Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Auckland Council wants to hear from you. It's consulting on proposed changes to the Auckland Navigational Bylaw. Right now, Clause 20 of the bylaw requires personal flotation devices, also known as life jackets, on vessels six metres and under. Unless, and here comes the thorny bit, unless the person in charge gives permission not to wear one. So that makes it all pretty cloudy, doesn't it? The proposed changes aim to clarify expectations and support safer decisions on the water. The proposed change to Clause 20 makes the rule clear, according to the council, and protects everyone on board.  What they want to change to is personal flotation devices must be worn on recreational vessels six metres or less in length. So no faffing around with, oh, the person in charge says I don't have to – if you're on the boat, you wear them. Submissions opened yesterday and are open until the 7th of June 2026, so you've got a bit over a month to have your say.   Is this sort of explicit rendering of the law necessary? Well, if you look at the stats, yes, it is. On average, between 15 to 20 people die every year in recreational boating accidents. And the majority of the accidents don't happen in rough seas miles from shore, they occur in the northern part of the North Island and in coastal waters within two kilometres of shore, and when you drill down, within 400 metres of shore. Vessel types: kayaks, canoes, small powerboats under six metres are the ones most frequently involved. Capsizing and falling overboard are the primary causes of accidents, often happening suddenly, and over half of those who died in the boating accidents were, guess what, not wearing a life jacket.   So you can understand the frustration from Coastguard New Zealand, from the first responders turning up seeing the devastation that occurs when a loved one dies from what was supposed to be a fantastic day out. And it's all so unnecessary. With the right flotation device, you get wet and you go home, and a family's not torn apart. I understand that for a lot of people, going out on the boat is the last freedom. You know, the wind through your hair, if you've got any, the salt water and sound of the seabirds, the light glinting off the water, and you're catching food for dinner. It's a fantastic experience, but it can all go wrong so quickly. And being sorry is all very well and good. “Oh my god, I should have insisted they wear a life jacket.” Yeah, you should have and it's too late now.  Do we leave it to God's little pruning fork? Like if you choose not to wear a life jacket and you know the stats, for heaven's sake, if you're a boatie, you know the stats. But is it a case of other people? Oh, it'll happen to other people. I'm very cautious, I'm very careful, I know what I'm doing. I can swim well. I was a lifesaver 42 years ago, I can look after the grandkids if anything happens. It's always other people until it isn't. But do you still want to be able to make your own choices and if the worst happens, oh well, there we go, it's just one of those things? Or should people be saved from their own stupidity and poor decisions? Every single boatie I know has really strict rules around their boat. When the kids go on board, they understand that the captain's in charge, you follow the rules, what he or she says goes, and life jackets are compulsory for everybody. It's not just for the kids and the adults don't wear them. Everybody wears them.   I understand people want to go to hell in their own way, but I can also really understand the frustration of first responders and Coastguard who have to deliver the news to people back on shore that because the person they loved was wilful and obstinate and refused to believe that they were mortal, they're not going to be with them ever again.  To me, it seems a no brainer. And I'm sure if you're that sort of boatie, you'd be like, how can you not? How can you not insist that people stay safe? It's not an onerous burden these days. So do you just leave people to, like I say, go to hell in their own way? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's good to see some parties releasing policies, looking at you Labour, whether you agree with them or not, given it's less than six months to the election. ACT released its immigration policy over the weekend, a six point plan that ACT says will welcome people with shared values and who play by the rules. ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said New Zealand was a settler society that had been built by people willing to make a journey to try and build something better, which is true, wave after wave of immigration has made New Zealand the New Zealand it is. But the six point plan, is it really designed to build a better New Zealand or is it designed to get voters to ACT?  As in the party, not as in to galvanise voters. Deport serious offenders, number one on the list. ACT will ensure that resident visa holders convicted of offences carrying sentences of 10 years or more will be deported, no matter how long they've been here. Well, we already do deport a lot of people back from whence they came if they commit serious crime, and the government has a proposal to extend liability to 20 years, so that if you've been here for 20 years, you'll still get sent back. So, really? Hardly ground-breaking.  Two, skilled visas for skilled jobs. Too often ACT says the gaps close and categories remain wide open. ACT will have each skill category automatically expire every year to remain open, so you can say, look, I need a worker, you have to prove that there is a need, you have to show up to date evidence of demand, which sounds like a lot of unnecessary paperwork and not at all like ACT. ACT will introduce a five year welfare stand down for all residence class visa holders, no jobseeker support, accommodation supplement or income tested benefit for a migrant's first five years here. Fair. ACT will introduce a $6 per day infrastructure surcharge on temporary work visas on top of the existing charges. The fee is expected to raise around 80 million a year while remaining more affordable than comparable visas in Australia and the UK. Stronger English language requirements. Lower standards will still be permitted for seasonal workers. Well, you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink, you can lead a horticulture but you can't make it think. You know, it's like you can demand it, and it would be nice if everybody did speak a lingua franca, but at the same time, it's the same in any migrant countries like the US, there are pockets of the US where they still speak Polish and they still speak Yiddish and they still speak Italian because that's the comfort of home.  And, there are 21,000 non overstayers in New Zealand right now, there'll be a dedicated overstayer enforcement unit within Immigration New Zealand. Right. Fair to say the policies have been met with eye rolling from the business and the rural community. Immigration lawyer Queen City Law Marcus Beveridge was very dismissive when he spoke to Ryan Bridge this morning: I just see it as it's not really worth getting out of bed for this because most of it's already here, it's superfluous, it's posturing. Minister Stanford's actually tidied most of this up already and I thought Mr Seymour could have done much better helping to refine the business categories rather than sort of dorking around with something that's already been fixed. Well, quite, really. And somehow you expect more from ACT. No, you might not agree with it, but you expect it to be better reasoned. Federated Farmers employment spokesperson Karl Dean talked to the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning and he says, well, it's not going to help us compete on the international stage: I think the six bucks a day is one thing, you know, how would that look on the international stage? We struggle to get skilled migrants now, they look at Australia, they look at Canada, they choose those over New Zealand. This is another barrier. But it's also the fact of renewing or looking at the accredited work visas every year. You know, if I was a migrant looking to come into a country, I would not choose New Zealand if we had a yearly sort of allocation system. So from the people who deal with migrants every single day, it seems to be a ho hum from them. The biggest criticism seems to be, well, the work's already done and that we're not really in a position to dictate demands and make it difficult for migrants to come here. There are other places they can go. We talked before about the declining birth rates in the Western world, everybody wants skilled migrants, everybody wants them, and we're not really in a position to make it more difficult for migrants to be here than it already is. I'd love to hear from those who have applied for visas, who have applied to move to New Zealand for a better life. Is it what you thought it was? Does it need to be made tougher? Do we need stronger English language requirements? Does it make it easier to assimilate, to feel like a Kiwi if you can speak the language? I'd just love to hear the migrant experience and what you think because you, more than anybody, will know what it's like to move to a new country, to try and meet the requirements of a new country, to try and make a new country your home. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know it's an election year, don't you? You know it's an election year when Winston's fermenting merry mischief, when the leader of the opposition is happy to put himself up for an hour of questions on talkback, and when lobby groups are releasing their election wish lists.  The Cancer Society has released its election manifesto and is calling on the next Government, however it looks, to spend dollars to save them. For example, if you invest $5.5 million a year to deliver a national skin cancer prevention and early detection programme, more than 90% of cases will be prevented – nearly all cases are treatable when detected early. Every dollar invested, according to the Cancer Society, returns $11.90 in savings.   And when you think of friends and family who have been through cancer treatment, you can understand how that would stack up. If you don't have to go through the torturous and expensive and generally lifesaving treatments, you are saving so much. So much of your own energy, so much time, so much money as a result of not getting cancer in the first place or early detection. As Cancer Society Chief Executive Nicola Coom told Mike Hosking this morning, given that cancer's New Zealand's biggest killer, it makes sense to invest in early detection and treatments.  “One in three of us in New Zealand will receive a cancer diagnosis in our lifetime, but what's startling is one in three can also be prevented. So 81 people today around New Zealand are going to hear that they've got cancer. What this manifesto is about is we want those people to either A, not have that news in the first place, or B, be told it's okay, we've detected it early, your prognosis is good.”  So the Cancer Society also wants to see cervical screening fully funded at a cost of $21 million per year and deliver on the 90% HPV immunisation target by 2030. You get that immunisation rate up and that eliminates cervical cancer. Invest the $5.5 million a year to deliver the skin cancer prevention and early detection programme, fund a lung cancer screening programme and begin rolling it out over the next three years, lower the bowel screening starting age to 50 and protect children and families from the commercial drivers of cancer. It all makes sense. If you can spend a dollar to save 11, why would you not? And you can say well the money's not there, but it is. It is there within the health budget. Imagine. Imagine if you didn't have to go through that whole gruelling process of trying to treat a cancer which could have been detected early, which could have been prevented in the first place when you look at the HPV immunisation.  Cancer does not have to be a death sentence anymore. Breast cancer used to be, once you got the news about that, it was basically “set your affairs in order”. But as a result of new treatments, as a result of detection programmes, you no longer see it as a death sentence. 86% of people who are diagnosed with breast cancer survive 10 years or longer now. With skin cancers, if they're detected early, bowel cancer if you have the screening programme and can pick up the polyps that can turn into something life threatening, there is no reason for us to go through the agony of seeing somebody sicken and die.  There will still be some that are just the anomalies of cancer cells being in your body and it's just your DNA and your bad luck and hopefully next life round you have a better run of it. But for many people it's detectable and if you have the early screening, you find it, the treatments are less severe, less harsh, less gruelling, less expensive. No brainer. I'd absolutely back the Cancer Society's election manifesto on that and I'll ask Chris Hipkins about that, but I'd love to hear from those of you who know exactly what this is all about, who've been there, who've done that, who've either had early detection or because of gaps in the system did not have the early detection and had a poorer outcome, tell me your story. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you have to get your car serviced by the dealer to avoid voiding the warranty?   While you don't necessarily have to, manufacturers require specific equipment and supplies to be used during the servicing process, and using alternatives can impact the warranty. The independent mechanic also has to adhere to the servicing schedule and keep complete documentation.  Motor Trade Association Dealer Expert Larry Fellowfield told Kerre Woodham that while dealerships often cost more than independent mechanics, it comes down to the specific training and equipment they’re required to have.   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The headline in the Herald read “New Zealand population bombshell” – but is the news really that much of a bombshell? We know we have an ageing population. We know that we're not replacing ourselves with babies. And we know that there's going to be a real crunch when it comes to finding sufficient workers in the next 20 odd years.   According to a report that the Herald quotes from Sir Peter Gluckman and Emeritus Professor Paul Spoonley, their new report People, Place and Prosperity says the colliding trends of a slowing population growth and a reliance on immigration to drive workforce and population growth, an ageing population requiring more public services, and growing ethnic diversity presents both opportunities and challenges. The opportunities include making the most of the skills, innovation, and creativity that such diversity can offer, but this can be undermined by political populism appealing to xenophobic tendencies – looking at you New Zealand First.   We've known for some time now that we're not having enough babies to replace ourselves. In the late 19th century, women settlers had on average seven children, but this rate halved by the early 20th century. Births per women doubled after the Second World War, then dropped in the 1970s. By December 2017, it had fallen to an average of 1.81 live births per woman, below the 2.01 average maintained between 1980 and 2015 and now annual population growth has dropped from 1.7% in 23/24 to 0.7 in 24/25 and it’s projected to remain below 1% in the coming decades.   Emeritus Professor Spoonley said the total fertility rate was at replacement level a decade ago, but last year it was the lowest it's ever been. You can't really blame young couples for not having families of five or six. I mean, what was normal a couple of generations ago seems aberrant now. Student loans, cost of housing, cost of living, an uncertain world. It's hardly surprising that families are restricting, that young couples are restricting their families. But the fact remains that even if AI fills some of the worker shortages, we're still going to need real life people to keep the country going. And if we're not making those people ourselves, then we're going to have to import them. And that's where Professor Spoonley says we have to have a reasonable, sensible discussion about what that will look like.  “Let's have an adult conversation about this. Let's not descend to pointing fingers or making jokes or you know this is a serious issue. So I think we should all be involved and interested in this debate and let's try and keep it up. We're going to need a lot of workers in the future because our population is turning at this point because of declining fertility and ageing. So we're getting people exiting out of the workforce at the top end and we're getting fewer entering the workforce at the bottom end. So immigration becomes super important. I mean you and I rocking up to a hospital today, 40% of our nurses, I don't know what the number is for doctors, are overseas trained.”   Yes, quite. I mean what would we do with a number of the essential services without our migrant workers? So less of the not particularly clever jibes from Shane Jones and a bit more respect for the people who do choose to come here and contribute to our country and our wellbeing. Because remember, other countries are facing the same issue, or the same issues – an ageing workforce, a declining population. So we will be in competition with them for migrant workers.   And it's no good thinking we can bribe or blackmail or entice or lure young women into filling their wombs. That's been tried overseas and it hasn't worked. Poland introduced a zero-income tax law for families with two or more children. Hungary, mothers who have four or more children are exempt from personal income tax. Hungary also offers a state subsidised family housing loan that provides low interest mortgages and partial debt forgiveness for married couples who commit to having children. Imagine. France, anyone who has two or more children receive a means adjusted payout depending on the number of children. Italy, Estonia, Turkey, I mean you name it. South Korea, Japan, they've all tried to entice women, couples to have more babies and it's not working.   I don't know. Certainly talking to couples in their mid 30s, they would have more children if they felt they could afford them. Would zero income tax do it for you? Low interest mortgages? Would that do it for you? Is it an uncertain world that's putting you off bringing children into it? What is it that has meant that you have stopped at the children you have or chosen not to have children at all? Is it simply a matter of money? And when it comes to enticing people to come and live here, sure AI might fix some of the shortages, we're still going to need people, and we need to welcome them. Otherwise we really will just be a poorly serviced retirement village at the bottom of the South Pacific and that's all we will be. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I like David Seymour's idea of teaching children the basics of money management by giving them $500 each. He floated the idea during a speech at a business event in Christchurch. The way it would work: the roughly 60,000 Year 11 s in this country would be given $500 in a controlled investment account with a structured pathway into real investing, possibly supported by investment platforms Sharesies or Blackbull. In term one, they choose a term deposit, a safe investment, but one that introduces the basic idea of storing capital so it can be used by someone else to produce, earning a return for the investor. In term two, they invest in a managed fund. This introduces the idea of risk. In term three, they invest in New Zealand equities, which introduces the idea of companies, and in term four, they're able to invest in assets from around the world, and all of a sudden, they learn about exchange rates and how much they matter.   The ACT Party Leader said there would be regular tests of students' knowledge, which would establish whether they could progress to riskier investments. He suggested any returns could be placed in a student's KiwiSaver, it could be a credit on their student loan, or be given to them in cash. He proposed the initiative, which would cost about $30 million, could be funded from the roughly $600 million KiwiSaver annual subsidy. He said, well, you might be surprised to see ACT coming up with a policy giving out money. They normally stand on your own two feet and haul yourselves up by your bootstraps, but he argued the benefits would be realised. It's not a handout; it's an investment in young Kiwis to grow their own wealth. I really like it as an idea, and I'm not the only one. Neil Edmond is the CEO and co-founder of MoneyTime, a financial literacy programme for schools, and he was really positive about Seymour's idea when he spoke on the Mike Hosking Breakfast.  “The Ministry of Education has done a great thing by making financial literacy mandatory in schools from next year, and so students from Years 1 to 10 are going to be learning the basics of personal finance and the basics of investing. But then the next logical step is to give them hands-on real life experience, and I think just even with $500 you can learn an awful lot just by having that practical hands-on experience.   “There's a lot of that sort of entrepreneurial type experience where they have the bake stalls and the school fairs and they sell products and things like that. That's a business focused type activity, which is fantastic and it's really good that they do that. But what Seymour's suggesting or proposing is giving them experience around investing, which is a different type of creating wealth. And I think so many kids don't get that sort of opportunity, certainly not early on, and the earlier they start investing, obviously the better off they're going to be later on.”  Well, yes. I think that's quite right. I mean, there are, it's not a completely unheard of idea for schools to do these kinds of programmes. There are schools before who've used their own initiative and kids have invested in share markets either with real money or with pretend money. They each have a share portfolio once they get to the senior level at school and follow the progress of the shares they've chosen throughout the year. And as Neil referred to, they set up businesses and involve themselves in marketing and that sort of thing as well. So it's not a completely off the wall idea. At the moment it is just that, it is not ACT policy yet. It was David Seymour saying, what do you think? We can make it policy, we'll listen to feedback, we'll see what you think.   For those who are thinking, well, I'm on the bones of my bum trying to eke out daily meals from a loaf of bread and a can of baked beans, what's this bloody nonsense about giving kids $500? Well, maybe this sort of education would prevent that kind of poverty in the future. If we learnt how to manage what money comes in and learnt how to invest it properly, if we learnt how to save and make the money work for us, if you do have money left over, it's going to do more, according to those who know, for the country's financial maturity than any other scheme if all New Zealanders understood how money worked.   There are a lot of people, I mean, I was the daughter of a bank manager, and I would call myself a financial illiterate. I'm a complete moron when it comes to money. Absolutely hopeless. I kind of, you know, pay my bills and I understand how that works. You pay your bills or you go to jail, and that's kind of basic. And I understand about capital, I've invested in KiwiSaver and I haven't got into debt and run up, so I mean, I'd probably give myself just a pass mark, but when it comes to creating wealth, no. Wouldn't have a clue. Pay my bills, save for my retirement in KiwiSaver, and that's about it. It'd be great to be able to hone the skills of those who already have innate talent as entrepreneurs and to give other people the kind of basics they need to understand how to make the most with what they've got. I'd really love to get your thoughts on this, as indeed would David Seymour. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour's written to the Prime Minister supporting the India Free Trade Deal being signed in New Delhi next week.  National needed their support to pass the deal into law, since it was opposed by coalition partner New Zealand First.  But Chris Hipkins remains concerned about the commitment to promote billions of dollars of investment in India, saying it's not affordable.  Labour’s Trade Spokesperson Damien O’Connor told Kerre Woodham the slow dribble of information was frustrating, but they’ve reached a point where the balance looks good for New Zealand.  He says it does come with risks, but there are huge opportunities as well, and they needed to make sure the Government was going to commit to them.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The reputations of the five MPs believed to be frustrated with Christopher Luxon’s leadership are suffering.   Luxon passed a vote of confidence at yesterday's lengthy caucus meeting, but MPs aren't revealing details of the vote, including how many of them supported Luxon.  The MPs responsible for leaks to the media are understood to be Joseph Mooney, Andrew Bayly, Sam Uffindell, Barbara Kuriger, and Tim van de Molen.  However, they’re all denying their involvement.  Senior Political Correspondent Barry Soper told Kerre Woodham that there are bound to be disgruntled people in the party, but you have to take people at their word if they deny their involvement.   He says that whoever it is, they’re in politics for the good of the country, not their own good, and it’s a pity a few of them can’t seem to get that into perspective.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Things are getting tougher for Kiwis.  According to ASB’s estimates, households will see an average of $55 a week added to their living costs this year, thanks to global effects of the conflict in the Middle East.   This compounds the struggle for many, with Stats NZ reporting in 2025 that just over half of renters and nearly 40% of mortgage holders didn’t think their income matched their everyday needs.  ASB’s Chief Economist Nick Tuffley told Kerre Woodham the increase isn’t that much different than previous years, it’s just concentrated in one specific area this year – fuel.   He says that means some people will be able to dodge some of the extra spending by changing their behaviour, whereas in the past it was spread out across multiple areas and much more unavoidable.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, aren't they? Last week people were castigating MetService for overhyping the incoming storm. And I would argue it wasn't MetService who were overhyping it, it was the media making an absolute meal out of it. Today, people are calling out MetService for not getting enough warning about the life-threatening rain and winds that are slamming Wellington and the Wairarapa district as we speak.  Whatever happened to looking after yourself? Gathering the information, you need and making decisions based on that? We seem to have descended into a national state of learned helplessness. Were we like that before Covid? Were we getting to that level before Covid or has it been exacerbated because of Covid? People with brains, people with rational capability, just sitting there like inert dummies waiting to be told what to do and when to do it. That is no way to live life.  Perhaps it's a rural-city divide. If you are living somewhere where help is not a 111 call away, where you know that if you need help, you're going to have to help yourself and then you're going to have to help your mates. You're not waiting to be told what to do. Last weekend I knew that the storm was coming, you could hardly avoid it if you were listening to the radio or watching the television. So that was helpful. You know, I knew it was coming, I knew what time it was expected to hit the Far North, and I knew the Far North was in the firing line.  So you get prepared. I knew the power would go off, the power goes off all the time, so that means no cooking, no water, so I made sure I had enough drinking water to last a week, that there was gas for the barbecue. I ran the bath the night before the storm was due to land so there was water to flush the loo. The torch had batteries, a good heavy duty powerful torch, waterproof torch, and I had a grab bag in case the stream on the property flooded or there was a landslide, those were the two risks that I identified on the property.  I knew where the nearest community centre was in case I needed help or in case I could give help. And I made sure there were very few perishable foods left in the fridge, don't you worry about that, we did not go hungry. I could have probably, like a camel, lasted a couple of weeks. So, you know, you get prepared. And then I turned off the radio because I didn't need to hear breathless stories on the hour every hour, and again that's not MetService's fault, that's the media hyping it up. And I made the most of the beautiful lovely calm sunny day.  And I knew it wouldn't last. I'd checked the forecast, I knew the weather would change and when I came inside and saw the barometer had absolutely plummeted, I brought in the outdoor furniture, made sure that everything was tied down and nothing could go flying and settled in for the evening. And sure enough at ten that evening the power went off, and I knew it would and I was ready. The power stayed off until the next afternoon. Around about 4pm it came back on and thank you very much to the Northpower team for working in nasty conditions on a Sunday restoring power to the Hokianga.  And I don't have that much common sense. Nobody would ever, if I had to be summed up at my funeral, say, “Well, there was a girl with common sense." I don't have that much of it, and you don't actually need that much to get yourself ready. I don't want to be helpless, and I don't want to be dependent on other people. I was up there on my own so I made sure that I could look after myself to the best of my ability. It takes very little money, very little effort, very little time, and as it turns out, not that much common sense to be prepared.  Am I the last person in the world to use a barometer? I really think every home should have one because if you're not listening to the radio or you're not watching the television news or the cellphone towers go down and you can't look at the apps on your phone, then you've got the barometer. They've been around since 1645 and have been accurate since then and still are today. And when you look at that barometer plummeting down, you know that the weather is going to change for the worse, so you get yourself ready.  I really think we need to drive home the message that it's not MetService's fault if you are flooded out of your home. They didn't cause the deluge, they cannot predict which house in which street will be flooded, that's unfair to expect them to do that. There are so many ways we can keep ourselves informed, even the good old-fashioned barometer which I absolutely swear by. Do not just sit there waiting for people to tell you what to do and when to do it. Use the brains and the common sense that the good gods gave you and stop blaming other people for natural events that can't possibly be pinpointed to your personal address. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The story that has made the front page of the Herald this morning and dominated the conversation was the leadership of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. He is facing what party insiders describe as “the most difficult fortnight of his leadership”, with growing speculation about his support within National's caucus as Parliament returns next week. Sources say that the whip, Stuart Smith, tried to present Christopher Luxon with evidence that caucus backing for his leadership had weakened. He tried to do that before Easter, but Christopher Luxon did not want to hear this. They did not have the meeting. It's understood those who believe Luxon should step aside might act in the next two weeks, although a formal leadership challenge or confidence vote is still seen as unlikely. Instead, the preferred option amongst critics appears to be having a good old chat with Christopher Luxon with evidence of his diminished support within his caucus, and that might prompt him to resign or step aside and bring about a change of leader. Now, if that doesn't happen, a challenge could follow, but there's no declared challenger at this stage.   All of this is at a critical time. Parliament's back for a short sitting block before recessing again ahead of the Budget. Here comes the Budget. Political analysts say removing a Prime Minister during the Budget period risks destabilising the Government. So it's this next fortnight or not, because after that we're into Budget time and that would be even worse for National.  National Minister Chris Bishop, who has been widely rumoured as a potential contender, was on the radio with Mike Hosking this morning. He came on to talk about the changes to the Warrants of Fitness, but instead he got a little surprise of talk of a coup. Chris Bishop described the situation as “untidy and unhelpful”. He said there's no leadership challenge underway, and he said he will not be the National leader before the election. But the general consensus to that interview was that he was being a little shifty, and he knows a lot more than he was letting on. How could he not know the feeling in the caucus? He's around there the whole time. How could he not know that three guys had actually come to Thomas Coughlan? But he claimed he didn't.  Furthermore, can I just remind you that Chris Bishop is scheduled for an interview with Jack Tame on Q&A on Sunday, so you know this issue is going to continue bubbling away. Behind the scenes, tensions were already evident before Parliament recessed. We reported, everybody reported, that Christopher Luxon faced pressure from within caucus during the final sitting week and he ended up reshuffling the party, hopefully to stabilise it, but look at this, it's still rumbling on. When party whip Stuart Smith got ghosted by Christopher Luxon, he ended up raising all his concerns with deputy leader Nicola Willis instead. We've got a poll out right now and those numbers are adding to the pressure. National is currently sitting well below Labour and another major poll is due next week. So, all eyes are now on the coming days and how Christopher Luxon and his senior colleagues respond. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I want to start off with the Bendigo-Ophir mine near Cromwell, and the question is should it get fast track approval? The Australian company Santana Minerals has applied to build four open pits in the Dunstan Range near Cromwell, the largest of which would be one kilometre long and 300 metres deep, and it's alongside a two kilometre long tailings storage dam which would stay there forever.   The company says the project follows the most significant gold discovery in New Zealand for 40 years. There's always been gold there in the Bendigo around Welshtown, but they've found more. The company says it will generate $6 billion in revenue and more than $1 billion in taxes and some royalties, and 357 direct jobs in the Cromwell region. It's up for fast track and the fast-track panel has until October the 29th to make its decision.  Yesterday, it was reported that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Mr Simon Upton, has come up with a report to the panel and it's issued a stark warning about the mine. He reckons that if the fast-track panel can't receive independent assurance that the project's environmental risks can be mitigated, he says the application should be declined. Simon's submission to the panel, which was reported by Mike White in The Post yesterday, arrives as the debate intensifies. And we've all heard about Sam Neill, the actor. He gave an interview to the Guardian over the weekend and that's given the whole thing a whole international profile. So it's all on.   So what is Simon really worried about? Simon's primary concerns are water and earthquakes. This proposed tailings storage facility, which I told you is two kilometres long, would hold what he describes as large quantities of potentially hazardous mining residues in the headwaters of one of New Zealand's largest river systems and in an area which is very susceptible to very large earthquakes. He's worried about the seepage into the groundwater, and he noted that Santana Minerals' own experts could not give certain assurances that any leakage could be entirely prevented. And he says the leachate coming out of the tailings facility could continue for decades and even centuries after the mine closes.   Simon was also troubled by all the imprecise language in Santana's application, citing the objective that contamination caused by the operation is appropriately remediated or managed, and he says well that's a bit airy-fairy isn't it? What does appropriately mean in this context? He said that's anyone's guess. He says the risks of acid mine drainage and tailings failures are arguably greater in New Zealand than elsewhere else, given the country's seismic exposure. And he's not wrong, there was a map actually published the other day of all the seismic events around the world and the two most seismically active places in the entire globe is New Zealand and Japan. Little red dots everywhere. We shake an awful lot. And Simon says if what happens if things do not go to plan, that is my concern. And he says we have only one opportunity to get it right and in his opinion, we shouldn't give the Bendigo Ophir mine near Cromwell fast-track approval.  And then of course there's Sam Neill, Sir Sam, we know he doesn't want it. So he gave an interview to the Guardian over the weekend, and he was very careful to come across not as an anti-mining zealot. His quote was “I'm not against mining, I'm just against this mine." Of course he's a winemaker, he's grown Pinot in his two paddocks label in the region for 30 years. His family has been in Central Otago for 150 years. He has global influence because he's a global actor. He's his concern also extends beyond just this mine because he says Santana hold permits over a vast surrounding area and this could set off a chain reaction. He says there'll be mining all around us. He's even made a little documentary on the issue, it's called Into the Dunstan Mountains and you can find that on YouTube if you want to watch it.   This Santana project has created deep divisions in the community, however, there's a lot of support. Supporters are represented by a Facebook group. That Facebook group has 8,500 members and they say look at the economic relief, look at those jobs, all 357 direct ones and all the subsequent jobs from money that flows through the region. And they say our region is under financial pressure, we need the jobs and we need a little bit of dink coming through the economy. But opponents like Sam and former Prime Minister Helen Clark warn that the fast-track law has little regard for the environment, and they're concerned this mine will destroy threatened plants, scar a unique landscape and pollute the land and water. And they say New Zealand will not get all the economic benefits because Santana is an Australian company, so the profits go there. The royalties are low but yes there will be jobs, and we'll get the GST and the tax from that.   But is it enough to stick in four big four big mines, a couple of big dams, including a tailings dam that's a kilometre long and full of all sorts of poisonous minerals, in a seismic area where if there was a big quake and the dam burst the water would flow straight down into Lake Dunstan and then of course into the Clutha and then all over Otago Southland. Wow, there's good arguments on both sides don't you think? Which side do you stand on? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.