Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Most of us are doing it at the moment, aren't we? Crunching the numbers of the household budget, seeing where we can make economies? Whether there's any way we can earn a little bit extra. Sorting out what the necessities might be, what the nice to haves are. The Mayor of Auckland is no different. He released his final budget proposal about half an hour ago, a day later than planned, and one of his main drivers is privatising the $2.2 billion shareholding in Auckland Airport. He wants the Council to offload that. He's willing to offer sweeteners to councillors to get his budget and the sale of the shares across the line. He'll reinstate funding for social services and the arts, as well as a $16 million budget cut for local boards. And he'll increase the pay of bus drivers to $30.00 an hour in an attempt to restore suspended services. But to get the sweetners, to get the lollies, councillors are going to have to vote to offload the shares, which is, Mayor Brown says when he was talking to Mike Hosking this morning, the best investment the council could make for itself. Wayne Brown's quite right. You can't just print money and we've seen what happens when you do that. You have to find the economies in real time, in real life. The way Wayne Brown puts it, selling the shares makes sense. Why would you borrow all of that money and pay $100 million in interest a year, to earn $20 - $30 million back? Is it that there is an expectation that the shares are going to increase in value to the point that you'll make $200 million in dividends? But when? And can you afford to play the stock market with other people's rate money?  I wouldn't have thought so.   I get the selling of the shares. I'm all for it. Unless you can give me a compelling reason otherwise. And I get that you have to raise rates, but just putting it on the shoulders of business again might be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many businesses.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NZ Herald Super City reporter Bernard Orsman joined Kerre Woodham mornings to break down what has been described as a chaotic press conference for Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown's budget reveal. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've been trying to get my head around just how big a deal the issue is with Jan Tinetti, Minister of Education, who has now been referred to Parliament's powerful Privileges Committee. This is following her failure to correct and inaccurate statements she made in Parliament back on, I think it was February 22nd. So what happened? Jan Tinetti was asked a question, I think by Erica Stanford, in the house, and she was asked to categorically state that she had played no part in the delay of a release of school attendance information. She said she had already stated that. She then said that it was a decision for the Ministry. Well, it turns out that her office had instructed officials to delay the release of the information, and they'd done that so it could be timed with a truancy announcement. So, she had misled the house. Here's the problem for Jan Tinetti, she learned that she had made a false statement that day. After Question Time back in 22nd of February, she's made a statement; she said no, nothing to do with it. Comes out, finds out from official, oh I made a false statement. She did nothing about that. She didn't correct that statement until after she received a letter from the speaker, Adrian Rurawhe on May 1st, saying that her answer needed to be correct. So she did it the next day. I mean it’s not an argument or a conversation in the bloody pub is it? It’s Parliament, you’d think you would know the rules. Personally, if it was me, I'd be mortified if I knew I'd made a statement that was incorrect. For me, while the charge she's going to face is contempt and she's going to have to account for her delay in correcting the record, to me, I think by far who most egregious offence is not knowing the bloody rules in the first place.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a big story, a big call, that's been made by the Metropolitan Police in the UK. It’s pretty dramatic on the face of it. The police chief there has announced that the Metropolitan Police in the UK will no longer attend emergency calls related to mental health incidents.  It's not just an advisory; it's an order by the chief to their officers not to attend the thousands of calls that police get every year to deal with mental health issues. There are two essential reasons given. One is that in sending police instead of medical professionals, those in a mental health crisis are being failed, and not getting the right people to assist them. And secondly, the failure to the public, in general, and the huge amount of time that it takes away from the police from the essential duties they have in solving and preventing crime, as well as dealing with the victims of crime. And one of the stats there, which I imagine is quite comparable to here, is it takes about 14 hours to deal with the mental health patient and hand them over to people who are better qualified to look after them. Now, look, it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see that this issue has likely inevitable parallels with New Zealand.   If I had a relative who was having a mental health crisis and needed help, I'm actually not sure where I'd turn, especially in the wee small hours.  Maybe with the challenges that we have with law and order, it is time for us to follow suit and be a bit more hard-nosed about this and make the same call and let the police get on with their job. And what is their job? Dealing with crime. Let them look after dealing with crime, preventing crime and dealing with the victims of crime.   You don't have to look too far, of course, to see that we’re obviously we're not doing well on that. Another $11 million from the Government for fog cannon when it's not stopping some people being robbed.  So is it time for us to make the same call and let the police get on with the job that they're trained for? But then how do we handle our mental health patients? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's expected today that Police Commissioner Andrew Coster is going to announce a revision of the police pursuit policy and that a “fleeing driver framework would be introduced. The New Zealand Herald is reporting that this framework is going to give the police, finally, the discretion that everyone's been calling out for. So they're going to give them the discretion whether or not to chase, based on an assessment of the crime that the driver has committed, and the risk they pose to the public.   What difference when it comes to crime is this really going to make? Last week, there was an interview with Heather Du Plessis Allan and Police Commissioner Andrew Coster, where, I thought he made a telling comment. One comment he made was that basically the police can only catch them. But after that they don't have any more to do with the consequence that follows to the offenders, because he said well, you know we don't we don't have any responsibility for what happens once they hit the justice system.   Which I thought was a pretty candid moment for the Police Commissioner. In other words, well we can catch him, but beyond that, don't look at me.  It seems to me that the Police Commissioner might even himself, in his private moments, quietly have thrown his hands up in the air at the lack of consequence which people face once they've been caught, after the police have actually done their job.   And maybe this is evident in the news about those pitch invaders, 12 people arrested running onto the field during the Warriors match. I mean, why do they do it? Well, one reason is because they have no fear of the consequences.   Look, I think it's irresistible that we need to give the police more choice when it comes to pursuing offenders. But here's the question, will it really make a difference? Because when it comes to crime and punishment, it seems there are still no consequences that people are afraid of.  When it comes to consequences at the moment, I'd say pardon my French there’s ****** all. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

First up, the polls. Remember yesterday when I asked what Christopher Luxon had been smoking with his backtrack on the housing accord? Well, clearly, whatever Christopher Luxon has been smoking, the people want a bit of.   The latest 1News Kantar Public poll has seen National and ACT able to form a government, if the survey reflected election results.  That would be National on 47, ACT 15, making 62 seats and enough to form a government. A Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori coalition could only reach 58 seats, in this latest poll, and it was the Greens who dropped the ball with all their in-house fractiousness and infighting, they were down four points to just seven. They will probably rebound. They generally do well during elections. But for those who were calling for National’s leader to be changed, does this poll change your mind? Surely, it's too close to the election to change riders now. People, myself included, have always said that if you met Christopher Luxon, you'd like him. He's a likable chap. You can't really be in politics unless you have a certain amount of personality. And when you meet politicians, especially the ones who are leading the parties, of whatever hue, they are generally very likeable people. If his old-fashioned electioneering - travelling around the country doing the shake and howdys, speaking at neighbourhood meetings, giving people the opportunity to meet the man and decide they like him - if that's working. Are people actually getting to meet the man and seeing the cut of his jib and liking it? Or are Nationals policies on tax cuts and law and order, and now stepping back from the housing accord, is that what is doing the business? Or is it simply that more and more people, not just listeners to Newstalk ZB, but more and more people, have had a gutsy full of Labour. What do you think it is?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National has done a U-turn on increasing density in main centres. The Party helped form the Medium Density Residential Standards alongside the Government, allowing three-storey housing in all residential areas, but has now reversed its position. Leader Christopher Luxon has said he intends to change the rules on housing density if he forms the next government. Greenfields development, which means converting farmland into suburbs, will be favoured instead. Mt Hobson Group is a specialist Urban Planning and Resource Management consultancy and Director Hamish Firth joined Kerre Woodham. LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On occasion, I do wonder why people listen to talkback. How is it that format can attract so many listeners? But I think, after myself listening to a lot of politicians in the past few weeks, it's because when we are talking, you and me, we're actually talking. We're trying to communicate. We're trying to get a point across. We're trying to make a statement. We're trying to get people to understand our point of view or we're reinforcing a point of view. We're not obfuscating. We're not stonewalling or uttering platitudes because we don't have any answers. If we don't know, we (you and me) say so.  I don't know. Or if we're wrong, we're like ‘I'm really sorry I was wrong. I got that wrong.’ If we're passionate about a topic, then we will speak our minds and you will hear it.   It'd be a game-changer if a politician actually spoke their mind. I don't know if you heard the interview with the Prime Minister yesterday?   Very nice man. Held his line, but absolutely nothing in terms of concrete answers. There was a lot of acknowledgement but nothing in terms of solutions. I acknowledge the cost of living is hurting New Zealand families. I acknowledge the pain felt by victims of crime. I acknowledge that there's been a spike in retail crime. I acknowledge small businesses are doing it tough. There's a lot of empathy, no answers.   And it was like that this morning with the Police Minister taking a leaf out of her boss's book. Ginny Andersen's acknowledgments tumbled out of her mouth when she was drilled about the assaults on police.   While you have people who choose not to participate, who choose to live on the outside of society and to, and happily do so, they have no truck with abiding by the rules, then you cannot police by consent. It's a flawed policy. You cannot have police going to work and getting assaulted. More than 1000 attacks during 2022. Toughen up the laws. Start giving the police a bit more authority so they can command respect not and ask for it. Honestly, the dissatisfaction that has come through from the police and the families of police through the text machine, through emails and through a few phone calls has been extraordinary. I've never seen the like of it, and I don't blame them one little bit. And again, it's people who want to be able to do their jobs well, like the teachers, like the nurses and doctors, like the police. They've got the skills, they've got the ability, they've got the desire to serve the New Zealand community and conditions make it impossible for them to do their best. Anti-social people who have absolutely no interest in participating in the community make their jobs hell; in the classroom, in the hospitals, on the streets. This whole idea that these people are poor oppressed victims of their own dysfunctional families and living in a society where nobody cares about them is flawed. People do care but it has to be a two way street. You have to want to be part of a community. You have to access the services that exist. If they're not the right ones, ask for the right ones. There's never been a time where your voice will be more clearly heard.   I don't need empathy from my politicians. I don't need you to acknowledge my pain, my hurt, my distress. You campaigned and you got the job to do something about it. So let's see some results.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Economists predict the Official Cash Rate will rise today, but opinions differ on whether it'll be a 25 basis point increase, or 50. Mortgage advisory firm Squirrel Chief Executive, David Cunningham, has penned an open letter to the Reserve Bank Governor saying they shouldn't lift the OCR. He says the effects of measures already taken are still unrolling. He told Kerre Woodham his letter is born out of a frustration over economists accepting interest rates must rise more. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins spent an hour on Kerre Woodham Mornings talking the topics that concern Kiwis the most. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.