of the week.   CS: Happily.   Gerry Brownlee, the Speaker of the House, said the spine comment was completely unacceptable, ordered her to withdraw it, and told her to leave the House when she refused. Parliamentary debates can be heated, but there are rules about what members can and cannot say. Unbecoming language, insults and accusations of dishonesty are banned.   Now obviously unparliamentary language is constantly evolving and changing over time. Going into Parliaments records, you'll find that in 1933 an MP calling another member a shrewd old bird was considered unparliamentary language. In 1936, fungus farmer and pipsqueak were considered unacceptable. In 1946 things got a bit heated ... “I would cut the honourable gentleman's throat if I had the chance”, understandably, the Speaker ruled on that one unparliamentary language. But skite was also considered unparliamentary in 1946. I mean, nobody likes a skite, but unbecoming language and having to apologise to the House?   In 1966 the insults flew and the Speaker was kept very busy. Shut up yourself, you great ape – withdraw and apologise. Snotty nosed little boy, cheap little twerp, and ridiculous mouse were all considered unacceptable. In 1977 John Boy was considered unacceptable. Silly old moo, racist, and sober up, which could have applied to any one of a number of MPs in 1977 I imagine, and so on and so forth. We probably don't think many of those insults were unparliamentary or unacceptable. I would say spineless fits in alongside twerp or stupid as Chris Bishop is supposed to have called members of the Opposition. I think stupid is worse than spineless. There are many things I have criticised and would criticise Chlöe Swarbrick for – calling her colleagues across the House spineless is not one of them. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Police Commissioner says he feels for his staff as a top cop faces the courts.   Former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming is facing eight charges of possessing child exploitation and bestiality material.  He resigned after a period of suspension on full pay since December, during a separate investigation.  Richard Chambers told Kerre Woodham he is angry, disappointed, and let-down – and knows staff feel the same. But he says it also shows nobody is above the law, no matter their rank.  In terms of police recruits, he hopes work will begin on a second police college wing for Auckland early next year.   An Auckland Campus opened last month as an alternative to the Porirua facility.  Forty recruits will graduate in coming months.   Chambers says it's going exceptionally well, and he's committed to expanding the operation.  He told Woodham it gives aspiring officers more flexibility on training.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Commentators are telling us that the tide is turning, that we've reached the bottom of the cycle. ANZ has lowered its mortgage interest rates, so other banks will surely follow suit, bringing relief to many households. Spring is almost here. And then the rates bill arrives in the mail. Any financial gains are immediately lost, any lift of the spirits plummets.   The Government is well aware that rising rates are adding to the economic doom and gloom. They put councils on notice last year to deliver value for money and promised to name and shame councils who were profligate spenders. They called it a table of spending, we call it naming and shaming. The report is designed to hold councils accountable on six metrics:   Rates – the change in rates since the previous year and the forecast change in rates over the next 10 years.  Council debt   Capital expenditure, including a breakdown by activity class such as roading and water services.    Balanced budget – to show whether the Council is actually coping with the rates that come in with the money it has or having to borrow to sustain itself.    Road conditions – so ratepayers can compare the state of their local roads with councils across the country. Local Government Minister Simon Watts says communities can now compare how much their council spends on core essentials like infrastructure and see whether their rates are going up more than average. We have been clear, says Simon Watts, that we want to see councils get back to basics, focusing on delivering essential services and infrastructure, improving local decision making, and supporting their communities through the cost of living, not adding to it.   He's also introducing a bill to remove four well-being provisions: social, economic, environmental, and cultural. They were reintroduced by Labour in 2019 after being removed by the previous National government in 2012, who removed them after Labour introduced them in 2002. So there's been a bit of political ping pong going on there. It will also impose a requirement on councils to prioritise core services when managing finances and setting rates. The threat of a rates cap too is ever present. If you don't stop increasing rates, then we will put a cap on you, the central government has said to local, so that you can't just hoick up the rates to pay your bills. Simon Watts points to rates caps in NSW and Victoria and says the same could happen here. I’m not sure that is the answer, not without accepting a massive loss in services, but how on Earth do you manage to budget when your rates rise well beyond inflation? What options do you have?   There's a story in today's New Zealand Herald of a rates rise of 72% for one family in Orewa. That's because they're living on land that's ripe for development, except, of course it's not, because WaterCare is not issuing any resource consents, because there simply isn't the infrastructure to sustain any more development. So they're facing a huge hike in their rates because of the value of the land, but the value of the land can't be realised. So how on Earth do you cope with the 72% rise in rates? How do you manage? Do you sell the property because you simply can't afford the rates? Do you apply for rates relief? Do you just not pay it?   For a long time, those who have bothered to vote in local body elections have voted for councillors who promise there'll be no rates rises, which means that a lot of the work that councils are doing has been delayed. They haven't had the money because homeowners, ratepayers, have elected councillors that have promised there will be no rates rises. But all that's doing is delaying the inevitable. In part, we have brought this on ourselves. You vote for people who aren't going to increase rates, you don't bother to vote. You don't bother to stand for council. When I say you, I mean we. So in part, we've brought this on ourselves. And because there haven't been the cheques and balances to monitor the spending, irresponsible councils have been able to do exactly as they wish - vanity projects wasteful spending. And those within the infrastructure of Council too have spent like drunken sailors. I would very much like to hear from those of you who have received your rates bill. Around the country, we've seen massive increases. Are you getting value for money from your Council? And what on Earth can you do about it? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The speed of decline of our gas supply could be hampering the transition to alternative energy.   A Business NZ survey of commercial and industrial users shows average price rises have topped 100% in the past five years.  Nearly half made various cuts to their business.  Energy innovation centre Ara Ake's Jonathan Young told Kerre Woodham supply's fallen a lot quicker than anyone expected.  He says it's hurting as companies try to transition.  Young says it's like a relay runner falling short ahead of the baton exchange, and it's leading to de-industrialisation.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The economic doom and gloom continues with rising property rates.  Some rural areas are even facing increases substantially higher than the average council rate.  One Orewa family is facing a 72% rates rise on their rural property, as it was zoned for new development – development that can’t be done for several years.  Taxpayers' Union Local Government Campaigns Manager Sam Warren told Kerre Woodham they’re strongly pushing for rates capping laws that would stop any rates increases above the level of inflation.  He says it would keep the councils focused on the important things, and ensure you can’t be costed out of your own home.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.