Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Midday today, our time, is the deadline set by President Trump for the reopening of the Straits of Hormuz. Failure to do so will apparently be punished by a widespread bombing campaign on civilian targets in Iran.   Of course, for all of us, this is a bit worrying and a little bit horrifying. I had been saying around the office today, welcome to the end of civilization. I said that to Murray Kirkness, the editor of the Herald, and he said, not all civilizations, Andrew, and that's true. Iran is facing the gun.   The threat on civilian targets appears to be the very definition of a war crime, but it seems as though the President doesn't care, as he thunders at the mullahs from his warm and cozy lectern safe in Washington. Iranian civilization will die at 8pm Eastern Standard Time if they don't comply. That's not my words. That's not me summarizing what the President said, that's what the President said.   That's one of the weird aspects of the past two days – the President's language. There has been no stirring patriotic defence of liberty and democracy, and that we have a higher cause to pursue. There has been no grave, hushed tones outlining the scale of events that have deserved a mission that has been called Epic Fury. No, what we've had is an 80-year-old perma-tanned man in a boxy suit sitting at a lectern calling his opponents crazy bastards and promising an end of civilisation day. It's like a third-rate war movie. It's the product of a man who's spent 10,000 days watching bad reality TV and not a statesman who's studied leadership through the ages. I've never heard anyone say anything like this ever before. Not even crazy guys like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un. They don't say stuff this crazy. This is pretty crazy.   I actually find the President's intemperate language to be quite off-putting, but maybe some find it refreshing. And maybe it's something that people have waited to hear for a long time because we've been battling against this Iranian regime for 47 long years. I don't know, you tell me. The President's language over the last two days, does that worry, scare, and horrify you? Or do you go, no, we need a strong man and finally people are saying what needs to be said?   Meanwhile, the so-called crazy bastards, Iran, who indeed are utterly loathsome people and a dreadful regime, they seem to be taking it like a martyr, putting their people in harm's way as human shields, turning the other cheek, almost wanting the worst to happen so that the world might see them as the victims of a lunatic, not that they have been lunatics for 47 years and deserve some retribution. They haven't railed with bad language, all they said is President Trump is deluded. They seem to be the grown-ups in the room, but that seems weird because we know they are evil, crazy bastards.   The world is used to Trump's bargaining methods. He starts hard and high and then he negotiates down. He's done it enough for the term taco to be created: TACO is an acronym for Trump Always Chickens Out. Will he chicken out today? Realizing that he's been threatening – I think this is the third threat he's made to Iran. So how many times can you cry wolf before you feel forced and obligated to do what many people think could be quite unthinkable? Are we three hours away from a cataclysmic attack on a sovereign nation by the United States of America?   And if the worst does happen, one question that has not been discussed is how will Iran react? If this was happening to you, if America came and took out the Auckland Harbour Bridge, how would you want to react to this situation? Would you set up a human shield, turn the other cheek, and go, oh yeah, look at that, he's crazy, and take the hit? How will Iran react? The so-called home of terrorism, which isn't this why this has all happened? It's ended up being framed as a battle for the Strait of Hormuz, but remember, this all happened because Israel and the United States wanted to remove a regime. It was regime change. It was to get rid of the crazy pastors to save the women and children of Iran – that's what the conflict is actually about. Now they've transmogrified it into being all about opening up the Strait of Hormuz, but that's a symptom. That's not the actual cause of the illness, of the antagonism between the two sides. That's a symptom of it.   So, how would Iran react? They are the so-called home of terrorism. They've had 47 years to prepare for this conflict. I would presume they have terror cells everywhere. Do you think that if this happens today at midday and bridges get taken out and power plants get taken out and Iranian civilians get wiped out, do you think Iran's just going to sit there and say, told you so? Or do you think it could cause a new age of terrorism? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A major new Australian study tracking more than 270,000 children has found that long hours in childcare — especially more than 40 hours a week — are linked with a higher risk of children struggling with social competence and emotional maturity by the time they reach school.   And that makes total sense, doesn’t it? That’s because they basically go into a school system – they're being educated, they’re being taught how to read, maybe they’re being taught how to write, maybe they’re being taught maths. But are they being taught how to socially interact within a community? Something that parents are very, very good at – educators, not so much.   The research, released by the federal Department of Education, matched childcare, health, and census data with assessments from teachers across five key developmental areas. It found that as weekly childcare hours increased beyond 30, so did the likelihood of developmental vulnerability. Children in more than 40 hours had the highest risk.  But it’s not all one-sided. The study also found that childcare can be beneficial for language, cognitive skills, communication, and general knowledge. And for children from disadvantaged backgrounds — including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, single-parent families, and children with a language background other than English — formal childcare was associated with better outcomes across all domains.  Quality mattered too. Children attending higher-rated centres had a lower risk of developmental vulnerability, while lower-quality care increased that risk.   So they say you need strong, stable relationships with good educators, and they say the problem with early childcare education in Australia, and here in New Zealand, is high staff turnover. If you’re turning over your staff all the time because people get hacked off and they move on, it contributes to poor social and emotional outcomes.   So in Australia, they’re actually expanding childcare subsidies. They realise that two income families are the norm now – that's the only way you can afford to do it. They’re looking at alternatives, they’re looking at vouchers, looking at income splitting. And they’re looking at extended parental leave so the parents can actually stay there and look after the kids for longer, rather than putting them in the care of an early childcare centre. Advocacy groups have come out and say, well, if you’re worries about this, you can’t just reduce your hours, but what we really have to do is improve the quality. So here’s a question for you: how do you make sure that we’ve got good early child care, quality in the sector? The sector in Australia is under pressure – there's been abuse allegations, there’s workplace shortages. The Government says its pay rise for educators and new funding for not-for-profit centres aim to lift quality and stabilise staffing, but it ain’t working yet.  The study reinforces that preschool remains strongly beneficial but also highlights that childcare isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, and that the quality of care, and the amount of time children spend in it, both matter. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New technology promises to speed up the process in checking for skin cancer, and it's set to take the pressure off the health system. Skinscape 360's new full-body scanner is one of just 115 of its type in the world and uses 92 cameras to take an instant 3D snapshot of a patient in order to quickly flag anything of concern. Dermoscopist Clare Gunn says this technology isn't covered by insurance yet - but they're hoping to change that to help as many Kiwis as they can. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I want to start with the story of Jacquie Kidd. Jacquie's a former nurse who's spent more than 20 years researching Māori health inequities. She is the AUT professor of Māori health and she is now facing her own terminal cancer diagnosis. She's got a touch of the bowel cancer, which has now spread to her lungs. She is 62 years of age.  Since she's found out about this cancer, she's penned a memoir called ‘Ngākaurua: My experience of cancer, identity and racism in Aotearoa’. Because of her work, obviously she's concentrated in her memoir and in her thoughts on how hard it is for Māori to get screened, how important it is for Māori to get screened for cancer. She's written that the system is too complex and that Māori also loathe to investigate symptoms because they don't want to be a burden to their whānau.  While all of her work means that she is concentrating on the issues for Māori, there is one particular sentence in her story that rang true for me, for all New Zealanders. She said there is a magical age of 60 when free screening begins in New Zealand. Jacquie first thought that something was wrong with her when she was 58 years of age, so she went along to her doctor and said, look, I'm not right, can I get some of this free screening? And he said, there's no way you'll get it. And he just said no. He only relented when she said, look, I've got health insurance that will pay for it. And he went, oh okay, off you go, you know, go and find out about it. Guess what? She found out about it. She had it. Now, this is a question we've dealt with before. We've seen the free bowel screening eligibility test age lowered from 60 to 58 now. However, that came too late for Jacquie to get a free screening test, so she had to pay for it herself.  The question is, do we have some magical age, some limit of 60 before we start caring about people's health? What is the situation in New Zealand? Well, New Zealand has three national screening programmes with defined free screening age ranges. So the first is cervical cancer. We have free screening available for Māori aged between 25 and 69 and for everybody else from 30. From 30 you can get screened for cervical cancer. Why there is a difference, I don't know, but we'll talk about that later.  Breast cancer, there are free mammograms every two years for people with breasts who want to get it checked. And I can say with breasts because you can get breast cancer if you're a man as well, but how many men go for a breast cancer screening service? But you get a free mammogram every two years if you've got breasts, if you're aged between 45 to 69. And of course, bowel cancer, which I've already mentioned, free home test kit every two years for men and women from 58 to 74 – why you can stop at 74 I don't know. Of course that change to 58 might have helped Jacquie if it came in earlier.  The thing about that, that's what we're doing now. How does that compare with overseas? In Europe and Australia, free screening for cervical cancer starts for everyone from the age of 25. For breast cancer screening, that starts at the age of 40 in the States and in Australia, compared to 45 here. And for bowel and colorectal cancer, Australia starts free screening at 50 while we start at 58.  And looking at all the figures that I managed to pull out, on average, wealthy countries worldwide start free screening for cancer earlier than here in New Zealand. And not only that, they screen for more types of cancer too. So my question for you is how important is screening and why is our medical community not pushing for screening to come in sooner? Why did Jacquie go along to her doctor and say, I'd like to have the screening right now, and he says, well they won't give you a free one, and he tried to put her off? Why did that happen? She was 58  Apparently, there's a magical age of 60 when people start to worry about you. Are they not pushing this purely because of cost? Most found their symptoms in their early 50s, but all were diagnosed purely because they had health insurance, which is all well and good if you can afford that. But on the question of the cost to the state of the screening programmes, you've got to remember that the later you're diagnosed, the more expensive your treatment becomes. So earlier diagnosis means a greater chance of success, obviously, but it also means for the state that more late-stage cancers do not become a burden.  And the treatment for cancer is hideously expensive, isn't it? And everybody who's being treated takes up a hospital bed. Again, that's a burden to the state. Is it more expensive to start free screening later in age than it is to start it earlier in age? And how do you feel about this? Is it time to move the perception in this country of the magical age of 60 being when things might start falling apart to something younger? And could I even suggest 50? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An ACT MP is questioning the spending of taxpayer money on a football match.    The Government's supporting a clash between English Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur and Auckland FC at Eden Park as part of its $70 million Major Events package.  ACT MP Todd Stephenson is asking why the match is being subsidised by taxpayers, when neither club is a charity and both are backed by billionaires.   He told Andrew Dickens he’s had a lot of feedback from people in the tourism and hospitality sectors, as well as local councils, asking for a better process around the fund, as they believe there could be better uses of taxpayer money.   As Stephenson understands it, the current system has MBIE seeking out what they think will be a hot gig and then reaching out to the organisation, instead of asking people to come forward.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here we are in the middle of autumn, or is it the start of another winter of discontent? Because April the 1st is the time of scheduled price increases. All sorts of things are going up. The minimum wage goes up today, putting more pressure on small businesses. Thank you very much, at a time of pressure anyway, you're going to have to spend more on your wage bill. Meanwhile, the ACC earners' levy is going up to $1.75 for every $100 you earn from today. That is up from $1.57, up 11%. So you'll be paying 11% more of your wage into ACC than you were before. That is up to a limit of $156,000 or something like that. It's going to hit us all.   But the one you're probably going to feel the most and the one that's getting the headlines today is your electricity bill. Electricity bills are rising nationwide. Line charges are increasing again from today. Average households will see a bill increasing by about $5 more every month. There's no single price increase. What households will actually see on their power bill will vary a lot depending on where you live, what plan you're on, and what retailer you're with. Some householders will see a small increase, some will see a large increase. Some are going to be hit by an extra $20 a month. Times that by 12 and see if you can afford that right now.  Just a quick reminder, there are about 28 different lines companies in New Zealand. They all have their own lines charges, so this is why the prices change depending on where you are. Why you will pay in some cases $5 extra a month, that's the average, you might pay less than that, but you might pay up to $20 a month more for your line charges. There will be also a 5 to 10% increase in power bills this year anyway because of, you know, power. And that's on top of the 12% we saw last year. So all this you have to say is terrible timing. We're in an energy crisis when it comes to fossil fuels, that's already raging. So this just does not feel fair, does it?  However, the Commerce Commission yesterday said the power price increase is justified. They need the money to improve the lines so that you can get the power into your house. So it's one of these scheduled increases that isn't dependent on the overall economy or how New Zealand Inc is doing, it's just things cost more. Terrible, terrible timing. The Commerce Commission yesterday said the power price increase is justified, but the Chair of the Commission said a little bit more. He said he hoped that something like electricity suppliers being split into generators and retailers would happen to create more competition. This is the quote from him: He said it's really important for us with our competition hat on to make sure that something a little bit like this happens, the splitting of the gentailers, so that the generators are not favouring their own retail arm when they're selling electricity, so that they can end out selling electricity at the lowest rate, the most competitive rate.  Splitting the gentailers was announced as Winston's election policy this year. Now it's getting support from the Commerce Commission. So my question for you could be, should all political parties now accept that this is probably a good idea and crack on with it, and would you like to see that happen? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"It's the economy, stupid," is a catchphrase that means the primary concern of American voters is the state of the American economy and how that economy affects their personal finances. It was a phrase coined by a strategist in Bill Clinton's successful presidential campaign, and it's pretty much what Christopher Luxon campaigned on in 2023.   The Labour Government were, and I paraphrase, incompetent economic vandals who had done incalculable damage to the New Zealand economy and only by electing a National Party into government could New Zealand's fortunes be restored. That was pretty much the narrative going into ‘23. Add to that a little bit of light law and order and education and you had the election campaign. Three years on we're heading into another election, and the economic headlines are grim. Example: ASB economists have joined Westpac in forecasting that the economy will contract in the second quarter of the year. Households are only just starting to feel some relief according to ASB's chief economist Nick Tuffley. Higher fuel prices are now squeezing budgets again. That pressure will be felt right across the economy.   Here's another headline: Finance Minister Nicola Willis has revealed inflation is set to go much higher this year and sit outside the Reserve Bank's target band of 1 to 3%. Here's another: Prospects for a recovery in the labour market this year appear to have dimmed with any decline in the unemployment rate looking more like a story for next year. Infometrics said any signs the economy was starting to recover would most likely be put on hold. Here's another: Wattie's factory closures, boss blames soaring manufacturing costs. Contrast that with Christopher Luxon back in 2023 and his bullish promises that help was on the way, first when he was speaking to me in July.  “It's going to be a big turnaround job because I think actually we've got a great country but a lot of it is going to be pretty decayed by the time we get there in terms of health, education, housing, the economy, law and order. But that's why I've got my team working on that right now because when we get there, we're not forming steering review, you know we had what was it, 230 working groups to do reviews of stuff. We're going to be ready to go on day one and we're going to have to move at 100ks an hour.   “So we will have to be really, really clear about the things that we need to transform and actually step up and change a lot and it is going to be education, it is going to be healthcare, it is going to have to be the economy, making sure we're making every dollar count and get a payback for it.”  And this was Christopher Luxon in November:  “I don't want people to give up hope. You know, we can actually get to a better and a different place from where we sit today, but we do have to go to work now and we have to go sort out the challenges and we have to realise the opportunities we've got in front of us, and we have to be straight up about it and get it done and get the country turned around.”  Hmm. Have they? No. They won't be able to campaign on that. Is some of it due to external forces like the fuel crisis? Absolutely. But there were no caveats in the promise that things would turn around and things would get better. Could Labour have done any better? Hell no. I mean they'd already shown they can't cope in a crisis other than throwing money around and locking people up. They simply have no answers. Thank God they're not the government right now otherwise we'd all be working from home and homeschooling the kids because of the fuel crisis or strong winds. But when you look at the polls and you wonder to yourself how on earth could anyone possibly see Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori as a viable government, what you're seeing are voters who were promised much and have yet to see the delivery. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand First is ramping up its campaigning with an election fast approaching. They announced that if they have any say in the matter, if they form any part of a government, half of all mining royalties will go to the region from whence it came rather than head straight into the treasury coffers in Wellington. New Zealand First says it will build up wealth and infrastructure in the regions allowing for future development rather than having the money spent across wider national projects, so flood mitigation in Westport rather than four lane highways north of Auckland. I really like that idea. The funds would be directed to things like water services, flood protection, energy generation, tourism and transport to enable housing development in areas of high minerals industry growth and critical infrastructure projects, according to the party statement. As I say, I like the idea. What's not to like? The West Coast Regional Council has the smallest operating budget and fewest staff of any regional authority, yet it's facing huge costs for specialised protection works such as those in the Karamea and Punakaiki ratings district. With a population of just under 35,000 and only 20 to 25,000 of those being ratepayers, there's not a lot of money coming in to do essential work and yet they're generating a huge amount of income. Why should they not share in the proceeds? We don't get a huge amount from mining royalties compared to what it generates, 250 million last year, but it's all relative. Imagine tens of million into the West Coast, it would make the world of difference to the people and the land. It is really only fair when you think about it that the region that supplies the raw materials and the workers gets a bit more of the proceeds as Jamie Cleine, former mayor of Buller and now a New Zealand First candidate, told Ryan Bridge this morning. One of the issues the West Coast has, small population base, huge geographic area and and like most of New Zealand, massive infrastructure needs and ability to pay, affordability, all of those things are affecting our region. So it's high time that the minerals royalty scheme gets a bit of a shake up and to hear that there's appetite, New Zealand First are certainly campaigning on 50% of those royalties coming back to the regions where the minerals are coming from is music to my ears. Alongside that of course is, you know, we've got an industry that wants to ramp up and a lot of that requires civil infrastructure to be to be put in ahead of time to facilitate building and accommodating all of the, you know, the wave of workforce that are coming. And so an ability to do that and make sense to focus that on the areas where the growth's going to occur in the mineral sector. So, yeah, makes sense, doesn't it? However, and there's always a however, generally with most good ideas there's a however. You're only going to get, this is what Ryan referenced on Early Edition this morning as well, we're only going to get royalties if we're mining, if we're digging the stuff out of the ground and selling it overseas. Last year mining contributed 2.83 billion to New Zealand's GDP. So, you know, it's worth exploring, it's worth investigating. We think that. But we'll only get investment in mining if we get a bipartisan agreement from our main parties. It is absolutely pointless for any mining company to invest huge amounts of money in this country only to be told to get out and stay out by an incoming government. They're not going to invest. They're not going to take that risk until they know that they can be here for enough time to make a profit. It's got to work for them, it's got to work for us. So this is all very well and good, New Zealand First saying, Yes, let's put half of the royalties back into the regions from whence they came." Couldn't agree more. It will do wonders for all of New Zealand. Quite agree. It's only fair and right. Absolutely. But we have to have the confidence, we have to have the guarantee before mining companies will invest here, otherwise 50% of nothing is nothing. Love to get your thoughts on this. I mean, it is hard to disagree with the concept, isn't it, that 50% of the royalties go back to the regions, to Hauraki, to the West Coast. But why would you invest here when there is uncertainty? The thing investors love more than anything is certainty in an uncertain world. And if they think that a Labour Greens Te Pāti Māori coalition is going to send them packing, they're not going to commit millions and millions and millions of dollars. So what chance do you think we have of getting a bipartisan agreement? This country needs money. We need to sell what we've got so that we can invest in the schools and the hospitals and the public health system and and the like. Yes, we can make cuts and we should be making cuts in some areas, means testing the super and the like, but they're unpopular to voters. We also need to grow the economy and what we've got are minerals and resources. But there's a strong and vocal lobby group that doesn't want to sell those off. They want to leave the ground pristine as and as it is, which is fine, but then you have to accept that we can't have all the luxuries that come with living in a first world. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The former Prime Minister, the former Health Minister, the leader of the Labour Party has to go. His position is simply untenable. Chris Hipkins has consistently maintained he never received advice telling him there was a risk involved in requiring 12 to 17-year-olds to have a second Covid vaccination. As the Herald headline says this morning, a Cabinet paper shows otherwise.   Derek Cheng's story shows that the Covid Vaccine Technical Advisory Group told the Health Ministry in November that younger age groups are more at risk than older age groups of myocarditis after a second dose. They said one dose was still worth it based on early data, catching Covid-19 presented an even greater risk of myocarditis. Consideration should be given to permitting younger people 18 and under who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the education mandate. So that was from the Covid Vaccine Technical Advisory Group, they gave that advice to Sir Ashley Bloomfield. That information was passed on. Chris Hipkins says don't know, don't recall, didn't see it. Health Minister Simeon Brown says those protestations do not stand up under scrutiny.  “The paper trail proves that he did know and the question is what did he do when he did know? And if the answer to that is nothing, well then the reality is there were 12 to 17-year-olds who there was known risk around a second dose, and nothing was done.”  And that's what I want to know. Like when National Party Minister Simon Watts told Ryan Bridge today that as a parent of a teenager, he was upset he didn't have all the information. And that's it, as parents you want to know about the potential risks of any vaccine.  “You sort of get paid to read your Cabinet papers, don't you? I can't remember, that doesn't cut it. If he had the advice, he didn't read it or he didn't review it, you've got to own it. He was in charge, he's accountable.”  Absolutely. And that's why he has to go. Hipkins says look, we had to make tough decisions under extraordinary pressure and a rapidly changing environment. Of course he did. But New Zealanders surely expect their Minister of Health during a public health crisis to stay abreast of changing information, to stay abreast of data and advice around vaccines, especially when people were concerned about a nationwide vaccination programme, about the fact that we couldn't do anything, go anywhere until we were all vaccinated up the ying yang. When people had concerns about how quickly the vaccines were being developed and you know, I read what I read around the research around that and was happy enough to take the risk. Other people, all people wanted to know was the information, and I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the Minister of Health to be on top of all that.   As for his claim that the Government made numerous efforts to communicate safety issues around myocarditis and pericarditis, that is absolute BS. Can you recall on any occasion when the pulpit of truth illuminated any concerns whatsoever around the vaccines? I mean, I might have missed it. I was in my own world of pain and misery and going quietly insane myself, but I may have missed it. But I would really love to hear from parents of teenagers, did at any time did you hear any concerns? Anybody who did dare raise questions was cast out as a Covid denier, they were everyone was lumped into one, ‘oh watch this YouTube video, that'll open your eyes’. You were all cast into one box. If you were a parent of a teenager, you might have been listening more closely because it was more relevant to you. Chris Hipkins claims when he was Minister of Health he did not see information around potential health risks around vaccinating teenagers. So he's either incompetent or he's a liar. Either way, he cannot stay on. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I doubt there'll be many people out on the water —certainly not in the upper North Island on the East Coast— but the next time you go out, let me know what the catch is like. The Government's done a U-turn on minimum size limits for commercial fishers, but that's not enough for fishing advocacy groups. They want the Government to kill the Fisheries Amendment Bill entirely. They say it's not doing enough to protect our fish stocks. Meanwhile, Seafood New Zealand says it's ironic that the change has resulted in an outcome that's not great for the environment and doesn't provide the incentive to avoid catching small fish. So when the advocacy groups and the commercial fishers are not happy, you'd have to wonder at the point of the bill.   The Fisheries Amendment Bill as drafted would have ditched most commercial size limits, effectively allowing commercial vessels to land and sell baby fish if they can, including snapper and tarakihi. Recreational fishers said this is madness, the changes would decimate future populations. Other people say, well, it's a bit more complicated than that. Catching the big fish, they're the ones that have the babies. So nobody's happy. Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has argued that the change would prevent wastage, but after public outcry was forced into a major U-turn over his plans. He says, hey ho, it's democracy in action and isn't that good to see. But still, no one is happy. Sam Woolford from LegaSea told Mike Hosking this morning that the fight is not over.  “No, it's definitely not over and I think that's the really important thing is that there's actually some really nefarious stuff still in the legislation. They want to remove judicial reviews or make it really hard for public to get involved in public consultation. They're still going to legalize dumping and discarding of fish at sea. So even if they catch those undersized fish, they're still going to be legally allowed to dump them.”  Well, quite. Seafood New Zealand Chief Executive Lisa Futschek told Radio New Zealand she was disappointed because the proposal would have strengthened the incentives for commercial fishers to avoid catching small fish. She says we don't want to catch small fish. Our processors don't want to process small fish. This proposal would have provided incentives not to catch small fish. She said the change would have meant those catching small fish would have needed to balance that fish against their quotas. They would have had to pay for it. As it turns out, removing that clause means the status quo remains. That is, fishers that catch small fish return them to the sea and don't pay for it.   So is it time to go back to the drawing board? If everyone thinks the bill is a dog and isn't addressing the real issues, everybody within their own particular lobby group or advocacy group is saying no, it doesn't address the issues. The environmental groups, the commercial fishers, the recreational fishers, maybe it's time to tear it up and start again. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.