Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

We're going a little bit back to the future today because the annual report card into the grocery industry came out yesterday, and we were overrun with health talk. So we'll go back to that report and look at the ramifications for the industry, for the suppliers, and for us, the consumers.   So according to the report, we are paying higher prices, specials are confusing, and loyalty schemes aren't delivering overly significant rewards. Paying $10,500 for a glass container isn't really enough in terms of loyalty (if you're collecting the stickers from New World, you'll know what I mean). According to the ComCom’s first annual grocery report all major supermarkets experienced an increase in price cost margins, which means retail prices were increasing faster than the cost of the goods. Those wanting to enter the market are not finding it easy. Despite 150,000 members signing up to Costco by March, Costco still suffered a $20 million loss. Restrictive land covenants were hampering new entry for new players and existing ones. The Commission has already prosecuted Foodstuffs North Island for historical abuses, grabbing land and holding on to it so nobody else can build there.   We also saw alternative grocery shopping places like Huckleberry shut down – that's been around forever and that's been placed into liquidation. Online retailer Supie failed, Bin Inn closed 5 stores, so it's tough, it's a tough market out there. And it's tough for Foodstuffs and Woolworths too, I'm sure. They've had to pay increased costs, and security guards, and thefts and the like, it has not been easy for them. They've had to look after their staff, who face relentless barrages of abuse, and probably this report card won't help.   So, it's not an easy industry to be in right now. It's a much, much tougher one to get into if you want to. While the number of covenants around land had decreased, the Commission has expressed concern at the more than 100 properties currently owned by major retailers that are not being used for stores, with no immediate plans to put a supermarket there. The Commissioner said, well, yes, I suppose some of these properties could be used for car parks or storage, but they certainly included potential expansion sites when properties held for more than 20 years were considered. Sue Chetwin from the Grocery Action Group, told Ryan Bridge on Early Edition that the government needs to show its teeth if we want to see any significant change to the market.   “All of the rules that they've put in place, all very well meaning, but have not worked. They have really just tinkered around the edge, so unless you make some structural change to encourage competition or to allow competition to happen, then we're just going to get more of the same.”  Yeah, and that's the thing. There was a Commerce Commission report, there were some prosecutions, the duopoly of Foodstuffs and Woolworths were put on notice, and nothing happened. If anything, it's got slightly worse. So the government is interested in turning up the heat, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly says he plans to seek advice on the sites currently being land banked, alongside broader regulatory reviews that could lead to potential change, including the Overseas Investment Act and the Fair Trading Act.   What about the concerns of suppliers? We've looked at consumers and said, yep, you're paying more than you need to for food, even taking into account seasonal fluctuations, even taking into account everything's more expensive, what the report says is that the increase in price cost margins has given them a greater profit than they needed to have. The report says a monthly index of suppliers prices produced by Informetrics for Foodstuffs North Island and pumped out to the media —in fact it was referred to in the press release following the release of the ComCom report yesterday— has consistently failed to include the impact of so-called trade spend, the impact of rebates, discounts, and payments that run to billions of dollars annually on the prices supermarkets actually pay to their suppliers. The report stopped short of calling this lying, Business Desk said let's settle for embarrassing.   So what does this all mean? We are a very small country. We're not even as big as most cities in the United States, so anybody who's interested in coming here from overseas has to know that they'll make a profit. Even if the government arranged for a prime piece of real estate in the middle of Auckland, New Zealand's biggest city, and earmarked it for an overseas player and said come, haere mai, haere mai, this land is yours, put your supermarket up there, fill your boots. I'm not entirely sure they'd make a profit. It’s a huge investment. It's a huge investment in building up relationships that cannot happen overnight with suppliers. It takes time, and the reason that Foodstuffs and Woolworths are so successful is that they are old companies. They're very old. Certainly with Foodstuffs when you trace their whakapa back, they are part of the landscape back to the 60s. So this has taken time to build, to get into this position of strength. And while there might be huge players overseas, they don't have that network of contacts, that history, that the others do here. It's got to be worth their while. They've got to know that they're going to make money if they up sticks and invest here. How likely is that?   Is there any real likelihood of a third player? What's it going to take to get real competition? Is it going to take a coalition government that really doesn't like regulation? Are they going to have to swallow a dead mouse and say we'll have to regulate this industry because they're not doing it themselves?   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A new recycling scheme has launched today.  Developed by the Packaging Forum, it aims to capture and recycle the myriad of plastic and metal caps and lids that currently make their way to landfill.   Approximately 16,000 tonnes of caps and lids are in circulation annually, the equivalent of approximately 900 trucks of waste.  Collection boxes will be placed in supermarkets in Auckland, Christchurch, and Tauranga, with more to be added in coming weeks.  Packaging Forum CEO Rob Langford told Kerre Woodham the metal lids will be sold to metal recyclers across the country, the money then going to the Lions Foundation’s KanTabs programme to support kids with cancer.  The plastic, he said, will be prepackaged in Auckland before it’s shipped over to Australia for processing, with the aim of collecting enough that processing can be moved back to New Zealand.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s another option for those struggling to access a GP.  General Practitioners Aotearoa have said the concept of a “family doctor” is dead as the sector is crushed by rising costs, shortages, and high demands.  It can be difficult for people to get a consultation, with many clinics offering video calls instead of in-person consultations.  Southern Cross Health Insurance offers free online GP consultations for its members, the information from the appointment then going to the person’s primary GP.  Chief Medical Officer Dr Stephen Child joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the option and the struggles plaguing our crumbling health system.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I did want to have a look at the state of our primary healthcare – this is something we've looked at before, and I have absolutely no doubt that we will look at again. I do tend to agree with the GP advocacy group, General Practitioners Aotearoa, that the concept of the family doctor is dead. You're not going to get a Dr Finlay's Casebook again any time soon on the telly. You're not going to see a doctor who has not only looked after your primary health for much of your life, but also that of your family’s. These are the kinds of doctors that have gone the way of the moa.   Where I would disagree with the GPA is that they said you wouldn't see the sort of queues for GPs that we saw in South Auckland, in Remuera. I would argue it's just as difficult for people in the blue chip suburbs to get in to see a GP as it is in the poorer areas. It's just the people with disposable incomes can have other options.   A briefing given to Dr Shane Reti when he took over as Health Minister warned that New Zealand is at least 485 GPs short across the country. Remember trying to find the GP in Tokoroa? A GP was looking for somebody to take over the practice - all sorts of offers were put out there, nobody was interested. This number’s expected to grow to a shortage of between 750 and 1050 doctors in the next ten years. At least a quarter of a million Kiwis aren't enrolled with a practice. Many of them won't take on any new patients. 1,034,000 people said they struggled to access GP services because of cost in 2022/23, double the number of the previous year. And the impact of this of course is pressure on hospitals, emergency departments, specialist consultations and immunisation rates. Waiheke Island’s only afterhours medical clinic closed its doors yesterday; 24 practices and clinics in Canterbury, the Southern Region, Hawke’s Bay, and mid Central that provide after hours or urgent care experienced closures or reductions in hours in 2023 because there aren't enough GPs.   There is a tiny bit of good news... in March, the Health Minister pointed to work beginning on setting up a third medical school and record numbers of GP registrars as green shoot, but added, “I understand there are other parts of retention and remuneration we need to collaborate on.”   There is so much need everywhere, across every field, but GPs are in crisis. If a crisis can be something that continues for many, many years, because they have been saying for at least the past five years that they are struggling. Pre-Covid they were struggling. GPs were getting older, new doctors weren't training in the field, they were getting stressed and burnt out because they were seeing so many patients with so much need, and yet without them, they are such an important component of the country's overall health plan that you cannot have a healthy country without healthy GPs. Difficulty in accessing GPs results in pressure on EDs and poorer health outcomes once people do finally get treatment.   I've been with the same GP practice for about 25 years. I don't see the same GP; I've had a succession of really lovely, fabulous GPs come and go. The last one I was absolutely fabulous, but she now only works mornings because she's trying to manage herself, and her family, and her practice, and it's all just overwhelming. It was three weeks before I could get in to see a GP. You expect to have to wait. If it's urgent, they do their best. If it's urgent, you try and get into an afterhours clinic, but you have to have the money to pay and there has to be an afterhours clinic open near you.   So like I say, difficulty in accessing GPs no matter where you are in the country, but if you have money, if you have disposable income, you can get a result a lot more easily. Do we try and attract them from overseas? Do we try and attract young people, pay their student loans if they become a GP?  We've seen what happens when you try and attract somebody with money and all the add-ons and the bells and whistles to get to Tokoroa.  If they don't want to, they don't want to. Have the days of the family doctor gone the way of the moa? We just have to adapt to a new way, a new style of doing things.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.