Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

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.

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.