Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Divisions are deepening between the US and other western countries over Ukraine, and now trade.  The US President's slapped a 25% tariff on all Canadian and Mexican imports, and 20% on some from China.  Canada's responded by imposing the same amount back, which Donald Trump says he'll match again.  Former Trade Minister and Ambassador to the US Tim Groser told Kerre Woodham countries like Canada are fighting the US on trade, while trying to form closer security ties.  He says that the two strategies are inherently in conflict with each other – you can’t start a trade war with someone you want to curry favour with.  Groser told Woodham he argues that even if Trump was next to them right now, he also wouldn’t be able to say what the end game is.  He says it’s difficult to sift through and find the real logic of the situation, resulting in unprecedented uncertainty.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a health system in possession of physically and mentally unwell people must be in want of billions (with apologies to Jane Austen). It is also a truth universally acknowledged that a health system can never have enough of those billions. Look at the $1.96 billion Labour invested into the mental health budget back in 2019. We now know some years later where exactly that money has gone, but whether it was a good investment or not, too soon to tell. It certainly hasn't fixed mental health or made it any easier for families to access mental health care for troubled teens and the like – and that was $1.96 billion chucked at the problem.   And these headlines: “New Zealand needs 450 more ICU nurses”. When was that? That headline was from March 2023, but it could have been any year. Tell me that New Zealand doesn't need more nurses than any particular sphere of nursing. In November 2022: “GPs need a funding increase of 231% to be viable”. Again, that was three years ago. That was the GPs calling for the Labour Government please, we needed a 231% increase in our funding. 5000 nurses from New Zealand —or about 8% of the country's entire force— have registered to come and work in Australia. That was in April 2023. And on and on it goes.   There is nothing new in health, no new headlines. No matter what government is in, they need more money, they need more staff, they need more frontline staff, they need more efficiency in the way things are done. And it's not just New Zealand, it is a worldwide problem. The health sector is a bottomless pit wanting more and more and more. I do remember a senior doctor many years ago, ringing me at nights on his way home from work and he said we in fact do have enough money, it's just where it gets spent. And I would probably believe that - you have to spend smarter, not just more.   So the government has announced it will help bring 100 overseas trained doctors into the primary care workforce. Previously, they've only been able to do their training at hospitals and now if you want to be a GP, the GPs will be able to train you and that will count, and that is a very, very good move. There's also a $285 million performance-based boost in funding for GPs that's been announced. The new Health Minister, Simeon Brown, also said the government would begin work on a new 24/7 digital healthcare service that would allow Kiwis to better access online video consultations.   The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners President Samantha Murton told Mike Hosking that utilising more telehealth makes sense:  “You cannot do everything online, but you can do a lot online and if I have patients, I talk to every week, I say to them, or every day, you know, let's do this consultation online because we’re just following up on results or they’ve got symptoms that are really easy to cover. But are you going to have a pharmacy open at 11 o’clock at night? Probably not.”   Well, no, but you can pick it up tomorrow because you've got your prescription and off you go. It makes sense, doesn't it? There are already digital healthcare providers that are 24/7, that fit around when their patients are available not when the doctors are available. But so much of our health system wouldn't be needed if we all showed good sense. You know, if we were fit, and we were healthy, and we took care of ourselves, and were aware of any kind of triggers for mental health, and that sort of thing. If more common sense was employed then we wouldn't need the services of doctors. Green prescriptions are still there, which is great.   It's all part of a continuum, so if GPs see more people, they don't present at ED, and the hospitals don't get clogged, and then you don’t need to concentrate on the aftercare as well, and then we have a system that works. Or will we ever? You look at any health system anywhere in the world: the problem is not the health system, the problem is sick people. That's what the problem is. And people who want the health system to fix them rather than take any kind of responsibility. There are people who get terrible diseases, and they want to be cured because to a certain extent the health system is a victim of its own good marketing - get sick, we can fix you.   Where do we even begin? So much of it comes back to responsibility, doesn't it? Own individual responsibility for your own health. You can't spend a lifetime abusing your body and then going to a doctor or a health system and saying fix me. One 15-minute appointment after an adult lifetime of abuse, fix me. I've suddenly decided I want to live. Well. Well, you know it's on you. There are things beyond our control, accidents happen. Horrible, pernicious diseases appear out of nowhere and that's what the health system should be for. Not for people who could prevent a lot of what is putting them into hospital pr what a lot of people are presenting to the GP with. I'd love to know from GPs how many people who turn up could actually fix themselves or could have fixed themselves before they presented. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I headed up to Hokianga for the last official weekend of summer - take a load off, relax, a few swims, not even think about anything newsy - well, you can't be doing that now, can you? Not in Trump land. The meeting with Ukraine President Vladimir Zelensky was an unmitigated disaster for the Ukrainian president, who walked out of the meeting after being berated for not being grateful enough for the military aid and financial support the US has given Ukraine in its three-year war with Russia.  Zelensky went to the White House to sign a minerals for arms deal - he left with nothing and his political future looks uncertain. Major European leaders have promised their support for Zelinsky and Ukraine, but how that translates to cold, hard cash and missiles remains to be seen. However much you might find the bombastic posturing of Fox News's Jesse Watters, this is America's economy, this is America's world - like it or not, it's pretty much true. Whatever the European leaders decide as regards Ukraine, they know and they have stated publicly that the USA will be needed to act as security and however poorly the meeting went, Ukraine needs America, and America does not need Ukraine. And Donald Trump has said if you want gillions of dollars in military support and financial aid, we're not doing it for goodness and for freedom and democracy and because we will act as the world's policeman and police an invader that is wrong , we'll do it for money. We're done, we're done with doing it for ideals. You want our help, then you have to give us something back. I suppose this is all done nicely, nicely underneath the surface in the past. Countries always want something for their aid. The US wanted aid for coming to Britain's assistance during World War 2, and we're going to give it for nothing, but it's always done behind closed doors and nicely. Here it was played out in all its inglorious reality before a watching world. It’s the way the world has always been, but we've just never seen it. So not over yet, is it? So that happened. And and then the story about meth. There was the most heartbreaking interview with the survivor of a dreadful - I don't even want to say an accident. It wasn't an accident. When you've got a meth affected driver who has ploughed into a group of motorcyclists who are enjoying an early morning ride, having a great weekend, they're going into town for breakfast and a driver on the wrong side of the road plows into them. Meth affected, killing three. And changing life as he knows it for the survivor - it's not an accident. Meth doesn't just affect the person who's taking. We all know that. Kids are growing up in violence and poverty because every spare scent is being spent on meth. It's leaving people dead and injured, which you might say is God's little pruning fork, but really it has massive impacts on our health system and on our police. Families torn apart because bright young things become addicts who steal from their families, lie to them, manipulate them, do anything they possibly can to get their hands on the drug. And it's been around for years now. You can't say, oh, I didn't realise - I didn't understand that it would be that it would be so addictive, that it would cause so much harm. Everybody knows. And yet still they use it. People who have escaped its clutches know just how evil and insidious this drug. And yet still people are using, and they're using in greater numbers and in greater quantities than ever before. On the Mike Hosking Breakfast, Massey university drug researcher Chris Wilkins says the increase in meth use as a supply side effect. "So essentially, there's been a massive increase in industrial size production of methamphetamine traditionally from Southeast Asia, but now increasingly from other parts of the world like South America and Mexico. So you know the seizures have increased 10 times in the last three or five years. So this is really supply. Very cheap meth that can be easily manufactured at low price, and we're just getting swamped in meth, essentially, I think this is a real wake up call because and it's partly a technological driven thing that we've now got synthetic drugs like meth that can be produced on large scale at a very low price. But also there's other changes in the market, like a digital market, you know, encrypted messaging apps, darknet and social media are being used now in a drug market that’s very different from what we might remember as a teenager. So you know, these are all things to keep her aware of." That was Chris Wilkins talking to Mike Hosking this morning. So the only real way to reduce the harm of this drug is to reduce demand, because they will keep flooding it. I've interviewed people before about the supply chain and how easy it is to get drugs into this country coming down through the Pacific. Easy peasy. If they lose a bit on the way through, that's factored in by the drug manufacturers and the drug suppliers accountants - you bring in 100,000 kilos, you lose 20,000, you're still going to make a massive profit. So the only real way is to reduce demand, rehabilitate addicts and stop people taking it in the first place. There are schemes, there are programmes that are working, they haven't been rolled out throughout the country. Labour promised to. Shock me. National promised too - don't know where they're at with that and I would really, really like to find out. Where you do have proven drug programmes that engage with the community, where it's treated as a as a health issue, that gets people off this insidious drug once and for all, we need to roll them out as a matter of urgency. I think there was a 34% success rate for a programme in the Far North we've talked about before. This is an actual anonymised data from police and health.  Because the only way to stop the harm that drugs are causing to innocent people is to reduce the desire for it, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In terms of sports stories, it really doesn't get much better than this. Ryan Peake has won the 104th New Zealand Open by a stroke, finishing at 23 under par after a thriller down the stretch. Newstalk ZB's Andrew Alderson was at Millbrook and said:  “In one of the tournament’s most captivating denouements, the Australian sank a three-metre putt under the lens of a buzzing amphitheatre as rain fell for the first time across the four days on the last hole”. Ryan Peake joins the show. LISTEN ABOVE. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, after a spirited discussion yesterday on the potential changes to the laws around citizen’s arrests, the press conference announced the actual changes. They are amending the Crimes Act so that citizens can intervene to stop any crimes act events at any time of the day, requiring that a person making an arrest contact police and follow police instructions. Clarifying that restraint can be used when reasonable when making an arrest and changing the defensive property provisions to the Crimes Act so it's clear that reasonable force may be used.   Almost immediately, a wide range of groups and organisations slammed the proposals. The Police Association says the changes are highly risky and could have unintended consequences. Police Association President Chris Cahill told Mike Hosking this morning that the reforms are risky and unnecessary, and says it's not worth getting hurt or even killed for a few bucks or some ciggies.   “I mean, look at dairies for instance, they don't have security guards, and they have shopkeepers and family people, and there's going to be an expectation that they do it, especially if they're working for some boss who thinks they should do it. But even security guards, you look at some of these security guards – they're not really highly trained they're not highly equipped. To think of police officers, we've got all the equipment, all the training, still get assaulted every day, some really seriously. So, I don't mean to be the humbug. I get why people think on the face of it, a good idea, but when you peel it back, it's pretty risky stuff.”  Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said member businesses had “grave fears” about the proposals. “The great majority of members we have consulted have made it clear that only police should have powers to detain offenders”, she said. “Most retailers train their staff to prioritise their own safety rather than try to recover stolen goods. We cannot condone retail workers putting themselves into dangerous and volatile situations”.   The Employers and Manufacturers Association said business owners were being encouraged to put themselves and their staff in harm's way. They fear it will lead to an escalation in violence – if an offender believes they'll be met with aggression, they'll come prepared. “Far from discouraging thefts or aggression and retail workplaces”, the EMA says, they believe this will result in “swarming behaviour in which a number of offenders will be present to create numerical superiority, those are outcomes no one wants”. Goes without saying that the unions and Labour hate the proposals.   To me, what is really alarming is the group that LOVES the idea of beefed up powers for citizens. Do you know who LOVES the idea? Destiny Church. Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki says he's “excited” to receive “increased powers to police, where law and order has failed”. If Tamaki wants something, I don't. The idea of his boofheads going around deciding what's right and what's wrong and who's a criminal who's not gives me the heebies.   But the thing that gets me is, did the government not ask the police, and Retail NZ, and the EMA whether they wanted to increase the powers of citizen’s arrest? Call me naive, and in fact you did yesterday, and in fact I accept that I was, but I would have thought that before you set up a working group, that the working group was as a result of Retail NZ, and the EMA, and the police, and the dairy owners saying we really need to do something about these citizen’s arrest powers? We really need to beef them up. I would have thought that it would have the support of Retail NZ and the EMA and all these pivotal groups that are actually involved at the coal face. If they say no, no thanks very much, leave it to the police, and the police say no, no, we're highly trained and we still get hurt, imagine what can happen to people who don't have the training and don't have the equipment, who did they ask before they set this up? Who wants this apart from Destiny Church? Which really, as I say, puts the heebies up me.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There are two camps when it comes to the Government’s proposal to loosen citizen’s arrest laws.  The measure is being pitched as a remedy for retail crime, by allowing workers and the public to detain suspected thieves with "reasonable force".  However, concerns have been raised about the risks involved and what constitutes “reasonable force”.  Otago University Law Professor Andrew Geddis believes the proposal is risky, telling Kerre Woodham it seems like an extreme expansion of the power for one particular problem.  He says it also runs the risk of someone carrying out a citizen’s arrest only for the police to be unable to attend to it, potentially creating a false promise for retailers.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Retailers and members of the public will soon have more ability to detain shoplifters and thieves under beefed up citizen's arrest powers. At 2pm today, the government's expected to announce a range of measures aimed at curbing rising retail theft, which have been proposed by a Ministerial Advisory Group formed to address retail crime.   It's pretty clear what the advisory group is looking for. The old rules around citizen’s arrests were absurd. Under the current legislation, making a citizen's arrest or detaining an offender could only occur at night between 9pm and 6am, because of course, there's no such thing as daylight robbery. Wrong. The Crimes Act also stated a warrantless arrest could be made by anyone if the offender was committing a crime for which the maximum punishment was at least three years in prison. So, if you're going in to protect somebody who was being assaulted, for example. It was also understood the value of the item being stolen had to be worth at least $1000. What if I went to nab Golriz Ghahraman while she was shoplifting $1000 dress at Scotties, but it was on sale? Then what? What a conundrum. Do I step in or do I not? Absurd, utter nonsense.   The changes were intended to enable shop owners or security guards to prevent a thief from leaving a retail store with the stolen goods without risking being charged for using force. Ministers Goldsmith and McKee are expected to explain the application of reasonable force in those scenarios at the 2pm stand up. It was understood that the proposed changes are intended to come into force this year, wouldn't have age limitations, and wouldn't require a minimum price for the stolen items before a citizen's arrest could be made.   Former Police Minister Stuart Nash told Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning that like everyone, he's sick of seeing people getting away with thumbing their noses at the community:  “You got a situation Mike, where if you steal stuff, which is, you know, obviously you're stealing something over $1000 that’s pretty serious. If you’re just shoplifting, then the cost of prosecuting someone is substantial compared to the crime that's being committed. But what you've ended up with is a really terrible situation where these guys just get away with it.   “So what we were seriously looking at is some form of fine, or something along those lines, which was proportionate. With the citizen's arrest, yeah you know, I’m a fan, there's no doubt about that. But it's got to be proportionate. You know, we don't want to get to a stage where big tough guys like yourself are using this to beat the crap out of someone.”  No, and that's fair enough. But that has always been the thorniest of issues. There was a real spate of farmers getting into all sorts of trouble for defending their properties and the use of reasonable force was the question being debated. What was forceful and what was not, but I think we've all had a guts full of people brazenly getting away with stealing stuff. Two fingers to the shop owner, one finger to society. Even the ones who aren't causing any physical harm ,the ones who are just walking and grabbing what they want and walking out.   It's an outrage, they're sneering at people who are doing their best, who are going to work, who are trying to budget, who are trying to squeeze every last cent out of their wallets to pay the household groceries, and then they just watch as people march by with a trolley full of crap that they load into the boot of somebody's car and off. I want to see them stopped. I want to see them stopped and the people who stop them be able to walk home and think, well, that was a job well done.   But two words. Austin Hemmings. Austin Hemmings was the brave, decent man who stepped in one ordinary after workday in 2008, to help a woman who was in clear distress and who had called out for help after a man confronted and threatened her. And so he did. He went in to help this woman and for doing the right thing, this husband and father of three was stabbed in the chest and died. He was awarded the Bravery Star, New Zealand's second highest award for bravery in 2011, and his killer will be coming up for parole either this year or the next.   So I want to see the community able to fight back and to work together to stop thugs and thieves, but I really don't want to see another family having to live with the loss of a good and decent man. And what's proportional force? Remember, the Sheriff of Ngawi? This was a man in a coastal community in Wairarapa and like the rest of us, he’d had a guts full of lowlifes coming over the hill, into their community, ransacking people's holiday homes and taking what they wanted. By the time you called the police, these thugs had put their goods up on trade me and had made their fortune.  So the townsfolk of Ngawi got together and the Sheriff of Ngawi fired a gun across the bowels of the stolen car that these thugs were attempting to make their getaway in. And for that he went to court, he was fined $3000, and he was forced to hand over his gun.   Yes, I want to see us be able to defend ourselves, but I want to know what reasonable force is. I personally think firing a gun over the heads of some lowlifes is perfectly reasonable. Firing a gun at a getaway car I think is perfectly reasonable. When it's not the first time, when the police cannot help, perfectly reasonable. But I do want to see us make more use of technology too. Supermarkets should be investing in the software that prevents thieves leaving the stores with trolleys and arm loads of stolen groceries. That technology exists. I can understand risking my life to protect the life of another, and I hope that I would be as brave as Austin Hemmings and do so. But risking my life to protect the supermarkets profits, yeah not so much.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Security Association is weighing in on speculation citizen's arrest and security guard powers are about to open up.  The Government is making an announcement this afternoon on its response to a ministerial advisory group's recommendations on retail crime.  Association CEO Gary Morrison says they've been advocating for additional security powers with training, which wouldn't apply to all guards.   Morrison says situational awareness is crucial - and the general public people would have to be very careful and know their own capabilities.    LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yesterday Andrew Bayly, the former Commerce and ACC Minister, revealed he had resigned from his ministerial portfolios on Friday night after grabbing a staffers upper arm during a discussion that’s been described as “lively”. It comes after a messy public relations failure in October, when it was revealed Bayly had repeatedly called a worker a loser during a visit to a South Island business. He apologised and kept the job, but this was one step too far. The Prime Minister told Mike Hosking he relied on Andrew Bayly to do the right thing, and he did:  “Look, honestly, he was doing a very good job making good contributions in two very technical portfolios. I'm sure Scott Simpson will carry that on. But look, the reality is you've got to have some standards, Mike. And you know, I watched the last lot go through a series of Ministers and it wasn't either clear... It was clear in this case and, and importantly, he recognised that he had met his own standards and that's his decision, so I respect that.”  There's a lot of people complaining that Andrew Bailey shouldn't have had to go, shouldn't have felt that he had to go, but I can't imagine a situation where I would be touched by my boss during a lively discussion – and we have plenty of them. I cannot imagine him grabbing my arm and saying listen, you're wrong. We have very lively discussions with lots of argy bargy and neither of us hold back, none of us within the conversation hold back. I just can't imagine a situation where I would be held by the arm as a way of stressing the importance of the point that I was making. If my boss ever did, I can't imagine calling for his head. I’d say ‘get your bloody hands off me’ or something like that. But if the employee didn't like Bayly and found them difficult to work with, then the former minister gave him an absolute sitter of an opportunity to get rid of him.   So Bayly’s gone from cabinet, but not from his electoral seat. The leader of the opposition is crowing. Chris Hipkins has accused the Pime Minister of handling the situation poorly, sitting on the information for two days before doing anything about it. Then, having Andrew Bayly himself resigned, not telling the public about it for several more days, then sneaking out before jumping on a plane to escape overseas. Chris Hipkins own words. He added “I think people will see that for what it is”. Nicola Willis, on the other hand, says it's about showing humanity, allowing Bayly to tell his family and come to terms with his professional demise before it became the public fodder it has become.   Look, it's just politics. National certainly uses the departure of successive Labour ministers to point to Labour's lack of credentials to govern. There were a lot of them. Iain Lees-Galloway and on we went. Stuart Nash, Meka Whaitiri resigned to go to Te Pati Māori, Kiri Allan – there were a lot of ministers whose careers ended up being in the toilet. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that. If National can make hay whilst in opposition as Labour ministers came and went, then when they're in opposition, they can do the same when National ministers are doing much the same.    I really think the hoo-ha about a couple of days is neither here nor there. I don't know what the fuss is about that. Darleen Tana was suspended from Parliament on the 14th of March. She was finally got rid of on the 22nd of October, all while drawing her parliamentary salary. Two or three days I can live with, but Andrew Bayly, I'm sorry, did have to go. Parliament has had a history of being a toxic workplace and you can't have a minister being a part of that if you want to change the culture. For those complaining it's a sign of wokeness and an overreaction, really? I don't recall anybody saying that when Labour ministers were in strife. And I really don't think laying hands on staffers is considered acceptable business practice in this day and age.   He had to go, and he has. End of story.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As Chinese naval ships are firing live rounds in Pacific waters, sending far reaching ripples of consternation around the Asia Pacific region, Defence Minister Judith Collins hinted that defence would see a significant boost in spending come the next budget, which is a matter of months away. This was the Defence Minister on with Mike Hosking this morning:   It is simply not credible for us to expect defence to keep on going after they've had, you know, essentially 35 years of every government hoping that everything's just going to be fine, and they wouldn't need to do anything. It is an enormous task to rebuild, and our people are doing it. Is it billions over many, many, many years? In other words, it's not the here and now. Or is it billions right here right now, and we’ve got to do something fairly big. It's a sustained effort is what I can tell you, and it is a lot of money. It’s a heap of money. But we also know that the world is changing, and we also need to be able to look at that again and say do we need to do more again? So, it's actually about how we do these things and being very aware that without national security, there is no economic security, there is nothing else. She's right. Without national security, there is no economic security. So an investment in our defense forces is long overdue. It will certainly help Judith Collins case having the Chinese ships floating around our waters. The firing of live rounds has been the catalyst for much diplomatic toing and froing and canvassing of experts. But everybody is very, very cautious, very precise in their language, no inflammatory statements. China's actions are believed to have complied with international law. The Australian Defence Force has advised there was no imminent threat to its assets or those of New Zealand’s. Analysts believe that this was an attempt by Beijing to project power and to send a message to Canberra about China's capability. Australian PM Albanese on Saturday defended China's right to carry out the exercise as it had not breached international law. He said, they could have given more notice. Yes, they could have given commercial flights had to be diverted, but as Albanese and then Judith Collins said this morning, their respective countries have a presence from time to time in the South China Sea and the activity took place outside of the exclusive economic zone, notification did occur. Soit's all very ‘let's all be nice and let's all be calm about this’,let's not be silly. Australia has coordinated its response with New Zealand, but they haven't spoken with the US since the incident. Chinese naval ships in our waters. It is clearly sending a message. More likely to Australia than to us. But I would argue the French did far, far worse.SoI think probably the temperate approach is right. I’mglad people aren't getting exercised at this point about the Chinese presence. But it will help Judith Collins case to restore our beleaguered Defence Force. It'stimely, too, that Australia's announced it's going to be spending a record $55.7 billion on defence, which equates to about 2.02% of gross domestic product. The most we've spent in 12 years is 1.45% of GDP. It's tough. I mean, everybody is screaming for more money and defense, like health, like education is a bottomless pit into which you could pour money, and you would still need more. And Judith Collins is right that everything you buy in defense is expensive, including the personnel. You know the wages are expensive, everything you put on them, that you put in their hands, that you station is expensive. Where do we start though? There is just so much to do when it comes to defense. Every time we talk about this, I get emails or texts from people who are living on bases, who say there is just no way any of these houses could pass a healthy homes test, that they've been allowed to run down to the point that they're unhealthy and unsafe for the people within them. People are leaving, there's no opportunity for promotion. Everything is so run down, it feels like they're not valued, they're not given an opportunity to show what they can do, and that's in every arm of the forces. The equipment is not just old, it's unsafe. But there's only so much we can do. The Greens would probably argue we shouldn't do anything. We should be spending any defence money on candles and combined choral choirs singing ‘Give Peace a Chance’. But in these uncertaintimes, II would argue we have to do our bit, we have to value our defence force and not allow it to be devalued, as has been the case with successive governments over the years. While there is no imminent threat, it's easy to postpone it and you can understand why governments would. You've got health, you've got education wanting more and more. And while there is no imminent threat to New Zealand's national security you can argue we don't need to worry about spending money. But I think it's crunch time. We either don't have a defence force, and I say we either commit and build up our defence forces again to do our bit to help with global security or we abandoned it altogether. We can't go on in this kind of semi/demi world that the defense force is living in. They haven't got enough to do their job properly, they're not valued. Either value them and commit or put the money into the choirs and the candles and be done with it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.