Advertise on podcast: Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

A drug that could slow a rare form of lung cancer is out there, but it's not funded by Pharmac and costs around $11,000 a month. A look at the Givealittle pages out there shows there are drugs that cost a way lot more a month than that one, up to $25,000 a month.  The ACT Party has proposed an increase the share of the New Zealand health budget spent on medicines by one percentage point every year. David Seymour, ACT Party leader and Associate Health Minister responsible for Pharmac, joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the plan.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What would you do? I've been thinking about this ever since Paul's phone call yesterday. You might have been listening when he rang in. We were talking about the cost of living and how you can make economies and you can get an extra job and you can do all this and all that and try and get through, unless life throws you a curveball.   And that's exactly what happened to Paul. He and Sandra have been together for 34 years. They have two sons, 18 and 20 They've lived good lives. They've worked hard, they've paid off the house, they've got all their insurances including medical insurance. They've never asked for anything. They've never needed to ask for anything. They've just lived their lives and been your typical Kiwi family. Then out of the blue, Sandra gets diagnosed with lung cancer. She's never smoked. It's a rare genetic condition and this particular lung cancer is a killer. This particular type doesn't respond to the treatments that are available and funded under our public health system, but there is a drug that's available that will slow the progress of the disease.   So the bad news, you get the diagnosis. The good news, there's a treatment. The bad news, it's not funded by Pharmac. You can buy it on the open market, but you have to come up with $11,000 a month —nearly $4,000 a week— to pay for the drug that will give Sandra more time with her family. They don't have a lot, but they've never needed a lot. They've got their own home, and they've looked after themselves and they've never been on benefits, but where the hell do you come up with nearly $4,000 a week?   It's not a story that's unique to this couple. If you have a look on the Givealittle pages, there are so many that are dedicated to families desperate to find the money for unfunded drugs that will keep their mum or their dad alive just that little bit longer. For some, there's hope of a cure, for many it's buying time. And it seems so cruel. The diagnosis is bad enough, terminal cancer. Then you're given a lifeline, oh but there is a drug that will keep you well for a lot, lot longer than you can expect or imagine. And then that lifeline evaporates because you find out that it's not funded by Pharmac and if you want it, you're going to have to lose everything.   It's a real Sophie's choice. You might have to sell the house if you own the house, you might have to sell everything you own, you might have to sacrifice your pride and put yourself out there asking for help from strangers to just buy you that little bit of extra time. If you sell the house, you're going to leave the family without security if the treatment doesn't work. I mean, what an awful, awful situation to be in and an awful, awful conundrum.   What would you do? And perhaps what are the discussions that you've had within your family? Remember when Herceptin wasn't funded and that seemed to hit younger women particularly. That was a dreadful decision to have to make. And yet Herceptin had very good survival rates, so what do you do?   I suppose it depends on your circumstances, your age and stage. If you're a parent with young children, I imagine you would fight and you'd fight tooth and nail to get a bit of extra time. Whereas I think, and you never know until you're in that situation, but I think I would let fate take its course. My daughter is an adult now, she's happy, she's settled, she has her own family and that makes a big difference when you're a parent. I've had more than my share of good times, more than my fair share of life, I think I'd probably go rather than use all my KiwiSaver and everything else just to buy me a bit of extra time. But I'm at a different stage.   There are so many applications before Pharmac at the moment to fund unfunded medicines that have a proven track record. There are so many pharmaceutical companies that want approval to be funded by Pharmac that offer people a lifeline. It just seems so, so cruel that you're given the diagnosis, you're reeling from that, then you're told, oh but we can fix you or we can give you time, but it will cost you $11,000, $16,000, $25,000 a month. Impossible money, monopoly money. I would love to hear your stories and how much more you think should be put into Pharmac to give people a fighting chance.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a story in the New Zealand Herald this morning about a young couple in Hawke's Bay who are earning good coin, above the average between them, but they're barely able to make ends meet. This is the cost of living election – at least that's what the media outlets are telling us. But I don't know if you heard Enda Brady on with Mike this morning. Have a listen to what he had to say around the British budget.  "People are worried about energy bills, cost of living, food. I went to the petrol station earlier on to get petrol, so I looked at the prices specifically for you, Mike. We are looking at $4.02 a litre for diesel, and I pay $3.52 for unleaded."  The British Government releasing the budget said they just want to be able to give ordinary working families breathing room. This is a budget for, in the UK, for the immediate future. It's not setting the country up to recover, it's just trying to give your ordinary working family breathing room. Things are tight there and they have been for a while. People are finding out what they can do without and what are necessities. They're doing that here, but they're also doing it around the world.   Post-Covid and the money printing, nations who went for that strategy are paying the piper and it's grindy. The prices paid for everyday items such as food, energy, transport, and household bills have risen by between 59% and 78% since the year 2000 in France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Between 2021 and 2023 prices increased by 12 to 15% in the four countries. Wages didn't keep up and because prices don't fall back once inflation eases, many households are still feeling the squeeze today. It would be the same in the UK as well.   In Australia, one in three households are going hungry as the cost of living crisis bites, according to a charity. Many people are reducing meal portions to make ends meet and they're being forced to cut the use of shampoo, toothpaste, and soap. Really cutting it right back down. In Australia, inflation data to be released this week is expected to confirm ongoing price pressures for household essentials, prompting a further interest rate hike from the Reserve Bank when it meets at the start of next month. The biggest increase in prices over the past year has been in petrol, up by almost 14%, but steep lifts in other essentials that Aussies consider their own, like beef 9.4%, lamb 10.1%, milk 8%. Sound familiar?   Is there anywhere in the world that is doing just fine? I know we have a number of listeners who listen from various points of the globe. Is this the same story where you are? Are governments really finding it tough to meet their obligations, to meet their commitments, to look after those citizens who are not doing well, trying to find jobs for young ones? Again, Enda Brady referred to that in the UK – they've got more than a million young people who aren't in education, training, or jobs. People are really struggling to pay the basic household bills. Same in Europe, same in Australia.   Doesn't make you feel any better, I suppose, if you're wondering how the hell you're going to pay the household rates, but this is not particular or peculiar to New Zealand. Economies are correcting and contractions, as at least half the population knows, are painful. There are signs that things are getting better globally. A lot of it will be dependent on the situation in the US, Iran, Israel, and that calming down. But even above and beyond that, there are signs things are getting better. Xero reported more business confidence, more sales, more employment, more jobs advertised and people employed. And this has been, this wasn't a blip in the data, this has been ongoing. So things are slowly, slowly improving.   But in the meantime, in your house, what are you doing without? What have you found is a non-essential just to get by until things improve? Insurances, have you kept all the insurances? A young family I know who should be doing just fine, they concede that as much as anyone, but it's the power, it's the rates, it's the insurance, it's all those. They gave up their pet insurance and what does Sod's Law say? Sod's Law says the moment you do that, in their case I think it was a week, a week after doing that their beautiful cat who had never had a moment's ill health in her long and happy life needed emergency vet care and it was $750 for the first night and rising, it will be a bill that will be big. And of course that's what happens when you give up the insurance.    Are there insurances you've given up? Are there gym memberships you've sacrificed and you're going online? Are, you know, what is it that you have done to tide you over until things do in fact get better and you see that reflected in the prices you're paying and the wage that you're earning? What have you not been able to afford to give up?  What have you decided to commit to and keep? We were discussing this in the office and a couple of the women said hairdos, getting the hair done, getting the hair coloured, cut, treated, $300 to $400 every eight to nine weeks. They're trying to push it out a bit longer. They're saying no, happy to give up going for a night out if it means we can get the hair done.   Do you see things getting better? Xero sounded a voice of optimism, a voice of hope going into 2027. I'm not even going to come up with a silly little motto after "Thrive in '25" turned out to be such a dud. Let's not do that again. But do you see things getting better and have you found that you can live without a number of things you thought were absolutely essential? Love to hear what's going on in your house and if you're any of our listeners from around the world, I'd love to hear what it's like where you are. Is it the same story repeated in many languages, in many countries right around the world?  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When I look at Labour's campaign and I look at National's campaign, it's like, look, I'll do it for you next time. Seriously, when something is being done so badly, you think, you know what? I can do that so much better. They've had shocking campaigns, both of the main parties. Just negative, silly stuff. And yesterday, Labour had an absolute clanger. Of all the issues and all the policies that Labour could have come up with to attract voters, to point out deficiencies in the Coalition Government, why on earth did they have to decide on housing as one of their last big pushes before the election?   You'll have heard Kieran McAnulty yesterday announcing a new rent to buy scheme that would allow public housing tenants to save for a house deposit. $100 a week from their taxpayer subsidised rent would be credited towards a house deposit with the funds held in a trust account. The scheme would help people save $5,200 a year, Labour says, and allow tenants to accumulate enough to put down a deposit on a home. Public housing tenants would have the option to buy the home they're living in. Labour said that for each house sold, three more would be built in its place. Really? What's your track record like on building houses, Labour? Pretty damn poor. Three more would be built in its place? Labour would have been turfed out after one term were it not for Covid last time round because of their failures of execution when it came to policy.   One of their biggest embarrassments was KiwiBuild, the building of houses. 100,000 houses were promised. Remember that? And everybody went, oh, I don't think so. No, no, I think you've got that wrong. And it wasn't just people like me having a rick and going, I don't think you'll be able to do 100,000, it was people in the industry going, no, that's not going to happen. No, they knew best, Labour did. They went ahead, they promised it. 100,000 houses would be built for hardworking Kiwis. Total amount of houses built: 2,003. Quite a big differential. 100,000 promised, 2,003 delivered. So forgive me if I call BS on Labour's ability to build three houses for every one sold, unless they go down the Kāinga Ora route where they damn near bankrupted the country building houses at any cost. We've only just got Kāinga Ora under control after the build at any cost order was given by the last Labour government.   There are two policy areas Labour should be staying well away from: law and order and housing. They are proven failures in both areas, unless they're willing to spend anything at all and lock other young people out of the housing market by buying up, spending money we don't have, and paying it down on the never never. This latest announcement, if you are living, say, in GI in Auckland in a state house, which is being gentrified, a little suburb that's being gentrified, how long would you have to live there before you'd saved even for a 5% deposit? If you're living in Greymouth in a Kāinga Ora house, you might in seven and a half years have enough to put down a 5% deposit loan on your home. But it's sticking two fingers to hardworking young people who are working and who are renting and who are saving for their first home. And it is nothing like the capitalisation of family benefit that McAnulty referred to when he was talking to Heather du Plessis Allan last night.  "There'd be many people listening to your show who bought their home or their parents bought their home by capitalising the child benefit. And that set them up for life. Now, we haven't had a scheme like that for a very long time. And the announcement today to expand the 5% deposit and also have a scheme to actually get Kāinga Ora tenants out of state housing, out of a poverty trap and into home ownership, I think is something that will benefit the whole country. And I reckon it'll actually get broad support across the political spectrum."  Will it? I'll be fascinated to find out. If we look at capitalisation of the family benefit, that came in in 1958, the rate of unemployment was virtually non-existent. I think they had it down at 0.1%, just to put something down on paper. People were working, mostly men. They had a good working wage that could look after a family. They had steady employment. There were good prospects. So they were able to service a loan, they were able to make improvements on a house, and yes, it did set them up. But they were working. As we all know, buying a home is only the beginning of the expense. The maintenance, the rates, the insurance, it's all got to come from somewhere. And if you're not working, where's it going to come from?   I think home ownership is a very, very good thing. I think state housing is a very, very good thing. My dad grew up in a state house in Christchurch. My grandmother still remembers the day they qualified and came out of the transit camps and into a state house. It was like winning Lotto. But neither my brother nor his five siblings, my aunt and uncles, needed the Government ever again. They were very grateful, they were, thank you very much, they bought their own homes using their own money, working three jobs. That's what you have to do. You use the state house as a base from which to launch your kids to do better. Or at least that's what used to happen in the olden days.   I love that first home buyers right now are the biggest players in the market. They're young people who've paid off their student loans and saved and scrimped and lived with their parents and forgone the trips overseas to get the money together for their first house. Nobody's giving free money to these kids. All of this hoo ha, all of this bringing back the spectre of Labour's dumpster housing policies for 1,100 Kāinga Ora tenants who may or may not be interested in buying their state house. They sure as hell couldn't if they're living in Auckland, no matter how long they live there. And who may or may not be able to afford to continue living there once they've bought the bloody thing.   Look, let me do Labour's election campaign next time. I could not do a worse job. Chris Hipkins had a zinger of a line in one of the debates when he said to Chris Luxon, no, you are certainly not John Key. Well, right back at you, Kieran McAnulty, you are certainly no Michael Joseph Savage.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Transport Agency says it needs a long-term plan sooner rather than later for Awakino Gorge, as the vital Taranaki to Waikato link faces more closures.  The stretch of State Highway 3 is closing every night until Thursday next week as transport crews work to restore the road following a slip earlier this year.  It's been closed several times over the last year, causing long detours for drivers  NZTA Project Manager Caleb Perry told Kerre Woodham they'll be looking to finish planning over the next three years.  He says that'll be the driver for them to decide if they invest more money into the route, or if they need to explore more options.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Awakino Gorge on State Highway 3 that connects Waikato to Taranaki will be closed for nine nights as of tonight. Every time there's a major storm it seems Karangahake Gorge between Paeroa and Waihi is closed. It was closed for five days this month. The Waiwera Gorge is open, then closed, then open, then closed. The Brynderwyns are a constant worry. Is it time to revisit our national highways and accept that what might have worked in 1923 —widening a dray track into a road— is not really fit for purpose in 2026?   Sticks of gelignite blasting away through the Karangahake Gorge worked fine in 1875, but if you've driven through the gorge recently, looking like a goldfish with one eye out the side looking at the rock face, praying it stays up, the other goldfish eye looking out at the river and the road and hoping there's no landslip, you wonder how long these gorges are going to be drivable and whether it's worth patching them up, opening them, patching them up, opening them, patching them up, opening them. Round and round and round we go. We don't seem to be advancing. It's just spending hundreds of millions to stay in place.   Transporting New Zealand says we have to start thinking about plan B when it comes to the transport network. They say when the Awakino Gorge is closed, it costs the sector up to a million dollars per day in additional travel time, fuel consumption, and vehicle operating costs. Transporting New Zealand, in the case of the Awakino Gorge, has suggested developing a 20km windy metal road, and suggested a one way route north for a couple of hours, then opening it for a couple of hours to the south. Which sounds like it would have been a brilliant thing to do in 1952, but in 2026, is that really the way to go when we're trying to connect two major provinces, two major exporting provinces, Taranaki and Waikato? I wouldn't have thought so. The New Plymouth mayor says he would sue NZTA if he could for their successive failures over the years, which have cost the people of his region millions and millions of dollars.   Are our road networks still fit for purpose? Does it make sense to keep going over the same roads that were initially, in many cases, horse tracks, then dray roads, then roads for the old Model Ts? It worked back then. They made it work. And back then it was rip, shit and bust, hoots wahay, let's just blast our way through, and the quickest way to get anywhere is in a straight line between two points. Given the precarious state of the climate, given that the extremes are becoming the norm when it comes to the storms, the landslips, the torrential rain, do we need to redraw the map rather than keep retracing over existing lines?  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The gangs, as we know, create wholesale damage and destruction in our society through their drug trafficking. Now it looks like they're causing wholesale damage to Labour.   After roundly criticising members of the Greens and Te Pati Māori for visiting a mongrel mob gang pad and posing for photos, putting it on your social media, Labour leader Chris Hipkins ruled out his coalition partners holding the justice or police portfolios in any government he was in charge of. He was talking tough. Now it transpires one of his own MPs was campaigning with gang members, with a video circulating of Kerrin Leoni in a Labour jacket handing out Labour Party flyers to mobsters.   Te Pati Māori's Orinii Kaipara, who appeared with Leoni in a Whakata Māori debate this week, threw the Tamaki Makaurau opponent under the bus during the debate by saying Leoni had recently been campaigning with gang members too. She did it too, miss. It wasn't just me. Kaipara said Leoni had since deleted a social media post about it after the kaka hit the fan over her posing with gang members. Leoni during the debate said, I have never been to a gang pad campaigning. I've got whanau who are gang members. I've never been campaigning at a gang pad. And then sought to clarify the situation in a Facebook post last night. "To be clear, I have not attended a gang pad at all during this campaign. I said at the debate, I have close whanau who are gang members. In early October, I attended a whanau function where some of those present were whanau gang members."   If you've seen the video, it's a funny old whanau function. I mean, who am I to say how other people should hold their barbecues? But Leoni is clearly campaigning for Labour at the function. If she hadn't posted the video to social media, I'd say perhaps her case is different. You can't pick your relatives. For many families, you can have one brother who's a detective and another who's a senior gang member, and they all have to be able to still function as a family. I'd have sympathy if someone had taken a video or photo of Leoni in a T-shirt, shorts and jandals, having a BBQ with her brother at a whanau function. But she's in a Labour Party jacket, handing out Labour Party flyers, telling people to vote Labour and then posting it to social media. Apparently it's since been deleted.   What kind of family function is that? It doesn't sound like a real thigh slapper to me. Not a guitar insight. Can it really be a family function if there's no singing and dancing around the BBQ? You're in your Labour Party jacket. You're handing out the flyers, you're saying vote Labour to get rid of this government. Is that a family function or is that campaigning just like a Orinii Kaipara and Hūhana Lyndon were doing? Sounds like campaigning to me. Yeah, nah. I'm sorry. I mean, Chris Hipkinson can talk tough, and I do have sympathy when you've got people who, I mean, you can't pick your relatives as my poor cousins know. I remember saying to a departed aunt, at a whanau function. She had very poor eyesight. I said, "it's me, Kerre." And she said, "yes, I know exactly who you are." In clipped tones. I said that little catch up with my aunt. She's never been a big fan and that's okay.   You can't pick your relatives, but to say you're not campaigning, it sounded, come on, Kerrin Leoni, come clean. You might have a brother or whanau who are in the gangs and that's fine. But to say that you were just catching up at a family function, I don't buy it. Not in the Labour Party jacket, not handing out the flyers, not saying get rid of this government. That is not a family catch up, that is campaigning.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour says he won't shy away race relations, despite previous backlash.  The ACT Leader championed the Treaty Principles Bill to its first reading this term, sparking nationwide protests.  This election ACT's promising to “end race-based hiring requirements”, prohibit cultural or spiritual practices in the public service, and to abolish the Waitangi Tribunal once historic claims are settled.  Seymour told Kerre Woodham the idea New Zealand is divided by its treaty is not sustainable.  He says he doesn't resile to not having the conversation, no matter how painful it may be.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We may be at a turning point when it comes to property investment.  Cotality data shows residential property is worth $1.66 trillion and still accounts for more than 50% of all household assets.   But it also shows property sales and values are largely subdued.   Chief Property Economist Kelvin Davidson told Kerre Woodham over the last couple of decades, strong capital gains and low interest rates were a big driver for the housing market.  He says mortgage costs went down and selling provided capital gains as well, but this potentially won't last into the future.  Davidson says property investment will probably need to be done a little bit differently, focusing on active management and cash flow rather than relying on capital gains.   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inflation is still much higher than it should be, largely because of high global oil prices.  Stats NZ data shows the rate's now on 3.7%, down from 4.1% three months ago.  Domestic non-tradeable inflation —for things like housing, electricity, and healthcare— has been trending down.  Internationally-driven tradeable inflation —for things we import and export— has dipped, after trending up.  But NZ Herald Business Editor at Large Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham economists are forecasting anywhere up to 4.7% inflation for the December quarter, which is pretty ugly.  He says even if the Reserve Bank were to look through the impact of oil prices, the Consumer Price Index would still rise around 3.2%, which they can't ignore.   Dann says it's one of the reasons economists expect them to hike interest rates.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's an old saying, "there's money in muck". And that still holds true – waste recovery contributed $3.3 billion to the economy last year. But another old saying, "safe as houses", doesn't ring quite so true. There were just over 6,500 property transactions across New Zealand in September, according to the latest CoreLogic report. And that's around 14% fewer than the same month last year. It's the ninth consecutive year on year decline.  New Zealand house values are falling overall, down 1.3% nationally over the year to September 2026, again according to the CoreLogic data. But it should be noted that it's a two-speed market – the South Island's going gangbusters and without that region holding up, the national average would be a lot worse. In Auckland, average property values are down about 3.2% annually. In Wellington, it's a dumpster fire. They're down 28% from the 2021 peak, which is pretty tough.  Property used to be seen as a safe investment, people saw it as a way to make money. That's only relatively recently though, probably in the last 25 years. Before that, it was a place to live. It was a home. It was a roof over your head. It wasn't seen as a great big ATM that you could dip into and have enormous fun spending up once your equity got to a certain point or the mortgage was paid off. Unless you are a true professional and that's your job, you know houses, you know what to do with them, you can spot good bones, you can make a lot of a rundown property using your own skill and vision and abilities. I don't think anyone sees property as a safe investment now, do they?  And even once you'd paid off your mortgage on the property, in the olden days, you had so much money. You had so much money left over, you had so much money in the property, you could upsize, you could downsize, you could buy a bach, you could use the house as an ATM again. But I'm not sure that that still stands true either. Even if you've paid off your mortgage, if you want to sell, you've got to find a buyer, and in a market like this, it's pretty tricky. If you want to downsize, if you want to go into a retirement village, if you want to move to be closer to grandchildren, it can be pretty tricky even with everything signed off. And that's kind of the contract we enter into, that you pay off your mortgage and then you have choices, then you have options. I'm not entirely sure those choices and options are there now. And I don't know how long it will be before the good old days return, if they ever do.  I'd love to hear from those of you who have either bought a rental property, do you believe the good old days will return? Is that what you're doing it for, to make money from it, or do you just want a steady little 3% return on your investment and you're good at fixing things up, you don't need to employ a property manager, you're good. If you're a young person who's bought into their first home, and thank heavens for you because you are the ones holding up the market, would you or do you see your property as a home or as an investment? Something that's going to grow in value over time that you can then turn to your advantage. If you've paid off the mortgage, do you want to downsize or relocate and are you stuck? Are you looking to buy another property like a bach or a rental, or are you going to put your money into managed funds? That being said, the housing market is not what it was, we still have $1.66 trillion in housing assets, and it accounts for about 50% of household assets. That is a lot of money. Houses still cost a lot, we still need a place to live, you still want a place to raise the family. But are we back to the days of seeing it as a home and not an investment, or do you still believe that there's gold in the foundations of where you're living right now? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a text here, "talk about a beat up by ZB on politicians and threats. If you raise the possibility and keep flagging potential problems, you may get what you predict. So stupid to highlight this on your news at this time," says Paul. I don't think that's true. I think there are very, very, very few people worldwide, even with all the problems that abound, that would act in the way that this 43 year old Australian has done. Very few. But what people need to understand is that violent words, violent rhetoric can breed violent actions, and it may help temper the kind of madness that you see online. And the attack on the Australian independent MP Helen Haines is absolutely horrific, and it will make the news. It is newsworthy.   The 43 year old man has been charged with a number of serious offences in relation to the attack, which was brutal and premeditated. Haines was unloading her car outside her electoral office when the man did a U turn and ran into her a number of times with his Land Cruiser, crushing her between the two vehicles. It wasn't a one off, it wasn't a moment of madness, it was several moments of madness. She has lost one leg, doctors are fighting to save the other, and in a cruel irony, it appears the man was a family friend. His father and stepmother have been friends with Haines for more than 20 years.   She certainly sounds like one of the good guys, one of the very people you want to attract to Parliament. She had a life before entering Parliament, she was a nurse, a mother, an advocate for the rural community, and then once elected she led an anti corruption campaign within Parliament. It was a senseless, cruel attack on a good woman.   And our MPs must have had a shiver go down their spines because many of them have been on the receiving end of personal attacks and death threats. My own MP, Dan Bidois, had to bring in the police when he received death threats that were deemed credible. Dan is a hardworking MP, a dad of two little ones, he's always at the local community events, does an amazing job for his constituents, but for whatever reason, probably because he had the temerity to stand for National, he received death threats. Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee says they are well aware of the threats to MPs and even to candidates, and they take it very seriously.  "Massive increase in threats to members of Parliament, particularly to women members of Parliament. And I think it's also the nature of those threats has changed from, you know, it might have been a bit of personal abuse about how someone presented themselves or other such, right down to now increasingly threats of physical violence as well. We've had to respond, we've set up a unit called the Security Intelligence Research Advisory Service, SIRAS, and they've got a team that will go out and be with MPs, they've deployed quite considerably during this period. But it's also candidates out there, and I think the work we've been able to do with the New Zealand Police, and I've got to take my hat off to them, I think they've done a great job in contacting all candidates and giving them personal numbers to be able to call should they feel threatened. Because, you know, you just don't know, you can't blanket everybody all the time, but you certainly need to have something that makes it very clear that if people are out of line, they're going to get prosecuted or at least deterred."  And they do need to be prosecuted and deterred because that angry, angry rhetoric, that violent rhetoric can lead to physical assaults. I mean, look at James Shaw, he's one of the more reasonable, hardworking, lovely MPs, whatever you think of his politics, assaulted by a man in the street and needed hospital attention when he was in Parliament. And a lot of people throw off at the fact that Jacinda Ardern lives offshore with her family, well, in large part that's because of the truly horrific threats that were made not just against her, but her daughter, her little girl.   You can have an opinion, you can have a reckon, you can have a strong opinion, and that's the other thing that concerns me, that people are so wary of the nutters out there that you can't even voice a strong opinion against policy or against decisions made by MPs, which dampens down free speech because people aren't responsible when it comes to the right to free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you can abuse, insult, threaten to kill, threaten to rape, threaten to murder MPs and members of their families. It's a responsibility as well as a right, and you have to use it accordingly.   Social media's given people license to be real heroes. They say terrible things that they would never say when they were face to face with the individual. A friend of mine who's got quite a high profile on the social medias, that's part of how she makes a living, said, "Whatever happened to the days of talking about people behind their back? I don't need some troll to come on my page and tell me how ugly and revolting and what a loser I am. Tell your mates! I don't need to know about it. Bring back the days of talking about people behind their backs." And she's got a point. Not everybody has to hear your views of how ugly or how stupid or how ignorant or how politically misguided you are.   I've never done it. I've been annoyed with people before online, people have annoyed me, and I've thought, "Well, I won't read this anymore. I'll make sure that my algorithms don't throw up this kind of content." I don't really feel the need to go on and tell people that they're ugly losers and completely hopeless at what they do and I'll shoot them. No matter how annoyed I've got over the years about political decisions, I have never wished the individuals harm. Ever. Ever. You don't even think it. I really do think that the rhetoric that people feel emboldened to use because they feel they can be anonymous can fuel the kind of completely irrational violence that we saw in Australia yesterday. It's not very far away in terms of geographical distance in Australia, but also in terms of that kind of violence. We need to be careful.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Greens co-leader says she's not taking anything for granted as the party surges in the polls.  The latest 1News-Verian poll has the Greens up one point to 16% — retaining a record high result— with National on top, rising a huge four points to 32% and Labour dropping one to 27%.  Chlöe Swarbrick told Kerre Woodham people have felt disillusioned by legacy parties, and it's a global trend.  "They have failed to reach the challenges of our time and tackle the big structural economic issues, in particular wealth inequality, which means regular hard working people are struggling to get by day-to-day."  Swarbrick said whether you're on the left or the right, when you look at the current theatre —"or circus"— on Parliament TV, it is clearly not fit for purpose or working.  "I think that's part of the reason we're starting to see a convergence from New Zealanders on all sides of the aisle, all sides of the political spectrum, on the need to just agree on some really big long-term plans to address the issues that we are facing. And that has really changed the tone quite a lot this election.  "There are a lot of people sick of the tit-for-tat and just want genuine solutions."  Swarbrick said it is really important for future governments to collaborate and work together on the big issues.  She said the last few weeks since Parliament has risen have been "amazing", describing the last three years as "challenging" because of the amount of legislation that has been rushed through under urgency.  WATCH ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Requiring people to have health insurance could take some pressure off our health system.  Chronic underfunding has put the public health system under strain, leading to stretched emergency departments, lengthy wait times, and difficulty accessing care.  The problems are compounded by a shortage of medical staff.  Financial Services Council CEO Kirk Hope told Kerre Woodham that insurers are incentivised to keep people healthy, as they have to pay out claims if they're not.  He says it might look like access to different types of medications to keep people out of the hospital, which creates a fence at the top of the cliff as opposed to an ambulance at the bottom.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In light of the Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs' visit to the Mongrel Mob pad and their stated determination to restore the mana of the mob, I read Jamie Ensor's piece in the Herald with interest. According to Jamie, Labour hasn't proposed any specific new law and order policies with just days to go until the election.  Law and order was a big flashpoint at the last election. The cost of living was also big, but law and order was right up there. People were fed up with teenage ram raiders and neighbourhood robbery sprees. Remember the footage, the awful footage from people's home cameras of young children being shoved out of cars, like nine and ten year olds, and pushed over fences in the middle of the night to nick what they could find.  But this time around, it's the economy, stupid. Law and order isn't a thing because for the most part, there is law and order. Obviously, crime still occurs, but violent crime is down and the gangs aren't so in your face taking over the streets and drumming up business and recruiting young kids on every street corner. And the kids themselves seem to have moved on to another TikTok trend other than ram raids. And to be fair, according to the data, the ram raids were starting, starting to come down by the end of 2023.  Even for the main opposition party, law and order is not a priority come this election. It seems to be pretty much, yeah, what they're doing, we'll do that. Earlier in the year, Labour promised to repeal the boot camps. Fair enough, if the evidence isn't there to support keeping them, do away with them. They were going to focus on evidence-based interventions. And without explicitly stating what those are, I imagine it would be a continuation of that wrap around support that they introduced in 2023 that was starting to get the ram raids down. Every time a kid was caught, they'd bring in what parents they could find or what caregivers they could find, police, school, social workers, psychologists, the whole shebang. And that did seem to be working.  Labour has said their thoughts on law and order, if you really want to know what they are, are in the manifesto. And besides, as is quoted in Jamie's piece, "We're campaigning on policies focused on the cost of living, jobs, health, and homes as a priority." That's what they see as the main drivers of the 2026 election. In '23 law and order was a thing. It's a bit like diseases, really, childhood diseases. They were a thing back in our grandparents' day, a really big thing. When vaccinations came in, it was fantastic. And then a couple of generations later, we don't see them anymore. They're not a thing. You don't vaccinate because they're not around, so you don't think of them. Law and order's a bit like that. When, when things are steady as she goes, you don't think about it because you don't have to.  I spoke to Chris Hipkins' person, and she said she'd get a list of their law and order policies to me. They were updating the website right now because when Jamie did a search on justice, police, crime, nothing came up on the Labour Party website. And I had another check and nope, nothing came up either. It's not a thing for them. They don't see it as something that's going to be a flashpoint for voters this election.  I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on this one. When it comes to this election, what are the main things you're focusing on? What is it for you? Are you voting the way you've always voted because that's the way you vote? Are you voting on policies? That's pretty much what I'll be doing. For me, it's education and law and order. They were the things that were really bugging me last time around. I don't think there's a lot you can do about the cost of living. That's international influences and it really wouldn't matter who was in. Yes, Labour contributed to it by spending so much money that was not Covid related on Covid related things, but ultimately, they had to borrow a lot of money, we have to pay it back. I do wonder where they're going to get the money from for the pay parity and that makes me nervous. I don't care about a capital gains tax. I am concerned about who comes in, but I have to hold my nose if I vote National too, given their political partners. Ultimately, what it comes down to is the policies for me. And education, law and order, and that's what I'm going to be voting on.  What concerns you? One of our callers the other day said he was thinking about the Opportunity Party because of the cost of living. Opportunity Party because he thought he was sick of the others. Another caller said he was going to vote the Greens because of their supermarket, because he was so sick of trying to find the money to pay for the family's household grocery bill. Anything that was going to relieve that he'd look at. So is it the economy, stupid? Is that what concerns you most? Are you looking at the different parties' policies and deciding, or are you just going with who you've always gone for and that's the way it is?  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.