Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

The coalition government has announced the next three years of transport projects, and it should come as no real surprise there's nothing for speed bumps.   Simeon Brown: We're cutting the funding for speed bumps. We're, in fact, I call it an infestation of speed bumps that we've seen across our roads, whilst potholes have been remaining unfilled. So actually I want to see that money going into filling potholes. Not making it inconvenient for, for motorists trying to get around.  HDPA: Is it a zero? like it's a zero for the speed bumps?   SB: That is correct, there's no further funding for speed bumps under this national land transport. The reality is, I think Kiwis are sick and tired of councils up and down this country simply trying to slow them down and cause congestion, rather than actually increase the efficiency of their local roading network. So that's the focus of this National Land Transport Programme. You know councils are road controlling authorities, they can still go and do other things on their roads, they just won't be receiving a subsidy from the government for that.   So there you go, councils can still spend on speed bumps if that is their heart's desire, if that's what they believe ratepayers truly want – nothing from the government. That was Simeon Brown talking to Heather du Plessis Allan last night. And again, no real surprise that there's not a heck of a lot for cycleways either.   “We campaigned on building and maintaining our roading network and reducing the amount of money going into cycleways. People voted for that and that's what we're delivering.”  That was Simeon Brown talking to Mike Hosking this morning.   So where will the $32.9 billion go? Well, you can see for yourself if you go to the NZTA's website. You’ll need a couple of clicks, it's not all laid out there for you, but a couple of clicks and you'll be there. But much of the money will build roads of national significance as already announced, and roads of regional significance. A good deal will go to pothole maintenance and repair.   Now you would think if you listened to the Greens and to Labour's transport spokesman that there was nothing going towards the buses or the ferries, but there is: $6.4 billion, almost as much as they're spending on the roads of national significance, will go towards public transport. Well, almost as much as going into state highway improvements officially. But that is not enough for the Greens. I don't think anything would be enough for the Greens, I think they are a maw of wanton need. Julie Anne Genter said the money was well below the investment needed to sustain growth and cut emissions.   $1 billion was announced for the rail network - Labour says that's not enough. Tangi Utikere says the investment is about $800 million lower than advertised. Labour's already put money towards the lower North Island rail investment package, they did so in last year's budget, and he says, in effect, Simeon Brown's re-announcing an announcement. Which, of course, other political parties never do. Remember the announcement of an announcement? Remember the infestation of that, along with the potholes? So, any transport plan from the coalition government was never going to please the Greens, never, ever, ever. I don't think any transport plan, even from Labour, pleased the Greens, ever, ever, ever. But Simeon Brown says they were elected to focus on roads and highways to make New Zealand's transport networks more efficient, to be able to get us from point A to point B in a more expeditious fashion, and that is what the coalition government is doing. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ticket prices have increased exponentially over the years as retailers take advantage of dynamic pricing schemes.  Otherwise known as surge pricing, dynamic pricing sets flexible prices that change depending on the demand.  Many fans of Oasis wound up forking out double the advertised price of £148.50 (NZ$313.38) for the band’s reunion tour, spending £355.20 (NZ$749.58) instead.  The UK Government has stepped in, announcing a probe into the surge pricing.  Chris Schulz, Senior Investigative Journalist at Consumer NZ, told Kerre Woodham that we’ve seen prices go up and up since Covid, and ticket companies seem to be pushing how fast fans are willing to go to pay for those tickets.  He said that with the outcry over Oasis tickets we might have found that line, and maybe this is the point where politicians are calling for regulation.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I wanted to start with something that always generates a lot of chat and that is the inevitability about raising the age of eligibility for superannuation and, to a lesser extent the introduction of a capital gains tax. National under Bill English came very, very close to getting the age lifted to 67. It wouldn't have happened until 2040, but it would have happened. So John Key left and came Bill English and managed to get the age of eligibility for super lifted to 67 by 2040, not overnight - by 2040. However. As we know, along came the Labour NZ First Coalition government and they nixed that, and the age of eligibility remains at 65. Despite National and ACT pledging to lift the super age from 65 to 67 during the election campaign, along came NZ First again to form the coalition government and their stance is unequivocal. The age of retirement will remain at 65 years, no ifs, no buts, no maybeys. You can retire at anytime you like, they mean, of course, the age at which you can get the Super. So as long as the coalition government has a New Zealand first component the age will remain at 65, where it has been since eligibility for super was raised progressively from 60 to 65 over a relatively short frame of time, 1992 to 2001. That's not a lot of time for people to adjust. At the moment, 70% of the OECD has a pension age of 65 or lower. Countries are slowly increasing their pension age, but the majority are only moving the age up to 65 over the next four decades. New Zealand Super is critical to the majority of New Zealanders right now who don't have the benefit of a big KiwiSaver fund. If you've been working your whole life and you've been in KiwiSaver your whole life, your retirement will look a little bit different. But at the moment, a lot of New Zealanders have super and super only. 40% of people aged 65 and over have virtually no other income besides New Zealand Super, 20% have just a little bit more, so they are doing it tough. And the reason that the Super and capital gains tax is back in the news is because the outgoing Treasury head says changes are needed to fix the Crown's structural deficit. We need to find new ways of generating revenue and cutting expenditure and that means a capital gains tax and a more efficient superannuation scheme. This is Dr Caralee McLiesh. She's leaving Treasury, and this is part of her exit interview. However, although it makes sense for the age to be raised, as we all live longer and we live more healthy lives, and as KiwiSaver funds become more of a buffer between poverty, at the moment if you're living just on your super, things are tough. If you have your Super and your KiwiSaver, life would look a little bit better. Former Reserve Bank economist Michael Reddell told Mike Hosking this morning he doubts that any government is bold enough to raise the retirement age and bring in a capital gains tax. "Well, I mean, National has campaigned in the last two or three elections for very slowly raising the retirement age. NZ First is the block, they're in absolute no on this. Labour back in 2014 campaigned on it. I think almost everyone recognises, in policy circles, that it's good and sensible and necessary and overdue adjustment. What will enable someone finally to make the move, I'm not sure. Maybe it takes another crisis. Capital gains tax isone of those where there's sort of a lot more, you know, genuine difference of view as to whether it's fair and right and also whether it will raise much revenue. A lot of the capital gains in the last few years have been house price inflation, Chris Bishop tells us that his housing reforms are going to cut house prices so there might not be much revenue there." Michael Reddell, former Reserve Bank economist, talking to Mike Hosking this morning. Of course, most policies that have been put forward looking at a capital gains tax would exempt the family home so house prices are neither here nor there, unless you have a portfolio of them. Labour, of course you'll remember, this is when we last had torrid discussions on a capital gains tax. They had the golden opportunity to introduce one when they were in power, but chose not to do so. There was a recommendation from the Tax Working Group set up by the Coalition Government to introduce a capital gains tax and Jacinda Ardern said no, as long as I'm leader, it's not going to happen. You won't see it while I am leader, it won't be introduced on my watch. I believe in a capital gains tax, it's clear many New Zealanders do not. I am ruling out a capital gains tax under my leadership in the future. That's what Jacinda Ardern said at the time. Of course, NZ First had something to do with it but for years, Labour had campaigned on introducing a capital gains tax, for years and years, their own Tax Working Group said it was a good idea. And then they take ownership of ruling it out entirely, not just until we can get rid of Winston, but entirely. So under the leadership off goes Jacinda Ardern and in comes Chris Hipkins. So there were reformists within Labour who said right now's the time. We don't have to faff around with any other political parties. We don't have to make compromise or concession, now's the time to do it. No, said Chris Hipkins, we need to get elected. We need to get reelected because otherwise it's going to be stink in opposition. So he nixed it as well. It is hard to see when such an opportunity will come again in the near future. I agree. I think it would be very hard for a political party to introduce a capital gains tax now. But the upshot is New Zealand needs to spend less and make more money. Just like our households - spend less, make more money if we want to fund the lifestyle we enjoy. And I just don't think enough people have grasped that yet, we still want all the bells and whistles, we want the cherry on top. We can barely afford the cake, far less the icing and the cherry on top. We have to make cuts somewhere. We have to get revenue from somewhere. Where is it going to be? Raising the age of eligibility for Super is probably a very, very good start. It's been talked about for years. It's been fiddled around with for years. Bill English came very close to getting it in but while NZ First has anything to do with anything, it will remain at 65. And we simply can't afford that, unless we raise taxes so that the people who are turning 65 in the next 10 years will effectively pay for that.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop announced yesterday what National had promised all the way through the election campaign. The government's new National Infrastructure Agency will be established this year, unlocking access to more capital for infrastructure and strengthening the government's private finance and commercial capability. So, from the 1st of December, Crown Infrastructure Partners is going to be reimagined and repurposed into the National Infrastructure Agency. It will be charged with acting as the Crown's shop front to receive unsolicited proposals and to facilitate private sector investment in infrastructure, partner with agencies and in some cases, local governments on projects involving private finance, administer central government funds and continue the work that CIP is already doing.   And it all sounds terribly dry, but it is actually wildly exciting. You know, to have a plan, to have a vision and more importantly, to welcome private partners to help get things moving. I cannot overemphasise how different that is from the previous administration. They believe that government could do it themselves. They had no real interest, this is a generalisation, but they had no real interest in partnering with private enterprise to do much. They believed that government knew best. With this announcement, we can see that the government is looking to the private sector to help get New Zealand cracking. They're open to the possibility that the private sector might actually have some good ideas and might actually be able to do it better and to deliver faster. And I think this is a very good thing.   I suppose it depends on where you are ideologically. If you believe that big government is best, that government can do it better (I don't know how you could believe that given the evidence, but none the less there we go, pin the colours to the mast), if you believe that that government has the answer to everything then you will look with a somewhat caustic eye at the National Infrastructure Agency. But I truly believe this is a step in the right direction.   At the moment, what we have now, the Crown Infrastructure Partner is directly responsible for overseeing 46 projects that have come from the Infrastructure Reference Group, and contracts with third parties, handling a total project value of $2.4 billion including $1.3 billon from the government. Previously it's handled the ultra-fast and rural broadband rollouts, rural mobile, marae digital connectivity and the public safety network, it’s also now managing the Cyclone Recovery program of work. Chris Bishop said the National Infrastructure Plan would provide a 30-year road map, setting out priorities for investment. So, this is the most important, then this, then this, then this. There'll be better management of existing assets, and they'll ensure value for money on new projects.   Chris Bishop plans to seek support from all parties in Parliament via the business committee to hold an annual debate on the National Infrastructure Plan to show areas where parliamentary parties agree, where we don't, and where there is room to compromise in the best interests of New Zealanders. Which is all very well and good, again, that was another campaign promise, Christopher Luxon said they would try and get cross-party support for the big infrastructure projects.   Rob Campbell's written a piece in the Herald saying that's very well and good if you share the same vision, but if you believe firmly that the environment is the most important, that the Treaty must be upheld and the principles of the Treaty must be followed all the way through any decision making, then you're not going to have the same vision as somebody who says, get that road and just plough through the graveyards, and plough through the tapu sites and off we go. So it's going to be difficult when you have people who with competing ideologies to come to a consensus.   I don't think it should be that hard. If you have got, and we've seen the feeder groups that that will assess infrastructure projects, so we've got the infrastructure reference group and then onwards and upwards, we've got groups that will sift through all the infrastructure projects they prioritise them - present them to government... surely if you allow Labour say, as the biggest opposition party, to have some representatives on the Infrastructure Reference Group, you leave it to an independent panel to say this is the most important - we need to get cracking on this one first. Otherwise, you do get the voice who shrieks loudest will get the most money. We don't want pork barrel politics where you buy votes by getting infrastructure projects put into your electorate. We don't want that. We want massive infrastructure projects that are going to take years to build to be assessed in order of importance and for them to be started not today, but yesterday. And for them not to fall victim to the three-year parliamentary cycle. It's too expensive and too important. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You could hear yesterday the sadness and the contempt and the disbelief in Inspector Tony Wakelin’s voice:  “Look, can I just say I thought that was disgusting. It really was. I mean, I saw some of the footage, it was filmed before emergency services arrived. There were close-ups of people deceased in the van and injured lying on the road. As I say, I thought it was horrible. As I said, a lot of my colleagues, that's not acceptable. You know, we should not be doing that, and I say to the people that are filming that, how would you feel if that was your family?”  Inspector Wakelin is the Counties Manukau Road Policing Manager, and he was speaking yesterday after the horrific, horrific road accident that saw three Samoan workers killed and three of their mates injured as they were all heading to the airport to return to their homes after a season of work.   I spoke yesterday about the courage and the selflessness of those first people on the scene whose first instinct was to go and help do what they could to offer succour and comfort to the injured and the dying, and how brave they were. That was their first instinct, how can I help? What can I do? I cannot begin to comprehend how other people's first instinct was to invade the privacy and degrade the dignity of the wounded and the dying and take out their mobile phones and film them. And then, as if that wasn't bad enough, to upload the images to social media. A deliberate act, long past the time when shock or adrenaline might have caused you to do something foolish. You take out your phone, you start filming, you don't know what's happening, but then later you do. You look at those images and you know what's on them and you upload them to a social media site.   How have people become so desensitised? I don't watch a lot of this sort of stuff.  I don't have a TikTok account. On YouTube, I don't seek out tragic road accidents, people dying - that is not something I do, so I don't know how you would find this stuff. But clearly people are watching it and have they become so desensitised by the violence and by the violent pornography that they see on social media that they think somehow this is normal. This gross invasion of privacy, this complete and utter lack of empathy, this disregard for humanity is okay.   How do you get to that point? How do you even teach people basic human decency when their first instinct is not to help, but to film the dying for TikTok?  I assume they get no financial gain from this. They're filming for what, their own viewing pleasure?  So other people can see it? To what point?  I think that's the problem with everyone thinking they can be citizen journalists these days and with social media platforms acting as media outlets, there are simply no boundaries. No rules. No code of conduct or ethics. Even if you didn't grow up with them, when you trained as a journalist you were inculcated with what was expected of you. And I know there are many, many, many problems with mainstream media today, many, I totally accept that, and mainstream media are paying for the mistakes they're making with declining audiences and declining revenues. But no journalist I know would ever have filmed that crash scene. Ever. And our online editors that we have here would never have put that footage online, even if they'd been instructed to, which I can't imagine in a million years. I know for a fact that the young people I worked with would have said no, there's no way we're putting that up. Even if a mistake had made and it had been posted and people had quite rightly complained, we would have been censured and punished as a media organisation.   There are no such boundaries, rules, censure for the social media platforms. How have people become so desensitised, so lacking in empathy that they can think that this is okay? Does it begin with the stupid pranky, slapping the wall with your hand and then comforting a baby so it thinks it's been hurt. I mean, what? How do people think that's amusing? Do we get desensitised because we hear of so many horrific stories of children and babies and other humans being so violently abused in this country that we think somehow, it's just par for the course. I'll just film it. I cannot understand it. I would love any insight you may have. For the record, I don't watch any disasters overseas. If I see that there's a disaster I don't look. When they say warning, distressing content. I don't go in there. And I'm sorry I'm going to judge if you find watching people dying entertaining, there's something really wrong with you. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission's released a report showing how funding from the 2019 Wellbeing Budget has been spent.   It shows 92% of the $1.9 billion has been spent or committed.   There's around $163 million that is unspent, and almost $62 million was set aside for capital works.   Chief Executive Karen Orsborn says they know there's a high degree of public interest in the funding, so they wanted to make that information available.   She says 57% —1.1-billion— went to health, and $800 million went to other government agencies.  Orsborn told Kerre Woodham that they’ve heard from people who have been using the services, as well as those in the sector, that the money has made a real difference.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced what we all know to be true, that we have an energy security crisis.   We seem to have been having them for a while now, every winter there are concerns about brownouts. The Electricity Authority put it into plain English on their website - winter sees the highest demand for electricity, obviously, also when it's unseasonably cold in autumn or spring, that can cause high demand periods. The winter peak capacity reflects the ability of the electricity system to meet high winter demand. So typically, solar doesn't produce electricity during peak demand periods in winter because it's dark. Wind generation, which is 10% of New Zealand's electricity generation capacity and growing, isn't reliable because, who knew, but cool temperatures bring low wind speeds. So solar is out, wind generation is out during winter.   That leaves hydro, geothermal, and thermal generation to provide the bulk of electricity during high demand periods. Geothermal already runs at near full capacity, so only thermal and hydro can ramp up and down to meet the winter peaks. But when you have a perfect storm, as the Prime Minister called it yesterday, winter peak capacity and a dry year, when low rainfall sees the hydro lake levels fall below average for an extended period of time, hydropower can't ramp up. There's no water there, they can’t push the turbines.   So then we have to burn coal. Coal use soared in 2021 to the highest in about 30 odd years. Then coal use plummeted in 2022, reflecting the vagaries of the weather and the fact that some more renewables were coming online. But while solar and wind can store some excess energy using batteries, that's limited to only a few hours' worth of electricity, and isn't enough to manage a situation where rainfall is below average for weeks to months. So there are all sorts of solutions being explored to try and make up for those dry years during winter.   I mean it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? We've known about this for a very, very long time. We are dependent on rainfall during winter, we use more electricity during winter. If there is a dry year, we have to get the energy from somewhere, and right now our choices are coal, coal, and coal. So we are exploring the renewables, but why are we still exploring them when we've known for a very, very long time that people are concerned about climate change, that the world is moving to renewables. Why are we still exploring them?   Chris Luxon says while we're exploring the renewables, we need to reverse the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration and take urgent steps to bring liquefied natural gas into the country to offset the energy shortages because our exporters need certainty, they need to know that the factories will keep running so they can sell our products, so we can make some money. Forgive me if this is all very 101 but this is what we need to know: we need to know that when we turn on the switch at the factory, the power will come on. And if we're concerned about burning coal, we need to have something to replace it. And we don't have anything secure yet, so the Prime Minister has said let's bring in liquefied natural gas, which other countries use to sort of level out electricity supply. So he's also looking at the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration being reversed. That's been in place since Labour came to power in 2018 outside of onshore Taranaki.   The opposition parties, in a shocking revelation, are dead against the importation of liquefied natural gas, seeing it as just another fossil fuel. But we need certainty and security so what's their solution? There are a number of questions though. We may be open for exploration but would oil and gas companies want to come here? Especially if Labour goes ‘no, dead against it, we're not having a bar of it, fossil fuels are dead and gone’. So why would you come here, given the electoral cycle? Also, in 2012, Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company that came here to do a little bit of a looksie to see if they could make money out of exploiting oil and gas here, they pulled out. They got the license and the permit in 2010, they pulled out in 2012 because they said there weren't enough indicators for them to continue. All very well to reverse the ban, but would people come here?   And on the renewables, when you have the four big generation and retail power companies recording their largest single year rise in earnings this year, what's that all about? If we are the majority shareholders, which we are, and we are in the middle of an energy security crisis, then why can't we push them into spending more of their money, more of their profits, into the renewables? Fast track it, get them cracking.    This was along the lines of what Mike Hosking asked Christopher Luxon, the Prime Minister, when he was on this morning.  “You know we’ll keep an eye on the level of profitability, but they also need confidence to invest because we want them, and I know they will, to spend huge amounts of capital on actually, you know, doubling that renewable electricity in geothermal, and wind, and solar, and all the stuff that needs to happen. So as I said, it is about making sure that we're giving people confidence, and that's what the announcement was about yesterday, was to say to many of those international investors who want to do the offshore engineering solution for LNG implementation, who want to do exploration for gas, who actually want to know that can go. A huge number of the projects that Chris Bishop’s looking at on the Fast Track Approvals are people want to do renewable projects, but actually, the consenting times insane. It's absolutely insane. So let's just change the rules, make it a year, extend the consents, all that good stuff.”   As a majority shareholder, and I know normally you wouldn't interfere in the running of a company, no, put those billions collectively of dollars of profits into renewables right now, and we'll make it easier as the government to fast track those projects you want in place. Chris Hipkins says there is already consented renewable electricity that could be built right now but these big gentailers are choosing not to build them because it's in their commercial interest to keep energy scarce and maximize profits, which would be economic sabotage if that is true. And you'd have to take that, anything I suppose, a politician says with a grain of salt, but if they are already consented, why aren't they being now?   I have more questions than I have answers for you, so I am looking to you for the answers, those of you who know more than I! We know we have an energy security crisis. Chris Hipkins says that there are consents in place. We could get cracking if the gentailers want to. They have made squillions, so it's not like they're wondering where their next buck is coming from. They've made millions from us, we're the ones paying the price every single time for decisions made by these big companies and by governments. So get cracking with the renewables, government, do your work by fast tracking these already consented projects. They need to start. The gentailers need to start on those. Any that are still waiting for consents, we fast track them. Oil and gas exploration? Sure. reverse the ban, but is anybody interested in coming here? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was interesting seeing the Governments backed down on the Fast-track Approvals Bill. And that's the thing about being in government, isn't it? Well, really any position of authority. You will be criticized whatever you do. It's a truism that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, you just simply can't. So when the government announced it would introduce the Fast-track Approvals Bill that would give final sign off on infrastructure projects to just three ministers, without the usual consent process, there was squawking. Much squawking, far too much power invested in the hands of just three ministers. Some of it was genuine. Some of it came from people like the Auditor General, who were a little bit concerned and I've got a big crush on the Auditor General after his searing analysis of where the money went under the previous administration, so if he's got concerns, so have I. But there was also just political squawking from the usual suspects. But it was a lot of power invested in the hands of just three men. And as the AUT’s professor in the School of Future Environments John Tookey told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast, had they gone ahead, it would have used up a lot of the Government's goodwill...    "I suspected it was going to be an excessive investment in political capital that they might back away from, and sure enough that happened." Exactly. So the Governments backtracked a little. The final decisions will be made by expert panels, which of course the government will stack with their own people, but they are also required to include environmental experts. Now naturally, by pulling back a bit, there are concerns from those who are looking forward to absolutely getting cracking that now the process will not see any kind of improvement or speeding up. But, as Chris Bishop said, one of the troika of incredibly powerful ministers, there was a real risk that had they gone ahead, the ministers would have been likely to face legal challenges and judicial review proceedings. That was far more likely to happen than if the decisions were made by expert panels and that is very, very true. There would have been those who were genuinely concerned about a political/particular project, others who are more like vexatious litigants, who would just oppose every development on purely political grounds and to get up the schnoz of the government to put grit into the bureaucratic process to slow it down still further. But there was also a nod to those who don't trust ministers of any hue, having that much power. And I have to say, I was a little bit nervous about three ministers having that much power, having seen what happens when you are given a pot of gold, as happened with New Zealand First and where they spent that money . Some of it according to you, was money well spent on really good projects. Others looked like, you scratch my back,I'll scratch yours. So there was a little bit of concern about three ministers having that much power. What's actually changed? Well, Ministers will still get the say over which projects will be put forward to be considered by the expert panel. Chris Bishop, it's true, will no longer have the final sign off. But as Claire Trevett says in the New Zealand Herald, if he doesn't like a project, it won't go anywhere, he's the gatekeeper. So I guess if you are involved in trying to make things happen, to get things done, does this give you any concern, any pause for thought whatsoever?  As Claire Trevett says, if a project doesn't look suitable, it's not going to go anywhere. As Chris Bishop said had the three ministers stayed solely responsible for the decision making, you bet your bippy there would have been lawsuits up the ying yang and judicial reviews and time wasting, and in the end more time and more money would have been spent fighting the dissenters. And do we trust ministers to have that level of power. Not entirely sure yet, it sets a precedent.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, that was a bit of a shock wasn’t it. It seems everyone was a bit taken aback to hear that assistant coach Leon MacDonald would be leaving the All Black’s group. Less that 24 hours out from the All Blacks heading to South Africa for two Rugby Championship tests, New Zealand rugby confirmed MacDonald would not continue in the role. Fronting the media, head coach Scott Razor Robertson outlined the reasons why the decision has been made. He said there were differences around the philosophy on rugby, and how it's played, and they didn’t quite click in different aspects. Razor added the went through a process, and got to this point, and they believed that Macdonald stepping away was the best thing for the All Black group. Sounds pretty straight forward right – and refreshing to hear what sounds like a legitimate reason rather than a manufactured one. It just didn’t work. People have been surprised by MacDonalds departure because they two have known each other for around 27 years. They have played and worked together before, but that doesn't necessarily mean it’s going to be plain sailing – especially when you step up into the biggest, most intense job in New Zealand rugby. John Kirwan had this to say about the decision on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning ....Incredible courage, I believe, on behalf of both of them if it's not working out, because the status quo would be probably stay there, finish the season. But you know for them to move on this quickly, I think it's the best thing for the team. He’s right. Macdonald is a very good coach, one we will probably lose to an overseas team now – but it takes courage to acknowledge if a situation isn’t working, and integrity to the right thing for yourself and the team. Of course we’re still keen to try and distil down what has happened here. The simple reason why this relationship hasn’t worked might just come down to the fact there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Do the All Blacks need 6 coaches? Graham Henry and Steven Hansen were able to run the All blacks successfully on 3 coaches. There had been rumours that players were dealing with too many voices – this simplifies that somewhat. Another suggestion is that it’s an adjustment to go from Head Coach to assistant coach. Coaches end up tripping over each other, there are mixed messages, or a coach is left feeling maligned. But regardless of the intricacies of why they have come to this decision – it's hard not to be impressed by it. Good on them for not letting it fester. Good on them for being open and honest about the fact it didn’t work. It sounds like the two have departed on decent terms, and now it’s time to move on. Will it have an impact on the All Blacks? I doubt it. They have dealt with much more difficult HR issues in the past, and I imagine they will be fully focused on facing South Africa.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yesterday the Prime Minister spoke at the Local Government NZ (LGNZ) conference, warning councils to restrain their spending to the basics or run the risk of having your hand forced by central government.    Apparently, the remarks got a frosty reception – possibly because no one likes being told off and possibly because since Covid all some councils have been doing is going through their budgets line by line.    Local Government Minister Simeon Brown backed up the Prime Ministers thoughts on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning.    “The reality is, with an average 15% rate increase, our expectation is that councils get on with the work just like Government has had to do, go line by line, cut the waste, focus on the basics and ensure that they can pass those cost savings on to ratepayers at this cost of living crisis time. So, you know we're doing our part. We've also put in place Local Water Done Well, which gives councils far greater access financing for water infrastructure, that means they should be able to do that and reduce the cost burden on ratepayers.”  Simeon Brown also said yesterday: “Council rates are increasing by around 15 per cent on average this year, which is more than four times the rate of inflation. This is unacceptable and councils must ensure they are doing everything they can to reduce pressure on ratepayers.”    As difficult as it was to hear for some councils, it’s hard to argue with the sentiment, right?  Regardless of whether we’re tightening our belts after a global pandemic or not, we expect our councils to always be making sensible funding decisions. To focus on core council activities and maintain assets for the future.    This week we also saw the released of a report into Local Government performance, that warned councils were not replacing ageing infrastructure to the extent they should be.   Different councils around the country have different issues – but they have potential hefty rate rises in common and a need for central government to help fund infrastructure.    If yesterday’s speech was anything to go by, then the time for handouts is over. Councils are about to negotiate their city deals with central government to line up funding, and this speech is a clear warning to some councils you might have to adjust your spending and your wish list.    In regard to handing out cold hard cash to help councils, the Prime Minister made it very clear that the previous government might have taken that approach, but the party is over.    Simeon Brown, inspired by the New South Wales model, has also floated the idea of putting in place a regulator, which regulates what price increases can be put on for non-core programmes that councils do. The aim of this is to maintain cost controls for councils, something which he believes we’re not currently seeing. Is this necessary? It feels a little too controlling – but you might feel your local council needs another layer of control.    So, for cental government it’s all about rubbish, roads and water – and price caps.    As a rate payer, this all sounds good – but we all have different ideas of what should be a core function of a council. Are libraries and sports fields and parks as important as rubbish, roads and water?   What do you want to see your council spend money on? What are the priorities for you and what would you like dropped? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.