Who doesn't love hosting a good party? Who hasn't enjoyed the buzz that comes from having people from all over the world heading into town intent on having a good time? Even if you can't afford the price of the tickets to the Rugby World Cup, or through fee for Women's World Cup, or you haven't got a gin palace to head out on the water to get up, close and personal to the America's Cup racing, you can still share in the good times and the positive vibes that are generated when a marquee event is set up in New Zealand. Attention, of course, is now turning to whether New Zealand can mount a defence of the America's Cup and New Zealand waters. Of course we can do it, we've done it before, it's whether there's a willingness to do it. Former Prime Minister and patron of Emirates Team New Zealand Helen Clark says the case for public funding to host a future America's Cup is as strong as when her government was a significant financial backer. Clark's Labour-led coalition backed hosting the 2003 event in Auckland and sponsored the team in Valencia and San Francisco for the 32nd to 34th iterations of the America's Cup. She said it was all-round a hard economic case of what is good for New Zealand. But right now, in this time, can we afford it? And really, when you crunch the numbers, could we even afford it back then? The Government says it's open to a discussion about hosting the Cup in New Zealand, but any government support would need to be assessed against many other competing priorities in these tight economic times and demonstrate clear value for money and economic benefit. When you have got the sort of infrastructure spending that we need, when you've got community groups that are crying out for funding, which has been cut or has been cut back, can you really make a case that hundreds of millions of dollars taxpayer dollars should go to a defence of the America’s Cup? How you work out whether it will indeed be profitable depends on which report do you want to commission and which report you want to read. Helen Clark says Barcelona used the hosting of the cup as a catalyst for reviving its economy, and it's absolutely thrilled with the outcome of it. Five years from now, you'll probably read a report saying poor decision. When we last defended the America’s Cup, it was extraordinary times. We're in the middle of lockdowns, open for business and then we were not. It was very odd times. And not nearly as many people as organisers had hoped made their way to New Zealand (who can blame them) for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and getting their boats redesigned and rebuilt and refurbed by skilled New Zealand Craftsman. All of the cases made for hosting the America's Cup fell a bit short and a fell a bit flat. And if you look at other countries around the world too, they say it cost them an awful lot, a bit like hosting the Olympics. Conversely, you look at the FIFA Women's World Cup that appears to have been a success, again depending on the reports you read, but it appears to have been a success both in terms of the profile of the sport, support of the sport and turning a buck. In these times, where we've all been told and I've said and you know, that things are tough. Right now, most of us are dealing with the have to haves, not the nice to haves. We're trying to find money for the essentials, the necessaries of life. Not the frilly, gorgeous, good time of fun things of life. Is now the right time to be saying hold it here, because Emirates team New Zealand won a lot of money? They have to have a lot of money. It's an expensive sport. These are expensive sailors. There are a lot of rich men who want the kudos of being the one that won the America’s Cup. They're willing to spend billions to do so. And they will pay any price. And I think we've all grown up and got past the whole New Zealand sailors should simply sail for the love of their country. Remember the BlackHearts campaign? Just about tore ZB apart. So it costs and Emirates Team New Zealand will make whoever wants to host it pay through the nose for the privilege of doing so. Is now the right time? Doesn't appear to be. The only thing I'd say in its favour is that we've got all that infrastructure there at the Viaduct. It's not being used. It would be at about 40 percent capacity, which is a damn shame. Everything was built and nobody came because of the extraordinary times. So it would be nice to see that that investment could be used, could be capitalised upon. But right now I would say hosting a defence of the America’s Cup would be in the nice to have category, not in the is absolutely imperative that we do so category.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark says it's politically viable for New Zealand to host the America's Cup as we've done it before, and if we don't step up, someone else will. She says Kiwis love to see New Zealand doing well and winning – and says we know having the Cup at home comes with economic benefits. Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown says the hosting decision is in the hands of Team New Zealand boss Grant Dalton. AUT Sailing Professor and former New Zealand world champion sailor Mark Orams joined Kerre Woodham. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Greens voted last night to swallow a dead rat. Even the vegans had to chew on a dead rat last night. Green Party delegates overwhelmingly decided to use the Waka Jumping law, which they hate, to eject Darleen Tana from Parliament if she decides not to quit first. Darleen Tana, the former Green MP, currently sits, useless as tits on a bull, as an independent and was the subject of a late night special general meeting zoom. All 185 party delegates present at the meeting reached consensus —I don't think they do anything so trad and bourgeois as vote— they reach consensus within the Green Party, to endorse using the legislation against Tana.    Political reporters say that suggests the party is far more united on the issue than previously thought. There had been some hoohah about treatment of women and treatment of women of colour within the Greens, but it appears not. It appears they can all see that the reason that Darleen Tana is sitting there squatly in Parliament is because she's got nowhere else to go. She's not acting on a matter of principle, she's not acting on a matter of the higher moral ground the Greens are very fond of finding, she's just sitting there because she needs a gig and as to pay the bills.   So the Greens have been historically vocal about their dislike for the same law they've now opted to use against Tana, but Green Party Co leader Chloe Swarbrick says everyone should be open to changing their minds when faced with issues like this.    What do we expect our politicians to do? If a party is elected and you as a voter have listened to the campaign promises, and you've read through their policies, and you understand what it is that they intend to do when they get into power, do you then sit back and watch as they go and renege on every single promise and are not the party you voted for? You'd want to see politicians take a principled stand, wouldn't you?   Do you expect them to stick to a party that has been disloyal to its voting base, or do you expect them to take a principled stand? Resign and sit as an independent in the House, being a burr under the saddle of the government, reminding them of the broken promises? I think we can all see with Darleen Tana that she needs a gig. She needs a job. She's not going to get one that pays that well. Sitting doing nothing in Parliament is paying her a hell of a lot more than she'll get doing anything else. She is not principled, but other MPs have been, and they should be allowed to do so. They should be allowed to sit in the house and remind a party that it's broken its promises to its voters, in my opinion. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're going to open the show today with a chat on ACC, given that it's managed to go from a $911 million surplus to a $7.2 billion deficit in the year to June. That’s got to hurt. ACC said, in it's just released annual report, that lower than expected rehabilitation performance contributed towards the deficit, and noted the cost of providing services and compensation to injured people increased by 16% over the year. That makes sense. The price of everything has gone up. The price of taxis has gone up to get people to their appointments, the price of scans, everything that you can apply to ACC for will have risen in price. You can understand that the deficit could be a whole lot worse. If you are one of those people who have been on ACC and that is, as Mike pointed out this morning, 100% of the Kerre Woodham Mornings team, all two of us. We covered a lot of the costs ourselves. We didn't apply for everything that you're entitled to under ACC. I didn’t get a taxi or house cleaning, and we got extra treatment to aid our rehabilitation and recovery to make it that much faster, and we did that at our own expense and time. We made an investment in our own recovery. And that's partly because we can, there are some people who simply do not have that option, but partly because Helen and I saw it as a team effort – thank you very much, ACC, but we will do our very best to do what we can to get back to work. And I bet many of you are the same. How much have you actually claimed what you could have claimed? I bet the figure could be a whole lot worse, so put that down to the Kiwi attitude of fair play. You've done your bit, thanks very much and we'll do ours. I did notice too that in the reporting on the story —perhaps they mentioned it in the report, and I haven't read the entire ACC report, I've only gone off the news coverage— when they said lower than expected rehabilitation performance contributed towards the deficit, they didn't make any mention of their failed $74 million restructure that removed personal case managers for nearly 12,500 clients, and then oh that's not working, reinstated them. Maybe they did, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I didn't have time to read the whole report this morning, but surely the “lower than expected” rehab performance could in part be attributed to the fact that they tried a $74 million restructure of case managers that failed dismally, and now personal case managers have been reinstated. A lawyer specialising in ACC law said the reversal was not a surprise because the agency had been warned the new system would fail. When it comes to the blowout, okay, “lower than expected” rehab performance – that's staff shortages in the health sector, that's holdups in the health sector that means you're delayed in getting treatment, you're delayed in getting to see somebody, and that can attribute towards the “lower than expected” rehab performance. Also, the reason why people are taking longer to get back to work. The average claimant who received weekly compensation for less than a year took 69.7 days to return to work at the beginning of the fiscal year. By the end of the year, that number had risen to 72.8 days. So the delays in the health sector could attribute to that. And then the other issue that ACC faces is that two court judgements have increased the scope of what ACC covers and the breadth of who's entitled to this coverage. Think of the smashed babies that survive but are so badly damaged that they will never be able to work – ACC has to make an allowance for those babies for life. They will live and they will live well into their middle years, but they'll never work. There is no hope of recovery or rehabilitation for these poor children. They're also having to take into account victims of unreported childhood sexual offending who are unable to work as adults. So they have to make allowance for those people too. So the breadth of what it covers, the scope of what it covers, it could be a whole lot worse. It's still claimed that this is the best system, that this form of social insurance is still the best system. Do you agree? Do you believe that ACC is still fit for purpose? I do. I think for all of those well publicised cases of those who rort it, remember the famous Auckland businessman who was found playing tennis on his very own tennis court, under flood lights, and he had been off work for ages and ages and was exposed on the cover of the Herald on Sunday or something. He had been rorting in the system for ages. For all of those that rort, there are very many who contribute towards their own recovery and towards their own costs. It could be a whole lot worse. It means we don't have lawyers suing and countersuing, which I think is a very, very good thing. And it does mean that we can be damaged, be fixed and go back to work. On the whole, I think it's still working. And there are ebbs and flows in terms of making a profit, investing, putting money aside, getting a better return some years more than others. As far as I'm concerned there are problems with ACC – yes, the $74 million restructure that was a U-turn that led to nowhere, unfortunate, but there we go. We have to live with that, reconcile that into the books, learn from it, reinstate the case managers help people get back into work. As far as I'm concerned, I’m still happy to pay my levies, still happy to see ACC continue to provide the services and the treatments it does. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I remember about 25 years ago there was an absolute hoo-ha at the Grey Lynn Countdown, because staff there were speaking to one another in their own tongue in the common staff room. And there was a complaint from somebody who spoke English —that was the language they spoke, and they didn't speak any other languages— and they took great offence to people speaking in their mother tongue in the staff room. They said it made them feel uneasy, they didn't know what they were talking about, and you can imagine the brouhaha resulted - who was right? Who was wrong?   Now, so many years later, a memo has been sent around Waikato Hospital asking nurses to speak English only when they're on the wards. Concerns have been raised about other languages being used by nurses and the exclusive use of English in all clinical settings is safer for treating people, according to the memo. And I quote, “each nurse is required by Nursing Council New Zealand to achieve competency both in the written and spoken language of English. Consistent use of one language reduces the possibility of missed care, misunderstanding of clinical requirements and enhances safe teamwork.”   And I totally get that. I totally understand that where there are issues of clinical safety clear communication is utterly vital. There must be an unequivocal understanding between medical staff and patients around the treatment of patients. But when you're chatting to one another or to patients who might share your background and share your language, I really don't see where the problem is.   It's a real lesson in humility, as many of you will know, to go to a country where English is not the lingua franca. Especially when words are your thing, where your way of expressing yourself, where your way of participating in the world is through language. All of a sudden you go to a place where there's another language spoken, you don't speak it, and you are reduced to a basic, basic level of conversation. Despite your very best efforts to learn a few words before you go, quite different when you get there, and you are reduced to absolutely fundamental basic communication. You can't explain yourself; you can't expound on your ideas; you can’t express nuance. It's incredibly frustrating and very, very good for your humility. And gives you, I think a deeper understanding of what it must be like to come to New Zealand, to set up your home here, to set up your life here, to work here and to have English as a second language.   More credit to the people who do pass their English proficiency when they've come from somewhere else. Blimmin’ sure I wouldn't be able to pass my Mandarin proficiency or my Hindi. You know so much more than what you're communicating, and yet all the person hears on the other end is a basic one-dimensional other. So any chance you get to be you, to be all of the you rather than the basic you, I can understand why people would take that. Again, at no point should clinical safety be compromised. At no point should a patient's treatment be in any way misinterpreted because there is a lack of understanding, but if you have the time to talk to somebody in their own language, in their first language, wouldn't you take it?   I mean, anybody who's lived overseas must know what that is like and the relief when you when you start to build upon the basic structural foundation of the language you're learning, to be able to offer more of yourself through words is immense. So to people have chosen to make their life in this country who have learned English at school, quite different to using it in day-to-day life, more credit to you. Where clinical safety is paramount, English must be spoken, but if you've got a bit of downtime, can you possibly blame somebody for wanting to be all that they can be through the expression of their own language? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inflation is continuing to fall and interest rates are likely to follow suit.  The inflation rate has dropped to 2.2 percent.  It's the first time in more than three years it's returned to the Reserve Bank's 1-3% target range.  The Herald's Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham the markets are now pricing in a 100% chance the Reserve Bank will cut the OCR at least 50 basis points next month.  He says there's now serious talk about a 75 basis point cut, which normally only happens during major economic downturns like the Global Financial Crisis.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What’s the Government’s obsession with speeding things up?   Today, it’s the queues at airport security that it wants to go faster - with Transport Minister Simeon Brown looking at bringing-in private operators to run airport security instead of the Civil Aviation Authority.    As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t get through security on time and miss your flight, it’s your own fault. And I do not like the idea of private security outfits taking over.   Instead, I think the Government should be focused on getting the Civil Aviation Authority to lift its game.   Now this is done in some airports around the world. I’ve been reading about a scheme in the States. It’s also done in Australia, where private operators pretty much run all aviation security services. And Simeon Brown wants to find out if we should do the same thing here.   But I don’t think the US and Australia are the best countries for us to mimic on this one because both countries have different standards on a lot of things because they are divided into states. With each state having their own rules and regs.   We don't, which is why I think we need to stick with a standard operation right through the country, run by a single government agency.   I went through San Francisco on my way to the UK back in May this year, and I see security services there are run by an outfit called Covenant Aviation Security.   But I didn’t have any choice, and it doesn’t mean I have to like it.   My main concerns about private operators taking over here is the risk of inconsistency in training, inconsistency in approach, and the variable quality control.   I don’t like the fact that private operators don’t have the same access to the type of intel that gets shared between government agencies and not with private organisations and businesses.   Nor should they, in my view.   I like knowing that airport security is all part of the big government machine that kicks into gear when things hit the fan. For example - in times of emergency. I know that private businesses and organisations are critical and also do great things in times of strife, but it’s not the same as a public agency, like the Civil Aviation Authority. One of the unions that represents aviation security workers doesn’t like what the Government is proposing, either. And, before you get too excited, yes I can see through some of what it’s saying. Especially, its concern that what the Government is proposing could mean job losses for the people involved. So, of course, a union is going to oppose anything where that’s possible. But I’m with the National Union of Public Employees (or NUPE) when it says that privatising aviation security would be risky because the pay and conditions offered by private security firms would likely be inferior to what the Civil Aviation provides its workers. And so, you’d get less experienced people running security at the airports and there’d probably be higher staff turnover. And I’m with the union when it says that allowing the airports to hire their own private aviation providers would lead to inconsistency across the country. Because it would allow airports to cut costs and set their own standards. At the moment, the same rules and standards apply everywhere because the same outfit does it, and that’s how I think it should stay. I’m at odds, though, with someone who knows a lot more about this than me. But I’m basing my position on my gut instinct. Captain David Morgan is Air New Zealand’s chief pilot and operational integrity and safety officer - and he’s backing what the Government is looking at doing.   He’s saying today: “We are not necessarily interested in delivering aviation security, but we are interested in the enablement of alternative providers for aviation security in New Zealand." He says third-party aviation security providers are quite common everywhere else. But even though Air New Zealand’s top pilot is telling me that I’ve got nothing to worry about if the Government does go-ahead with this, I still don’t like it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How’s that miserly $20-a-week tax cut looking now that we know the country’s budget deficit is $1.8 billion worse than expected?   You might be one of the few people who are actually better-off by more than 20 bucks a week, but you’re in the minority.   And there’s no doubt that there is egg all over the Government’s face on this one. But I told you so. And it wasn’t just me who told you so, but I’ll get to that.   There will, no doubt, be people hitting back on this one —pointing out that ‘they’re not tax cuts, it’s tax “relief”— and that all the Government has done is shift the tax brackets.   But yeah yeah. Either way, same diff, most of us have an extra $20 in the pocket and the country has a $12.9 billion deficit —$1.8 billion worse than expected— the largest annual deficit since the pandemic in 2020.   Not quite as bad though as the deficits after the Global Financial Crisis in 2007 and 2008 and the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. The deficit blew-out to $18.4 after the quakes.   Not that that’s saying much because we’ve still got a $12.9 billion deficit and, yet the big brains in Wellington are still defending their tax cuts to the hilt.   Now, to be fair, the Government’s books show that while the deficit’s gone pear-shaped, the amount of money the government got in through the door was actually higher-than-expected in the past year.   But that doesn’t alter the fact that the deficit’s got worse and the Government has thrown caution to the wind and has voluntarily reduced its income.   Which I find weird for a government that says it’s bringing some business nous to the Beehive. Because in business —aside from containing costs— the number one thing when you’re in business is to try and increase revenue.       As soon as National started talking about tax cuts —or tax relief— before last year’s election, I could see then it was something the country couldn’t afford. And there was no shortage of experts lining up, saying the same.   There was the farcical idea of taxing foreign home buyers. But, even then, as soon as that idea was put to bed, National and its subsequent coalition partners still signed-up to the dream.   If I was being generous, I’d say that it was just politics. You know, it’s just the way it’s always been. Politicians promising to put more money in people's pockets. And, as people always have, they blindly swallow all the cheap talk without asking how it’s going to be paid for.   But I’m not feeling generous, and, anyway, that wasn’t the case. When all this tax cut talk started there was no shortage of people lining up to shoot it down. Even after the government was formed, the experts were still shooting it down.   Let me take you back to April this year when Gareth Kiernan from Infometrics wrote about it in the firm’s regular newsletter. Gareth is Informetrics’ chief forecaster, and he wrote back in April: "The Government’s plans to fully deliver its promised tax cuts must be in doubt, as the economy falters and the fiscal position continues to get squeezed."   He went on to say: “Forgoing another couple of billion dollars in revenue and increasing the deficit further might seem irresponsible. That conclusion becomes even more valid when one considers that National’s broader pre-election fiscal programme has led to change through the coalition negotiation process, with some estimates suggesting an additional shortfall in net revenue of about $1.5 billion.”   He was right then, and his view is even more spot-on now – now that we know that the deficit is $1.8 billion worse than expected.   The tax cuts were unaffordable and shouldn’t have happened, and the state of the Government’s books proves it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How many reviews and reports do we need before we accept that we are nowhere near as good at emergency and disaster management as we think we are here in New Zealand?   I reckon we’ll never admit it. But we should.   In fact, we shouldn’t just admit that we’re not as good as we think - we should also be looking at some major structural change. Not just more of the tinkering around the edges that the Government is talking about today.   We need to accept we’re pretty average; we need to accept that we’re a tiny country; we need to accept that, when it comes down to it, the military is the best outfit to be running our disaster response and we should be merging our civil defence and military defence functions.   The Government has announced a big overhaul of emergency and disaster management after recent reports showed just how woeful things are in this department. Particularly after what happened during and after Cyclone Gabrielle last year.   You might remember back in March this year when Mike Bush —who used to be the Police Commissioner— released his report on his review of the Civil Defence response to the cyclone.   I remember being astounded when he came out and said that Civil Defence wasn’t prepared; it hadn’t planned for worst case scenarios; and that the national emergency management system was setting people up to fail.   It was setting people up to fail.   I was astounded because it seemed the country had learned nothing from the experiences during the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes in Canterbury. It was no better prepared in 2023 than it was 12 years earlier.   So the Government’s taken all that on board and is talking about changing things.   As you’d expect, what the Government’s talking about is all high-level, strategic stuff. It’s saying things like: “We want to build an emergency management system that can continuously improve and become stronger over time”.   Which is all great stuff, but the Government’s also warning that it might have the money to do it.   So here’s what I reckon we should be doing:  You know how after a disaster the army either turns up to help or people call for the army to be sent in? I think the army or our defence force (even though it’s way under-resourced in a lot of areas itself) should be doing the planning and the leading during times of disaster.   I heard Emergency Management Minister Mark Mitchell on Newstalk ZB listing all the people involved in emergency management in this country. Which tells me there are just too many cooks in the kitchen.   And that’s the nub of why we seem to be getting no better at disaster planning, disaster response, and disaster management.   From my experience, there are a lot of moustaches involved. A lot of testosterone, and a lot of egos.   You don’t get that in the military. There are hierarchies that people operate under in the defence force. In normal times and during times of disaster. The military has communication functions and capabilities that no local council is ever going to have.   It does plan for worst case scenarios. It does all the things our disaster and emergency management people haven’t been doing and have been called-out for not doing it. Not just in Mike Bush’s report, but others as well.   And that’s why I’m more convinced than ever that, instead of pouring more time and money into a standalone civil defence system —one the Government itself is saying today needs to improve, but is also saying that there might not be the money to do it— that’s why I think we should be merging our civil defence and military defence functions.   Or, to put it another way: I think we should be bringing the army in well before disaster strikes. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Penalties could be on the cards for careless builders as the Government looks to strengthen professional requirements.  It's eyeing key changes to the registration and licensing regimes, with a focus on lifting competence and accountability requirements; as well as improving Building Act consumer protections. Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk confirms it's also looking into a new offence for deliberately hiding non-compliant building work in remote inspections.  That would mean a $50,000 fine for individuals or $150,000 for businesses, should it become law.  Kerre Woodham is joined by Master Builders Chief Executive Ankit Sharma to discuss further.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.