Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Twenty-one days until Christmas and about now the pressure of the festive season and how you're going to pay for it might be on your mind. After a challenging year that has seen the price of almost everything rise, will Christmas be business as usual for you this year, or will it be Christmas on a budget?  The cost of living crisis has been with us for a while now, but its impact continues to grow. It was announced yesterday that money withdrawn early from KiwiSaver funds due to financial hardship has doubled compared to a year ago, with more people taking money out before retirement.  The latest figures show the number of KiwiSaver members taking withdrawals increased from 1570 people in October 2022  to 2800 people in October 2023. So, the amount of money withdrawn from KiwiSaver due to financial hardship doubled from $10.3 million in October last year to $21.5 million in October this year. Also, last week, it was announced the number of Kiwis behind on their mortgages spiked back up again in October. There are now 19,200 mortgage accounts passed due in October. That's up 25% year on year. That's an increase of 1.25% of mortgages in arrears in September to 1.29% in October. With the Reserve Bank’s forecast effectively keeping the possibility of one more rate hike in this cycle, and the thoughts that there will be no rate cuts until 2025, there is little relief in sight for those struggling with their mortgages.  Now these increases might feel small. It might feel like a small percentage of those who have them are suffering. But what we are seeing is a trend in the increase of the numbers of people who are suffering from hardship, and that brings us to the cost of insurance. One retiree living in Wellington spoke out over the weekend, saying the nearly 40% increase in his contents insurance policy would mean that he's probably just going to have to risk losing his possessions if his house burns down. The increase is just too much for a pensioner. So he would retain third-party insurance on his car in case he hit a Rolls Royce, but that had gone up 24% too. Now, according to the insurance companies, since Covid-19 hit, it is now more expensive to replace or repair customers' assets. So there's inflationary pressures at play here, an increase in weather related claims and increase in costs being charged to insurers, as reassurers were changing their view of how risky New Zealand is, is also adding to the cost which is being passed on to us, the consumer. Now look,  even before the weather events of this year, many of us have seen some pretty impressive increases in our insurances over the last few years. There are, of course, steps that you can take to lower your premiums. You could increase your excess, for example. But is it getting to the point where you need to make some pretty significant changes to your insurances or get rid of some of them altogether? So we're always told, (this is what sensible people do, you know, financially savvy people do this) We're always told to reassess our insurances each year, aren't we? And to make sure that they're still appropriate for our age or our situation. But I wonder if heading into 2024, you might be taking a slightly more dramatic approach as to what you think is necessary and what isn't.  What insurance policies do you think are important to have? What wouldn't you live with? If the price is getting a bit too high for those policies, how are you dealing with it? Have you thought about getting rid of one or two insurances, or are you looking at doing things like increasing your excess to try and drop the cost of your premium.  Or are you planning on getting rid of some of your insurances in 2024 altogether?    LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I do wish that I could go around each and everyone of you handing out the government's press release, still warm off the gestetner with that delicious smell of meths (hold it up to your nose and inhale), so we could all have it in front of us to refer to.   It is a work of art when it comes to a press release. Oh my goodness, companies, government departments, communications staff, take note. Two pages and it outlines their 100- Day Plan, and how does it do it? It lists them. It lists the 49 points that it's going to cover off in its 100 Day Plan.   There is no bureaucratese. The aims, the intentions, the hopes, the dreams, none of that. The language is simple to the point of being blunt, and if this is the way of the future, praise to all the little baby Jesus’ is in the whole wide world because you don't have to wade through it. It couldn't be clearer.   For example, if you've got your hymnbooks in front of you, if we go to Page 1. Number three: Stop work on the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme. There is no we are going to appoint an independent review to have a look at whether the viability of blah, blah, blah. No. Stop work on the Lake Onslow scheme.   Number four: Begin efforts to double renewable energy production.   Number 17: Introduce legislation to restore 90-day trial periods for all businesses.   If we could turn to page 2, Number 29: introduce legislation to extend eligibility to rehab programs for remand prisoners.   Number 34: Improve security for health, workforce, and hospital emergency departments, and so on and so forth, down to the final agenda item. Number 49: Commission an independent review into Kainga Ora’s financial situation, procurement, and asset management, which is sorely, sorely needed.   There is no faffing. And indeed, no faffing will be tolerated. The PM said this morning that he would be meeting every week for progress reports on each of the 49 measures that have been announced and prioritised. This coalition government has nowhere to hide. There's no obfuscation. There is nowhere for them to fudge it and fake it.  If they don't deliver on their 100 Day Plan, everyone will know about it. They've made that perfectly clear. So, there is much much, much, much, much, much, much to unpack here. In fact, all 49 points could be worthy of an hour’s talkback each.    Stopping work on the Auckland light rail? I mean that makes sense. All we were doing was shovelling millions and millions and millions of taxpayer dollars into an ideological pit. And it was a bottomless pit of ideology. Where does that leave all those businesses though, that have limped their way through the project just clinging on to the hope that one day to be finished and hordes of people would be coming into their shops as they waited to catch the light rail to nowhere?   I mean, there is a time where you have to decide, okay enough. Yes, we've put in enough money. You can't go on chasing 29 red on the roulette table. You just can't. You have to cut your losses and walk away. Where does that leave all the businesses that have limped their way through the project?   And Let's Get Wellington Moving. Number five on page one. They've said right, Central Government will no longer be involved in Let’s Get Wellington Moving, so where does that leave those projects? The 90-day trial, does that mean you're going to take more of chance on potential employees? In the past it too difficult to get rid of them, with all the requirements for minimum pay and for annual leave, and for compassionate leave and all that sort of thing, hard for employers to justify taking on somebody brand new, inexperienced, somebody that might have had a checkered work history. With a 90 day trial, are you more likely to take a chance on people?   I would very much like to hear from you, those of you who have had the opportunity to see this. It's very clear you can Google it up. It's two pages, doesn't take long to read and even the most reluctant of readers should be able to get through these two pages. The language could not be more clear and I hope this is a sign of things to come.   Gone are the days of the waffle. That would be great. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, hasn't taken that cranky old curmudgeon long to rark up the media and play to his supporters, throw his fans a bone.   Winston Peters has a hate-hate relationship with the media, which served him very well in this last election campaign. Some people have always had a mistrust of the media. Some have a recently discovered mistrust of the media and believe all journalists to be the servants of the UN or whichever government happens to be in power or pizza paedophile rings, you know, whatever suits their particular agenda.   Others are just brassed off with what they perceive to be poor journalism, sloppy journalism, poorly written stories, badly put together items, a perceived bias. Journalists have rated as lowly as politicians and used car salesman in public trust polls for decades.   Mistrust of the media is not a new thing. I don't think we've ever made it into the top fifty of the most trusted professions, ever. I think if you look at the Reader's Digest polls, we are always there or thereabouts, lower than a snake's underpants when it comes to public trust. This is not new. Indeed, you can go back as far as 400 BC, in the Sophocles play Antigone, you'll find the line 'For no man delights in the bearer of bad news'.    Messengers have been shot mostly figuratively, sometimes literally, for as long as bad tidings have been borne by bearers. And that most opportunist of men, Winston Peters, has capitalised on that by accusing media companies and journalists of being bribed, essentially, to write stories pleasing to the last Labour government.   He was referring to the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund, which has since been wound up. It was there to prop up media at a time of Covid uncertainty and to ensure that the misinformation that was being peddled through social media and the internet was countered by contestable stories. And when I say contestable, you had to apply for the funding, you got the funding and if you wrote a story that was found to be wanting in terms of facts or what have you, there were ways to complain. Members of the public could say no, that's not on. That's not true. That is biased and they have a way of contesting the story. So political coverage was exempted from eligibility to benefit from it, so writing political stories were specifically excluded from that.   Now, for those who believe the media is just a tool of the UN, the paedophile pizza rings, et cetera, et cetera, nothing I say is going to make a blind bit of difference. I know that. And to be fair, as former minister for everything Stephen Joyce told Mike Hosking this morning, the media did not help themselves by accepting the funding.   “People have genuine concerns and unfortunately, I think the media put itself in the position by taking the fund in the first place, which I have to say during my time, the media would never do, And I think it would have been easier if they hadn’t. I think there are some journalists who are predisposed to the left. There's probably a few that are a bit predisposed to the right, but I don't think the fund will have changed that. But just the appearance of the media being paid money to do its job, I think’s problematic.”  Yeah. And I totally get that. You know, it was a time of uncertainty. I mean, Stephen Joyce, he wouldn't have taken it, and to be fair, some owners of newspapers, the smaller newspapers didn't take it. They wouldn't have had the same costs, of course, but it was a time of uncertainty. Magazines, Bauer Media just disappeared from the market. Radio sport disappeared almost overnight. So there were media organisations crashing.    You might say that's a good thing if you're one of those who believe that the journalists are the tools of the pizza paedophile rings, but you know. So, the money was taken. And you can debate whether that was a good idea or not. Certainly, for those who have a mistrust of the media, it just plays right into their hands - that the media are just government toadies in the thrall of the Labour government, the past Labour government.   But the thing is, the mainstream media is still bound by rules. As I mentioned, the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Press council will take media organisations to task and punish them for all sorts of industry infractions. I'd flounced off and handed in my resignation after I was forced to apologise to Bishop Brian Tamaki because I said he was a homophobe. And the church said no.  “Bishop” in inverted commas, Brian, hates the sin, not the sinner. I mean, really? But we don't take it to court because it's too expensive to fight it. So, I had to apologise. Now, that was a decision made by the bosses, not the BSA, but there have been other times where I've had to apologise if the Broadcasting Standards Authority has found that I've breached fairness or good taste.  It’s amazing I haven't had to apologise more!   But on social media it’s an absolute free for all. Just because something you read in social media is on there doesn't make it true. And if it's not true, there are no consequences. It's just left to perpetuate throughout the internet, with no rules and no structures. If mainstream media's challenged, they have to justify and defend their journalism or suffer the consequences. And the same is true of anything written under the Public Interest Journalism Fund.   Also every single time a print story is written by one of the journalists employed as a result of the additional funding, the caveat is put at the bottom of their story. So, if people are saying it's by stealth, no, it's not. Every single time a journalist who's been employed using this money writes a story, that is put at the bottom of the story.   So mainstream media is not perfect. It may survive, it may not. That will very much depend on the consumer. Some biases are very, very easy to see and should be declared. In my role, I trained as a journalist, but there is no way I would produce the material I do on Newstalk ZB as a journalist. I'm employed as a talkback host, which is completely different. I would never, ever, offer my opinion the way that I do if I was writing the story as a journalist. It's a markedly different beast. In my role as a talkback host, I have biases. In fact, I'm expected to have them. I'm expected to have opinions. As a journalist, my opinion, my bias, should never have been able to be read into that story, and I hope it wasn't. It was a very long time ago.   Of course, it has its faults. Whether it survives depends on you. But man, I would hate to live in a world where information was disseminated through social media. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Scams are becoming increasingly more detailed, catching increasingly more people.  After a close call of her own, Kerre Woodham brought Netsafe’s Chief Technology Officer, Sean Lyons, on the show to give listeners tips and tricks to stay safe from scams.  He also gave some advice on what to do if your Facebook is hacked and how to get it sorted.  For more information, visit Netsafe's website.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As Mike Hosking and I exchanged morning pleasantries today, I said to him “Wasn't Dr Shane Reti a breath of fresh air?”   “Breath of fresh air?” said Mike, “He was a howling Nor Westerly of fresh air!”  And by crikey, he was. Even those who didn't vote National must surely appreciate that here is a knowledgeable, passionate man in charge of his portfolio. He is under no illusions that New Zealand's health system is in dire straits. But he also understands that the system is absolutely underpinned by he tangata, he tangata, he tangata - the people, the people, the people.  Compare that with one of the former health ministers, Andrew Little, who just flatly refused to concede that the health system was in crisis.   The most he could manage to choke out was that we had a health system that was under major pressure and had major challenges. Initially, he didn't put nurses or midwives on the fast-track residency pathway list, kept saying we've got hordes of nurses lined up to be with us.   Hordes of them.   That's just simply not true. The New Zealand Nurse Organisation said it was flabbergasted nurses weren't included on that list, and he took a swipe at the Nurses Organisation. You know, the very people he's supposed to be working for and with.   Of course, as previous health ministers have found, words are easy, it is actions that count. And while it's fantastic that Doctor Reti has the safety of ED staff top of mind, how he will ensure that safety is another matter, security guards have limited powers. To really protect staff we'd need a police officer or two in every ED.   Still, when you see the number who were babysitting the gangsters on their way to Bird's funeral in Foxton, we clearly have officers available. It's just where their bosses choose to deploy them.   But to get back to the positives, it's the messaging I'm loving. You know, Dr Reti said it's broken. We've got a health system that's broken. He doesn't want any more seismic upheavals, he said the staff are exhausted, they've gone through Covid massive changes, a government that was on the back foot when it came to recruiting from overseas. Any more massive changes and I imagine that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.   You also get the fabulous message that you will not treat people who want to help you with disrespect and violence. It is not acceptable to do so. The honesty and the authenticity in Dr Reti’s interview was a signal to us all that henceforth, basic decency is expected of members of the community. And there will be consequences if you cannot dredge up that decency from deep within you.   Amen. Doctor Reti. Amen. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now the new Government has officially signed in this morning, and as Christopher Luxon said on Friday, he and his coalition Government cannot wait to get stuck in. The RMA reforms will be rolled back before Christmas, Three Waters gone, the ute tax is expected to be gone as well, and in a controversial move, the Government will not proceed with Labour's planned legislation that would restrict the number of retailers allowed to sell cigarettes. That would cut the amount of nicotine allowed in tobacco and ban those born after 2008 from buying fags. Remember that one? It was quite a thing at the time. As you can imagine, there's been an outcry. Former Health Minister Ayesha Verrall says the Government aims to fund its tax cuts through enabling more children to start smoking. It is, she said, disgusting. Incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says while they were against some of the legislation Labour had planned, it was ACT and NZ First, who were vehemently against the proposed legislation. They wanted it gone and it was part of the coalition agreement. And he’s right, smoking has been decreasing over the years under successive Governments using different tools without the need for the sinking lid policy and restricting the number of retailers allowed to sell cigarettes. Between 2010 and 2018, the amount of tobacco smoked per person decreased by 39 percent. Across just about every metric smoking has come down and it's come down dramatically since the 1980s. He's also right that banning cigarettes outright or making them so restricted would just give the gangs another income stream. It would also make it more desirable for young people to take up the habit - forbidden fruit being the most tempting. Also, people don't have to smoke. Nobody does. You know, if you want to start smoking, that is a choice. You've got all the facts in front of you, you've got all the health risks that are proved beyond a doubt in front of you. If you choose to buy an overpriced packet of cigarettes then that's on you. For addicts, it's a bit different I do grant you. But if you decide as a young person, you know what I'm going to take a significant sum of money out of my wallet and buy myself a pack of cigarettes to basically smoke down to ash and have nothing left for it, that's on you. And I guess that's where ACT was coming from. If you want to go to hell in your own way, fill your boots like that fag. And the Government will tax the heck out of you to pay for that privilege, to pay for your health costs. So, Oh my God, he's killing children, that seems to be the narrative. Oh, this Government's only been in well, it isn’t even formally signed in and children will die as a result. Underprivileged people will die as a result. Well no. Smoking has been decreasing since the 1980s. It has been declining dramatically across all metrics. It is still a personal choice. People don't have to smoke if they don't want to. There's some weird ads on the radio about it being a post-colonial construct and you know it's not our fault that we're smoking, cause the colonials arrived and made us, but we don't have to. Yeah, the key point in that is you don't have to. It's not like you need water. You have to pay for water because you need it. You don't have to take up smoking. And successive Governments have used successive tools to bring the rate of smoking down. As Christopher Luxon said to Mike this morning, there have been numerous different ways- this doesn't have to be the only way. Perhaps people are still wedded to the idea that the past Labour Government’s way, was the way the truth and the light. There is no other Government other than Labour. It is the one true source of fact and truth and legislation.  Uncouple that idea from your brain. There are other ways of doing things, different ways to get a good result. Theirs is not the way the truth and the light. And the sooner we remember that, the better. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Te Whatu Ora is standing by its $100 million consultant spend.  This is despite it dropping from $139 million the year prior.  Chief People Officer Andrew Slater told the Mike Hosking Breakfast they've tightened where they're using contractors and consultants and are focusing on making sure they have the appropriate expertise.  He says it doesn't make sense to have some of these skills in house all the time.  Former Chair of Te Whatu Ora, Rob Campbell, says the consultant spend is still excessive. He joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the situation.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The talk is over, the ink is dry on the contracts, let the governance begin.   Prime Minister-in-waiting, Christopher Luxon, is due to speak this morning, giving us the broad shape of what the 54th New Zealand government will look like. And let's hope that once they start the governing proper, we see the last of these sorts of headlines: “Te Whatu Ora’s more than $100m consultant bill”.   A $100 million on consultants. $70 million went to the big four firms. Deloittes, they were paid $43.6 million by Te Whatu Ora in the past year alone. Previous to that, they’d got $34 million a year, before that $19 million.   PricewaterhouseCoopers were paid $9.4 million in the past year. Ernst and Young $7.9, KPMG $8.7 million. The Te Whatu Ora CFO, so the head of the of the money, he said the organisation couldn't disclose specific details about the contracted work. And this is where you go now into the gobbledygook that is professional bureaucratic speak. You might speak it. I mean, you might have had to learn to speak it so that you could advance in your career. I've never had to learn to speak it. I can still speak plainly and clearly, as can talk back callers.   The last time we had this sort of gobbledygook was when the Police Commissioner was on. He speaks it so he might know. Perhaps I should ring him. Perhaps I should ring him and ask him what on earth this means.   So we'd ask where the money had gone. Te Whatu Ora could not disclose specific details about the contract of work. I don't know why not. Public money. Public organisation. I don't know. I don't know how you wouldn't be able to disclose it. But some of the spending according to the CFO would have gone towards supporting change and transformation work resulting from the health reforms.   For example, Te Whatu Ora has engaged consultants to assist with the development of new national operating models to establish the Pae Ora delivery unit within the organisation which provides support, governance, and oversight of our key strategic change initiatives and to assist with the implementation of new structures.   What does that mean? It says nothing. It says absolutely nothing. I am still none the clearer as to where the money's gone. What? What are the initiatives? What are the key strategic change initiatives? Support governance? By the time you reach the end of the sentence, you’ve forgotten what the start of it was because there was nothing to hang on to.   Unless you can interpret it for me, and I'd be very grateful if you do speak bureaucratic gobbledygook, I'd love to know what exactly that means. Where that money has gone. The bloke from Te Whatu Ora told Mike Hosking this morning that hey, $100 mil, sure, but at least they've got that down from the $139 million they spent last year.   So this is not a one-off figure that you can say, okay, we're going to set up a system, establish the Pae Ora delivery unit within the organisation. So we've set it up, done it once, done it right, Bob's your uncle. Take my $100 mil and bugger off. No, we do it every year, it seems. $139 million last year, $100 million this year. If I was working in the health system, or waiting on an operation, and I woke up this morning and I heard that news story, I would be pretty dark heading off to work. What could you do with $100 million within the health system in a year. Andrew Slater, who was the bloke from Te Whatu Ora, their Chief People officer, explained what they'd spent some of it on.    “Where we've really used those consultants over the last year has been doing some things where we just can't and doesn't make sense to have those skills in house all of the time. So for example, we've set up our national Security Operations Centre that is looking at all of our systems and making sure we keep New Zealand’s data safe and private and well protected. And that would be an example of where we used one of those firms to kind of shoulder and bring that expertise to it.“  And that's great. I get that. If you need to bring in people short-term to deliver something, but why do you need to do it every single year? Like if you're bringing some data security experts in, don't you do it once, do it right and you've done it. How is it that you have to spend that sort of money every year?   And why can't they tell us exactly? See that was good, Andrew. Some of that would have been spent on data security and protecting access to patients' records. There have been data breaches at health boards around the country, so great, good. But seriously.   I know that too that there may well be restrictions around hiring. You might not be able to bring people in full time because that involves holiday pay and that involves all the other leave requirement, health and safety, and you know the whole holistic, nurturing and protection and care of an employee. So you think excellent, I'll get around that. I'll just hire a few contractors. They send me an invoice. I can pay. It doesn't have to go through the absolute ache of the hiring process, that's fine.    What could you do with 100 million? You could fly in a whole bunch of specialist doctors on working holidays to clear the backlog, couldn't you? To clear the most immediate cases. I can understand spending $139 million on consultants to set up a new organisation, to set up a management unit. But every year? How do you justify that?   And I ask that as a genuine question, how do you justify that? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Long coalition negotiations from the new about-to-be Government have seen a major economics consultancy downgrade its perception of New Zealand's political stability to its lowest rating in more than a decade.   BMI, not the body mass index, but a consultancy group owned by the Fitch Group and one of the three big ratings agencies, docked New Zealand a couple of points in its Short-Term Political Risk Index (STPRI), which measures the country's political stability. Because there's been far too much shagging around in their perception (my words, not theirs), when it comes to forming a new government.   The report said New Zealand’s score had decreased to 78.5 out of 100, down from 79.4, the lowest score the country has received since 2010.  A lower score implies greater political risk.   Seriously, Fitch Group, I presume you're not based in New Zealand.   I presume you haven't been living here for a number of years because I don't know about you, and I would really, really like to find out, but even without a government I feel the country is more stable and positive than when we had one that had been elected in a landslide.   Talks are continuing, we should have a government by close of play tomorrow who can then get cracking and hopefully have a plan of attack by Christmas. And I don't feel unstable at all. I'd love to get a gauge on when you're at do you feel more positive about the future? And it certainly helps that we're out of the doldrums of winter and into warmer, sunnier days, there is no doubt that that improves the mood.   Because nothing has really changed tangibly since we had a Labour government. The hospitals are still stretched to capacity.  It’s still so expensive to stock the pantry. Our roads are still in an appalling condition. The war in Ukraine goes on and the situation in Gaza is beyond unspeakable. Covid is ripping through the country. So really nothing much has changed, all of the problems that we had still exist both locally and internationally.  And the new government hasn't even been established, far less been tested on its management of these different issues.   But far from feeling shaky or feeling that the country feels unstable and jittery and on edge, I just don't get that sense at all. I feel more positive than I have for many years. And I don't know if that's just because we don't have to hear of yet more tales of ineptitude, that we don't have to see money being squandered. The new government may well end up being inept and squander our money, as I say, they are as yet untested, but at least we don't have to report on it on a daily basis, because that was grinding my gears.   Maybe it's because we're not talking about stuff ups and wanton wastefulness, having a break from talking politics, perhaps.   Maybe it is simply as banal as it changing from winter to spring and summer, but I certainly feel far more positive with no government than I did with one elected in a landslide.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So it appears the policy has been hammered out, and it's just a matter of dealing with the positions within the new government. But when you're dealing with politicians and egos, it's no simple process.   Some of the posts surely are obvious. Minister for Agriculture must be Andrew Hoggard, former Federated Farmer's head. Mark Mitchell for police, he's been in training for that job his whole working life. Erica Stanford for education. Even the most vainglorious of party leaders must acknowledge the right people should get the right job for the good of the country.   But the baubles of office are glittery and shiny and tempting and if you've had them once, you'd want them. So, who will be Deputy Prime Minister? According to Christopher Luxon, that's a job that's largely a job in name only.  “Well, look, I mean, it's largely a ceremonial role. There's a lot of talk about it, but it's a ceremonial role to actually fill in for when I'm incapacitated, away or, or not in the House. And so, you know, that's the that's how it's set up under our New Zealand system, largely ceremonial and for when I'm not there.”  If that doesn't sound like a man who's trying to prepare the country for Deputy Winston, I don't know what does. Initially, I took umbrage at his stance that being a Deputy Prime Minister is a largely ceremonial role. I have known deputy prime ministers in the past and they have worked jolly hard. But as one of the hardest working former deputy prime ministers said on Heather's show last night, times have changed.  “We are in a different era now. I was a deputy when there was one party. Under MMP, of course, deputies are liable to be from other parties, which in fact means their role will be different. But otherwise, in a single party system, you're there to do the things that your leader, your Prime Minister, just doesn't do. Meet the people he doesn't want to meet, go to the places he hasn't got time to go to. “  That, of course was Sir Don McKinnon, who would have been one of the best deputy prime ministers we've seen.   So, your thoughts, if you're a political beast. Does the role of Deputy Prime Minister matter in this MMP era or matter as much as it used to matter? Who should get it? And surely, as with any team, you pick the best person for the position. It should not be a matter of placating egos, but I know up to a point it will have to be, given the nature of those who enter into politics.   You've got to have a certain amount of ego to put yourself out there and say pick me, I’m the best person for the job. The country is in too much of a state not to take government and governance seriously. We need the best people in the right positions working for us all. They are public servants. They are in their jobs at the whim of the voters, and they are here to work for us.   Some of them might need to be reminded of that. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.