Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

We know airfares are expensive, right? Everybody, and I mean everybody, I know who's booked flights recently has made the comment that an overseas flight is cheaper than flying just about anywhere around New Zealand – especially to the provincial centres. Easter was huge in terms of airfares, but even on your normal everyday Wednesday morning, flying to Timaru, flying to Tauranga, it's going to set you back a fortune.   We've been complaining about Air New Zealand's pricing now ever since we could get back in the air again after Covid, but what can we do? Air New Zealand says its experienced more cost inflation in the past three years than was typically seen in a decade, with Covid, a weak New Zealand dollar, and geopolitics all to blame.   Richard Thompson, Air New Zealand's Chief Financial Officer says their costs over the past 3.5 years have gone up by roughly 30%. Domestic airfares on average have gone up by around 24%, so they're trying to absorb the costs, they say. He argues that flying is still a relatively affordable way to get around the country, with every $400 or $500 fare, he says, there are thousands of examples of $129 fares or even $99 fares. He said I was speaking with someone before Christmas who wanted to get from Timaru to Napier. They were paying $600 or $700 one way.   But what's the alternative? You drive to Picton. It'll cost you $100 in gas. If you take the ferry across, that's another $250 or $300. Then another $50 or $60 in gas to get to Napier. He said driving isn't cheap either. But now the government's getting in on the act. Associate Transport Minister James Meager is not ruling out underwriting the expansion of small regional airlines to help maintain routes and keep the price of flying competitive. But truly, the thing is we simply do not have the population base to support viable competition. How many airlines have tried and failed to establish themselves in the market? Just thinking back, in the last couple of decades, Freedom Air, Kiwi Air, and Ansett - they came, they tried, they failed.   Don't get me wrong, competition is a good thing. We do have Jetstar, bless them and where they fly, you'll generally find the routes are the most competitive in terms of airfares, and the most reliable – because let's not forget about reliability. And I don't think that's a coincidence. I'm supposed to be flying to Tauranga in a couple of weeks for the day, for a job. And I'm supposed to be flying down on Saturday morning and flying back on Saturday evening. I have absolutely no confidence that that will happen. None. I mean, I hope it does, because there's a film crew down there and it will be a costly exercise if I fail to make it. I'm not planning anything for that particular Saturday night because the last time I flew to Tauranga, I got down there fine and then sat for just under 7 hours in the regional lounge waiting for a plane that never came, or it didn't come for a very, very long time. And yes, you can drive, but it's a horrible drive. But what do you do? It's a horrible drive or you accept that there's a very real chance that the plane won't take off when it says it's going to.    Why, though, is the government interfering in the market? I found it really interesting that successive governments, Labour and National have wanted to tinker with privately owned businesses like supermarkets, and petrol companies, and banks, and now the airlines. They want to sort of tweak and fiddle around to try and bring prices down and make things more competitive, and it's all about the consumer and you know.   Fabulous. Why don't they bring down the price of power? That's something they do control. The governments are in charge of that. Not everybody flies, we all use electricity. It is what it is. It's expensive to run an airline. Really expensive now in the wake of Covid and it's all been outlined as to why it's so expensive. Flying is expensive. We know that. We baulk at paying the prices if we can. They will allow some subsidies if you're going for a funeral, if there's humanitarian reasons for getting somewhere quickly.   Air New Zealand can allow for cheaper airfares, but ultimately, do we want the government, that is the taxpayer, subsidising competition in the aviation industry?  I wouldn't have thought that was a good use of taxpayer money. Why on Earth should other taxpayers who don't fly, subsidise those who want to flit off to Hawkes Bay or Queenstown for a jolly. I just don't see why the government should be interfering with the business of flying planes. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Airfares are still on the rise, and the Government is considering getting involved.  It hasn’t ruled out underwriting the expansion of small regional airlines to help maintain routes and keep the price of tickets competitive.   Associate Transport Minister in charge of Aviation, James Meager says he’s uncomfortable with the idea of flying becoming accessible only to the wealthy.   NZ Airports Association CEO Billie Moore told Kerre Woodham they have to be upfront in that no airline is really going to go up against a government-owned carrier like Air New Zealand on existing routes.  She says it's not a viable option, particularly for smaller carriers.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaking of the bad weather, it brings me to the emergency mobile alerts. The emergency mobile alerts came about because Fire and Emergency and the National Emergency Management Agency and other agencies including New Zealand Police, Ministry of Primary Industries and Ministry of Health use emergency mobile alerts to alert people if their lives, property or health are at serious risk. I'm pretty sure they came about during Covid, I can't recall them before then you might, but I think it was pretty much a Covid response and that's continued to include any other times where lives, property or health are at serious risk. Over the past week. Aucklander’s have received about four or five emergency alerts on their phones, and I'll tell you what, they give you an absolute conniption when they start screeching. You know it takes you right back, the adrenaline surges through, you think, fight or flight ... okay there's bad weather coming. Well, yes, a cyclone had been forecast to be arriving over the North Island. So, you would imagine with a tropical cyclone bad weather comes - thunderstorms, the potential for flooding. And then the next lot of emergency alerts came to warn of the potentials of dangerous gases as a result of a recycling plant in a suburb of Auckland going up in flames and once that fire started, many, many suburbs around the fire were advised to stay inside and then another alert gave the all clear sometime later. I do understand that Civil Defence is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Some Aucklander’s were asking why they weren't warned about the severe thunderstorms and deluges on the Friday night of Easter weekend. But surely, we all knew that a cyclone was sitting over the North Island, and cyclones bring rain and thunderstorms. But there was criticism because they hadn't been warned, so therefore we got warnings up the Ying Yang in response. Meteorologists defended themselves, saying well, thunderstorms are notoriously difficult to predict, and weather is notoriously difficult to predict. We saw that with Gabrielle as well. In February 2023, the Esk River in Hawkes Bay burst its banks and flooded the entire valley. Hundreds of Hawkes Bay residents woke in the middle of a nightmare, with water surging through their homes, and there was no alert, no warning, they hadn't been evacuated from the area, and yet the cyclone had been predicted. Schools had been closed in Hamilton and Tauranga and those areas were unaffected but Hawkes Bay was absolutely hammered. It's an imperfect science, an imprecise and inexact science. Are we depending far too much on meteorologists who can give you a broad spectrum? - we can expect thunderstorms, we can expect electric storms, we can expect heavy rain over the next week, we can't tell you that it's going to arrive at your house at this time, so be prepared. And I wonder if too many people are expecting that from authorities and from decision makers. We've become very used to having people tell us what we should do, how we should do it, to keep ourselves safe. I'm not entirely sure you can do that with weather. It is unpredictable. It changes. Meteorologists will tell you that they can really only give you a broad spectrum. And if you're depending on government agencies to tell you what to do and where to go and how you should cope, I think that way lies disaster, really. Because you'll think, well, I haven't had a warning, so I should be fine. People will let me know if I'm in danger and you start to lose your Spidey instinct, you start to lose your Spidey senses. Too many alerts are going to mean that people will just switch off. They'll either switch off their phones and say I'm not going to have my heart racing and my pulse racing and the adrenaline surging through me for a fire that's happening ten suburbs over that really doesn't affect me. If we start to switch off, then again, emergency services will be blamed because they sent out too many. I suppose it's helpful having someone to blame other than God and the weather? But when did weather become such a big deal that it dominates the news. Meteorologists are becoming the new public health officials. And when did we stop using our common sense and relying on government agencies to tell us what to do in weather. Do you need to know through your emergency mobile alerts, what is happening? Does that give you the opportunity to take precautions? What purpose does the agency serve? I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this one.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you’ve ever done a pre-school drop-off, what’s been the main thing going through your mind? Aside from ‘am I going to get to work on time?’.   Have you been more concerned about the safety and wellbeing of your child, grandchild, niece or nephew? Or have you been more concerned about the qualifications of the people working there?   For me, qualifications don’t even enter the equation.   I’ve had three kids go through pre-school or early childhood education and I can honestly say that I was never concerned about the pieces of paper that the teachers might have had sitting in a drawer or up on the wall at home. I was never bothered about that.   Which is why I am liking what the Government’s doing to loosen the qualification requirements and get rid of some of the complexities that the people who run these centres have to deal with.   At the moment, there 98 different criteria for early childhood centres – which include things like keeping the temperature inside at 18 degrees.   But I think one of the best changes the Government plans to make is to give the people who run these places more flexibility when it comes to hiring staff in terms of what qualifications they need to have.   Generally, I think we have become over-obsessed with qualifications. I think qualifications are used to weed people out as a starting point.   And the real downside of our over-obsession with qualifications is that, sometimes, the best person for the job —or the best people for the jobs— don’t get a look-in. Example from the early childhood sector: someone who might have a truckload of practical experience or might have been out of the workforce for a few years having a family, do you think they could be the perfect person to have at an early childhood centre? Of course. That kind of person would be a great catch. Someone who genuinely loves kids, who knows about all the practicalities of looking after little kids day-in, day-out. Give me someone like that any day over someone who has done all the assignments and passed all the exams but doesn't necessarily have the temperament to deal with pre-schoolers. And let’s not forget the anecdotal reports we keep hearing about kids turning up at pre-schools who need a lot more attention than kids might have needed a few years ago. Especially in relation to their behaviour. Qualifications don’t prepare you for that. And if these qualified early childhood teachers are so necessary, why is it that kids are turning 5 unprepared for school? About three weeks ago, Dr Stuart Deerness —who’s a senior education lecturer at AUT— wrote a piece in the NZ Herald where he said that the blame for kids not being ready for school can’t all be put on parents. He’s right. And I’m going to draw a link, you might say it's more like a long bow, but I’m going to draw a link between this obsession that early childhood teachers be formally qualified and the fact that some of the kids they’re responsible for not being school-ready. Because for me, you don't need a qualification to have empathy. You don't need a qualification to solve problems. You don't need a qualification to deal with over-anxious parents. And you don’t need a qualification to keep a little person safe and happy, and to get them ready to take on the world.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s a chance you'll think I sound like I’m contradicting myself with my views on NZ First jumping on the gender identity bandwagon.     Politicians love a good bandwagon and that’s what NZ First is riding with its members’ bill to legally clarify the definitions of man and woman.   I say they’re riding a bandwagon because it comes on the heels of the Supreme Court in Britain doing pretty much the exact same thing last week. It ruled that it all comes down to a person’s biology, and that’s NZ First’s thinking as well.   I’m not so black and white. But first, let me say that, of all the things New Zealand is dealing with at the moment, this plan by NZ First is not a priority. We don’t need this.    Yes, some people think the transgender community is leading us to hell in a handbasket. That’s why NZ First is saying things like its members’ bill being all about fighting “cancerous social engineering and woke ideology”.   But I think only a minority of people feel as strongly about it as that language suggests.   And will it do anything to get the economy sorted? No it won’t. Will it get kids out of poverty? No it won’t. Will it reduce power prices? Not it won’t. Will it get more life-saving drugs for people? Nope. See what I mean?   But, aside from thinking that NZ First is barking up the wrong tree or barking at a passing car, and that we don’t desperately need this clarification, my overall view is that inclusion is way better than exclusion.    What I mean by that is however we might feel about someone being transgender —however comfortable or uncomfortable we are about it— does how we feel really matter? I don’t think it does.   What does matter is that someone who, for whatever reason, feels so uncomfortable in their own skin —or who feels alien in their own skin, in terms of gender— then why shouldn’t they be free to do something about that?   Well, they should be free. And, by being free, they should also enjoy the same privileges and freedoms as everybody.   That’s the inclusion versus exclusion part of it.   But, at the same time, there are parts of this freedoms and privileges bit that I really struggle with, and this is where I’m going to start to contradict myself.   I’m not saying here that I advocate any sort of antagonism or discrimination or worse towards anyone who lives their life as a transgender person. But I understand why some people aren’t as open to the possibility that not everyone wants to be the person they were when they born.   And I understand that because I’m not black and white on it myself.    Yes, I’ll preach inclusion instead of exclusion and I’ll tell people who get wound up about drag queens reading stories to kids that they’re indulging in unnecessary moral panic. But often, the question people ask me if they disagree with me is how I feel about a transgender person using public facilities provided for people of particular genders.    And —I’ll be totally honest with you— that is my stumbling block.    But, despite that, I don’t support what NZ First is doing because it doesn’t seek to include, it seeks to exclude. I also don’t support it because I don’t think people are crying out for it.   But what do you think? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s only been one pope’s death that has really shocked me – and I don’t think it was because I was only 10 years old at the time.   It was September 1978 and I remember the shock vividly. John Paul I died just 33 days after becoming the Pope.   We were a Catholic family so it was all everyone seemed to be talking about. Not just because he had died, but because he died so soon after his inauguration.   So last night when the news that Pope Francis had died came through, I wasn’t shocked or surprised. And I think most people will be like that.   Especially when he’s been so unwell. Pretty much for most of this year.   Nevertheless, his passing is significant. And, of course, first thing I did was get on the phone to mum. Because even though I haven’t been what they call a practising Catholic for quite some time, it stays with you. It’s a sense of belonging that never really leaves you.   It won’t be the same for everyone who grows up a Catholic, but that’s me.   So he was the first Pope from South America. He was 76 when he was elected.   As all Popes do, he chose a name. And he chose Francis in honour of St Francis of Assisi, the 13th-century Italian friar who got rid of all his  wealth to become a man of peace and poverty.    Which brings me to what I’ve been surprised by the most. It's not the fact that the Pope has passed away, it’s what’s being said about his achievements during his time as Pope.   I’ve seen headlines quoting all manner of people and they've been saying things about how he was a pope for the poor. That he’d had a lifelong commitment to the poor.   He was anti-capitalism. He was big on the environment. He promoted tolerance. In fact, one of the last things he did was wash the feet of young people locked up in prison.   This was just before Easter.   But I didn’t know that. Which is why, when I consider whether the pope (whoever it is), is a leader for all of us —Catholics, non-Catholics, everyone— I would have to say that the role of the pope doesn’t have the same global leadership or impact that it once did.   That’s how I see it.   Which, in a way is surprising. Because it is so much easier to get the message out to the world these days.   And I think that the church is going to have to do more to promote the values and work of the next pope. Because if it doesn’t, there will be no shortage of people making noise about what they’re up to and the pope’s global influence will diminish.     Maybe my ignorance of the work and achievements of Pope Francis reflects the fact that I’m not engaged with the church.   Maybe practising Catholics will be right up with the play. And maybe practising Catholics are quite happy not to see the pope popping up on Instagram and TikTok all the time.   Two years after becoming pope, Pope Francis issued what’s called an encyclical letter —this was in 2015— and he said then that poverty and ecological destruction were two things the world needed to confront.   Linking the two together, of course, because coming from South America, he was acutely aware of the link between ecological destruction and poverty.   And, according to a German Catholic relief organisation, one the Pope's major achievements was the attention he helped to focus on the environment.   Which is news to me, and it raises the question: is the Pope's global influence what it used to be? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’m starting to wonder who isn’t running for mayor in Wellington.   Former Labour leader Andrew Little is the latest one joining the race to oust current mayor Tory Whanau.   And, just in case you think so, I’m not endorsing Andrew Little in any way, shape, or form. But I do think having former MPs on local councils is a very good thing.    Because whether we like it or not, local councils cannot operate in isolation and knowing how things in Wellington work is invaluable.    Andrew Little isn’t the first ex-MP wanting to get into local government. Former National MP Nick Smith is the mayor of Nelson. Phil Goff was mayor of Auckland. In Christchurch, former Labour politician Lianne Dalziel was elected mayor three times. Maurice Williamson —who was a National MP and minister— is on Auckland Council these days. John Banks. The list goes on.   And they don’t admit it at the time, but when these ex-MPs stand for their local councils, it’s not just their political experience they're banking on. They also know full well that they’re making the most of apathetic voters who look for a name they know and end up voting for them.    When it comes to name recognition, I reckon an ex-MP has way more chance of being successful in the job than some of the other people you see milking their name recognition to get elected to their local council.   People in my game do it. In fact, it seems to me that if media people don’t go on to be marriage and funeral celebrants, they go on to be a local councillor.   Not that you will ever catch me doing that. Last thing I’d want to do.      Sportspeople milk their name recognition too.   I’m not in Tauranga and don’t know all the ins-and-outs, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the reason Mahe Drysdale is the mayor of Tauranga is because of his brilliant rowing career.   He’s got none of this so-called “business experience” that some people think is essential for someone to be good at running a town or a city.  He’s got no prior political experience. He’s just a name. Voters obviously thought he was a good Kiwi bloke, he’s done well in his sport, so they voted for him.   Not that, from what I’ve seen, it’s been all plain sailing for him so far. I’ve seen a few stories with him getting heat for stuff – and that is where people’s lack of political experience shows.   And why I think it’s a very good thing to have people former MPs on our local councils.    They’re not perfect —Lianne Dalziel was far from perfect— but they know what they’re getting themselves into.    They generally don’t set the world on fire, but I don’t care about that. Because, whether we like it or not, local and central government are intertwined. Local government is way more dependent on central government than it would like to admit.   Especially, when they’re in the schtuck. When they need to get Wellington on their side.   Which is why having people as mayors and councillors who know exactly how to get the government on side —because they've been there and done that— that’s why it is so beneficial.   And that’s why I’ll take an ex-politician over an ex-media personality or an ex-sporting hero any day, when it comes to who I want to see on my local council.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inflation is officially on the rise again.  The latest Stats NZ figures show the Consumers Price Index rose 2.5% in the year to March – up from a 2.2% rise in the year to December.  The numbers cover the 12 months to March 31, and don't reflect the impact of Donald Trump's new tariffs and other new trade barriers.  NZ Herald Business Editor Liam Dann told John MacDonald that despite the increase, economists are reasonably confident the Reserve Bank will be able to continue cutting interest rates.  He says the economy is very slow, so they’re expecting non-tradable inflation to continue going down.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How are you feeling about the world, now that we know the Government’s goal of having 20,000 less violent crimes by 2029 has already been achieved? Four years early.   Anyone who tries to pick holes in this result would be a bit of a misery guts, because who could find anything possibly wrong with there being 20,000 less victims?    Try Ginny Andersen. Labour’s police spokesperson is saying today that the numbers raise more questions than they provide answers.   Which is a bit like a school kid getting excellence in their NCEA and their parents asking how they managed it when they seemed to be on their phone all the time.   That doesn’t matter, does it? The kid’s got NCEA with flying colours. Just like it doesn’t matter why there’s been this decrease in violent crime, there just has.     Although, I kind of hear what Ginny Andersen is saying. In Canterbury, there’s been a 43% decrease – 15,000 fewer victims of violent crimes. And no one seems to know why that is. But I’ll take it, thanks.    And Ginny Andersen doesn’t seem to be excited by the fact that the Government has released these numbers in a different way. Normally, they're released once a year, but the Government is now releasing them every three months.   But however this decrease has happened, why it’s happened, and whoever can take the credit for it happening, is irrelevant.    Because the data tells us that something is working.     We could go down a rabbit hole of trying to work out what particular bit of government policy might have actually done the trick, but I don’t even think the Government can put its finger on that one.   Which is pretty much what Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith was saying on Newstalk ZB today.   But, for now, the target has been reached, which I’m going to the vibe that’s been coming from the Government regarding crime, because I think that’s as important as any specific policies themselves.   I’ve always been very doubtful about the gang patch ban, for example. I’m not convinced yet on that one, and I don’t actually think that will have much of an impact on violent crime stats.    Just like the boot camps for bad kids – I’m not a fan.    But, despite my misgivings on those things, I won't be giving the Government a hard time today about these crime numbers.   I reckon a big part of it is the increased visibility of the police.   I don’t know how they’ve done it —because the numbers haven’t shot up or anything— but certainly in Christchurch, the police are way more visible.   I spend a lot of time in the central city, and I would say that I haven’t seen as many police on patrol in that part of town for years.   It wasn’t all that long ago when I’d have business owners in the central city telling me about assaults and things and the cops being nowhere and not even turning up when they called them. Even though the central police station was a hundred metres away.   Fast-forward to today, and it’s a very different story.   So that’s one thing I reckon has definitely made a difference and is part of the reason why violent crime is down.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government’s cracking down on dog owners tying up pets for too long.  MPI and SPCA Animal Welfare Inspectors will now be able to issue fines topping $1,000.  The regulation targets dogs tethered in poor conditions with signs of mistreatment like excessive barking.  SPCA Scientific Officer Dr Alison Vaughan told John MacDonald that the regulations won’t be targeting people who tether their togs temporarily, such as when they pop out to the shops.  She says the issue is prolonged tethering, sometimes known as life chaining, in which dogs are living out their whole lives on a chain.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.