Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Back when I was a kid, you knew the school holidays were coming up when the Seafarers Union went on strike. Sure as God made little apples, a week before the school holidays, the unions would be all out, brothers and sisters, and then there'd be all night negotiations between the cloth caps and the capitalist overlords, while parents waited anxiously to see if the annual road trip —south in our case— would take place to go down and see the Christchurch rallies. Generally, at the last minute they would, so it was a mad dash to Wellington, over the Cook Strait to Christchurch for the school holidays. Every single time.   Union representatives were household names in New Zealand – Ken Douglas, Sonja Davies, Blue Kennedy, everybody knew them. The strength of unions abated over the years after the reforms of the Fourth Labour Government. But since the demise of the last Labour Government and the arrival of this centre-right Government, unions have certainly been flexing their muscles.   Primary school teachers have voted to go on strike on October 23rd. “Kerre, isn't that the Thursday before Labour Weekend?” That's correct, it is. So what's that going to do? A glorious long weekend, and two days off school for the kids. Secondary teachers are on their rolling strike this week, again, right before the school holidays, massively disrupting senior classes and school attendance. Nurses walked off the job recently and senior doctors go on strike next week. They are perfectly entitled to do so, but it's a delicate balancing act holding on to public support while pressuring the government to give in to their demands for pay and conditions.   Political commentator Bryce Edwards made a very good point in an article yesterday, which just reinforces what we know. Unions take a softly, softly approach with Labour governments generally, because they don't want to damage Labour-led governments by striking. Unions affiliated to Labour contribute their members' dues to the Labour Party, and unions have voting rights on Labour's leadership under the current constitution that the Labour Party has.   So, in the main, they don't want to embarrass a Labour-led government. That is not to say they don't strike. Teachers held rolling strikes throughout 2023 because the Labour Government was stonewalling on negotiations. And in part, teachers say it's because the last Labour Government mucked them around for so long that they're striking again. They can only settle pay and conditions in the three-year blocks. And by the time Labour settled with the PPTA last round, it was time to begin negotiations again. But they are much more likely to strike than to negotiate. That's what the head of the Public Service Commission, Sir Brian Roche said – that we offered them a good deal, they didn't bother negotiating, just said, "Right, we're striking”.  The disruption to kids and their parents is far, far more than just the one day they strike, though. By choosing to strike right before the school holidays, kids don't see the point in going to school for the last week. They're lumped together in mixed classes. There's no real learning taking place. Teacher-only days in many schools on the Friday. What the hell is the point?   It's a real struggle for people I know who have teenagers to get them to school because they'd go if they were learning, they'd go if it mattered, they'd go if they felt they were going to get something out of it. When all they're doing is being lumped together in one mess class with a couple of duty teachers to make sure people don't go missing or harm one another, that's basically the end of it. It's basically babysitting for a couple of days, and the kids know that, so they think, why bother?   At what point do you lose sympathy for striking public servants? At what point as a teacher or a nurse do you lose patience with your union? I think most of us have sympathy with teachers, and nurses and doctors, and police officers, understanding just how important their jobs are within society. But are they more important than what you do?   And at what point do you decide that actually, you'd rather be paid on performance, not how many years you've hung in there at the chalkboard? At what point do you think, I would rather be teaching my classes, not striking to give my peers pay and conditions that some of them simply do not deserve? When you know that you're a better, more competent, more hard-working, more innovative, more empathetic teacher than the one next door, does it not rankle just a tiny bit that they're getting either the same as you or more, because of simply being there longer than you? At what point do you believe in yourself?   At what point do you negotiate your own pay and conditions the way the rest of us do, because you believe in your abilities and what you bring to the workforce? And if they're not good enough, you go.  At what point do you back yourself? And say, you know what, I do a really, really, really good job and I want to be paid more than the lazy ass next to me. I wonder why teachers in particular are so insecure in their own bargaining powers? How many teachers would rather not be in the union, negotiate their own contracts?   If you don't feel that you are fairly paid in your job or your conditions aren't ideal, have you used the union to negotiate for you or do you do it yourself? Have you found the unions useful? I look at teachers and I think, you know, we all know there are some that are so much better than others, who are so much more hard-working and innovative. Why don't they get more?   Still, it’s up to them. If they want to have collective bargaining and collective conditions, that's their choice. But for how many is there a little seed of doubt settling in thinking, really? The way New Zealand is at the moment, the way the kids' schooling has been so severely disrupted over the last few years, our conditions aren't that bad when you look around. When you look around at what other people are earning and what other people are doing.   At what point do you think the union's not for you?    Back in the olden days, the unions were all powerful, dominant, a really strong collective force, and they wielded enormous power on the economy and on governments, but they struck themselves and bullied themselves into irrelevance.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The country's getting up to scratch on teaching Kiwis how to manage possible lone wolf attackers in crowded spaces.  Police are promoting the mantra 'escape, hide, tell' to show the public what to do during an attack.   The Crowded Places Strategy includes information on how to detect possible attackers, and how to conduct security audits.   Auckland's Newmarket Business Association CEO Mark Knoff-Thomas told Kerre Woodham there have been situations where people freeze or start filming, which isn’t ideal.  He says they want to make sure people are armed and educated with the best knowledge possible, as even if it’s not applicable in New Zealand, it may come in useful overseas.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our economy's been shrinking much faster than economists thought.  Latest data just out from Stats NZ shows GDP fell 0.9% in the three months to June.  That follows six months of growth, after six months of contraction.  Infometrics Chief Forecaster Gareth Kiernan told Kerre Woodham it's far worse than any economists were expecting.  He says this number is completely "off the charts", as far as they're concerned.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shane Jones' warning was clear and concise. As of 2029, if no new gas fields are found or an alternative energy source is not found, there will be no gas available for industrial, commercial, and domestic use.   “In simple terms, what's going to happen in 2029-2030 in the event that we either don't import gas, or we don't find a major find, is that the demand will still be there, but the supply will be below the demand. And there'll be a fraction of gas available, but for those big users, and quite frankly, the energy companies use quite a lot of gas and they can pay because they hand it on to you and I, that's what the crisis will be. There will be too many businesses in New Zealand still dependent on gas and the supply of the gas will be below their need for gas.”  Shane Jones, as other commentators have noted, does talk a big game and is prone to hyperbole to make his point – should have been a journo. Gas NZ Chief Executive Jeffrey Clarke says homes and small businesses accounted for less than 13% of gas demand last year and are likely to have gas for longer than 2029, if only because other bigger customers will find alternatives, and because domestic and small business are profitable.   But there's no doubt that the brutal reality is that we don't have as much gas in our gas fields as we thought we did, and that existing fields are going to run out sooner rather than later. Worse, according to an explainer story in The Post, gas industry sources believe that the aging Maui gas field will require expensive maintenance work in the middle of next year, raising the very real possibility that its overseas operator OMV could simply look at the bill for the maintenance, look at the life of the gas field and say, you know what? Don't worry about it. We'll shut it up early. Close the field.   And some businesses won't survive that. In Shane Jones' report to Winston Peters, where he made the dire warnings, Jones says without profound action, the die is cast. There'll be a rust belt decline in New Zealand with a widening gap in societal well-being.   We're already seeing it. Carter Holt Harvey shuttering its Eves Valley sawmill near Nelson, Kinleith closing and Tokoroa, and now Carter Holt Harvey closing the plywood plant there. Timaru's meatworks gone, Winston Pulp closing its factory in Ōhakune - small town New Zealand is once again fighting for its very survival.   What are the options? What are the alternatives?   According to Gas NZ, homes and small businesses account for less than 13% of gas demand. It doesn't mean that they are going to be really struggling to find alternatives to keep themselves going. The small manufacturing plants, we've already seen it, it's the cost of energy that is closing them, the manufacturing plants around New Zealand.   Can you find alternatives to gas before 2029? If you are living in a small town where your major employer is owned by a multinational, the answer is they'll probably just shut up shop, as we've seen happen in other small towns. They'll look at the cost of finding an alternative energy source and go you know what? No.   If you're a small town locally owned business, you might think differently. There might be more skin in the game for you. You might be willing to make a huge capital investment in resourcing the power supply to keep the plant open. But ultimately, once you do the sums on the back of an envelope, it just comes down to whether you can afford to or not.   And in that case, what is the future of small-town New Zealand? Is the die cast? Are we looking at a rust belt decline and a widening gap in societal well-being unless we can find alternative fuel or simply another way of keeping small town New Zealand alive? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When US conservative activist and media personality Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on Wednesday, a lot of people had an awful lot to say.   Those on the right of the spectrum mourned the senseless violence and deplored the actions of the left. Many of those on the left rejoiced, were gleeful. And there's no other word for it when you look at some of the posts on social media.   For others of us, it was a deep dive into why Charlie Kirk was so well-regarded by conservatives in the US. I was aware of him, but I certainly wasn't aware of the breadth of his reach in the US. So, for me it was an information-finding exercise. And what I saw was a lot of grieving, a lot of mourning on the right, and rejoicing and jokes on the left.   Some took a righteous tone, like New Zealand investment manager and Kiwi Saver fund provider boss Sam Stubbs. He posted on LinkedIn on Saturday saying, "We should mourn the violence but not the man, and we certainly cannot eulogise a racist, sexist and bigot. RIP Charlie Kirk, I wish your ideas had died with you."   It certainly wasn't the worst thing I'd seen posted about Charlie Kirk's death, not particularly charitable, probably unnecessary.   Now, the Simplicity boss has apologised on LinkedIn and deleted the post. Stubbs said his first post on Kirk's death was sent in haste. Odd, given he wrote it on Saturday and Kirk was murdered on Wednesday. Three days should give you enough time to consider what you want to say.    Anyway, he went on, "It did not come across as I intended, and I apologise to anyone who took offence." Well, of course they're going to take offence. "Here's what I intended to say," he said. "Murder is murder, anyone celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk is celebrating acts of wilful vengeance. That is wrong, full stop."   He said he found much of what Kirk believed as sexist, racist and profoundly objectionable, but in a democracy, he said, he has the right to speak and to live to say what he thought. And let's hope his supporters feel the same way about those who disagreed with him, he added. Probably unnecessarily. Fairly grudging, and you'd wonder why he bothered. Why on earth would you bother?   Is he going to lose enough business to see a dent in his company? I wouldn't have thought so. Possibly he might be concerned about not getting a visa into the US. In the wake of the rejoicing from opponents of the ultra-conservatives, there's been a backlash in the US. Numerous workers have been fired for their comments on Kirk's death. Teachers, firefighters, journalists, nurses, politicians, a worker for a prominent NFL team. And the Deputy Secretary of State, Christopher Landau, posted on X, "In light of yesterday's horrific assassination of a leading political figure, I want to underscore that foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country. I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalising or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action. Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the State Department can protect the American people." Well, in they came. People have been more than willing to dob in their fellow countrymen, including the hosts of Breakfast TV. A poster put up the clip of the crew shooting a Trump doll with Bug-A-Salt back in 2023. You can imagine the reaction to that. "Never let these people into the country," and on it went. It's not the first-time people have lost jobs over things they say publicly, but in the US, the speed of the firings has raised questions about free speech rights. And it does seem odd that a passionate proponent of free speech, like Charlie Kirk, should see people sacked in his name because they're exercising their right to free speech. It seems a bit incongruous, but there it is. Are you aware that if you do post, and especially in this day and age now that we have access to meta search tools like AI, they can troll through every single post you've made on social media going back a decade or more in a matter of minutes, discovering and finding things you thought you'd deleted? It's all there waiting to be found.   And if you think that you're sitting at the bottom of the universe, miles away from anybody and nobody cares, wrong. We live in a village now. An absolute village, and it doesn't matter that we are last stop before Antarctica. If you say something, you have to accept that it's going to be found. If you send a text into me, it can be found. What you say, whatever it is you say, can be found. You might send it, think better of it later, as Sam Stubbs did. Too late, it's out there.   As employers, do you as a matter of course go through people's social media? See what they've written, see what stance they take? Do you take into account what people have said and done on social media? Is that just a standard part of hiring now? Should you be able to travel anywhere at will? Or should the things you say and post on social media be taken into account when it comes to applying for the right to travel to another country? Should the right to free speech have consequences? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Of the many, many insane, ideologically driven policies I have heard come from government departments over the years, this has got to be one of the most bonkers.  There have been times over the years, when I'm feeling a little overwhelmed, when I've fantasised about ending up in hospital. Nothing life-changing or dramatic, just a nice routine operation, five days in a lovely quiet ward. Crisp white sheets, view out to Cornwall Park, the scent of lush green grass carried by the gentle zephyrs of spring through the open window. Matron running the ward with a firm, but benevolent gloved hand. I can sleep and rest and be protected from the rigours of reality in a nurturing, safe environment. Oh, how those days have gone. If they ever existed, I think they may well be some kind of Enid Blyton-esque type fantasy I got through reading old-fashioned books. I am really, really struggling to see how 24/7 visitors' access to hospitals is going to benefit anyone. Anyone. Not the patients, not the security staff, certainly not the nursing staff. On the face of it, it looks like a desperate attempt to shore up staff deficiencies in the wards. They say it's not. Health New Zealand says the implementation of the new patient and whānau family support policy is not driven by staffing levels, but is about giving patients the choice of having whānau support when they needed it. National Chief Nurse Nadine Gray says the policy is patient-centred and driven by whānau voice. That's what the official party line is.   New Zealand Nurses Organisation says the union supports full access for families to be involved in patients' care, which can be very important in some cultures, but they reckon the current push is more a response to the increasing need for patient watches and the lack of staff to do them, and I think they're probably on the money. Patient watches are needed if a vulnerable patient needs monitoring to ensure they don't hurt themselves or interfere with treatment, and are usually carried out by trained healthcare assistants. But because there's a chronic shortage of healthcare assistants, family members, say the Nurses Organisation, are being expected to take up the role. Now, decision-makers might think that the general public will understand that the 24/7 access is ideally for those with children in hospital or family members with dementia or patients who have specific needs. But that is not what the general public will hear. You'll get 20 people camped around a bed with takeaways for five days, while an adult son waits for an operation for his leg fracture. It'll be hoots-wah-hey and off. Party central. The Health New Zealand Chief Executive says under the policy, whānau will be supported to be with patients 24/7 (24/7! have we even asked the patients if they want the whānau there for 24/7?) where appropriate, working alongside nursing and maternity teams to make this possible. And here's the absolute banger for me - while respecting the privacy and recovery of others. How? Unless you're in a Portacabin 20 miles away from me on the hospital grounds, how is my privacy going to be respected? How, when the only thing preventing me from becoming a member of my neighbour's extended family is a flimsy nylon curtain? The nursing staff and security can't be expected to manage the number of visitors, supposed to be one or two per person. That doesn't work now. How are they going to be expected to manage the behaviour of the visitors, the transgressions of the visitors? We are living in a culture of self, where individuals prioritise their own needs. Their own wants and desires over the need of the collective good of others. Bloody hell, if there was ever an incentive to lace up the walking shoes and say no to the doughnut, it's this. The thought of ending up in a hospital ward now, my vision has long been shattered. In an ward with three other people is bad enough. The thought of ending up in a ward with three other people and their partners, and their kids, and their parents, and their siblings' children ... euthanise me now. Don't worry about fixing my broken arm. No, pass. Chop it off. No, I'll have to stay in hospital. I'll just live with it. I'll  have a gimpy arm for the rest of my life. Of the many, many insane, ideologically driven policies I have heard come from government departments over the years, this has got to be one of the most bonkers.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Health NZ is planning to remove restrictions on visiting hours at hospitals.   The change would allow family members to visit patients at any hour of the day, a move that has led to mixed responses.   Health NZ National Chief Nurse Nadine Gray told Kerre Woodham that the change is part of a patient support policy.  ‘It’s part of the code of patients’ rights to have support.’  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now, long-time listeners will know that I have said, I do say, and I will undoubtedly in the future say stupid things. In a career spanning decades, we are talking live on stage or live on air, television or radio. When you're going for the snappy one-liner and you're pushing the language out and you're trying to be clever and you're trying to be funny, a lot of the time you're operating on instinct. You have to speak without thinking. I know you're not supposed to, but when you're doing live radio, live television, live on stage, you have to speak without thinking. So the potential for saying something offensive or stupid or both is very real.  That does not excuse you from the consequences of saying something out of line. I've had to suffer them before. It just explains how it happens. So, while I can see how Stuart Nash came to make his ill-advised one-liner on what defines a woman, I can also see and understand the repercussions. Especially for someone who works in executive recruitment for a company that presumably sees women as more than being how Stuart Nash described them. And also, for someone who wants to run for public office. Yesterday, Nash resigned from his job at Robert Walters after he gave his definition of a woman to The Platform media outlet earlier this week.  For those who don't know what he said, text Nash to 9292 and we'll text it back to you. No, that's not what will happen, but you must know what he said! Anyway, as soon as the words came out of his mouth, he knew he'd gone too far. He asked his wife, "Was this a really stupid thing to say?" And she went, "Yeah, it really, really, really was, you complete and utter numpty." I'm putting words into Mrs. Nash's mouth, but I imagine it was that or somewhat stronger. He phoned The Platform back asking for the clip of what he'd said to be taken down. As if. It was all over social media in a matter of minutes.  The matter's been bubbling away for a few days now and then Nash's employers, Robert Walters, the executive recruitment firm, took decisive action yesterday by encouraging, no doubt, Nash's resignation.  Now Nash's potential employer, New Zealand First, is in a bit of a conundrum really, because Winston Peters is old school. He holds decorum and standards and ways of doing things, he holds fast to those old principles. He might swear – I've been at private parties where he's been. I've never heard him, but I'm not saying he doesn't, I've just never heard him swear. And I cannot imagine him ever using the words Nash used to describe women.  Peters spoke to my colleague Nick Mills earlier in the week about the values pledge needed for new migrants, because too many people were coming to New Zealand without the requisite respect for equality and respect for women. Awkward. Winston doesn't like coarseness, and he doesn't like vulgarity. So that's against Nash. But he hates the media, and the media is who got his golden boy into trouble. What to do, what to do if you're the leader of NZ First?  After some consideration, Winston Peters issued a statement saying the words used by Nash were not acceptable, and on that point, we agree with Mrs. Nash. End of statement. The irony is that Nash's definition of a woman, here it comes, for all of you who are texting 9292, he described a woman as a person with a "p***y and a pair of t**s", which is a rather crude reduction of what an individual might be, but nonetheless, that's what he said.  But the irony is that definition of a woman could equally describe a trans woman. "P***y and a pair of t**s". Or a trans man. Nash has lost quite a lot without getting any further ahead. We are no further ahead in the definition.  Peters has previously described Nash's transition from sacked Labour minister to NZ First party member as seamless. Well, there might be a few wrinkles in that seam now. But where do you stand on this one? Should he have resigned? He would have been shoved had he not.  Personally, I don't think you can be a specialist recruitment executive and be on record as having reduced women to a "p***y and a pair of t**s". You can't look at a woman who is going for a high-powered job, well, any job really, and say, "Well, let's have a look at your qualifications." I mean, maybe if he was a recruitment specialist for Showgirls or any of the other strip clubs in town, sure, let's see what you've got. But not when you're looking for someone who's slightly more than that, you know, who needs a bit more than that to do the job.  An MP? If he was still an elected MP relying on an electorate to vote you in, you could get the people of the electorate to decide. That would be really easy. They could make the choice of whether they thought it was a stupid, crude, poor old thing to say. The sort of thing you might say after many beers with the lads, maybe a few of the ladesses, you snigger, you move on. But you don't do it on a media platform when you're a recruitment executive. That just shows really poor judgment. And he's shown it before, there's form.  Now you might want Winston and Shane if you're a NZ First voter, but you don't want Stuart. But when a political party relies on list MPs to get in, then Stuart's going to be part of the job lot. You've got to feel for Winston this weekend. What to do, what to do? Don't like what he said, gross. Ooh, hate the media – it's all your fault this boy's in trouble. I reckon he'll end up staying. What would you do? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has released a cabinet paper proposing a raft of changes to the Crimes Act. This is part of the coalition agreement with NZ First. It introduces new offences and strengthens existing ones. The proposals include a new strict liability offence for shoplifting, with a $500 infringement fee, doubling to $1,000 if the value of the stolen goods is more than $500.   It would be proven simply by evidence that people, or the person, left the store with the goods, so CCTV footage, but with a reasonable excuse defence to mitigate against catching people who genuinely make a mistake, according to Goldsmith's paper. A strict liability offence means there's no requirement to prove a guilty mind. So, the offence removes the requirement to prove intent and introduces reverse onus. The burden of proof is shifted to the defendant for the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence.   Paul Goldsmith explained how he thought the new law would work on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning.   “It's more akin to a traffic offence. So you know, you're speeding, you get a ticket. There's no sort of debate about it really, unless you've got a reasonable excuse, and you pay the fine. And the whole purpose of it is to come up with a quick and swift way to deal with shoplifting, other than the alternative, which is to go through the whole court process.   “I mean, we've got to remember we've got a real issue with retail crime with this big increase in people going around stealing stuff. We've got to do something different. Currently, you've got to go off to court, that's a very high threshold and doesn't happen enough. And so what we're introducing is a swift and effective fine as an intermediate step to deal with things and so that there is a real consequence for that level of shoplifting.”  Swift and effective fine? Who the hell is going to pay it?   There are concerns the new shoplifting law would come up against the Bill of Rights, which says we have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Also, within the New Zealand Herald story on this that's online, there's a whole subheading saying, what it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse. Paul Goldsmith says in his paper, a strict liability offence increases the risk that misinterpreting the behaviour of deaf people, or people with an intellectual or neurodisability, could result in disproportionate impacts on this group.   I get if you have an intellectual disability, you might not know it's wrong. Since when were deaf people shoplifters just because they were deaf? Since when were Māori shoplifters just because they were Māori? Sure, if you have an intellectual disability, absolutely. What it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse... the disabled and Māori and the neurodiverse aren't typically criminal? Honestly, how is how is being deaf going to make you a shoplifter? That it's going to increase the chances of you being pinged?    My concerns are far more pragmatic. Whatever your reason for stealing stuff, whether you're a kid on a dare, you're desperate and starving, you're a low-life lazy thief – who's going to pay the fine? Maybe if you're a shoplifting former Green MP with PTSD and a fine taste in clothing, you'll pay the fine. But those sorts of people are still in the minority at the moment.   I know they're trying to stop the courts getting cluttered up with shoplifters and that some shoplifters are getting away scot-free because the amount they stole doesn't meet the threshold for going to court. How many shoplifters, can you imagine, are going to sit down, oh, goodness me, I've got to pay that fine before I incur any extra costs. Must sit down and process the payment. There we go, job done. Or wander down to their nearest post shop with their $500 infringement fee clutched in their hot little hand and stand in the queue and go to the counter and say, sorry, I've got to pay my fine for shoplifting.   I cannot see it. How many people shoplift accidentally? That's what I would like to know. There are also ways to mitigate that. I went to the supermarket with the grandchildren yesterday, chased down a poor security officer who was minding his own business and looking for trolleys of groceries going out the door of the New World. I said, look, I'm so sorry, excuse me, so sorry. Look, my granddaughter's just got some yoghurt that she didn't eat from her school lunch and she's going to eat that while we walk around and I'm very sorry, but we didn't. Yeah, okay, lady. Please get out of my grills, is what he seemed to be saying.   There are ways and ways. What, you're going to say, I'm so sorry, I forgot I put this pack of sausages down the front of my trousers? I mean, what? How do you shoplift accidentally? How do you shoplift clothing accidentally? I'd really love to know. Perhaps you do. And equating it to speeding is just silly. Most of the time when people are speeding, nobody is impacted. I accept that when things go wrong, horrific. But most of the time if people are going 5 or 10 kph over the limit on an open road with nobody around, nobody's harmed. And if you do get pinged by a speed camera, you pay, because for the most part, just about everybody, I think, has gone over the limit. I mean, I'm making a huge general assumption here and put me right if I'm wrong. Most people have gone over the limit once or twice. If you're pinged, you pay your fine and that's that.   Shoplifting's a whole other thing. Every time you slide a bottle of nail polish into your pocket or walk out with a trolley full of goods, we all get impacted. Retailers, insurers, shoppers, cops, the lot. What on earth is the point of introducing a law that the lawbreakers will simply ignore? Love to hear from you on this. Have you ever accidentally put something in your bag? A $500 sweater that you, oh, forgot to pay for? Or I know, you put something in your pocket, and you forget to pay for it?   I just don't see how you can do it accidentally. And when you are stealing, quite often it's an act of intent. Speeding, it's sometimes your concentration lapses. And people generally pay their speeding fines. I paid one yesterday. You pay $30 for being pinged by a speed camera. And that's okay. Got it paid before the due date. How many shoplifters are going to be doing that? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The cost of alcohol abuse in this country is absolutely phenomenal. Worldwide, I can't even imagine what it would be, but here in this country it's bad enough. A report that came out last year from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, the first of its kind since 2009, found that:  The cost of alcohol abuse in terms of alcohol harm based on disability adjusted life years is $9.1 billion.  $4.8b associated with disability-adjusted life years from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD)  $1.2 b associated with disability-adjusted life years from alcohol use disorder  $281m - intimate partner violence (for alcohol use disorder alone)  $74m - child maltreatment (for hazardous drinking alone),  $2.1b in societal cost of road crashes where alcohol was a factor  $4b in lost productivity associated with alcohol use, including FASD, crimes and workplace absenteeism  $810m, predominantly in health and ACC spending.  Peter Dunne, in an article in Newsroom this week, argues that these costs are a result of a decades-long failure in policy. He says when he was working for the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council way back in the late 70s, they undertook the first national survey of New Zealanders' alcohol consumption and drinking patterns. The most dramatic finding, he says, was that 9% of drinkers were responsible for two-thirds of the alcohol drunk.  Of all the alcohol consumed in the country, 9% of drinkers drink two-thirds of it. He says that told you there were binge drinkers, problem drinkers, who made up a minority of the population, and a minority of the drinking population, but consumed the most, and that's where education and policy should have been directed. However, around the same time that survey came out, the World Health Organisation came up with its own policy and advised that government interventions should focus on reducing alcohol consumption levels overall to reduce the number of alcohol-related problems, rather than focus on specific groups.  So you've had broad-brush, once over lightly programmes, you know, general, ‘hey guys, you know, it's not what you drink, it's how you're drinking’, the general programs. And that, he says, has failed. Most people do know how to drink sensibly. They'll enjoy a glass or two of wine occasionally, and that'll be that. A couple of beers on a hot day after a surf. Fantastic.  Then there are those of us who board a sky-sailing pirate ship to whiskey Valhalla and it's hoots way hay and off as Caitlin Moran put it. And sometimes that's fine, and sometimes that's not. When you set out to lose control, chuck everything in the air and see where it all lands, sometimes it lands you in a police cell, or hospital, or in the bed of someone you shouldn't be with. And that's when the trouble starts.  Peter Dunne argues that we need to do away with the broad-brush approach and focus on the binge drinkers, the problem drinkers. Targeted policies for that 9 to 10% of the population who cannot drink sensibly, who do not drink moderately, and who are causing all of the harm.  Do you need to be told how much you should drink, when you should drink it, like not when you're pregnant? Do you need to be told that? Do you just switch off when you drink and think, oh for heaven's sake, who on earth are they talking to? I know all of this stuff. Do we need to be focusing on the people who need to hear the message, all that money going into general education, redirected to those groups who need to hear the message most, and putting more of the money into the rehabilitation and the turning around and the changing of dangerous drinking behaviours? That is a hell of a lot of money to spend on disordered drinking, on problem drinking. And it's not you, probably, or you. But over there in the corner, it's us. And we're the ones that need to hear the message, not them. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.