Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

The Government announced a formal Request for Information looking into what it could take to bring a third supermarket chain to the country.  Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis isn't ruling out a major restructure as she says all options are on the table.  Monopoly Watch Research Director Tex Edwards talks to Kerre Woodham about the announcement.  LISTEN ABOVE. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Law and order was a major concern of voters going into the 2023 Election – to be fair, it's usually on the minds of voters going into any election campaign, but particularly the last one.   Voters had had a guts full of doing things a different way. Of policing by consent, of giving authority to the gangs and then seeing them take over towns. We had guts full of seeing young kids ram raiding, of seeing neighbourhood crime increase. You saw numerous community Facebook pages showing kids as young as 10 being driven around by older people, breaking into homes, stealing what they could find. People were sick and tired of it, and they were sick and tired too of judges letting young punks walk away from their crimes and their responsibilities. They wanted the authorities to ensure consequences were in place when offenders broke the law. The coalition partners may have their differences, when it comes to law and order though, National, Act, and New Zealand First were, and still are, singing from the same song sheet. They all wanted to go hard in direct contrast to Labour who wanted to and did empty the prisons. Under Labour, incarceration rates plummeted from 213 people per 100,000 in 2018, which is near the highest in the OECD to 149 per 100,000. Although victims of crime increased by 12%. So unfortunately, treating people kindly, nicely with compassion didn't seem to be working terribly well.   Labour's reforms were part of an overall goal to reduce the prison population by 30% by 2033. In one area where it achieved success, it achieved that 10 years early. In the 23 campaign, then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins saw that the writing was on the wall and in a stark illustration of pragmatism over ideology, showing that power to him was more important than Labour's principles, he scrapped the target as part of the policy bonfire. But it was too little too late. Labour was voted out, the Coalition voted in, and now tougher sentencing laws have been passed by Parliament.   The changes kept the discounts that judges can apply during sentencing to 40% – which still sounds an awful lot. It also scraps repeat discounts for youth and remorse and absolutely – that makes sense. How many times can you be bloody sorry? How many times can you say, oh, look, I'm sorry, I was only 16, I was only 17, I was only 18, I was only 19. I have absolutely no doubt that the dreadful upbringings that many of these offenders have contributes to the reasons why they offend, but how many times do you get to play that card? It is awful. It's unspeakable. It shouldn't happen. But you can't keep saying sorry and getting away with it and having it apply.   There are three new aggravating factors: penalizing offenders who target sole charge workers, good, those who aid and abet young people, good, and those who live stream their crimes, double good. The changes also encourage longer sentences for people who offend on bail, in custody, or on parole, and implement a sliding scale for early guilty pleas, so an offender can only get a 5% discount if they change their plea to guilty during the trial.   This is common sense that absolutely discourages bad behaviour. But as Julie-Anne Kincaid, the Law Association Vice President told Mike Hosking this morning, the changes are all very well and good, but we're running out of places to put the lawbreakers.   “Our prisons are full. We have these new things coming into play, which are designed to make prison sentences longer and people to be imprisoned longer, as well as 3 strikes coming into play on the 17th of June this year. And these will lead to an increase in our prison population, which is already at breaking point.   “It costs $150,000 about to keep a person in prison for a year in New Zealand. So that's 10 more people in jail for one year each is $1.5 million, and that would pay, I'm sure for a palliative paediatric doctor to come to New Zealand.”  It absolutely would. There are so many ways we as taxpayers could spend $150,000. If I had $150,000 per person, I would love to use that money to rehabilitate them. To rehabilitate especially the young punks, so they didn't cause any further harm and pain. Prison, I think we can all agree, isn't where rehabilitation happens – that has to happen within the person themselves. They decide, all of a sudden they grow up. Age seems to happen, and that's when offending stops. They fall in love, they have children, they decide they don't want the kids being brought to see dad or mum in the prison. So they decide to grow up and change their ways. They decide that they are worth more and deserve more than being some dumbass fall guy for the gangs.   But, where is that rehabilitation going to happen? Where are the rehabilitation programs that work? Can we all sit around waiting for the muse to strike some young punk? Because it seems to be an epiphany that they have – this is not working, this is stupid. Doing the same thing over and over again is dumb. I'm worth more, I'm going to go out and have more. We can't.   And we cannot let people get away with their crimes because that really starts to rip the fabric of society, not just strain it, but tear it. The people who are doing good get increasingly furious, increasingly brassed off, increasingly intolerant – and you can't blame them. How many times do you see people walking out of the supermarket with the trolleys loaded high when you have been agonizing over how much you have to spend, and trying to feed the family with that? So they have to be punished. Ideally, they don't commit the crime in the first place, you nip it in the bud. And that's where I guess the social investment policies come in, but they take time.   I think we're just gonna have to put up with overcrowded prisons for a while, because I don't know about you, but after six years of attempts to do things differently —I don't know how they thought that reducing the prison population was suddenly going to make society safer, it didn't— I want to see good old-fashioned justice and retribution. Little bit of hellfire and brimstone for a couple of years, no matter the cost, I'm okay with it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Westport residents have been berating their council over a plan to move the flood-prone town.  Draft master planning began in 2023 on a proposal to move to Government-owned Pamu-Landcorp farmland southwest of the current settlement.  Buller Councillors yesterday voted to continue to the third stage.  Mayor Jamie Cleine told Kerre Woodham that step enables more conversations.  He says the plan has never been to just pick up and move Westport, it will be an inter-generational process.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What is this mania for the building of stadia when this country has so many already and very, very few of them are economic assets? The decision over whether to upgrade Eden Park in Auckland or to build a brand spanking new stadium on the waterfront is such an old debate. And before I go on, I will say I've been a guest of Eden Park, but it does take more to buy my opinion than a very nice lamb chop and a glass of non-alcoholic rosé, I promise you.  The contest for Auckland's main stadium yesterday ended with neither Eden Park nor Te Tōangaroa proving feasible without public funding. Eden Park's upgrade is technically feasible but requires $110 million from the Government. Te Tōangaroa’s proposal lacks technical and commercial feasibility. So right there I'd say, “well, I'm gonna stop you there” if I was a councillor. If it lacks technical and commercial feasibility, wouldn't we go, “well, thanks very much, bit of a waste of our time, ka kite anō” to the people behind it? Anyway, they plan to progress land acquisition over 12 months.    Now, most of you will be familiar with Eden Park, even if you're from around the country. Te Tōangaroa is more ambitious, includes a 50,000 seat stadium —which is the capacity of Eden Park— that can be scaled down to 20,000 capacity for smaller events. It’s the centrepiece for the redevelopment of Quay Park with up to four hotels, hospitality, scope for 2000 apartments, plus commercial offices.    Different parties have been trying to build a waterfront stadium for years now. You'll remember Trevor Mallard had a plan to build a stadium in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup, and that came to naught. Another proposal in 2018 was floated and came crashing down to earth. Developers would build a shiny new waterfront stadium, in exchange, they'd get the land at Eden Park, plus the ability to build apartments on the waterfront land. There's always something in it for the people behind the developments. Of course, there is, otherwise, why would they do what they do? And it ends up being chumps like you and me who pay for it. We have stadia. We have stadia up the Yin Yang, all over the country, all over Auckland that are underutilized and uneconomic.   As the chief executive of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, Martin Snedden told Mike Hosking this morning we need to get over ourselves and consolidate into just one stadium.    “It's time people really got collaborative, and I know, you know, you may not agree with me here, but the Warriors, Auckland FC, they should be incorporated into the program at Eden Park, so that, you know, that venue is... This is what's happened, you know, places around the world is the multi-use of one venue.   "Look at what happened at Eden Park over the weekend, where on Friday they had White Ferns and Black Caps internationals played there, Saturday it was the Crusaders and the Blues, and Monday it was the All Whites qualifying for the World Cup. That's the right use of the stadia, and that's what we need to move towards. We don't need to keep propping up other stadia that are just not fit for purpose, let's just concentrate it all on what we've got.”  Absolutely. But why is it too, that every city around the country, every large town, big city, wants its own stadium when they don't make economic sense? There's a great piece in the conversation by Robert Hamlin and he points out, there have been just 30 major events at Forsyth Bar in Dunedin since 2014. He wrote the piece last year, so that's three a year. Te Kaha in Christchurch is being funded mostly by ratepayers —the Crown's put in a bit— and the stadium was solely responsible for a 2% increase in rates last year.   We come to Hamilton, and these figures are from 2015 so there might have been a remarkable turnaround – I doubt it, but there might have been. Since Claudelands Event Center opened in 2011, it has run at around a $10 million deficit per year. And who pays for that? Ratepayers. Palmerston North: in the 2021 10 year plan, it showed a budgeted income of $19 million, but expenses of $73 million. Come on. It does have facilities for some indoor sports, but much of the money that's going to be spent is on the main stadium in sport of stock car activities, including $4 million budgeted for new pits and more millions for a new grandstand on the south end. Non-stock car income is negligible because the stadium struggles to attract higher level rugby matches or large concerts because of the car track.    Invariably, if you do end up building a bloody stadium, It's not good for something else. So, they're not multi-purpose, they can't be used for other events. You build this stonking great white elephant, and we pay for it, us, and then we're not allowed in it unless we pay a fortune for a ticket to go to something that's on inside the stadium that we built. As a ratepayer, you should get a free ticket to anything that's in there for the rest of your life.    I just don't get why we're so obsessed with wanting new shiny stadia. In Auckland, we've got Eden Park, Go Media Stadium (formerly Mount Smart), Western Springs, Spark Arena, North Harbour Stadium. No, we don't need another one. Bowl the others, and everybody can play nicely together in one big stadium. At the moment, it looks like Eden Park's the most likely – there you go, I've paid for my lamb chop.   But imagine your family budget at the moment: Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we built a beautiful new swimming pool at the back because the kids are getting a bit older now? Be lovely, with a nice little pool house next to it. Yes, it would be lovely. Can we afford it? No. And that's what the Waterfront Stadium is.  Honestly, as Robert Hamlin said, the reason why is that people just get so excited, the decision makers get so excited, with all these reports of the extra economic benefit that's going to come to the city, and it's gonna prosper and it's just gonna be the making of the city.    No, it's not. No.    Ratepayers end up paying and paying and paying for generations for a white elephant that nobody's allowed to ride unless you pay a bloody fortune to get on its back. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's scrapping the Resource Management Act and replacing it with new planning laws.  RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop says current rules make it too hard to build the infrastructure and houses New Zealand desperately needs.  He says Cabinet's agreed on a blueprint for reform, which will standardise zoning and remove differences for each local council – aiming to implement it before councils start their 2027 long-term plans.   He claims the replacement RMA will cut admin and compliance costs by 45 percent.  Mt Hobson Group Director Hamish Firth told Kerre Woodham he’s expecting a much more liberal planning system – one that presumes land use will be permitted unless it significantly affects other people's property rights.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is there any such thing as a completely fair tax system?   Surely the most you can hope for is a least unfair tax system. I ask this because a UN report is calling for countries to check taxes are being applied proportionally to the wealthiest individuals, and questioning the fairness of GST. The UN Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said a tax policy that maintains a low personal and corporate income taxes without adequately addressing high income inequalities is an example of a regressive and ineffective policy, and consumption taxes —of which GST is one— can have adverse impacts on disadvantaged groups, such as low-income families and single parent households, because they typically spend a higher percentage of their income on everyday goods and services. They don't have the option of withholding spending; they have to buy the basics.   In New Zealand, personal income tax rates went to a high of 69 cents in the dollar in the late 70s/early 80s until the Fourth Labour government came crashing in with a hiss and a roar and made changes that are reverberating to this very day. One of them being the major changes to our tax system. They standardised indirect tax and introduced an across-the-board tax on goods and services that is GST. It started at 10% and went up to 12% and is now 15%.   Tax incentives were removed, personal income tax rates were simplified. At the time, there were just two personal income tax rates, 24 percent on income, up to $30,000, 33% above that. The introduction of GST was sold as a tax that would get those who didn't pay it. It would collect those in the black economy, those who took part in cashier's drug sales, that sort of thing. You know, they might not pay tax, they might not declare income, but they had to buy stuff. And once they bought food and once they bought cars, that sort of thing, then they had to pay GST on it.   But even then, when it was introduced, it was slammed as a regressive tax, hitting those who had to buy the basics the hardest. It was interesting that David Lange, towards the end of his life, had a great deal of regret about how New Zealand had changed with the introduction of his government. It wasn't him leading the charge so much —he was the public face of the changes— it was Roger Douglas and Rogernomics that caused the greatest change. He said for those who wanted little personal involvement with government, those who did not want government in their lives, it was a fantastic thing. But for the uneducated, disabled, the disadvantaged, it was an absolute tragedy. And there was, I think, much regret towards the end of his life as to the changes that he had been a part of.   New Zealand's tax system is widely regarded as a sensible one, in as much as you have to have taxes —that's how governments raise revenue and that's how they pay for the roads and the schools and the hospitals and the police and the like— it's straightforward, there's little room and little need for tax avoidance. The international tax competitive index rates 38 OECD countries on the best tax environment for investment, as well as for workers and for businesses and New Zealand ranks third in that because it is so straightforward.   But again, it comes down to the least unfair tax system. I think there are always going to be people who feel that they are hard done by when it comes to the taxes they pay. They feel that they pay too much. They pay a disproportionate amount of their income towards tax, while others aren't pulling their weight. And then you also look at the way governments use your money. That was one thing that really ripped my nightie during the Labour Government’s last six years. We're getting up early, we're going to work, we're doing our bit, and they were squandering tax money, just burning it at a rate of knots with very little to show for it. You're always going to get people who say no, the government is spending money on projects I don't agree with it, I don't want my tax going to that. But I think the last government, the last Labour government, really took it to the nth degree and that's when you start resenting paying taxes. You don't want that in a society.   Can you tax your way to a fairer society? I really don't think you can. You can certainly create an environment where those who cannot work, who need assistance get it. You can create an environment where it's easier for people to do business, to get work, for businesses to do well. I think the more you make it complicated and try and right inequities, the more room there is to evade tax to avoid paying it altogether. GST, most countries have it because it is a way of addressing the black economy – is that enough justification to maintain it?   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A tax expert says achieving a fair tax system is hard, but not impossible.  A UN committee is calling on governments to check their tax policies are being applied proportionally to wealthier individuals.  It says regressive and ineffective policies could disproportionately affect low-income households, women, and disadvantaged groups.  Denton Tax Partner Bruce Bernacchi told Kerre Woodham tax can become disproportional when measuring how much tax is paid overall against incomes.  He says New Zealand sticks out because higher income-earners are earning capital gains but not paying tax on it.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After 96 years, Western Spring's Speedway's final race will take place tomorrow night.  The Legends Night will be headlined by Midgets, Sprintcars, and other open-wheel categories.  In October last year, Auckland councillors voted 11-8 to move all speedway events to Waikaraka Park, which will undergo an $11 million upgrade.  Western Springs Speedway Manager John McCullum told Kerre Woodham their focus is on having a good season and sending it out on the right note.  He says that under different conditions they could’ve have still operated out of Western Springs, but the stadium belongs to the city, and the city has made it abundantly clear they see a better use for the stadium.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A big bounce back for our economy, despite many sectors still doing it tough. New Zealand's officially out of technical recession, with new GDP figures showing our economy grew 0.7% between October and December. Economists had predicted a growth rate of just 0.3-to-0.5%. NZ Herald Business Editor Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham while some areas still look gloomy, the bounce back from tourism and agriculture has been strong.  He says it looks like farmers will go a long way to saving us in this current cycle as well.  “Strong export prices combined with a good production season – that really makes a big difference.”  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Small from ABC Business Sales summed up the business loan scheme beautifully on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning: it was a balls up that was going to, has indeed, and will continue to cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars.   Let me take you back to March 2020. Business loans were made available in May – the announcement was made in March for small businesses affected by Covid-19. Businesses were offered up to $20,000, plus $1800 per full time employee. More than 129,000 businesses took out loans worth $2.4 billion. Borrowers had five years to repay the loan, and many would reach that limit from June.   It was never going to work. And the worst thing was everybody could see that it was not going to be a boon for the businesses that they thought it was, that it was not going to be a temporary stopgap, that the audits that Grant Robertson said would be put in place to protect the scheme were not going to work. Everybody could see that, everybody that is, but the previous government.   “In hindsight if the previous regime could look back, I'm sure they would wind it back and put a few more bells and braces in there because what they're now finding is people basically took the money thinking it was unlikely they were going to pay it back. And sure enough, they haven't paid it back, with little consequences. No security was taken in the way of PG's (personal guarantees) or any GSAs over their businesses, so it was a real free hit for the business owner at the time.   “Because there was no security taken, so the houses aren't at risk, no personal guarantee, so they can't get personally bankrupted, all the IRD, from what I've seen or read, can do is put in this default interest rate. Yes, that will keep mounting up and capitalising, and certainly a sole traders position, may just walk away and set up new entity or just ignore it. But I don't think it's realistic for the IRD to go around and just from an administration perspective, there's 120-odd thousand people to chase. It's just not going to happen. So it's just it was a balls up that’s going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, unfortunately.”  Yep, another one. That was Chris Small from ABC Business Sales on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. Utter madness. And at the risk of triggering those of us who did not have a good time under the previous administration, we do have to discuss it as the mistakes made then must never be made again. They have to be acknowledged – that it was a balls up. He put it beautifully. There were many of them and we mustn't do them again.   I think we can take it as read that high trust models don't work, we tried that experiment, didn’t work. Didn't work for the business loans, didn’t work for MIQ stays. BusinessDesk wrote back in 2023 that hotels that provided rooms for the government's controversial quarantine system received more than $1 billion. Just $187 million has been recovered by the government from people who had to pay for their MIQ stay, another $26 million is outstanding. So it didn't work there. High trust didn't work when it came to policing. It didn't work when it came to allowing troublesome tenants to stay on in Kainga Ora accommodation. I can't think of a single sector where it actually worked.   I remember my accountant saying to me, she had businesses who were taking the loan and saying, oh, we're not going to pay it back. Why should we? There is absolutely no need to – if they're stupid enough to give us the money, we're not going to pay it back. Surely there is a moral authority that if you can, you should. And if you can and you won't, then you must never, ever talk about beneficiaries bludging off the system ever again. Same with student loan defaulters, you have no moral high ground at all.   We can't move on. It'd be wonderful to be able to move on, but we can't move on when we are paying and paying and paying for stupid, ill-considered poorly advised decisions. And we're all going to be paying for a very, very long time to come. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.