Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast Newstalk ZB

Resource Minister Shane Jones is all for opening up our extraction industries.  

He says New Zealand has an opportunity to double the value of its mineral exports and mine for elements that are heavily sought after for electric technologies. He released a minerals strategy document with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) yesterday and has been consistent with making a strong case for mining - New Zealand has a rich history of mining and the sector has played a significant role in how the country has developed over the past 200 years. He said that Māori excavated pounamu, obsidian, and adzite and they used them for tools, weapons, and ornaments. Then when the Europeans arrived, they found gold and coal. He says the mineral sector exported just over $1 billion in 2022, and Jones hopes to see that number double by 2035, that would see an annual growth rate of just over 7% every year.  

He has acknowledged that mistakes have been made in the past around unsafe working environments and environmental despoilment but says the industry and regulators have learned from those mistakes and won’t make them again. The Chief Executive of Energy Resources Aotearoa John Carnegie says the industry is ready to go.  

“It’s about having the right conditions in place, and the government’s taking all the right steps to ensure that those things can be unlocked. So, yeah, I’m certainly more positive, you know. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t utilize the wealth that’s under our feet. Export, we, we, have high grade coking coal, and coal used in steelmaking. We export that, there’s no reason why we can’t export a lot more of it. And we have a rich set of resources of critical minerals which we should explore that will help us with developing our technology, and renewable space batteries, wind turbines, so on and so forth.” 

That’s John Carnegie, the Chief Executive of Energy Resources Aotearoa talking to Mike Hosking this morning. 

Now, naturally you’ve got people who are utterly opposed to anything being dug out of the ground. Forest and Bird is one of them. Hardly a surprise. Richard Capie saying the plan is a “love letter” to offshore mining companies. He said we’re living in a climate and biodiversity crisis, in a country with the highest proportion of threatened species in the world, where all types of public conservation land are valuable and home to endangered plants and animals. 

However, Shane Jones is having no truck with that. He says the lands been mined before; it can be mined again. Opening up our land and seas to mining will create regional jobs, economic resilience, and will mean the country is not relying on minerals extracted under poor conditions overseas. And that’s where he’s got a point. Like, you know, would I be happier if not one leafy piece of grass in New Zealand was dug up and overturned? And yes, you know, let nature do its thing and let it be beautiful and fabulous, but then that means I can’t drive a car. I can’t heat my house, I can't use the mobile phone, because if you accept that other people can do it, other people can do it overseas, over there where I can’t see it, that is so hypocritical. If you’re going to be utterly passionate about extraction industries being bad, surely you have to follow through on that, all extraction anywhere is bad, don’t you? 

And if you’re talking about unsafe mining practices, you know, unsafe working conditions and unsafe workplace practices, do any of these passionate young greenies who are so against New Zealand being opened up to mining look at the conditions that young African kids are working in overseas, in the mines. Just pick a country in Africa, any country, it’s been raped and pillaged for hundreds of years. And the children there don’t have the option of wagging school, they’re sent down to the mines. And if they’re quite happy using their mobile phones to message each ot

Parts of our economy are continuing to provide inflation pressures for the Reserve Bank.  

It's decided to keep the OCR at 5.5% and has signalled a rate cut no sooner than the second quarter of next year. 

The move to keep the OCR the same was anticipated, but many were hoping for rate cuts to come earlier. 

Corelogic’s Chief Property Economist Kelvin Davidson told Kerre Woodham that this is the monetary policy tightening cycle in action. 

He said you have to squeeze the economy a bit to get inflation down, which means that a lot of people are doing it tough as a result. 

LISTEN ABOVE 
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I first heard the catchphrase Survive to 25 when I was talking to be at large, Liam Dann.  It appears to have come out of the US and implies that if mortgagees and small businesses can just hang on till next year things will start to come right. Because let's face it, we're not going to see interest rates drop any time soon. Despite some of the banks predicting that there would be a drop in mortgage interest rates towards the end of the year, the Reserve Bank poured cold water on that. Great for those with term deposits, less welcome news for anyone with debt.   

Finance Minister Nicola Willis made it abundantly clear that the Reserve Bank had just one job and that was to get inflation back to target - 3 then 2%. She says the tax cuts will not be inflationary because the government itself has really cut back on its spending. That they’re not borrowing, she says, to pay for tax cuts, they’re coming from savings. And she says that most people who receive the tax cuts will use them to pare down debt, so it’s not going to be inflationary. Adrian Orr is not budging, so people are just going to have to white-knuckle it to the end.  

You have to wonder what is the end? What is it gonna look like? What’s the trading landscape going to look like by the time we hit 2025? Some people have used up all their reserves. I’ve heard from some traders, some small business owners that things need to turn, and need to turn pretty quick. Consumer confidence needs to pick up for businesses to survive. Forget ‘survive to 25’, they’re just hoping to survive the next three months. But is it an unequal recession as well? Are some businesses going gangbusters while others are doing it tough?  

For those with mortgages, if the Reserve Bank keeps the OCR at 5.5% until September of next year, many borrowers are going to be caught short when they come to refix their loans. Borrowers have, for some time, been betting on the OCR falling sometime soon, sometime this year. Since the start of last year, people are just fixing for one year. I was talking to some young colleagues in the newsroom. They’ve got mortgages coming up in a few months, they’re going to fix for a year, hoping that by next year things will look better.  

Survive to 25. The popularity of one-year mortgages has taken off since the start of the year. Fixing for six months has become more common at the cost of two-year mortgages. So if you have a mortgage coming up and it needs to be refixed, are you going to go for the six month, the one-year, the two year? If you are a small business owner, ‘Survive to 25’, is that your mantra? Is that the reason to hold on, that by the time we get to 2025, things will have improved? Consumers will have a bit more in their pocket, they’ll have a bit more money around for treats like bouquets of flowers, new pair of shoes, that sort of thing. 

We hear all the decision makers having their say, making their predictions, implementing their policy, having their reckons because ultimately, that’s all they are about: what is it going to do to the economy long term? But for those of us at the business end of things, at the sharp end of things, where are you at? Can you survive through to 25? And for those who've been around for a while who've been in business for a while, how does doing business now compare to doing business during the global financial crisis? That was a tough time with unemployment, with an absolute contraction of the economy, with businesses wondering how they were going to survive.  

There is still, as I mentioned the other day, incredible young people who are opening businesses, who have faith, and optimism, and belief that they have a product or a service that is amazing, that people will want to buy. That they will be able to make a living doing what they’re good at, doing what they love. Even in this market, there are baby businesses being born every day. 

There is so much to battle. 

I

I know we have no money.  I know the government is in dire straits and making really tough decisions when it comes to spending and where that spending is targeted, but I will be so sad if First Home Grants is one of the schemes that gets cut in the review of housing projects that is under way. The review is necessary because the previous government and its agents mismanaged Kainga Ora to the extent that New Zealanders not even born yet will be paying off its debts. If it hadn’t gotten into so much trouble, there would be more money to go around and go around everywhere. 

And I know —we were having the conversation yesterday— that there is a desperate need for social housing. But surely there is also a moral imperative to acknowledge people who are doing the right thing, who are working hard, who are saving , who are young, who are the future of this country. They don't have addictions, they don't appear before the courts, they’re not ‘victims’. They simply want to live a good life, look after themselves, look after their families, enjoy their mates, and enjoy all this country has to offer. All those good kids who make up the majority of New Zealanders. And you might say that living well is its own reward, but at a time when housing is so prohibitively expensive every little bit helps, and would it really hurt the country if we diverted $60 million of the housing budget to first home buyers to reward them for their discipline and hard work? 

When you are getting together the deposit for your first home, you’re scratching, you haven’t been working that long, you’ve paid off your student loan —if you had one— or if you’ve been in the trades you’ve been living at home and saving the money you get and putting it in a pot. You’re not going out and you’re making the right choices, and you’re getting that money together. Having a grant of $5000 for an existing home or $10,000 for a new build to first home buyers who meet the income threshold is a really powerful incentive to have a stake in this country. To not take off and chase the money overseas. 

Those young people are saying we believe in this country, and we believe in sticking here, and we believe in putting down roots, and having a home, and having a family, and staying here and contributing. And I would love to see that those grants stay because there’s precious little for people who are doing the right thing.  

The coalition is reviewing all housing support initiatives, and it was Shane Jones’ loose lips who dropped the fact that first-home grants might be under it. Labour's housing spokesperson Kieran McAnulty said scrapping the grants would be a cynical move.  McAnulty said the scheme, which was originally started by the previous National government, was a good idea, and Labour had expanded on it. I really do think there needs to be room within the government, not just to focus on the minority who cost us so much money, so much of our taxes goes towards people who are doing the wrong thing, who make mistakes, who deliberately set about, you know, imploding, destructing, destroying their lives, so much of the money goes there. 

What about the quiet, hardworking, good young men and women who don’t want government help per se, but an acknowledgement that they are able to be disciplined, and thrifty, and hardworking, and we say as fellow taxpayers, hey, thank you very much. Here’s a tiny bit towards your first home. Thank you for staying here, thank you for putting down roots in this community and contributing to a future New Zealand.  

We’ve had far too many fatted calves slaughtered for the prodigal sons, sometimes the hardworking son who stays on the farm and fulfils his obligations deserves a reward too.   
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The scathing review into the government's public housing landlord Kainga Ora, which was led by former Prime Minister Sir Bill English, was released yesterday and it was every bit as bad as those with half a brain had expected. 

It found the social housing system is not socially or financially sustainable. As a result, the board has, in effect, been sacked and a new chairman has been appointed. 

New incumbent housing minister, Chris Bishop says it's bad. 

“It was fairly alarming, to be honest, I'm probably understating that a little bit. I mean this is an organization that, $45 billion company, owns 70,000 houses, bit more than that actually, running massive deficits. So, $500 million in the 2022-2023 financial year, forecast to grow to $700 million a year. That's all deficits that are paid for by taxpayers by the way. Massive debt, so it was about $2 billion in 2017-2018, it's now forecast to increase to $23 billion by 2028. So it's just not sustainable, as a review finds by the Bill. It’s not sustainable, but the Crown continues to fund it and we're going to have to take action, that’s what we announced yesterday.” 

So everything now is up in the air and National, no doubt will get the blame, or the coalition government will get the blame should anything be halted, delayed, or scrapped entirely. But alarm bells over the level of KO’s expenditure practices and debt have been ringing for years. The sound of squawking and the flurry of feathers are just all the chickens coming home to roost. Now it's official. 

We had Megan Woods on the show a number of years ago about anecdotal stories of Kainga Ora outbidding local buyers, paying over the odds for homes at auction. She said, oh, she didn't know anything about that, there was nothing official, there were no official complaints. So yeah, look sorry, you know, without the details, she couldn't do more. At the time we had to accept that. But as it transpires Kainga Ora spent $750 million between 2018 and 2021 on buying property across the country to turn into state homes. They weren't building any new ones at that time. 

They were, these were 1000 homes that had been bought at auction, in private sale, under the noses of first home buyers who were going for exactly that sort of house. 1,053 homes that the government agency bought by outbidding Kiwis. People who would struggle to put together a deposit and to get a loan permitted were having to go up against Kainga Ora who had bottomless pockets because we, the taxpayer were funding them. 

Then we had the leaked document two years ago that advised Megan Woods not to grant any future money to Kainga Ora over fears of unsustainable debt levels. We've talked about this ad nauseam that the debts are going to have to be paid by Kiwis who aren't even born yet. There were fears then that the government would be unable to completely repay the increase in debt over the next 60 years, and even if the new debt can be repaid by the then 2081 forecast, there'd still be nearly $9 billion outstanding. 

It's been in trouble for a very, very long time. 

I'm not surprised that the board has been, what were they doing when you looked at the numbers? Did they think the money machine was just going to keep churning out this money forever? Did not one of them have an ounce of common sense, or just caution and say, look, you know, seriously, look at this debt level. I suppose you had somebody on the other side saying, yeah, but look at the housing stock, get into trouble, we can just sell it off. 

Was, I have no idea what the thinking was on that board at all, or how you could keep approving budgets that, that showed debt that was basically unsustainable. I mean, where on earth do you go from here? 

I've heard from people who were involved in building Kainga Ora homes that each one was architecturally designed, and bespoke, and beautiful. And they do, many of them look absolutely lovely. You know, they’re homes that

The report out that workplace bullying is costing the country in terms of productivity and lost earnings is nothing new.  Bullying and harassment are conservatively estimated to cost employers $1.5 billion a year, according to a new study by KPMG, published for Friday's Pink Shirt Day.    

Years ago, there was a story on workplace bullying that surfaced in the news and the Department of Labour had to scramble to get extra staff to man the phones when a helpline they set up to take calls was overwhelmed. They had to keep it running for far longer than they ever imagined they would need to, such was the response. 

I'd like to think things have changed since I was a young journalist, but I don't think they have, and the report seems to confirm they have not. 

I grew up in newsrooms which were no place for the fainthearted.  Sure, there was no physical hazing or pranking, but journos are good with words and there was some brutal sledging.  I wasn't often on the receiving end of it, but on the rare occasion, I had a boss lean over me screaming into my face that I was effing useless and that I didn't deserve to be there and who the ‘f’ had I slept with to be on the team was fairly memorable.  To be fair, I was a bit rubbish. Most people new to any job make mistakes and haven't developed into the best versions of themselves, and yes, I probably didn't deserve to be there. I knew I hadn't slept my way into the job and the others knew I hadn't so that bit didn't really matter. So, after a bit of a cry in the toilets and being mopped up by my colleagues it was onwards and upwards.  A different person might have been scarred for life. Given up on their chosen career and done something else.    

And I rather fear it is still happening because today’s study used data from the Human Rights Commission’s 2022 report, which surveyed 2500 workers across Aotearoa and found 29% of workers experienced at least one bullying or harassment behaviour in the year before the survey.  The report found that 58% of the total cost of ($780m) in 2021-22 arose from impacts on female workers as they are disproportionately affected by bullying or harassment, according to the report. Or maybe it’s more likely that they will report it or that they will find offence and hurt from words other workers might not. 

It found that every worker affected cost employers about $1600, which could be broken down into absenteeism ($219), presenteeism ($450), where you’re there, but you’re not there. You’re at your desk but you’re not working. Increased staff turnover ($674), and internal procedures such as dealing with complaints ($270).  Big numbers, no doubt about that.   

At least now there are procedures for dealing with complaints. Back then, it was ‘suck it up and get on with it’. But I mean, nobody in the olden days was trained to be a boss. After a certain period of time you were promoted, you became one whether you were good at dealing with people or not. These days, I think the training is a little bit better if you want to be a manager. You’re given a bit more support once you become a manager, but back then, it just simply didn’t happen. 

But it’s also difficult to know how people are going to receive your words. I mean, we were talking about this before and the boss is, you know, sometimes he will say ‘I'd like you to do this’, and a young worker will say, ‘yeah, no, not really for me.’ And he goes ‘it wasn't, this isn't a workshop. This is, this is not a discussion. This is what I need you to do to do your job.’ And that can be construed in this day and age as bullying.  

A bit of banter between work mates, fine. A bit of banter with the wrong workmate? Not fine. 

It all has to be so nuanced, doesn't it? And I know that I have got the height of a rhinoceros, I know that I will go for the one liner wherever I can and sometimes that can be hurtful. So, I have tried to give younger workers, y