Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Let's face it, civil defence coordinators are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Fail to give people sufficient warning of a natural disaster and they're accused of having blood on their hands. Too many warnings of something that doesn't happen, they're accused of alarmist scaremongering, and they become the boy who cries wolf.   The reason for all of this, a magnitude 8.8 earthquake struck off the eastern coast of Russia yesterday morning. Why would an earthquake in Russia yesterday trigger four, three or two, if you're lucky, emergency alerts for New Zealanders 18 hours later? It's the long delay between the earthquake and its ripple effect here. It will arrive here, but it's got a long way to come. Apparently, tsunamis travel at speeds equivalent to an Air New Zealand Boeing plane, but it that still gives you plenty of time when you're in New Zealand. Your Boeing still takes a fair while to get to the eastern coast of Russia. Different story if it was a magnitude 8.8 earthquake off the coast of New Zealand - then you'd need an emergency alert. But in this particular case, we have the benefit of being a very long way away, and a Victoria University geophysicist quoted in a Stuff story, John Townend says that distance gives our experts time to do the calculations, do the assessments and work out what's likely to come before it arrives.   So what are we being told? Well, the NEMA director John Price was on with Ryan Bridge on Herald Now this morning and despite the fact that nothing has happened in any of the countries that have been in the tsunami's path as it makes its way here, he repeated that it's still very much an alive threat, a hazard for New Zealanders and the last thing we want, he says, is anyone to be harmed, injured, or killed as a result of going near the coastline. He said the rationale behind the alert at 6:30am this morning was that the commuters going to work and people preparing for school and the like, it would give them time, it would give them knowledge, don't go to the coastline. If normally you would go for a morning walk or you'd go for a morning surf, you might be intending to set out to go and catch some fish and have them for breakfast - don't do that today. The activity, he said, is seen as surges in the water rather than a typical wave formation, so you might think you know the tides. You might think you know the waves, but you don't know the way a tsunami works. He said in the Chatham Islands there's been up to a 40cm wave. To people who say that a 40cm wave is nothing to be worried about, NEMA Director Price said that's just an indicator of what could come, it could be a lot worse. I hope it's only going to be that high, he said.   You've also heard internationally that there have been other sizable waves that have occurred in other parts of the world. The last thing we want is to be complacent. We know complacency, he says, puts people at risk and may kill people. But nothing happened. And I think that's what the geophysicist John Townend was saying, is that is vastly different to having an 8.8 earthquake off the coast of New Zealand. This happened in Russia, and it gives us time to assess what the possible threat might be. If Hawaii was wiped out. You'd think, crikey, this is serious, and you take all possible precautions. When nothing has happened in Japan or Hawaii? When the danger has passed, you would assume we don't need that same level of urgency when it comes to warnings. If there are too many warnings of things that don't happen, then that makes people complacent, too.   There are a heck of a lot of texts to ZB this morning, not from grateful consumers of NEMA's emergency texts, but this is sort of representative: "Mike, for the love of God, make the emergency alerts for a non-existent emergency stop. I've just received my 4th in 12 hours. It really is the boy who cried wolf and does nothing but stress out my young children. If anyone knows how to disable them, please let me know," said Matt.    Well, you know I got one at 4pm yesterday. As I looked over the mud flats, across the water to a narrow channel, I thought crikey, I don't think we need to put the life jackets on just yet or evacuate the house. But you know, good to know. But 6.30am this morning, by then, surely we would know if this was building in strength? That is the advantage of distance. I get it, you know, damned if they do, damned if they don't. Complacency is dangerous, I agree. But I would argue when you have too many emergency alerts of things that do not happen, that is going to inculcate complacency and that will be dangerous. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Civil Defence Minister is staunch on the need for mobile emergency alerts.  An alert sent at 6.30am warned people to stay away from water, beaches, harbours, marinas, and estuaries - with uncertain sea conditions triggered by yesterday's massive Russia quake.  It applies until further notice.  But many received multiple messages, and others got none.  Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham they'll be looking into it, but early warning is important.  He says in the past emergencies with fatalities, it's because of optimism bias, but New Zealand doesn't have that luxury anymore.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gang membership is on the rise, but if you believe Assistant Police Commissioner Paul Basham, an increase in numbers is not necessarily a bad thing. Gang numbers have climbed past 10,000, up from 9,200 in 2023, but that might be, he says, because they're keeping a closer eye on gangs, their intelligence is better, they know who's in and who's out, the record keeping and the data is better. He told Mike Hosking they have a laser focus on gangs and since the Gang Act was passed, they've launched more than 9000 charges against gang members.   “Our staff are awesome, and I don't think we've ever been better. You know, there's been lots of reporting about the work we're undertaken against gangs like the Comancheros, last month, we were operating against the Greazy Dogs in Tauranga, two weeks ago we took out a chapter of the Hell's Angels in Whanganui. And that's pretty significant in policing terms because they don't make that easy for us, and to take out the Hell's Angels from a law enforcement point of view is significant and reflects the fact that our staff are doing awesome work.   “You know, we're operating in a way that the government and the community would want us to be in the way that we're tackling organised crime and gang criminal behaviour. You know, we have the ambition for our communities to be safe and feel safe and I think the gang legislation that dropped last year has had a significant impact out there in terms of community feelings of safety and the feedback that we're getting is very positive in that regard.”  Absolutely. You could also look at the rise in unemployment too and see correlation and rise in gang numbers. Smart people know that gangs are nothing but evil pyramid schemes. The only ones who make any money are the ones at the top and the favoured area managers. A bit like Nutrimetics on speed. Those at the bottom, the ones doing the door to door selling and the deliveries are dumb grunts who do the dirty work and pay the price.   There were ten Mongrel Mob members, defendants in a murder trial in Tauranga earlier this year. They are prime examples of dumb grunts. Google them. I don't think I've ever seen a more hopeless, hapless, pathetic group in my life – they are just collectively woeful. Smart people don't join gangs, they start them. So if you're someone in a small town with few options for employment, you have few options in life, then you might find the idea of gang life attractive. You've got very little else going on in your world and your brain and your life. Being a grunt in a gang when there is very, very high unemployment and few options in your town, might seem attractive.   But the good news is that police are acting – 9000 charges against the gang members since the new gang legislation was brought in. And I don't know about you, but I am not seeing the swaggering, posturing arrogance that I used to see on the streets, on the roads in my neighbourhood. I know the gangs are still operating as business as usual. That hasn't stopped. But what has changed is that the police are really inconveniencing them. They're making it difficult for them to do business. The legislation means that police can target gangs, they can target gang members, they can ginger them up, annoy them, make it difficult to go about their day-to-day business. I don't have to watch the gang members in my neighbourhood patched up strutting around the neighbourhood like they own it. And that that suits me. I know that they're still out there. I know that they're still doing what they can because they think they're untouchable.   It's going to take a wee while – it has only been 18 months since they were given the keys to cities, the keys to towns, and the keys to the open roads. So it's going to take a bit of a moment to shift that. Rising gang numbers, sure. I guess if you want to see it as a bad thing, you will, it’s certainly not good that 10,000 people feel they have little option other than to join a gang. That life is better for them in a gang than it is within the community. That's sad. That's a damning indictment. But police bringing 9000 charges against gang members. It's a very good start. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is much that this coalition government is dealing with that is not of their own making – they are mopping up, cleaning up the mess. Then there are the own goals that should not be happening 18 months into office – and I would argue that the announcement trumpeted yesterday afternoon is an example of an own goal.   The Government is planning to ban merchants from adding surcharges to in-store card payments, a change they say that will save shoppers from the unwelcome surprise they get at the till. Go the Government for protecting the consumer!   Well, no, hang on a minute. My first thought was well, surely the retailers will simply pass on the cost that they have to pay to the banks for the privilege of having debit cards, contactless payments, and credit cards. The bank charges them because the credit card companies charge them, the banks certainly aren't going to absorb it. The retailers say, well, if you want the privilege of contactless payment if you want the convenience of that, then you can pay the charge. But now they're going to have to absorb it.   My second thought was now I'm going to be paying more. I don't Tap and Go. I very seldom Tap and Go. I've got a business account and a personal account, and when I pay for something, I'll insert my card, select the account, and pay that way. It’s supposed to make things easier for the accountant, and I avoid the surcharge. So when the retailers pass on the cost of the surcharge, anyone else who inserts and pins or swipes and pins will be paying too.   Heather du Plessis-Allan covered most of my objections when I was listening to her interview with Scott Simpson last night. How can this possibly be trumpeted as a boon to consumers when all that happens is the price of goods will go up to cover the surcharge? Why not go after the credit card companies? And the banks?   I could certainly understand charging a surcharge in the olden days when we had the zip zap credit card machines. There would undoubtedly have been a cost involved in processing all that paper. But now? Come on. Sure, there are costs in terms of fraud protection and there'd be other costs involved if you want to use your credit card and have that added protection, then you pay the surcharge. I don't see why the retailer should pay it, and I don't see why I should pay it when I'm not using that facility.   Why didn't the Government go after the Ticketmasters, and the Air New Zealands, and the hotels of this world that charge processing fees and service fees, and “you've looked at our website so now we're going to charge you” fees. The Coalition Government did not cover themselves in glory yesterday with this announcement.   And then there was the announcement of the announcement from Brooke van Velden around scaffolding safety requirements. That was another unwelcome reminder of Labour's modus operandi too. No, she was a day to forget for the Government yesterday.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

BNZ is taking advantage of the Government’s ban on in-store card surcharges to promote its new banking platform.  Payap, an open banking platform, allows customers to pay directly from their bank account.   It provides a lower-cost alternative with transaction fees of just 0.39% or 0.59%, and is compatible with all major NZ banks.  BNZ Head of Payment Development Jonathan Dale told Kerre Woodham with yesterday’s surcharge announcement, it’s good to highlight some alternatives in the market that will leave businesses in a good position for both them and their customers.  Payap, he says, creates an even playing field, and the small transaction fee creates an opportunity for small and large businesses alike to keep on growing.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Politicians rely on voters having short memories. They all do it.   Politicians and governments get swept out of power, they fester away on the opposition benches, and then a year before the next election, they make sweeping statements and promises about what they'll do if voters have the good sense to put them in.  Chris Hipkins is no different from every other party.  A lot of people might nod along with his comments and look at the price of butter or the whopping amount on their power bill and think ‘well this lot haven't fixed things the way they said they would, maybe I should vote Labour in 2026.’  In the Herald's Front Page podcast, the Labour leader said he wants us to have a look at how MP works, so smaller parties don't call the shots.   There should be some concessions and some trade-offs with the other parties to form a government, he says. That doesn't mean you should be doing things you specifically told the electorate before the election that you weren't going to do, Chris Hipkins said.    The Treaty Principles Bill, he says, is a good example. The Regulatory Standards Bill. Some of these things no one knew they were voting for at the last election. And now they're being inflicted on them. I don't think that's the spirit of MMP or democracy.   And amazingly, a bolt of lightning didn't strike him. Because can I remind the Labour leader, that Labour lost the last election - and absolutely tanked it.  After their landslide win in 2020, ministers felt they could implement un-signaled projects and projects that arose because of agitation within their caucus - from Three Waters to a social insurance scheme - and didn't bother taking the public along with them.   That was one of the main reasons that Labour tanked it. After their historic win, it was a historic defeat. ‘Bugger it’, they thought to themselves. ‘We've got a mandate, we'll do what we like’, which is not so very different from allowing minor parties to implement un-signaled projects, is it?   A lot of people who voted Labour last time did so because in 2020 National was a complete disaster as a party. A lot of people were very grateful to Labour for getting them through Covid. There were still some people who believed the rhetoric, despite clear evidence that they had no idea how to implement a lot of the more progressive and visionary policies.   There was no evidence they could actually implement them, but some people still believed it. But then they came and there were policies that nobody knew existed, even those who had done their homework.   Where did this come from? Well, it came from an antsy Māori block within Labours caucus who said,’ Well, if you don't do this, we'll go to Te Pati Māori!’ and Labour caved.   So, I am all for some reform around our electoral system. I think the party that wins the most votes on the night should be obliged to enter into negotiations with the minor parties.  And, perhaps more pertinently, the minor parties (looking at you Winston) should be obliged to begin negotiations with the party that wins the most votes on the night.   Forget about your petty power politics and your hurt feelings and your personal grievances. That's not what you should be there for. You should be there for the good of the people.   So, the party that wins the most votes on the night should have the minor parties knocking on their door, by law.  And if they cannot reach any kind of consensus, if they cannot agree on the principles that could help them form a government then by all means, shuffle the deck. Let’s see what kind of government you can come up with.   I would love to hear before the election from party leaders on who they will work with, which parties they will rule out, and which policies are non-negotiable. And again stressing, I would love to see petty power politics taken out of the equation too.    New Zealand voters have said have reaffirmed MMP as the system by which they want to be governed. Incomprehensibly to me, but there we go, we live in a democracy. They've said yes, MMP is the way to go, that's the form of proportional representation we will have.   But that doesn't mean that we can't tinker with it, make it better, or reform it. We don't agree on much Chris Hipkins and I, but on that, I do agree. Let's have a look at MMP and see how we can improve it.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Election Day is like Christmas Day, with some of us not getting ourselves organised until the very last minute - even though we’ve known for ages that it’s happening.   Christmas day is never sprung on us. We know it happens every 12 months, but there’s a lot of last-minute panicking, isn’t there?   We get even more warning with Election Day. We know it happens every three years, but there's the same last-minute rush.   Especially for the 110,000 people who were in the last-minute camp at the last election, enrolling to vote on the same day they voted.   But the Government’s not having any more of that and, as part of its changes to the way elections are run, it’s doing away with same-day enrolment. Which I think is a mistake.   But ACT MP Todd Stephenson is loving it, saying: “It’s outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.”   But he’s missing the point completely, because isn’t it brilliant that more than 100,000 people got to vote in the last election because they could enrol on the day?   Isn’t it the ones who didn’t vote at all who are the lazy ones?   The Government’s missing the point too. Because instead of penalising voters because it’s system can’t cope with last minute enrolments, it should be coming up with a system that can cope.   It should be building a system that enables same day enrolment instead of getting rid of it.   What it’s doing is effectively reversing something that was brought in for the 2020 election by the previous government. But it's going even further than just reversing what Labour did, and people are going to have to be enrolled and have their details up to date before the 12 days of advance voting begins.   The Government says it’s making the changes so the votes can be counted quicker. So that we get a result quicker, and so the politicians can get on with doing coalition deals.    But that’s just an excuse for not putting in the effort to come up with a better system to count the votes. And I’m not the only one saying that today either.   Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler is pouring cold water on it as well, saying there’s nothing stopping the politicians who look like they've been elected from beginning coalition negotiations before the final special votes are counted.   He says the final results can change by one or two seats, but nothing dramatic, and he says, “the time delay just doesn't seem like a particularly good reason for this."   As for one of the other changes it’s making —delivering on its promise to bring-in a total ban on prisoners voting— that gets a thumbs down from me too.   Again, it’s getting rid of something brought in by the previous government: voting rights for prisoners serving sentences of less than three years. Which is a mistake because I see a prisoner being able to vote as a way of keeping them engaged with the outside world.   You might recall a few months back, Sir Ron Young was finishing up as head of the Parole Board and he was saying that the reoffending rate for prisoners who serve short prison terms of two to three years is higher than those inside for longer.    That’s because they have way less opportunities to get themselves rehabilitated and they end up spending a lot of their time behind bars hanging out with serious crims.   So he was advocating for keeping these prisoners more engaged with the outside world, and I see voting rights as a way of doing that.   What’s more, how does a prisoner serving two years being allowed to vote affect you? Answer: it doesn’t. It has no impact on you and no impact on me. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Homelessness has increased, but by how much is unclear, according to a government report.  This is the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development's latest Homelessness Insights Report drawn from data in Census 2023, and observations collected from government agencies, councils, and the general good sorts in the sector.  The report defines homelessness as living situations where people are forced to live; without shelter, in temporary accommodation, shared accommodation with a household, or living in uninhabitable housing.  The Opposition was hoping that the report would show the government's ditching of emergency housing was to blame. It doesn't say it's not to blame, but nor does it say it is.  What it found was that 60 days after leaving emergency housing 37% were housed in social housing, 29% went into transitional housing, 19% received the accommodation supplement.  That leaves 14% who may be living without shelter, but there's no way of confirming this.  Housing Minister Chris Bishop says it's an issue he takes very seriously.  He says it's a better outcome than the last government who spent $1.4 billion on sticking people in motels with all the consequent problems that entailed.  Homelessness is not a new problem, but there is no doubt the problem is getting worse – blame the economy, and the pandemic hangover, and any number of factors.  And there's no quick fix.   But good souls are trying their best. In Rotorua there's an initiative just starting up called Adopt a Streetie. It's designed to help rough sleepers off city centre street.  It would involve rough sleepers being matched with volunteer local hosts willing to offer free rent in exchange for their guests completing odd jobs.  There is no knowing whether there will be enough good folk prepared to Adopt a Streetie, because it's not an easy job. The homeless are not easy people. They've not had an easy life. They have big hard personal problems. It takes a very good Good Samaritan to run the gauntlet of adopting a streetie. I commend you if you're helping and I thank you but it's gotta be tough.  The idea is the brainchild of Love Soup, the organisation behind Rotorua’s Village of Hope. That village shelters homeless people in sleeping pods set up in secret locations, but it's struck problems with compliance issues.  And that's just one of the problems that affect solutions – a lot of our rules don't suit people who have chosen to live outside society and its rules.  Once upon a time I helped a friend help a bloke. She befriended him, I met him a few times. She organised some emergency housing for him in Papakura, a warm little brick and tile and one weekend she helped him move in. Bought some furniture from an op shop.  But two weeks later he was back living rough downtown, because in Papakura he was lonely. His people were fellow rough sleepers, and he valued their company more than a warm house.  Now this is not a tale to say that housing the homeless is useless because they want to live this way, but it does acknowledge that while they don't like living rough, it's what they know and safer than the solution.  So the Minister and everybody says it's not good enough, and it isn't, but finding a solution is very hard indeed.   But while the problem is hard, at least we should be able to understand it. Because that is the first step in learning how to solve it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It appears we're living in an age where it's okay for politicians to swear to the press. Donald Trump is leading the way, dropping the F bomb over Russia and using the word bullshit more often than anyone ever had.  It's a sign of the times, and you could argue it makes politicians more relatable because heaven knows we're all a lot more potty mouth in private. But you could also say that leaders of countries should be held to higher standards, and it's not hard to not swear – ask broadcasters.   So the PM almost dropped an F bomb yesterday because Chris Hipkins was calling the FamilyBoost programme a failure.   Are you okay with politicians having a swear in public, or is it something they should have the maturity to control?  Now what is the FamilyBoost programme that got Chris Luxon so fired up that he called the Leader of the Opposition “fricken” Chris Hipkins after he criticised it.  The FamilyBoost programme is a New Zealand government initiative designed to help families with the cost of early childhood education by giving you a refund on what you've paid.  Families can claim 25% of their weekly cost of childcare, up to a maximum of $75. There's a cap, if you earn over 180,000 dollars you can't claim it.  The government initially estimated that up to 100,000 families could benefit from FamilyBoost, with 21,000 potentially eligible for the full payment. Chris Hipkins claims that rather than 21,000, the number claiming the full benefit was 153.  60,000 families have received some form of payment – so it has kind of worked.  The low uptake is likely due to a combination of factors, including a lack of awareness of the scheme and complex eligibility requirements.  It's not the first time the policy has been criticised. Back in May it was revealed that nearly a quarter of the money spent on National's flagship FamilyBoost policy has gone towards running the scheme, instead of helping families – $14 million out of $62 million.  Are you sick of these virtue signalling schemes where if you have the ability to run the scheme, you have the ability to run a multi-national corporation, because applying is so complex, but all you’re doing is applying for a benefit?  The Government has since announced changes to the scheme to increase eligibility and encourage greater participation. These changes include expanding eligibility to more families and increasing the income threshold for the full rebate. It's also looking at ways to simplify the scheme and make it easier for families to access the benefits. Blah blah blah blah.    We’re living full lives running a family here. Is this worth the time to interpret all the rules and fill out all the paperwork, because when you look at this whole thing, it seems to be written in something other than English?  So the question is this: in an age of fast track this and too much bureaucracy that, is applying to get a benefit just too hard? Is the fear of being taken advantage of by a small minority of an already small minority too great?  Or is the bureaucratic minefield that is the benefit application process a good thing? Because it limits the number of people taking taxpayers money to make ends meet so we can spend that revenue on more doctors and transport options?  And can politicians fricken swear? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We all know we need more doctors. A lot more. Considering how long it takes to train a doctor, this is something that someone should have probably thought about 20 or 30 years ago. New Zealand's population has doubled since the last med school was opened, so you can see how far behind we are.  But now we have a proposed new medical school in the Waikato.  This was dreamed up last electoral cycle by the University with the help of a report and analysis by Stephen Joyce with his consultation hat on. Shane Reti was heavily involved with the university. The University called the school a present for National's second term.  Low and behold, it became National’s policy at the last election, and it seemed a vote winner. After all, we know we need more doctors  But then it all got sticky with bureaucrats and coalition partners suggesting the idea might not fly.  Now it’s back with a miraculous cut in budgeted costs and a substantial expectation that generous benefactors would make up any underfunding from the government. And if they didn't, the University had the means to cover any shortfall.  The two universities that already have medical schools don’t support it. They say just give us more money and we’ll make more doctors. A PWC report last year said a school was duplicative and expensive.  And with the need for doctors so urgent there’s the time factor – to get a school up and running takes a while. You need all sorts of specialised spaces. The Waikato Graduate School of Medicine is scheduled to open in 2028 —three years from now— versus two schools who claim they could grow intake from next year.  The whole thing seems a bit rife of political necessity.  They promised it, so it has to happen whether it's a good idea or not. It reeks of wasteful government spending as a payback to loyal supporters. It preys on the largesse of the wealthy. Is it a good idea?  If it was a good idea why has not been part of our long-term planning for longer? Training to become a doctor in New Zealand typically takes 12 to 17 years, depending on the chosen specialty.  But a third school has suddenly landed in our lap. I'm not against Waikato having a medical school in the future – health experts have said rural-origin students who train in rural areas and are trained by rural health professionals are six times more likely to work in those rural areas post-graduation. Now Hamilton is quite rural, but frankly so is Otago so I'm not sure that's a reason to have a school there. But right now, it seems a bit rushed and political.   So do you support the establishment of a school in Hamilton?  And then there's all the other issues around medical staff.  The proposal to date aims to produce proportionately more rural and primary care doctors via a four-year graduate programme, largely based in the community and the wider region’s general practices, yet drawing also on the many excellent clinicians at Waikato and other regional hospitals, so that graduates (as at Otago and Auckland) are equipped to go into any area of medicine.  Many in the medical sphere say the real problem in banging out doctors is not in the number of places at a school, but where they go to get on-the-job training – placements  So to train more doctors we need more doctors to train more doctors.  And this school does nothing to solve that problem.  Once they're trained in theory, how do we train them practically? Once they are trained, how do we pay them properly, and then how do we keep them from disappearing overseas?  And then there's the question of where we find people with the ability and desire to go through the arduous process of training to be a doctor.  Because doctors don't grow on trees.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.