Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced what we all know to be true, that we have an energy security crisis.   We seem to have been having them for a while now, every winter there are concerns about brownouts. The Electricity Authority put it into plain English on their website - winter sees the highest demand for electricity, obviously, also when it's unseasonably cold in autumn or spring, that can cause high demand periods. The winter peak capacity reflects the ability of the electricity system to meet high winter demand. So typically, solar doesn't produce electricity during peak demand periods in winter because it's dark. Wind generation, which is 10% of New Zealand's electricity generation capacity and growing, isn't reliable because, who knew, but cool temperatures bring low wind speeds. So solar is out, wind generation is out during winter.   That leaves hydro, geothermal, and thermal generation to provide the bulk of electricity during high demand periods. Geothermal already runs at near full capacity, so only thermal and hydro can ramp up and down to meet the winter peaks. But when you have a perfect storm, as the Prime Minister called it yesterday, winter peak capacity and a dry year, when low rainfall sees the hydro lake levels fall below average for an extended period of time, hydropower can't ramp up. There's no water there, they can’t push the turbines.   So then we have to burn coal. Coal use soared in 2021 to the highest in about 30 odd years. Then coal use plummeted in 2022, reflecting the vagaries of the weather and the fact that some more renewables were coming online. But while solar and wind can store some excess energy using batteries, that's limited to only a few hours' worth of electricity, and isn't enough to manage a situation where rainfall is below average for weeks to months. So there are all sorts of solutions being explored to try and make up for those dry years during winter.   I mean it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? We've known about this for a very, very long time. We are dependent on rainfall during winter, we use more electricity during winter. If there is a dry year, we have to get the energy from somewhere, and right now our choices are coal, coal, and coal. So we are exploring the renewables, but why are we still exploring them when we've known for a very, very long time that people are concerned about climate change, that the world is moving to renewables. Why are we still exploring them?   Chris Luxon says while we're exploring the renewables, we need to reverse the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration and take urgent steps to bring liquefied natural gas into the country to offset the energy shortages because our exporters need certainty, they need to know that the factories will keep running so they can sell our products, so we can make some money. Forgive me if this is all very 101 but this is what we need to know: we need to know that when we turn on the switch at the factory, the power will come on. And if we're concerned about burning coal, we need to have something to replace it. And we don't have anything secure yet, so the Prime Minister has said let's bring in liquefied natural gas, which other countries use to sort of level out electricity supply. So he's also looking at the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration being reversed. That's been in place since Labour came to power in 2018 outside of onshore Taranaki.   The opposition parties, in a shocking revelation, are dead against the importation of liquefied natural gas, seeing it as just another fossil fuel. But we need certainty and security so what's their solution? There are a number of questions though. We may be open for exploration but would oil and gas companies want to come here? Especially if Labour goes ‘no, dead against it, we're not having a bar of it, fossil fuels are dead and gone’. So why would you come here, given the electoral cycle? Also, in 2012, Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company that came here to do a little bit of a looksie to see if they could make money out of exploiting oil and gas here, they pulled out. They got the license and the permit in 2010, they pulled out in 2012 because they said there weren't enough indicators for them to continue. All very well to reverse the ban, but would people come here?   And on the renewables, when you have the four big generation and retail power companies recording their largest single year rise in earnings this year, what's that all about? If we are the majority shareholders, which we are, and we are in the middle of an energy security crisis, then why can't we push them into spending more of their money, more of their profits, into the renewables? Fast track it, get them cracking.    This was along the lines of what Mike Hosking asked Christopher Luxon, the Prime Minister, when he was on this morning.  “You know we’ll keep an eye on the level of profitability, but they also need confidence to invest because we want them, and I know they will, to spend huge amounts of capital on actually, you know, doubling that renewable electricity in geothermal, and wind, and solar, and all the stuff that needs to happen. So as I said, it is about making sure that we're giving people confidence, and that's what the announcement was about yesterday, was to say to many of those international investors who want to do the offshore engineering solution for LNG implementation, who want to do exploration for gas, who actually want to know that can go. A huge number of the projects that Chris Bishop’s looking at on the Fast Track Approvals are people want to do renewable projects, but actually, the consenting times insane. It's absolutely insane. So let's just change the rules, make it a year, extend the consents, all that good stuff.”   As a majority shareholder, and I know normally you wouldn't interfere in the running of a company, no, put those billions collectively of dollars of profits into renewables right now, and we'll make it easier as the government to fast track those projects you want in place. Chris Hipkins says there is already consented renewable electricity that could be built right now but these big gentailers are choosing not to build them because it's in their commercial interest to keep energy scarce and maximize profits, which would be economic sabotage if that is true. And you'd have to take that, anything I suppose, a politician says with a grain of salt, but if they are already consented, why aren't they being now?   I have more questions than I have answers for you, so I am looking to you for the answers, those of you who know more than I! We know we have an energy security crisis. Chris Hipkins says that there are consents in place. We could get cracking if the gentailers want to. They have made squillions, so it's not like they're wondering where their next buck is coming from. They've made millions from us, we're the ones paying the price every single time for decisions made by these big companies and by governments. So get cracking with the renewables, government, do your work by fast tracking these already consented projects. They need to start. The gentailers need to start on those. Any that are still waiting for consents, we fast track them. Oil and gas exploration? Sure. reverse the ban, but is anybody interested in coming here? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was interesting seeing the Governments backed down on the Fast-track Approvals Bill. And that's the thing about being in government, isn't it? Well, really any position of authority. You will be criticized whatever you do. It's a truism that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, you just simply can't. So when the government announced it would introduce the Fast-track Approvals Bill that would give final sign off on infrastructure projects to just three ministers, without the usual consent process, there was squawking. Much squawking, far too much power invested in the hands of just three ministers. Some of it was genuine. Some of it came from people like the Auditor General, who were a little bit concerned and I've got a big crush on the Auditor General after his searing analysis of where the money went under the previous administration, so if he's got concerns, so have I. But there was also just political squawking from the usual suspects. But it was a lot of power invested in the hands of just three men. And as the AUT’s professor in the School of Future Environments John Tookey told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast, had they gone ahead, it would have used up a lot of the Government's goodwill...    "I suspected it was going to be an excessive investment in political capital that they might back away from, and sure enough that happened." Exactly. So the Governments backtracked a little. The final decisions will be made by expert panels, which of course the government will stack with their own people, but they are also required to include environmental experts. Now naturally, by pulling back a bit, there are concerns from those who are looking forward to absolutely getting cracking that now the process will not see any kind of improvement or speeding up. But, as Chris Bishop said, one of the troika of incredibly powerful ministers, there was a real risk that had they gone ahead, the ministers would have been likely to face legal challenges and judicial review proceedings. That was far more likely to happen than if the decisions were made by expert panels and that is very, very true. There would have been those who were genuinely concerned about a political/particular project, others who are more like vexatious litigants, who would just oppose every development on purely political grounds and to get up the schnoz of the government to put grit into the bureaucratic process to slow it down still further. But there was also a nod to those who don't trust ministers of any hue, having that much power. And I have to say, I was a little bit nervous about three ministers having that much power, having seen what happens when you are given a pot of gold, as happened with New Zealand First and where they spent that money . Some of it according to you, was money well spent on really good projects. Others looked like, you scratch my back,I'll scratch yours. So there was a little bit of concern about three ministers having that much power. What's actually changed? Well, Ministers will still get the say over which projects will be put forward to be considered by the expert panel. Chris Bishop, it's true, will no longer have the final sign off. But as Claire Trevett says in the New Zealand Herald, if he doesn't like a project, it won't go anywhere, he's the gatekeeper. So I guess if you are involved in trying to make things happen, to get things done, does this give you any concern, any pause for thought whatsoever?  As Claire Trevett says, if a project doesn't look suitable, it's not going to go anywhere. As Chris Bishop said had the three ministers stayed solely responsible for the decision making, you bet your bippy there would have been lawsuits up the ying yang and judicial reviews and time wasting, and in the end more time and more money would have been spent fighting the dissenters. And do we trust ministers to have that level of power. Not entirely sure yet, it sets a precedent.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, that was a bit of a shock wasn’t it. It seems everyone was a bit taken aback to hear that assistant coach Leon MacDonald would be leaving the All Black’s group. Less that 24 hours out from the All Blacks heading to South Africa for two Rugby Championship tests, New Zealand rugby confirmed MacDonald would not continue in the role. Fronting the media, head coach Scott Razor Robertson outlined the reasons why the decision has been made. He said there were differences around the philosophy on rugby, and how it's played, and they didn’t quite click in different aspects. Razor added the went through a process, and got to this point, and they believed that Macdonald stepping away was the best thing for the All Black group. Sounds pretty straight forward right – and refreshing to hear what sounds like a legitimate reason rather than a manufactured one. It just didn’t work. People have been surprised by MacDonalds departure because they two have known each other for around 27 years. They have played and worked together before, but that doesn't necessarily mean it’s going to be plain sailing – especially when you step up into the biggest, most intense job in New Zealand rugby. John Kirwan had this to say about the decision on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning ....Incredible courage, I believe, on behalf of both of them if it's not working out, because the status quo would be probably stay there, finish the season. But you know for them to move on this quickly, I think it's the best thing for the team. He’s right. Macdonald is a very good coach, one we will probably lose to an overseas team now – but it takes courage to acknowledge if a situation isn’t working, and integrity to the right thing for yourself and the team. Of course we’re still keen to try and distil down what has happened here. The simple reason why this relationship hasn’t worked might just come down to the fact there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Do the All Blacks need 6 coaches? Graham Henry and Steven Hansen were able to run the All blacks successfully on 3 coaches. There had been rumours that players were dealing with too many voices – this simplifies that somewhat. Another suggestion is that it’s an adjustment to go from Head Coach to assistant coach. Coaches end up tripping over each other, there are mixed messages, or a coach is left feeling maligned. But regardless of the intricacies of why they have come to this decision – it's hard not to be impressed by it. Good on them for not letting it fester. Good on them for being open and honest about the fact it didn’t work. It sounds like the two have departed on decent terms, and now it’s time to move on. Will it have an impact on the All Blacks? I doubt it. They have dealt with much more difficult HR issues in the past, and I imagine they will be fully focused on facing South Africa.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yesterday the Prime Minister spoke at the Local Government NZ (LGNZ) conference, warning councils to restrain their spending to the basics or run the risk of having your hand forced by central government.    Apparently, the remarks got a frosty reception – possibly because no one likes being told off and possibly because since Covid all some councils have been doing is going through their budgets line by line.    Local Government Minister Simeon Brown backed up the Prime Ministers thoughts on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning.    “The reality is, with an average 15% rate increase, our expectation is that councils get on with the work just like Government has had to do, go line by line, cut the waste, focus on the basics and ensure that they can pass those cost savings on to ratepayers at this cost of living crisis time. So, you know we're doing our part. We've also put in place Local Water Done Well, which gives councils far greater access financing for water infrastructure, that means they should be able to do that and reduce the cost burden on ratepayers.”  Simeon Brown also said yesterday: “Council rates are increasing by around 15 per cent on average this year, which is more than four times the rate of inflation. This is unacceptable and councils must ensure they are doing everything they can to reduce pressure on ratepayers.”    As difficult as it was to hear for some councils, it’s hard to argue with the sentiment, right?  Regardless of whether we’re tightening our belts after a global pandemic or not, we expect our councils to always be making sensible funding decisions. To focus on core council activities and maintain assets for the future.    This week we also saw the released of a report into Local Government performance, that warned councils were not replacing ageing infrastructure to the extent they should be.   Different councils around the country have different issues – but they have potential hefty rate rises in common and a need for central government to help fund infrastructure.    If yesterday’s speech was anything to go by, then the time for handouts is over. Councils are about to negotiate their city deals with central government to line up funding, and this speech is a clear warning to some councils you might have to adjust your spending and your wish list.    In regard to handing out cold hard cash to help councils, the Prime Minister made it very clear that the previous government might have taken that approach, but the party is over.    Simeon Brown, inspired by the New South Wales model, has also floated the idea of putting in place a regulator, which regulates what price increases can be put on for non-core programmes that councils do. The aim of this is to maintain cost controls for councils, something which he believes we’re not currently seeing. Is this necessary? It feels a little too controlling – but you might feel your local council needs another layer of control.    So, for cental government it’s all about rubbish, roads and water – and price caps.    As a rate payer, this all sounds good – but we all have different ideas of what should be a core function of a council. Are libraries and sports fields and parks as important as rubbish, roads and water?   What do you want to see your council spend money on? What are the priorities for you and what would you like dropped? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’m not a perfect parent. I’ve learnt a lot on the job, but one thing I got right was making the call that I was not the right person to teach our children to drive – for both my sake, my children’s sake, and other drivers' sake.    It’s got nothing to do with my driving ability.  It's to do with temperament and patience and bravery – all characteristics my partner and their father excels in.    When your child gains their licence, you feel two conflicting emotions at once. Excitement over the fact your days as an Uber driver are coming to an end – even if your children had been good at getting around on buses, once they have their restricted license it does make life easier when they can drive themselves to an appointment, or pop to the supermarket to grab you a few things.    The other emotion is utter terror that your child is being unleashed on the roads. Are they ready? Will they cope with multi lanes and peak hour traffic? Will they stay off their phones?    And most importantly: do they realise they are not as good a driver as they think they are? Passing a test does not make you an expert – knowledge, time and experience are needed to work towards this. And even then, we’re not all experts!    As a parent I know the stats: 18–24-year-olds have the highest rate of road deaths in New Zealand.    They are nearly three times as likely to die in road crashes as 18–24-year-olds in Australia.    And this terrifies me.    The AA Research Foundation released some interesting research today.    They have examined driver licence systems in different countries and have highlighted key differences with New Zealand. It identifies measures with beneficial outcomes for novice drivers that could strengthen New Zealand’s licensing system.   There are 5 areas they would like the government to consider as they establish priorities for the next three years in its Road Safety Objectives Document due out later in the year.    They suggest we should:  1. Extend learner period from 6 months to 12 months to give novice drivers more time to accumulate supervised driving experience and develop safer practices   2. Mandatory supervised driving hours. Most Aussie and US states require 50-20 hours (including night hours) to be logged. A past Swedish study showed novice drivers with 120 hours of supervised driving experience were involved in 35% fewer crashes than those with 40-50 hours.     3. Sit a Hazard Perception Test to enhance young drivers' abilities to anticipate and react to potential hazards. The tests are undertaken in a safe environment such as a simulator or using video clips.   4. Zero blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit until their full license. Currently this is only for those under the age of 20.  5. And finally, tougher penalties for traffic offenses. The idea here would be that novice drivers start off with a lower threshold for demerit points, and any offences stay on their record for a longer time. The aim is this would serve as a deterrent against risky behaviours.   While it has made life easier for us for our son to get his learners licence at 16 and his restricted 6 months later – all I want is for my kid to get home safely. If we can reduce these statistics by making changes to the licencing system, give young drivers the opportunity to gain more experience and knowledge, then why wouldn’t you?  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The learners licensing system is under the spotlight, with calls for New Zealand to adopt Australia's stricter approach. It comes after figures show young kiwis are responsible for a disproportionate number of road deaths.  The AA wants to double the learners licence period, implement supervised driving hours, and have tougher penalties for young drivers.  Road Safety Campaigner Greg Murphy told Francesca Rudkin that this is nothing new.  He said that we’ve been accepting these statistics for decades and have done very little to move the needle.  Murphy said that a lot of drivers aren’t prepared, and we can do much, much better and save a lot more lives through better preparedness.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

To use a Love Island-ism, it looks like Chris Luxon appears to have been a slow burn on the nation since being sworn in as our Prime Minister in late November – but if the latest 1News-Verian poll is anything to go by, we appear to be warming to the man and his leadership.    The poll shows numbers for the governing parties remained largely unchanged, National remains steady on 38%, ACT remained steady on 7%, and NZ First remains steady on 6%.  Labour is up 1 on 30%, and Te Pati Māori is up 1 on 4%. The Greens dropped 2 points to 11%.    But the most interesting thing about this poll was the result for preferred Prime Minister. Christopher Luxon's is up 5 percentage points to 28% in the rankings. Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick and NZ First leader Winston Peters also saw small increases.   At the beginning of October last year Christopher Luxon was sitting at 26%, but in the last two 1News-Verian polls, he had dropped to 23% in the preferred Prime Minister stakes.   While the Prime Minister “doesn’t read too” much into polls, I imagine the National Party and Luxon will be quietly happy with the movement in this poll.    So, what does this say about where we are at? If you are a small or medium-sized business owner, do you feel like the country is at a turning point? Business Confidence in New Zealand increased to 27.10 points in July from 6.10 points in June of 2024. Is this down to the leadership you’re seeing?    While there was an appetite for change at the last election, the polls have revealed mixed feelings towards the coalition and the preferred Prime Minister stakes.    I would suggest that many of us are still viewing the economy and the direction of the country with a sense of caution. It feels like the ship has steadied somewhat, and that is what is being reflected in the poll.    In our household, we’re still very conscious of our spending. Notification of cost increases seem to be arriving in our inboxes monthly, so while tax cuts are appreciated, seeing the OCR final drop is a relief, and hearing the Government address overspending within government departments, it feels like we’re paused rather than moving forward at a great rate.    It’s worth noting this poll was taken before the OCR was lowered last week, I wonder if you take that into consideration and a few more pay cycles with the tax cut, will they make even more of a difference in the next poll?   How do you read this poll? Does it reflect how hopeful we are and changing times or is it more about an increase in confidence in the Prime Minister, his leadership and the way he is managing the coalition? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The New Zealand Blood Service is calling out for desperately needed plasma.   The demand for so called 'liquid gold' grows by 10 percent each year, with supply not keeping up.  Based on the demand, they’ll need at least 150 more people to start donating regularly.  Transfusion Medicine Specialist Richard Charlewood told Francesca Rudkin the problem is that they’re reliant on other countries.  He said that it’s an American export business, and so when there’s a drop in donations—like there was during Covid— it’s an America-first policy, so we’re at risk by not being self-sufficient.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Commerce Commission's final report into New Zealand's banking sector is out.    It says competition isn't working as it should be in the banking sector, and consumers are missing out as a result.  The Commission says in a well-functioning market with strong competition, they'd expect to see more aggressive strategies to win customers from other banks.  Part of its answer is giving Kiwibank greater access to capital, to make it a stronger competitor to the Australian-owned banks.  Also part of the equation is rolling out open banking faster and making changes so it's easier for smaller banks to compete and for consumers to compare and switch banks.  NZ Herald Wellington Business Editor Jenée Tibshraeny told Francesca Rudkin that the issue is that for Kiwibank to grow, it needs more capital, but the Government’s finances are tight at the moment.  She said that in order for Kiwibank to grow, the Government would need to dilute its ownership and allow in capital from the private sector.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thanks to another announcement from the Transport Minister Simeon Brown over the weekend, the police have a new target to add to their 'To Do' list. The government has announced a crackdown on drunk and drugged drivers, setting the police a target of performing 3.3 million roadside alcohol tests a year and 50,000 roadside drug tests a year. Anything we can do to get impaired people off our roads and prevent the carnage they can cause is a good thing. It is a simple and effective deterrent to drink or drugged driving. I don’t know about you but I find getting breath tested a slightly nerve-wracking process, even if I haven’t dropped a drop. It works for me – the thought of a breath test is enough for me to make the most of Uber. The problem has been – you'd think we’d stopped testing. Up until about 3 weeks ago, I can't remember seeing a police breath testing checkpoint since before Covid. They were noticeably absent before the festive season – there always used to be checkpoints leading into Xmas as a reminder to us all to get that taxi or bus home from a work Christmas function. And then, as if to make up for the lack of testing, I recently got breath tested three times in the space of 15 minutes by the Royal Oak roundabout in Auckland. It was about 4pm on a Sunday afternoon – obviously they were after the Sunday Funday drinkers from a local pub or two – and they were stopping drivers on two different roads leading off the roundabout. I got done twice on the way to my friends to drop something off, and once again on the way home. I got the giggles by the third, which wasn’t helpful. Point is – bring it on. Last year was a bit of an outlier – the police did manage around 3.2 million breath tests – previous years it had been around 1.4 in 2018 and 2.1 in 2022. So it should be manageable. Keep it up. Be visible. Just knowing the police is keen to up their targets will hopefully mean more people make good decisions. The drug testing is a slightly different and interesting case. Getting roadside drug testing up and running has been a laborious process filled with complexities. In 2022 Labour passed legislation allowing for random roadside drug testing, but then they discovered they didn’t have a device that could record accurate results. Then another law change was introduced adding a lab test to back up the roadside test. Along the way there have also been concerns about people testing positive – even if they are not impaired, and how we monitor people using pharmaceutical drugs and making sure they are not impaired while driving. Under the coalition’s updated legislation, the plan is to use the same technology used in Australia. Transport Minister Simeon Brown explained how it would work to Tim Beveridge yesterday on the Weekend Collective “The legislation on that is currently before a Select Committee which is considering it, that is hopefully going to be passed shortly. Police then need to go through a procurement process in order to identify the test and to then procure one, then they'll roll it out. I mean, if you look at what they do in Australia, what they do is take a swab of your saliva within your mouth, they put it into a little kit, and that kit then identifies where the drugs are present to a certain standard. So that's what we expect will be implemented here in New Zealand. And as I said, legislation is currently before the Parliament, so we can now, we can roll that out and actually roll it out successfully. The last government passed legislation, but it required those tests to be an evidentiary standard, whereas most countries use this from a screening perspective, knowing that the tests aren't 100% accurate. But it will have a checks and balances in place, such as ensuring that you have to have two positive tests to actually be fined, can't just have one. You can have two and then evidentiary sample also has to be taken following that. So we've got checks and balances in place, but again, it's about sending the message if you're driving drugged or drunk on our roads, the police are going to be resourced to screen for it and then hold people to account for those dangerous behaviours which cause far too many deaths on our roads each year.” So under the proposed law, anyone who failed two roadside drug tests would be suspended from driving for 12 hours and could face further penalties, such as fines and demerit points. The oral fluid sample would also be sent for more sophisticated laboratory testing. It has been difficult getting roadside drug testing up and running – and it’s not perfect, and it might raise problems for a few people – but it really is time for it to be in place. The police need to have the resources to test people that they believe are impaired and take them off the road for all our sakes.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.