When the Prime Minister is doing all the shake and howdy at the investment summit in Auckland, I bet he’ll be feeling like a harassed parent who —despite all the chaos behind the scenes— somehow manages to arrive at a family wedding with the kids in tow looking cool, calm and very happy to be there.   Even though one of the kids had been refusing to leave the house and you all had a big bust-up in the car on the way to the church.   “But we’re here now guys - smile everyone”. I bet you that’s how Christopher Luxon is feeling.   And what will be making it worse is the fresh criticism coming from Briscoes Group managing director Rod Duke who’s telling Luxon and his government to “get their A into gear” and “actually do something” to help the economy. And I agree with him.    Because are you really doing any better than you were a year or 18 months ago?   This isn’t the first time Rod Duke has made these kinds of comments. I remember him saying a while back that he was prepared to give the Government until this month to deliver some results and, if he didn't see results, he’d be putting a rocket under them.   And that’s what he’s doing now.    He’s obviously had a gutsful of the Government blaming everything on the last government and he wants more action.   He says: “I think they’re of the view that up until now they’ve been able to blame the prior government, which is typical of a lot of governments I guess. But you know, the time has just about come where you’re going to have to make your own mark.   “You’ve had enough time to study, to tighten, to understand what the books look like, and now you’ve got to put some policies into place.”   He says everyone’s aware of the situation Luxon and Co. inherited from the previous government, but they’ve had enough time and should be able to show more for their efforts of the past 15 or so months.  Duke doesn’t seem to be doing what Luxon would probably ask him to do. You know, the line CEOs like to use about not going to them with problems but going to them with solutions.   But I think Rod Duke is right. The Government hasn’t delivered when it comes to the economy and it does need to get its “A into G”.    The problem is though, the Government has fallen into the trap that pretty much every government falls into – especially first-term governments. The trap of trying to do too much.   When you're in opposition, it’s very easy to sit there and have all these big ideas. Because when you’re in opposition, that’s all you have to do.   Different story when you get into government, though. For starters, you realise that the things you promised to do aren’t quite so easy to do in reality. So it takes way longer to achieve something.   And when you get into government, you have to deal with all the stuff that blows up in your face on a daily basis. You can lurch from one crisis to another and see your quarterly plan targets disappearing in front of your eyes.   So if Christopher Luxon said to me: “Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions” - here’s what I’d tell him.   I’d tell him to decide what his government is actually going to focus on and to stick with it. If it’s the economy, then make that your priority between now and the election.   And be honest about it, this laser-like focus that the Prime Minister talks about can't go in all directions.    I’d tell the PM to be upfront with us and say that if we want better health services and better education facilities and everything else that governments get lost in —as this government has— I’d tell the PM to be courageous and tell us that we’re going to have to wait for all those other things.   Because for now, it’s the economy and only the economy we’re going to worry about.   That might sound simplistic, but unless the Government ditches this idea that it’s going to fix everything ASAP, then it’s going to fail in all of them.   And people like Rod Duke won’t just be telling the Government to get its A into gear, he'll be telling it to get its A out of here. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Patriotism or profit.   Essentially, that’s what these changes the Government is making to the way it hires companies to do work for it come down to.   It’s like “Buy NZ-Made”. The Government wants to make it easier for local companies to get on its books. But what’s more important? Getting the cheapest price from (potentially) an overseas company or paying a bit more to hire a local company?   Patriotism versus profit. For me, when it comes to things like government contracts, patriotism wins hands-down every day.  It’s like that argument people sometimes make about Kiwibank and why the Government doesn’t use it as its official bank. The answer to that is simple - the government can’t shop locally when it comes to its bank, because Kiwibank doesn’t provide the full-scale banking services that it needs.   But it wants to buy locally more, and that is a good thing – even if it means paying a bit more for it.     It is kind of weird though that —on the one hand— we’ve got the Government bringing all these foreign outfits to the big investment summit tomorrow and Friday. But today, it’s saying that it wants to give local businesses a leg-up or make it easier for local companies to get government contracts, by making changes to the hoops businesses have to jump through to get them.   Nicola Willis kind of explained-away the weirdness on Newstalk ZB this morning, saying that she wants overseas companies coming here to invest, hire locals, and grow the local economy.   So, what that would look like is we’d have a big foreign outfit coming over to build a motorway or some other piece of big infrastructure, and they’d have a whole lot of sub-contracts with local companies like Fulton Hogan and all the other usual suspects.   But what I’m hoping these changes will mean is that we’ll see less of the usual suspects getting government contracts and the others —that probably feel on the outer a bit— getting their share of the work too.    If you’ve ever put a bid in for work with the government —like I have, in a previous life— you’ll know that some of the hoops you need to jump through are ridiculous.   In fact, my impression has been that if you’re already in the system, you’re sweet – if not, then the hoops can be enough to make you pull the plug.  Which is why the Government plans to ditch 24 of those hoops.   Big picture, it wants to prioritise hiring local outfits. It also wants to ditch some of the requirements that companies have to agree to, to get government contracts. Which are worth more than $50 billion a year.   One of the proposed changes is doing away with the requirement that companies providing catering, cleaning, and security staff pay their workers the living wage.   That’s one of the changes that I’m a bit torn on – because governments bang-on all the time about wanting to create a high-wage economy. And while the living wage isn’t a high wage (it’s currently $27.80 an hour), it’s better than the minimum wage.   But a company that gets work with the Government probably does work for other people too and has staff working on other things other than the government work. So, the requirement to pay a living wage probably has quite a significant impact across the whole business and is probably enough to put some smaller businesses off going for government contracts.   You can tell that Nicola Willis is taking to her new-ish job as Minister for Economic Growth, because one factor she wants the government to consider when awarding contracts is what’s called “the economic benefit test”.   So government agencies will look at contract bids and base their decision on who to go with based on the economic benefit to New Zealand.   So it would sign a potentially more expensive contract with a local company because it would deliver more economic benefit to the country. More local workers getting work, more work for local subbies and the profits staying in New Zealand.   As opposed to a cheaper contract with a foreign outfit that might bring its own workers into the country and take its profits overseas.   I'd choose patriotism over profit, any day. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's an old saying in advertising - to be successful you don't sell the sausage, you sell the sizzle. Christopher Luxon may have a great sausage, but he's not selling its sizzle. The Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll released yesterday afternoon had National up 1.7 points to 33.6%, but Labour had moved past it, jumping nearly three points to 34.1%. The Greens fell to 10%, down 3.2 points. ACT went down 2.3 points and Te Pati Māori rose 2.1 points to 6.5%. NZ First went down 1.3 points to 5.1%. So when we translate this number soup into seats in the house, both Labour and National are up three each to 42. The Greens are down four to 12, ACT is down two to 10, NZ First down to to six, Te Pati Māori up two to eight. That would mean the centre left block of Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Māori would have 62 seats to the centre-right's 58 and thus could form a centre-left government.    Now, before anyone starts booking a one-way flight to Australia, the only poll that counts is the one on Election Day. And these opinion polls, midway through a government's term, generally show a disgruntlement with the current lot that's in, rather than an overwhelming desire to see the other lot take over. But this is the third poll, in a row, that puts the opposition ahead.   And you might know, and I might know that the government's doing a good job of trying to re-establish some semblance of fiscal propriety, that they're redrawing boundaries about what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour within a decent society, and they've taken the first steps towards restoring a world class education system. But you and I also know that we live in a democracy and every vote counts. The lady who called in and wanted taxpayers to buy everyone a house and a car because that would give them a sense of belonging  —she wasn't quite sure how to pay for it, but she thought it would be cheaper in the long run than jail terms— her vote counts the same as yours.   There is no denying that the three-headed coalition beast makes it difficult to govern. The Treaty Principles Bill has been a divisive distraction, the bloody school lunches are yet another Labour well-intentioned, misguided initiative that has become this government's problem. People still aren't feeling better off, and they're still waiting a long time for a hip replacement. Dissatisfaction, disgruntlement, disengagement, that's all part of the midterm blues. Speaking to the Herald, Christopher Luxon said New Zealanders are going to have an opportunity in 2026, which is not that far away, to make a decision around Chris Hipkins or myself, he said, and our respective governments. My job is to make sure New Zealanders see that they're better off under my Government, we've come through a very tough time, there are some green shoots that we're really encouraged about on the economy ultimately, he said, New Zealanders are going to judge me at the election in 2026 as to whether we've delivered for them on rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order, delivering better health and education.    So do you agree that this is the government not being able to sell its sizzle. The sausage is there, but without the sizzle there will be no successful selling story. I could understand why some within National could feel brassed off. We've got the policies, the building bricks, the foundations, to get New Zealand cracking again and that will better everybody. But if people don't believe that, if they don't believe the message, then they go to vote Labour and we're going to get a centre-left government.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's not here to shag spiders, is it? It's planning to turbocharge its fast-track regime, speeding up the process to acquire private land for major infrastructure projects, and they intend to do that in part by offering cold, hard cash. Sweeteners or “premium payments” will be offered to private landowners, whose land is acquired under this new accelerated process. Changes to the Public Works Act, announced yesterday, would see owners paid a bonus 5 percent of the land's value —up to $92,000— for acquisitions. Those who chose to sell before a Notice of Intention would also get an extra 15 percent - up to $150,000 - on top of that, for a total of up to $242,000, as Chris Bishop told Mike Hosking this morning:   “Paying a bit more upfront will massively lower costs in the long term, so we're offering a 15% incentive payment. If the Government comes along and basically says, look, we're going to build a Road of Natural Significance here or another piece of infrastructure listed on the Fast-track Act, we're going to give you a 15% incentive payment and then a 5% recognition payment as well. That will massively lower the cost of doing that infrastructure because it means we've got the certainty that you can plan the construction out, you can sequence it properly.   “At the moment there are a number of examples around the country, it just causes huge delays because of the length of time it takes to acquire the land. And so it's just another step we're taking to fast-track infrastructure projects. Much of the projects we're talking about here are New Zealand Transport Agency projects, so this is central government coming along and saying, look, we're building a road of national significance here, here's the route, we need your land.  “And look, no one likes taking land, we don't do it with a great degree of passion, but the reality is if we want to build stuff in this country and get those roads going that we need, and public transport projects that we that we need, it will require taking land, that’s just the simple reality of it.”  So most of those who object to land acquisition for critical infrastructure projects won't be able to go to the Environment Court. Instead, they'll submit their objections directly to the relevant decision maker for faster resolution. Under the changes announced, the Crown will be able to acquire private land much faster for some public projects listed in the fast-track legislation, as well as Chris Bishop said. the government's Roads of National Significance. So the overhaul of the Public Works Act is already underway and expected to be completed by early next year.   Infrastructure New Zealand is welcoming the government's land acquisition incentive payments and a faster process for objection. It says it's going to really get things cracking. The government says this kind of turbocharging is needed to rebuild the economy. Do you support this? Would it make a difference? Does everybody have their price? Would an extra quarter of a million, there or thereabouts, make you realise that your house is not necessarily a castle, but a valuable asset? I mean, isn't that fabulous Australian film, ‘The Castle’, built around the whole concept that infrastructure has its place, but not when it's a man's home, it’s his castle? And there are stories of landowners who have held up major works for years and years and years because they don't want to leave their home. It's their home and no amount of money would make them change their minds.   But Governments weren't talking about extra payments of nearly a quarter of a million dollars, were they? Does everybody have their price? If you have land or property that's either been acquired or in the firing line, does this make a difference? If you're a developer, is this exactly the sort of change and turbocharging you wanted to see? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Crikey, I barely stepped away from the microphone yesterday and we had a double whammy news-wise. Phil Goff sacked as High Commissioner to London for an intemperate comment and question, Greg Foran resigning as Air New Zealand CEO. I heard someone on The Huddle with Ryan Bridge last night saying Greg Foran can now become the High Commissioner, Adrian Orr would become Air New Zealand CEO, and Phil Goff will take over as Reserve Bank Governor - all change.   Boy, will Phil Goff be kicking himself all the way back to New Zealand, all the way back to the farm at Clevedon. You are on the pig's back when you get a gig like that – it is a sweet deal. And one intemperate comment ...  I think he was just trying to be a bit too clever, showing he's done his homework, showing that he was well read, making appointed remark about somebody the world regards as a graceless buffoon (well, members of Phil Goff's world regard as a graceless buffoon), and he loses his gig, and rightly so.    He was asking a question of the Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister at a Chatham House event in London. Goff said he'd been rereading a speech by former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill after the Munich Agreement. “He turned to Chamberlain, he said ‘You had the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, yet you will have a war’,” Goff then said “President Trump has restored the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office. But do you think he really understands history?” So Phil Goff was making it well researched, clever-dick, pointed remark about the American president. What on Earth did he think was going to happen? He was stripped of his position immediately by Winston Peters. The Foreign Affairs Minister said Phil Goff’s comments were deeply disappointing. They did not represent the views of the New Zealand Government and made his position as High Commissioner to London untenable.    So a number of comments around that. Phil Goff was sacked by Winston Peters immediately. Winston Peters did not have to consult the Prime Minister before doing so – there was no need for him to consult. He was presented with a problem in his own department, and he dealt with it in the appropriate fashion. That's why you have managers, that’s why you have ministers. Everything doesn't filter up to the CEO. Imagine in your own organisation if every single decision in your department had to go to the CEO. Why have a dog and bark yourself? So there was no need to consult.    Was he sacked because the Government's sucking up, particularly to Donald Trump in the US? No. As Winston Peters pointed out yesterday, and as numerous foreign affairs experts have concurred, Phil Goff would have been sacked if he had made the comment of any foreign leader. When you're in a diplomatic role, you have to be diplomatic, and that wasn't.    And what about the Chatham House rules? Chatham House is an actual place where people congregate to debate, discuss ideas primarily around foreign policy, but also about other things. It's a meeting place for pointy heads where they can float and toss ideas around, and they don't have to worry about it being attributable back to them. The rules say when a meeting or part thereof is held under the Chatham House rules, participants are free to use the information received but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speakers, nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. So Chatham House rules guarantee people can speak freely within the walls.   But in this case, the Chatham House rules had not been invoked because it was being live streamed, so you're not going to be able to shield the identity of the speakers because it's being live streamed. So that's why the comments became public, despite the fact they were in Chatham House – oh irony of ironies. The rules have to be invoked. They weren’t, and apparently, according to Chatham House, it's not terribly often that they are. So there we go. That's what happened.   He stuffed up royally and he’s paid the price. And nobody will be more disappointed, I imagine, than Phil Goff except Mrs Goff because that would have been a lovely reward for a long period of time being an uxorious, fabulous support. Being a politician's partner or spouse would not be an easy gig. So you get the cushy number in London, feet up, gorgeous little holidays popping off around Europe. Now back to the farm in Clevedon, tail between the legs. Back on the ride on mower, no gardener for you anymore. He's had his punishment. He's heading home and Winston Peters did exactly the right thing. Ten out of ten for the Foreign Affairs Minister. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A former Foreign Minister says Winston Peters was right to fire Phil Goff.  Goff made comments at a public event questioning US President Donald Trump's understanding of history.  The remarks have cost him his job as High Commissioner to the UK.  Foreign Affairs was one of a number of portfolios held by Sir Don McKinnon under National.  He told Kerre Woodham it's unacceptable for a diplomat to say such things.  McKinnon says there's a line that ambassadors and High Commissioners should not cross.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, the announcement yesterday was on a par with John Key’s resignation. The Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, pulled the plug on his career yesterday with no real explanation as to why – although it's no secret that there is friction between the Governor and the Finance Minister. You know, I know and certainly Adrian Orr knows that if she could have sacked him, she would, rather than inherit him with his five-year term as given to him by the former Labour government.   Thomas Coughlan has written an excellent piece in the New Zealand Herald on the tension between Adrian Orr and Nicola Willis. He says while Willis observed the conventions of respecting the independence between the Beehive and the Bank, under questioning on Wednesday, she referred back to comments she made as the opposition finance spokeswoman when she was unmuzzled by ministerial warrant. When you're in opposition, you can say pretty much anything, you can criticise anybody you like. Once you become a minister, there are conventions to observe. So when she was asked questions about Adrian's resignation yesterday, she said, “I refer you back to earlier times when I could say what I liked”. And the comments she made back then were critical in the extreme of Adrian Orr’s handling of the economy.   Speaking of critical, if this is not the most withering, excoriating, damning assessment of a professional performance, I do not know what is. Former Reserve Bank senior staffer Geof Mortlock shared his thoughts on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning:  “I was thinking that going through all of the Governor’s since 1934, I would rank him as the worst in terms of competence – based really on the monetary policy results. You look at the inflation burst. Now some of that was external, but some of it was definitely a function of monetary policy actions. He's left taxpayers with over $10 billion of debt that could have gone into the public health system and other such things. He's nearly doubled the staff numbers of the Reserve Bank, and he's jacked up bank capital ratios to levels that I think are going to make it more difficult for the economy to actually start growing again.”  Yikes. I heard that on the way into work this morning and let out a little nervous giggle-squeak in the car. I felt like I was back at school listening to a tongue lashing from Sister Clare, thinking, I'm glad it's not me, glad it's not me. ‘I've gone to 1934 and without a doubt, he is the worst in terms of competence.’   There's been no explanation as to why Orr has resigned. It fits, I suppose, with his maverick nature that he'd just push off and stick two fingers to his colleagues and his staffers and indeed, the New Zealand public. The worst thing about the mess that's been left behind is that people are not criticising him with the benefit of hindsight. Even as he was making the decisions at the time, you might recall we had people ringing in saying this is going to cost us, it's too much, he's going too hard. There were people ringing in almost immediately saying we're going to pay for this and we're going to be paying for a very long time. There's going to be hell to pay along with $10 billion. And they were right. And they were calling it at the time.   As a result of decisions made by Adrian Orr, and let's not forget: Grant Robertson. They were yoked together in tandem making those decisions, and a lot of Kiwis suffered. Interest rate increases in response to post pandemic inflation pushed the country into a recession and unemployment increased sharply - the words of Paul Bloxham from the HSBC who talked about the rock star economy a million years ago, when New Zealand used to have a good economy. He said, across the developed world HSBC’s estimates suggest New Zealand's economy had the largest contraction in GDP in 2024 as a result of those decisions. And it's the real people, with families and jobs and bills to pay that suffered as a result of the poor decision making from the Reserve Bank Governor. It's hard to find anyone who's sorry that Adrian Orr is gone. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's confusion around the Reserve Bank Governor's resignation.  Adrian Orr's announced he's quitting, two years into his second five-year tenure.  Neither the Prime Minister nor Finance Minister are giving any details of why he's abruptly quit.  University of Auckland Business School Professor Robert MacCulloch told Kerre Woodham that while we don’t know for certain, the criticism Orr has received over the years likely played a factor.   He recommends not getting too political about it, saying that one shouldn’t take their eye off the ball that he was a bad governor, and the country stagnated due to significant mistakes made during his tenure.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As promised, Donald Trump has launched a trade war against America's largest trading partners, with huge tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China kicking in yesterday, sparking angry retaliation from all three. 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, a doubling of duties on Chinese goods to 20%.   Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau slammed the tariffs as “a very dumb thing to do” and said that it will be American families who will be harmed with price hikes across all household goods. Trudeau also said Trump was seeking to collapse Canada's economy to make it easier for the US to annex his country.   We live in extraordinary times. Trump is also eyeing the European Union. He's threatened to impose 25% tariffs on all goods out of the EU, and given his actions in recent days, there’s absolutely no reason to expect they won't be next. The EU’s responded with a “go ahead, make my day” promise of retaliatory action. We have an Anti-Coercion Instrument, and we will have to use it, promised the Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen.   It was designed following the first Trump administration from 2017 to 2021. They call it a “trade bazooka” that provides for broad retaliation in response to what they see as trade discrimination, such as quotas and tariffs or restrictions on foreign investment. It is a big, wieldy, economic tool by all accounts. I don't know if it's effective because it hasn't been used before.   It would need the backing of 15 of the EU’s 27 member countries and the first resort before they use that is to reinstate punitive duties. They were imposed in response to Trump's first term tariffs, so the first time round when he was using tariffs to control other countries. They put punitive duties on things like Harley Davidson’s, bourbon, Florida Orange Juice. These would likely be expanded to reflect the scale of Trump's new tariffs.   Now he hasn't put the tariffs on the EU yet, but it is very, very wise of them to come up with a plan should he do so. Italy’s Industry Minister Adolfo Urson suggested that Europe could avoid US tariffs by yielding to Trump's demands, while also calling for unity and warning against a trade war. One way to placate Trump, he hinted, would be to accommodate his demands to boost European defence spending. And that's it. Trump is doing what he's doing because he can.   “We run the world. This is America's world. He's our proxy. This ends when we say it ends.”  That's Fox commentator Jesse Watters. He was talking about Ukraine, but ultimately, it is America's world. Trade wars, wars in Ukraine, they end when America says it ends, and that's just a matter of fact. Trump might not have dignity, and he might not have grace, but he’s got power, and by God, he's not afraid to use it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Divisions are deepening between the US and other western countries over Ukraine, and now trade.  The US President's slapped a 25% tariff on all Canadian and Mexican imports, and 20% on some from China.  Canada's responded by imposing the same amount back, which Donald Trump says he'll match again.  Former Trade Minister and Ambassador to the US Tim Groser told Kerre Woodham countries like Canada are fighting the US on trade, while trying to form closer security ties.  He says that the two strategies are inherently in conflict with each other – you can’t start a trade war with someone you want to curry favour with.  Groser told Woodham he argues that even if Trump was next to them right now, he also wouldn’t be able to say what the end game is.  He says it’s difficult to sift through and find the real logic of the situation, resulting in unprecedented uncertainty.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.