Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

So, the new grocery commissioner says it's disappointing to see any potential supermarket competitor fail on the back of the news that Supie  —an online retailer that had hoped to challenge the supermarket duopoly— had failed.  It leaves us with the question as to what it is going to take to break open the supermarket duopoly.  I’ll have to be honest that beyond being vaguely familiar with its name, I knew very little about Supie.   To be really honest, I think “bugger all” might be more accurate because —as a consumer— it really just hadn't registered with me.  And maybe there’s something in that, in that any new player is going to have to begin as an instantly massive and substantial player with an already established reputation overseas.  But it does raise the question as to how much responsibility we bear for that. What would it take for us to change our habits? How much of this is on us?  Because while there are other options for online shopping, I think the fact that we are creatures of habit is going to be a very difficult factor for any new entrant into the market to compete with. For example, one of our guests on the Weekend Collective, on the Smart Money segment sent me a link to one of the smaller players in fresh fruit and veg which, on the face of it, offers huge savings. I have to confess, I can't recall if I’ve even told my wife about it. And look, that's on me —and I am making a note to follow up on it— but the thing I wonder is if we have some sort of reservation about any online supplier that doesn't also have a bricks and mortar operation.  So the question is: what is it going to take?  What is it going to take for a competitor to establish itself and break the supermarket duopoly?  We do our shopping online but we do our shopping online with one of the two existing duopoly monsters. Maybe the reason is that their presence is so, well, omnipresent.  They’re everywhere. They’re brick and mortar, we all know the names, and it just feels like a safe, easy option, not too much thinking goes into it.   So when it comes to weekly shopping they are foremost in our minds, and I think that’s the biggest challenge any new supermarket player would have.  But how much of it is on us, and what do you think it would take, and what does a new competitor need to bring to the market?   I would suggest it needs to be something where a brand is instantly recognizable from overseas, with built in credibility. It needs to instantly be something that can compete in the heavyweight division and not something that's going to rely on a mixture of investment and organic word of mouth growth.  It can’t be a start-up business hoping to establish a presence over time, it’s going to have to be something that is already massive overseas that decides it’s going to put us out of our baked in duopoly misery.  But perhaps when we whinge about the absence of competition —as creatures of habit— we really only have ourselves to blame. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kerre Woodham is off in Paris, catching the last two All Blacks games in the Rugby World Cup. She called in to the show this morning to catch listeners up on the energy in the city ahead of this weekend's final, and what it's like to watch the games in person. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The real value of a more secure pipeline for our infrastructure could be billions.   An Infrastructure New Zealand-commissioned report shows committing to a longer-term plan for our country's infrastructure could give us up to $33-billion more to invest in roads through to 2031.   The Infometrics report says it could result in between 13 and 26.5% uptick in productivity and savings on future infrastructure projects.  Infrastructure New Zealand Chief Executive Nick Leggett joined Francesca Rudkin to discuss the report and impact these findings could have.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A very simple headline grabbed me this morning: ‘We Need to get Better at Building Stuff’.  Man, do we ever!   It was the headline of an opinion piece by Josie Pagani in The Post about getting infrastructure moving in New Zealand. At the heart of her piece was a new report by Infrastructure New Zealand that looked at the quantifiable costs associated with around the timing, scope, and funding for New Zealand's infrastructure pipeline, and how a more certain pipeline might benefit the infrastructure sector.   So, they discovered that 13.5% and 26.5% savings could be achieved on infrastructure projects through streamlining delivery, which could see between $3.2 and $4.7 billion more a year being delivered.  Basically, if we get more organised, if we create long-term pipelines that see us, and commit to infrastructure developments that are not affected every three years when a new government comes in, if we get a better system in place for prioritizing what needs to be done, if we are more open to new ways of funding them, and we make it easier to get these projects consented, then maybe, just maybe, we might get better at building stuff. And who doesn't want to build stuff? We also want to fix stuff. Those potholes, for example!  It sounds a breeze, but we've really struggled to make infrastructure in New Zealand a bipartisan issue, which is a shame because it's something that we all benefit from. There was only so much longer we can talk about the crumbling pipes in Wellington, the poo currently flowing into the Hauraki Gulf, humming and aahing over light rail, closing the Auckland Harbour Bridge because the winds are up, closing railway lines for years for maintenance.   If you've been to Asia at any point over the last few decades, you will see nations with completely different approaches to infrastructure. I can remember being in Hong Kong as a teenager and the evening we arrived I looked out the hotel window and saw a road dug out with new pipes going in. The next morning, I looked out the window and all I saw was a new road. I thought I'd imagined the whole thing, and we've all got stories like this, haven't we?   And while we have different work conditions here and restrictions on when we can work and have to think about the neighbours, there is room for improvement. It shouldn't take 40 years to get the Waikato Expressway built, which is frustratingly being re-sealed in parts at the moment, or 70 years to get Transmission Gully built.   Councils do have 30-year infrastructure plans. They know what is required of them to deal with growing populations, just not how they're going to pay for them.   So there's no doubt that we need something along the lines of a 30 year pipeline plan so the whole country knows that we'll be ready to deal with the infrastructure that's going to be needed when we need it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How proactive are you with your KiwiSaver?   Do you call your provider to have a conversation about whether you're in the right fund for you at that moment in time? Do you get independent advice as to whether you're in the right fund? Do you have a number, the amount you would like to have to live your life on in retirement? Do you keep your eye on your fund and how your savings are progressing?   Or have you, like me, signed up, made the contribution, thought good on me, I'm saving for my retirement! Then put your head in the sand and got on with life.   Every year I say this is the year I will be more aggressive with my KiwiSaver and thinking about retirement, and every year it’s one of those domestic administrative tasks that is constantly relegated to the bottom of the list.  And then occasionally I'm prompted to get motivated again.   Today it's the release of a report that highlights how KiwiSaver is underperforming compared to the compulsory Australian Super System. If you compare KiwiSaver in its second decade with Australia at the same point in time, the contribution rate is much smaller.   The contribution rates here are 6%, made-up of 3% from the employer and 3% from the individual or employee, compared to 11% across the ditch. The average balance in KiwiSaver is only $28,000 and most members have stayed with the same fund. Yes, I might be guilty of that. According to experts, we're falling behind by squirreling away less than our Aussie mates.   Which raises the question, are we as savvy as we should be with KiwiSaver? And I would tend to say no. There are some differences between the system as I mentioned, it is compulsory in Australia. If you're a salaried employee in New Zealand, maybe it's time to make it compulsory at the minimum amount of 3% contribution, you can't force more on people.   Not only that, but maybe there should be guidelines as to which funds you were in for example, you should automatically start out in an aggressive fund if you're in your 20s, moving through types of funds as you age. Now a freelancer or contractor's income can change from month to month, and the deal isn't quite the same. You need to contribute just over $1000 per year and the government tops it up by about $521.00 per year, which isn't a great motivator when you're responsible for making the contribution yourself, it's easy to let it slip. So maybe, making it compulsory means it could be beneficial here too.   Now, personal finance advisors have opinions on whether you should be contributing 3%, 4%, 8%, or 10% of your gross income to KiwiSaver schemes. They take into consideration your current income, your age, your future plans, your risk tolerance and financial goals. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, and we should be able to make decisions that suit us best at that moment in time, as long as you are constantly reassessing where you're at.   By making it compulsory, though, are we getting people onto the retirement path, making them think about retirement? Making them think about their KiwiSaver more? But then, even if we do that, how do we lift the contribution rate? Because that seems to be the issue. Or maybe you do not see KiwiSaver as the one and only way to be better off in your retirement. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More than half of New Zealanders surveyed say the alcohol industry should not be involved in policy-making.   The Otago University-Cancer Society research shows of more than 1400 respondents, 16% disagree and 29% are neutral.   For banning alcohol sponsorship at sporting and community events, 58% are in favour and 19% are opposed.  Virginia Nicholls, the Alcohol Beverage Council CEO, joined Francesca Rudkin to give another view on the topic of alcohol related health risks.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A new study suggests there's support among New Zealanders for banning alcohol sponsorship at sporting and community events.   The Otago University-Cancer Society’s survey of more than 1400 people finds that 58% support a ban, and 19% oppose it.   51% agree that the alcohol industry should not be involved in developing alcohol harm policies, while 16% disagree.  Study co-author Professor Louise Signal told Francesca Rudkin that there are three main factors involved in reducing alcohol consumption: price, marketing, and accessibility.   She thinks that the public is pretty supportive of policies in all of those areas.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

World Rugby is expecting to launch a new biennial competition in 2026, as part of an overhaul of the men's international calendar. The 12 Nations League brings together the Six Nations teams, SANZAAR unions and two other sides- reportedly Japan and Fiji. ZB sports journalist Andrew Alderson explains further. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The University of Otago has released a new study looking into public awareness of cancer risk factors, with a particular focus on alcohol and dietary factors, and support for evidence-based alcohol and food policies to reduce people's exposure to these risks in their environment.   So, they found that there is some awareness of modifiable risks and those risk factors for cancer, but more needs to be done to increase awareness and give people the knowledge to make healthier choices. They also studied our support of certain policies and discovered that the majority of the country's adult population supports banning alcohol sponsorship at sport, community, and other events that under 18-year-olds go to. 58% support or strongly support this.   We also support the idea that the alcohol industry should not be involved in developing government policies to reduce alcohol harm. So 51% of us support or strongly support this. The research showed that there was slightly less support for making alcohol more expensive through an excise tax, with the extra money going towards treatment and harm prevention methods, 46% support or strongly support this.   The authors of the study believe that these policies, which the public has shown support for, should be the starting point for the government to take action on reducing the rates of preventable cancers in New Zealand, thus preventing unnecessary illness and death, and reducing the pressure on our struggling health system. We should be knowledgeable about the risk of drinking and we should be mature enough to accept it.   But I'm all for individuals making up their own minds when it comes to booze. I enjoy a drink and I think that you're responsible for your own drinking habits. But I would also be quite happy if we reduced the visibility of alcohol, especially to younger people, and we have been talking about removing alcohol sponsorship for years. And of course, Chloes Swarbrick had the Alcohol Harm Minimalisation Bill, which failed at its first reading recently. We've really dragged our feet in this area.   And look, I know it would be tough on events which rely on it for sponsorship. You would need to phase it out so that new opportunities could be sought. But if you're running a large really successful event then surely you'd be able to replace that sponsor with someone else. Another bank or insurance company who's doing quite well. I do understand it's more difficult when you're talking about grass roots, sports clubs and things that they could potentially be left high and dry, so you'd need to work out how things work there so that they didn't lose their support.   But you know what? I'm all for making it less visible, less sexy, less associated with high performance sport and success, and pretty relaxed about reducing how much we normalize alcohol and society. I would also love to see the alcohol lobby have less of an influence on government. That wouldn't hurt either, but I'll believe that when I see it.   And I can't believe I'm saying this, but I also don't have a problem with alcohol being a little bit more expensive, especially if my extra dosh goes towards treatment and harm prevention. If it meant I purchased a little less each week, that's actually not a bad thing.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Really interesting article in the New Zealand Herald today about the number of schools offering Reading Recovery.   This system was developed in New Zealand in the 70s in order to support 6-year-olds struggling with literacy. It's been used around the world but now due to new research into how the brain works and learns, it's no longer as popular as it used to be, with less than 40% of schools now offering the programme.   There is no doubt the debate as to how to teach young kids the basics of reading has become more heated over the years, especially considering our literacy figures. A 2020 UNICEF report found over a third of our 15-year-olds did not have the basic proficiency in literacy and maths. This is one of the many reports that shows New Zealand kids are falling behind in core subjects of reading, writing, maths, and science.    So when it comes to reading, the debate has been around two different approaches to teaching reading: what we currently do now, which is whole language learning, learning through words and context, and structured literacy, a phonics-based system, where words are decoded by sounding out letters.    If you’re around my age and was at school in the seventies, then that was probably the system you use. You learned through phonics.   Even though Reading Recovery has undergone a massive overhaul recently and has, I do believe, pulled in some of the structural literacy approaches. If you talk to schools which have implemented structural literacy as their way of teaching, you will hear about positive results and how their tale of non-achieving is reducing.   It's working for slow readers as well as the one-in-five children who are neurodivergent and often have learning disabilities like dyslexia. It's 20% of our kids, so talk to those who work in this field, and they'll tell you about the success of structured literacy.   So I think it's a good thing that National plans to mandate structured literacy in primary schools and offer this as a solution to those who need extra support. There are differing views as to why Reading Recovery is dropping, why it is less popular. Potentially teacher shortages, of course, it requires one-on-one work, more children needing help, and the politicisation of Reading Recovery has influenced parents, and these are all issues which are not going to go away.   They're still going to have to be addressed, but teaching our children shouldn't be led by politics. It should be led by what is best for our children, the latest research into neuroscience and an evidence-based approach, and all that points to structured learning.   So in your eyes, is it about how we teach our children to read? Is it about access to professional support when needed, or is it about parents picking up the slack at home and participating in their children's education? Quite frankly, it's all these things.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.