

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast
Newstalk ZB
Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.
Episodes
Mentioned books

Feb 22, 2024 • 13min
Tim Hazledine: Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Auckland on the
Benefits are on blast at the moment, but one professor thinks a universal basic income may be cheaper. Data from the Ministry of Social Development shows that 109,000 kiwis on the Jobseeker benefit have received it for at least a year. Tim Hazledine, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Auckland, suggests we scrap the welfare system altogether, replacing it with a universal basic income. He told Kerre Woodham that currently, the amount the government spends on various social handouts and programmes is more than what a universal income of $300 a week would cost. He said that giving every adult $600 a fortnight regardless of their financial earnings is fiscally neutral, and would give them certainty and assurance. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feb 22, 2024 • 9min
Kerre Woodham: The complaints about Oranga Tamariki are the same every time
We have in the news yet another report into Oranga Tamariki. Yet another damning indictment into an organisation that should never exist. The Chief Ombudsman has called for changes “on a scale rarely required” at Oranga Tamariki. He reviewed about 2000 complaints over four years for his report children in care, complaints to the Ombudsman, 2019 to 2023. He said he could not yet provide reassurance that Oranga Tamariki’s practices and processes were consistently operating as they should. You could have basically taken any report that's been written over the last 20 years, and it doesn't matter whether it's called CYFS or Child youth and Family or Oranga Tamariki, it is the same complaints time and time and time again about an organisation, I repeat, that should not exist. If parents and caregivers gave their children even the most basic and rudimentary of care, like just didn't kill them, we wouldn't be spending more than a billion dollars a year on a government department that is constantly criticised. And I really feel for the people who work there. You would go in there with the best of intentions, and they would be crushed out of you within months, I'd imagine. CYFS, child youth and family, whatever, are roundly attacked for taking babies off mothers. The next day, they're roundly attacked for NOT taking babies off mothers, for not acting soon enough. There have been criticisms of this organisation since I can remember. I mean, I'm going back in the far mists of time, but I remember them all. Since 2017, I'm just going back to 2017, and I've been talking about this since the 1990s, but since 2017, 65 New Zealanders 17 or under have been killed/murdered. Some of them youth fighting but since 2017, 65 New Zealanders 17 or under have been killed - 24 of those were aged under 12 months. Those weren’t youths fighting in the street. They were the most vulnerable children and homes killed by their carers since 2017. I am going right back now: Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson. They were murdered by their stepfather when they threatened to tell the authorities that he was sexually abusing them. So many adults knew that they were being abused. Teachers knew and warned the authorities. CYFS workers knew, police knew. They'd complained to the police. The police had investigated. They couldn't find any evidence. Their own mother. She was a hapless soul who tried to get away. She was in a terrible, violent, oppressive succession of relationships that resulted in numerous children, and she couldn't keep them safe. If I say those names and you were around at the time, you'll remember the school photo of those two girls. They were gorgeous, bright, brave intelligent. But they were only 11 and 12, there was only so much they could do. They knew the risks they were taking; they phoned the authorities themselves. They were trying to get help from the adults. Their mother knew. They told friends they would die. They'd been threatened with death by their stepfather if they told. And they told their friends they would die, and they did. He stabbed them. While a whole bunch of adults knew about this abuse. Their mother was very sad and regretful. She said she'd never be in a violent relationship again. She said she would like to see trained social workers employed in primary schools so abuse to children could be detected and dealt with quickly by professionals. She was calling for major changes at CYFS, with whom she remained angry, saying there are a lot of questions to answer over its management of her family's case. But is it CYFS fault or Child Youth and Family’s fault or Oranga Tamariki's fault? How can a government organisation prevent dysfunctional families from abusing the most vulnerable? Surely you need eyes and ears within those families. Oranga Tamariki has a more than $1 billion budget. Wouldn't that money be better spent on trying something different? Although when you do try something different, then all hell breaks loose. I remember when women on benefits were offered free long-term contraception by the then National government way back when, must have been about 2012. Paula Bennett was accused of Nazi type policies from an uncaring National government, it was offered. It was free. It was reversible. And then when National says it's going to can free contraception for women, then everybody criticises them again for not understanding women and their needs. So, if you try something, if you put your head above the parapet, it's very quickly knocked down. This is appalling. It's been appalling. It has stayed appalling. Children keep dying. The ones who survive, God only knows what happens to them when they have their families, because the very children I'm talking about their siblings are now in their 20s, 30s and 40s, having their own families, how the hell do they parent? Not all of them are going to turn out bad at all. Many people can take a dysfunctional childhood and turn it into a very successful adulthood by not repeating the mistakes, by not repeating the abuse that was dished out to them. But why the hell do we have a government organisation that has been rebranded, renamed, had its chief executives replaced over and over and over again, and all those children want is someone to save them. And you can't do it from a government organisation. Even if you throw a billion dollars at it. Wouldn't that money be better spent perhaps putting welfare workers with every at-risk child? There aren't that many of them. There aren't that many of them that are struggling. And yet they're the biggest, biggest problem. The deaths of so many New Zealand children, it’s just a damning indictment on this country. There's a stain on this beautiful country. Serenity Jay, Hail-Sage McClutchie, Mikara, Baby Ru, James Whakaruru, Saliel and Olympia, you know, you can see their faces and you know that they're going to have to make room on the wall of shame because more babies are coming after them. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feb 21, 2024 • 8min
Kerre Woodham: Exercising is harder for some than others
Hands up all those who felt personally attacked this morning when you heard the stories about New Zealanders and obesity? Not you? Just me then?! All morning we've been hearing stats like these: one in three New Zealand adults is carrying enough excess body weight to affect their health. That would be people with a BMI of 30 or above. There's an increase in obesity, with that, an increase in preventable diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Half a billion dollars of the health budget is being spent on obesity-related diseases that are preventable, and so on and so forth. In Mike's interview this morning he made the point that we all know what we have to do to be fit and healthy, we're just not doing it. Some of you are, but some of us are not. I have absolutely no excuses. None. I finish my shift at midday and although I have to monitor news sites, I can do that with headphones while moving my butt. I can afford a gym membership. I joined way back in antediluvian times when pink and grey G-string leotards were still the go and leg warmers was a thing. And they keep your gym membership pegged to about then, so I think I'm paying about $0.33 a month, a ludicrously low amount of money. So even with the cost-of-living crisis, I can still afford a gym membership. The gym is literally across the road from my workplace. Short of Les Mills arranging for six of their finest, most muscular and gleaming trainers to carry me across the road to the gym in a sedan chair, it could not be easier for me to get to a place of focused exercise and training and yet do I do it? No, I don't. No. My excuses are many in legion. Summer is slipping away. The nights are getting darker and cooler, so while summer’s here I want to head to the beach and wallow like a manatee in the waves bobbing and diving and splashing for the pure joy of it. Not grimly swimming lengths in a chlorinated pool for 50 minutes or sweating alongside other desperate individuals in a 7th Circle of Hell that is the RPM room - dark and blacked out and full of sweat and enthusiastic woo hoos! And I could walk around the block, and enjoy the Tui, and the kids playing in the parks and all the other lovely sights of summer. But I have deadlines and calls to make and all that sort of thing. So many excuses. And I have all the time in the world, unlike those poor parents who are up at the crack of dawn, working all day, picking up the kids, and collapsing at home at 7pm to gird their loins to do it all again the next day. How on earth do you fit in exercise, even meal prep and healthy eating when that is your daily grind for at least seven or eight years? Richard Beddie, the CEO of Exercise New Zealand, was just one of the many voices commenting on the Health New Zealand report on the population’s health. Specifically in his case, was concern about our level of exercise. "The worst statistic we have is our physical activity levels, because while obesity and things like smoking and alcohol are relatively common within the Western world, and are generally not getting better with the perhaps exception of smoking, it is actually the physical activity and we are actually one of the worst in the Western world. New Zealand really has a problem with activity, and I think part of it lies from this idea that we think of ourselves as a sporting nation, but actually what sport is about is about watching rather than doing these days." People say “oh you run though” and I'm like, “no, I ran nine years ago.” I did a marathon, that was a long time ago. And personally, I agree with you. I think I should run a marathon and never have to think about exercise again but that's just not the way it works. We all know what we should be doing. We probably started off like a hiss and a roar in January fired with good intentions, but where are we now? We were having a debate about this in the office and the boss was saying it's all about priorities, you know. Well, I don't know. I remember when I wrote a book about marathon running and I'd get these lovely, mainly women, writing to me saying I really need to get back into exercise. I loved it. And then I had the kids, and I've got three kids and I'm working, and I'd love to run a marathon. How did you do it? Well, I did it because I didn't have any children to look after. Kate was often away to university. I had absolutely nothing to do and yawning vistas of time. Don't put any pressure on yourself. Just survive was my advice to them. And then when you've got yawning vistas of time, then think about a marathon. I agree we need to move more. And those people who prioritise it make it a focus, even though they've got busy jobs, even though they've got the kids, you know, I admire you, and I'd love to know how you do it. But there is an enormous amount of pressure just existing. Especially right now. It shows the value of having somebody at home who can manage the household, who can get the healthy meals ready, who can have them in the freezer ready for those big nights. Having somebody there so that you're not crashing through the door at 7pm exhausted? How on earth do you find it in you to say right, now that we've had our healthy meal that I did on Sunday when I spent all Sunday in the kitchen prepping meals for the week, let's go for a walk around the block as a family. If you do more power to you. I'm so impressed. But for many people, it's just putting one foot in front of the other. Is it any wonder that right now it's tough for people to eat well and to fit in daily exercise. I would love to know how Richard Beddie the CEO of Exercise NZ does it. The boss said “well just get off a bus stop one stop earlier.” I know I'm making excuses. I know that. That's what endomorphs do, we find excuses while ectomorphs just forge ahead in their lean, muscular way. We little round endomorphs sit here muttering excuses. But it is a lot tougher for some people than others. That's all I'm saying. Not me, I have no excuse. But I do have sympathy for those who are just trying to get by. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feb 19, 2024 • 8min
Kerre Woodham: How are the benefit sanctions cruel?
The criticisms have come thick and fast in the wake of the coalition government's announcement that there would be sanctions applied to job seekers who choose not to actively look for work, despite help and support that is supposed to be coming from MSD officials. If after all that help and support you, choose not to take a job, then sanctions will apply. I'm starting to know what you mean when you say the media is biased. All of the images shown on all of the mainstream media show an aggressive looking Luxon laying down the law, and emotive headlines from the Greens and the like, talking about the cruelty of it all. Minister for Social Development Louise Upston says she has written to the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development to make this government’s view clear that they want to see all obligations and sanctions applied. If job seekers fail to attend job interviews, to complete their pre-employment tasks, or to take work that is available, then there needs to be consequences and that will come in the form of sanctions. She also announced that from June, the ministry will begin work check-ins for job seekers who have been on benefits for six months, particularly young people. These check-ins, she said, will make sure job seeker beneficiaries are taking appropriate steps to find employment and are receiving the right help. They reckon the checks will capture about 2500 mainly younger people per month. Now the former social development minister Carmel Sepuloni, says people deserve to be supported into meaningful long-term employment, and sanctions will not do this. She says this government is quickly building a legacy of cruelty. Instead of supporting people to provide for themselves and their whanau, this government has actively sought to push people further and further into poverty. How? How are they doing that? By asking you to work if you can? To offer you help and assistance to get work? How is that cruel? I would argue allowing people to stay on benefits when they have the ability to work as far more cruel. And if the taxpayer is funding a benefit for a person and their family, that person is not providing for themselves in their whanau. They are state dependent. That's not being self-sufficient. That's not self-supporting. That's not having choices. And okay, if the sanctions that National are proposing don't encourage people to seek long term employment, which of Labour's policies did? How did Labour help these young people find meaningful work? The stats under the previous government are pretty damning. Stats New Zealand released numbers yesterday and showed the number of youth not in employment, not in education, and not in training rose by 3000 people over the December quarter. I mean one is bad enough, but 3000 in one quarter? The rate for young women also increased to 14%, up from 12.5%. Young people are disproportionately impacted by tightening economic conditions. It's worrying that 40,000 people under the age of 25 are currently on a job seeker benefit. That is an increase of 66 per cent compared to six years ago, at a time when employers have been screaming out for someone, anyone. 40,000 people under the age of 25 on a job seeker benefit, an increase of 66% compared to six years ago! I would argue that's the cruelty. Not the suggestion that sanctions will apply, but only if you fail to do the most basic requirements of finding a job. Former WINZ CEO Christine Rankin agrees. She says it is absolutely no fun on a benefit. “Being on a benefit is just poverty, you know, that's your future. You rot on a benefit. This government is being responsible. This is a courageous policy and you know it's taxpayers money and for beneficiaries to be on this for 13 years is an absolute disgrace, and it is a long standing Labour view that they have a right to be on benefit and not work if it's a basic job, you've got to find something big and paying very well before they'll push it ... It's supposed to be a fill in where people survive while they take the steps to a better life. If they're on there for a very long period of time, there's no way they could survive. So, what else are some people doing to manage to be on there that long?” That is Christine Rankin talking to Mike Hosking this morning. 40,000 people under the age of 25 on a job seeker benefit, an increase of 66% compared to six years ago - that tells me that Labour's policies have not worked when it comes to getting young people into meaningful work. That tells them that it's okay to rely on the state for the rest of your life. Where you will have few choices, limited options. It will always be grinding poverty. How is that kind? And I would really love to know. I didn't hear that question being asked of Marama Davidson yesterday. I don't see that it's kind to keep people on benefits, and yet what do you do? I know of a business that's had to closed down in a very small town in the Far North. They were desperately trying to get young people in the district where unemployment is high because there are few opportunities. They would take the van. They would knock on the doors, they would give them the soap, the shampoo, the clothes they needed to turn up for work. The longest one of the kids lasted was three days and then they just could not get up in the morning. They'd stayed up all night. They tried, I think, about 11 or 12 young people, young men and women, and the kids had the best of intentions initially. But because they've come from three years where they haven't had to show up for anything. During Covid that wasn't even an option because the schools were closed. They don't know how to get out of bed in the morning and how is letting them keep doing that good for them. For any young person? You see, that to me is the cruelty. We're just running on different train tracks. The Greens and Carmel, who I think is fantastic and does great work with the people, but the stats don't lie. The number of kids under 25 on job seeker has increased by 66% since Labour became part of a government and then sole charge. What the hell is the future of those kids? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feb 19, 2024 • 11min
Fay Amaral: Youthtown CEO on the reasons so many young people are on the Jobseeker benefit
Criticism of the Government’s welfare reforms have been coming in thick and fast. Figures from Stats NZ have revealed that 40,000 people under the age of 25 are currently on the Jobseeker benefit, an increase of 66% compared to six years ago. The Government plans to increase the number of check ins for those on the benefit and reintroduce sanctions for those who don’t meet their obligations. Youthtown CEO Fay Amaral told Kerre Woodham that there are common factors among this demographic that keep them on the benefit, notably mental health and confidence. She said that young people aren’t being given the right support in schools, which results in the belief that if they don’t have university entrance or a degree, they won’t be able to get anything. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feb 19, 2024 • 7min
Kerre Woodham: Prime Ministers stark message must be followed with action
The Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, in his State of the Nation speech over the weekend, spelled it out loud and clear for those who haven't yet got the message. New Zealand is in for a world of pain over the next couple of years. He slammed the dumb and stupid policies of the previous government, and said while he believed New Zealand was the world's best country, and had the world's best people (a little bit of jingoism to sweeten the message), it was in a fragile state as we face a rough economic forecast and a massive infrastructure deficit. He also accused the Labour government of leaving National a $200 billion hole in the nation's transport plan. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast that the coalition government has already started making the tough decisions. Auckland Light Rail is the case in point. That was a project which continued to escalate in cost, which Labour continued to fantasise about and which was clearly unaffordable. So we have canceled that, we've been decisive, we've stopped pouring cash down that particular hole. But look, the other examples are areas where we're just going to have to do things more efficiently. Not every road needs a cycle lane clipped onto it. We need to be much more open to using other forms of funding and finance to deliver roads, whether that's time of use charging, whether that's tolls to get some roads built, it's time for a bit of real talk about what it will take to get a country with the modern infrastructure we need. And that was Finance Minister Nicola Willis talking to Mike Hosking this morning. Labour leader Chris Hipkins shot back, calling National's accusations absolute nonsense and called another allegation in the State of the Nation speech an out and out lie. But then he would wouldn’t he? Thomas Coghlan from the New Zealand Herald has produced an excellent article unpacking the claims and counterclaims, specifically around the $200 billion transport hole. He says the truth involves a heavy lathering of hypocrisy on both sides and an answer that doesn't offer a neat binary verdict on either of Chris's truthfulness or otherwise. He does say, though, that before Labour cries foul at this horrendous below- the-belt attack on their fiscal honour, quote unquote, we shouldn't forget that Labour made the exact same attack on National’s allegedly unfunded Roads of National Significance Programme back in 2018. They were slammed by then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as unfunded. So they've been doing it all day ref. There's obfuscation and finessing of stats and data and what have you , but there is absolutely no doubt, as anyone who has participated in this show knows, that the previous administration made some dumb, dumb decisions. And allowed dumb, dumb decisions to be made by government bodies. We've all known this for a very, very long time. We've been ranting about this and accused of being disloyal and Labour haters and women haters because it was Jacinda Ardern who was the Prime Minister. There was none of that. It was just that you and I could see. That there were some really stupid decisions being made. Good money going after bad with no end in sight of when the money tap would be turned off. And it's you and me who are providing this money. So pardon me if I'm really scrupulous about where that money goes. I want to know there's going to be a result and for the life of me I could not see one in so many of the projects approved by the previous administration. I think I said that to Christopher Luxon when he became Prime Minister. We don't want to hear about what the previous government did. It's gone. It happened. It's appalling. We ranted about it at the time it's over but I think he made the point, we're starting a very long way behind the start line. There's a lot to fix before we can even begin to get projects underway that we passionately believe in and that we passionately support. So yeah, I think fair and square pointing the digit at the previous administration and saying look at this mess you've left us, it's a time honoured tradition New administrations do it every single time they come in, and in this case it's a far bigger mess. It's going to be a tough few years. There is no doubt about that. We're all going to have to lift our game and tighten our belts. I mean, basically. You know when Christopher Luxon was talking about the nation, he's talking about my bank account. He's looking at the macro and I'm looking at the micro and it's the same kind of thing. It's going to be a belt tightening couple of years and some of the nice to haves that I'd like to have I won't have. And it's the same for the nation. But National will bear the brunt of public dissatisfaction if people forget or choose not to know that they are cleaning up a far bigger mess than the previous government has had to. Still, on a note of positivity, those of us with long memories know that we have been through tough times before, that other governments have had to come in and pick up an unholy mess and make the most of it, and with the help of the people of New Zealand get the country back on track and they've come out the other side. We have done it before and we can do it again.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feb 16, 2024 • 12min
Shayne Cunis: Watercare Central Interceptor Executive Programme Director gives an update on the Central Interceptor tunnel
Watercare Auckland is aiming to reduce wet-weather overflows into streams and beaches. The massive Central Interceptor tunnel will store, as well as transport stormwater and wastewater, taking it to the Māngere Wastewater Treatment Plant for processing. Due for completion in 2026, the project is 16.2 kilometres long and the largest wastewater infrastructure project in New Zealand history. Watercare Central Interceptor Executive Programme Director Shayne Cunnis joined Kerre Woodham to give an update on the project. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feb 15, 2024 • 7min
Kerre Woodham: When ideology collides with the real world
I can't help but enjoy the rich irony. NIWA, the Crown owned weather research institute, has had a big spend up on its vehicle fleet. Four big, grunty Chevy Silverados to be exact - 2024 models, apparently judging by the regos, retailing to you and to me for around $ 172K. Although I have no doubt that NIWA managed to squeeze that down a bit —I hope they did, I hope they negotiated— the utes were bought despite the fact that the government is currently trying to reduce the emissions from all the vehicles it owns. Agencies must purchase battery EV's, or if they're not suitable, a plug-in hybrid. If neither of those are suitable, the agency's chief executive has the ability to sign off on a different vehicle. Mainly an ICE vehicle. NIWA is a Crown-owned enterprise, so it isn't bound by these rules, but according to the protocol, it must have regard for the rules. NIWA’s chief executive John Morgan signed off on the purchases being necessary given the weight of the boats the cars will be towing. “We investigated all the options in the market,” he said. “There was no viable alternative to the Silverado's given the weight of the boats they'll be towing. We test drove a wide range of trucks, large and mid-sized Utes in a variety of real-world driving conditions to determine what was going to be the most suitable and safest for our staff. There are no Bev or PHV options available that can perform the role required.” No, and I think that's the point. I would have no problem with this at all if it weren't for the virtue signalling. It's not just virtue signalling, but real-life implications for real-life businesses. Remember when we were talking about the greenhouse auditing that the banks are requiring of their customers? Several New Zealand banks have pledged to ensure their investment and lending portfolios are aligned to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Banks are ‘helping’ (which is a loaded word) business customers reach for net zero with lower interest rates for hitting sustainability targets and by helping firms with transition plans. So what that means, and what businesses told us was happening, was that when they apply for a loan or when every year they must reply to their bank. What are you doing to offset your emissions within your business? How are you reducing your impact on the environment? You have to show your commitment or risk financial penalties. You get threatened with higher interest rates on loans or no loans at all. Farmers know all about that. If you're not performing, Fonterra won't pick up your milk. If you are not committed to reducing your greenhouse gas emissions as much as you possibly can, there are real world financial penalties. We had the owner of a transport firm ringing when we were discussing this. He wanted a loan to buy a new truck. Whoever was on the end of the phone is committed to changing the world, obviously, but probably hasn't driven a truck before, said, well, have you looked at an electric truck? And he said yes, I have. I'm not a Neanderthal. (Of course, he didn't say that I'm exaggerating). But he said, you know. Yes, I have looked at alternatives, but there is nothing on the market at the moment that is going to be able to do the job I need. Well, you better start looking further afield because there's going to be higher interest rates if you are committed to ICE engines in the future. You know, if you want a loan, hmmm, there may well be higher interest rates in the in the next couple of years. So there are real world implications for people who have no alternative. Blind ideology and desire do not create vehicles fit for purpose. Just wanting them to work doesn't make them so. So, there's NIWA with its noble mission statement on its website: “The challenges of reducing our national greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to a changing climate are hugely important and affect all New Zealanders.” What they mean is except us, because we need big grunty ships to tow our boats! And they do. And setting aside the emissions from a big grunty Chev, what about the cost when the public service is being squeezed so hard, the pips are squeaking? A Chevy Silverado goes for $172K, a Ford Ranger goes for $90K and I've seen plenty of Ford Rangers pulling big boats heading north over summer. Can a Ford Ranger not tow NIWA’s boats? It's just the disconnect between the real world and ideology. If NIWA have test driven all these different utes and said these are the vehicles we need to do the job, fine. But at the same time, they said these are the vehicles we need to do the job because there are no alternatives. But then private business should be able to say that too and not be quizzed by their banks, and not have to do a greenhouse audit when the alternative doesn't exist yet. DOC’s the same. Remember that lovely conservation worker who left. They were choppering in coal to the camper’s huts. You could not use the wood that had fallen over in a storm for the heaters and the cookers within the huts, you had to chopper in bloody coal. When ideology collides with the real world, it makes for a hell of a splat. NIWA and DOC and the like, banging on about climate change, and rightly so, but they're not walking the talk because they can't. The technology they need doesn't exist yet, and they need to realise, and the government needs to realise, and the ideologs need to realise, and the Green Party needs to realise, that it's the same for the poor grunts who are trying to run their businesses, and pay their taxes that pay for these bloody utes. Sure, encourage people to transition into environmentally friendly alternatives when there are alternatives. But don't you dare punish people when they simply do not have a choice. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feb 14, 2024 • 14min
John Tookey: AUT Professor of Construction on the Government's plan to tackle construction costs
The Government is promising to tackle construction costs. Stats NZ data shows the cost of building a house has increased by 41% since 2019, making housing even more unaffordable for Kiwi families. Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk wants costs to go down. He's vowing to streamline the consenting process, saying the little guys have been shut out because of red tape. AUT'S Professor of Construction John Tookey told Kerre Woodham that the situation is more complicated than people think. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feb 14, 2024 • 7min
Kerre Woodham: What's the right solution for the future of NZ Super?
I did laugh when I saw the Retirement Commissioner’s report out yesterday, because I thought here we go again, round it comes the first of the twice-yearly discussions on whether we should lift the age of eligibility for the New Zealand Super- which we have been discussing for as long as I have been a journalist, I think, and that is a very, very long time. You do get occasionally a political party with an attack of the braveries, an attack of the cajones, and it's usually National. They wanted to raise the age of eligibility to 67 in the past two elections, but in the horse trading required to form the coalition government this time round, they've agreed to leave the age at 65. And in a report released yesterday, the Retirement Commissioner says cool your jets, calm the farm, young people don't need to worry - not only is national Super sustainable, raising the age of eligibility would be unfair for certain population groups. The manual workers, those who are in poor health, those who are just hanging on by their fingertips to the age of 65. Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson says New Zealand Super is a taonga that protects New Zealanders from poverty in old age. Claims that New Zealand Super is unaffordable are not supported by independent, publicly accessible analysis, she says. Now, leaving aside that by stunning coincidence, independent analysis always seems to support the views of the commissioning body, there is provision within New Zealand's economy for paying Super in future years. Those in support of raising the age say well look at New Zealand's aging population. In 1996, there were 5.7 people aged 16 to 64, supporting every retiree. At the moment there are 4.4 working age people and the 2060s, we’ll be looking at 2.2 supporting every retiree. So we're going to have a lot of older retirees who are getting Super for longer, and fewer young people, fewer working people who are able to support that. So I take that point. But that is why we set up the Super Fund in 2003, the Cullen Fund, as it was known. In just over 20 years, we've amassed close to $70 billion. And we haven't really tapped into it yet. Withdrawals from the fund will begin in the 2030s. Substantial drawdowns will not begin until the 2050s. So we should have a bit more in the coffers then. So paying for the Super isn't going to be the massive problem it appears if you're looking at it through the binoculars of 20 year old vision. It's more a matter of what's fair and what's not. If you're earning more than $100,000 a year and there are about 50,000 retirees who are, if you're earning more than $100,000 a year through your job or through your investments, do you really need the Super? Wouldn't it be better spent on a young person who was born in less than ideal circumstances? More investment in the first 1000 days of a child's life that's born behind the 8-ball. The Super is to keep people out of poverty, not to use as gin money. You know, a lot of older people laugh about the fact they get the Super and just use it to buy a nicer bottle of gin or put it in a savings account for their grandchildren. Some donate it, which is jolly decent of them- but you know, there's a lot of clipping of the ticket that goes along the way. However, those older New Zealanders who are earning good coin can say, well look, we contributed to the Super Fund while we were working, that money was put aside and not spent on things we could have enjoyed, so we can use that money later. We've paid our taxes. We're just like everybody else. We except we earn more money. We deserve to get it. It's ours. It's an entitlement. It's not a benefit, and there's a big, big difference. What do you say? What do you think is fair? Are there any people in their 20s and 30s who believe that the Super will be there for them? Well, you should, because the Super Fund is there to look after people just like you. As the New Zealand Initiative pointed out as well, by the time you take into account taxes and GST, it's not 8 percent of GDP, which is what they factored New Zealand Super to be. It's around about 6 percent of GDP. If we become more productive, then it'll be less of a cost. And the report I read from the New Zealand Initiative- it was written in 2018, they also talked about the fact that successive New Zealand governments were very aware about incurring debt and running up huge debt so that they didn't get into trouble, so that the Super was affordable. That was before the Labour government. That was before the most recent administration came in and racked up enormous debt. Still, with a bit of pain and a bit of hard work and a bit of courage, we can get through that. If you're in your 20s and 30s, do you believe the pension will be there for you? You should. Are you depending on it? You shouldn't. You should make provision as much as you can for yourself and see the Super as an extra. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.