エピソード

  • Kerre Woodham: Are backyard fireworks really worth the cost?
    2026/05/07

    It looks like setting fire to small explosives in the backyard will be one of those wacky stories you'll tell the grandkids about. You were able to set fire to explosives, Grandma? In the backyard? In your own home you let off little bombs? Yes, we did. Those were the days. A Parliamentary Select Committee has finally backed a ban on the public sale and use of fireworks.

    No one can really say they're shocked, surprised, knocked over with a feather by this, because momentum for a ban on public sales and use of fireworks has been building over the years, based on concerns over animal welfare, danger to life and property, and the number of police callouts. Danger to life is probably over-egging the omelette – certainly danger to limb. ACC's seen a number of cases every single year. 14 previous petitions have been presented to Parliament calling for a ban, but this is the first time the committee has recommended one. Committee member Greg Fleming, who loved a double happy and a skyrocket in his backyard, was initially against a ban but said the evidence presented was overwhelming.

    “We had three petitions come to us at pretty much the same time, and so we did the unusual thing of bundling them all up. So we heard from a range of submitters, and overwhelmingly the advice was to move towards seriously exploring a ban. In the end, the committee felt that we really didn't have almost any choice but to recommend that given the weight of evidence.”

    The Government has 60 days to respond to the committee – it's not done and dusted yet. But as well as the public backing, there's been support from Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the SPCA, New Zealand Veterinary Association, Veterinarians for Animal Welfare, and Animates. A formal process including cabinet consideration would follow, and it won't be done before this year's election. It’ll probably end up being an election issue – you can see New Zealand First jumping on this one.

    I love fireworks, I absolutely love fireworks, but I do accept that the harm outweighs the enjoyment I get in my backyard. I'm happy to go to public displays, they can afford far better fireworks than I. It makes perfect sense to let off fireworks in Great Britain in winter, which is where the tradition began, but in New Zealand it's spring and it's nesting time. In England the sun sets at 4:30pm in November. In New Zealand it's after 8pm. ACC, as I referred to earlier, accepts roughly 300 new claims for fireworks related injuries in New Zealand every year. The costs exceeded $760,000 in 2023. Most injuries involve burns to hands and wrists, and in a shocking revelation, males aged 15 to 19 are most at risk. Children under 10 make up around 25% of all those injured. There were more than 1,500 firework related service calls for New Zealand Police. I can't even imagine how many there were for fire. Is it worth that kind of cost, that kind of disruption, to cling on to having bangers in your backyard?

    It's not an end to fireworks full stop. There will still be public displays of them. People will still be able to enjoy the incredible spectacle of fireworks filling the sky, choreographed fireworks, which are just beautiful. If it was an end to fireworks full stop, then I might dig my toes in, but on this one, this is not a hill I'm going to die on. Is it really worth it? It's the wrong time of year, it's not our tradition. I accept it as fun, but is it, given the cost, given the disruption, given the terrible, terrible injuries inflicted on animals every single year, is it really worth it?

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    5 分
  • Olivia Blaylock: Icehouse CEO on the Ignite Growth Summit, small and medium businesses in New Zealand
    2026/05/06

    The Icehouse is celebrating 25 years of powering Kiwi business growth.

    They’re a non-profit dedicated to training and mentoring the small to medium enterprises that make up 97% of New Zealand’s economy.

    And today is their Ignite Growth Summit, in which they bring together legendary founders who have gone from the garage to the global stage to inspire the next wave of business talent.

    CEO Olivia Blaylock told Kerre Woodham there are so many great businesses around New Zealand, and while some, like Pic’s, are well known, there are plenty that we don’t hear about.

    She says we need to tell more of their stories and create a culture where it’s okay to put your hand up and say you’re doing well.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    10 分
  • Clare de Lore: journalist on the launch of the new 'Brainstorming' podcast
    2026/05/06

    A brand-new podcast from the University of Auckland’s Centre for Brain Research, journalist Clare de Lore and Newstalk ZB, 'Brainstorming' launched today.

    Clare sits down with world-class scientists and those living with brain disorders, from dementia to CTE.

    She joined Kerre Woodham to explain further.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    16 分
  • Kerre Woodham: Is there a case for amalgamation?
    2026/05/06
    Government ministers gave councils an ultimatum yesterday: come up with your own plans for amalgamation within three months, or the Government will do it for you. Local Government Minister Simon Watts and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop said there was broad support from councils – some were already gung-ho and proceeding with plans to amalgamate. One of them is Nelson Mayor Nick Smith. He's long held the view that merging with Tasman is the right thing to do for his city and cites common interests and unnecessary duplication. Back in 2012, Nelson voted in favour of amalgamation, Tasman voted against it. Tasman Mayor Tim King still prefers an arranged marriage – he wants to wait for the Government's backstop process, which would force reform before the 2028 local elections. King says he'd rather have central government just do it, decide on the country's local government model, rather than have all the arguments that come with trying to hash out, thrash out these sorts of governance arrangements for themselves. As King pointed out, the biggest problem councils face right now is financial pressure, and amalgamation won't necessarily save money, and it won't necessarily make everything magically better. Come on in, Auckland Super City! A prime example of amalgamation. Did it make things better? Back in 2010, the 1st of November to be exact, eight councils became one. And from that one big Super City Council, 21 local boards were created to focus on community issues. The council managed regional issues like transport and planning. The aim was, as Nick Smith said, to avoid unnecessary duplication and improve services. And I guess on paper it makes sense but back in 2020, on the 10 year anniversary of the Super City, some districts felt amalgamation hadn't really worked for them. Speaking to Radio New Zealand, former Franklin District Mayor Mark Ball said his community felt like a cash cow for the big smoke, that they had specific regional interests that weren't being represented at council level. He conceded that the water had got a lot better, the drinking water under the new structure was a lot better, but he said vital infrastructure like upgrading roads down south had been passed up in favour of bike paths in Auckland's CBD. He said elected members all love to build the shiny things, they love to have their Aotea Squares and go to the openings of this and that. Nobody ever wants to bury pipes. And he said, as an example of where your own region's specific needs are overlooked or misunderstood or not taken into account, some roads that had been built were too narrow for farming vehicles. Why would you possibly need a wide road? Says somebody driving a smart car in inner city Auckland. Because I've got a whopping great combine harvester, you numpty, would be the answer – and he said the town centres have been stripped of car parks. The thing that concerns me is that so few people take an interest in local body politics. So few. People could be getting up to God knows what with God knows who and you wouldn't have a clue until it's all too late because nobody takes an interest, nobody goes to the meeting – well, very few. I'm exaggerating for effect. Very few people go along to the council meetings, very few people bother to vote. So they can decide what you like and you go, oh, I don't think this is very good, I don't like this, and well, too bad. You didn't care. You care now. I find it really interesting that when it comes to amalgamation, trying to get these disparate interests all working together as one, and the case that Mark Ball cites is a really good one. Franklin needs new roads. Right then, let's build them. Oh, they're not big enough for farming vehicles – you know it's because nobody knew. The Far North seems to be quite keen to amalgamate. They're first out of the blocks. Far North, Whangārei, Kaipara, and the Northland Regional Councils are looking to merge into one or two authorities. But the difference between the West Coast and the East Coast is phenomenal. There's a line you cross when you're driving from Hokianga to Kerikeri and you know that you've crossed it, that you're on the East Coast now. How do you get fair representation and, and manage to lobby for what's important in your area when the needs in the other area are so, so different? On the West Coast of the South Island, they're also keen. Grey and Hokitika District Councils are considering merging into a unitary authority with Westland Regional Council. Buller's like, no thanks very much. Not for me. They'll go at it alone. So if you are one of the few in the country that is taking an interest in local body politics, if you are one of the few in the country that cares about what happens in your region, where your rates go, how they're spent, whether you'll get fair representation when a merger happens because it's a matter of when, not if. Is it going to work for your area? Can you see a case for it?...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • Alf Filipaina: Auckland Councillor on the review into the Navigation Bylaw
    2026/05/05

    Auckland Council is aiming to reduce drownings and improve safety by upgrading its Navigation Bylaw.

    The most significant change would make life jackets mandatory for everyone on vessels under six meters long whilst it’s in motion.

    Current rules only require for them to be carried, with the person in charge of the vessel making the decision on whether it’s necessary.

    Auckland Councillor and Bylaw Review Panel member Alf Filipaina told Kerre Woodham this is the first review since the bylaw’s approval, and five years on, they want the community to have their say.

    He says they’re hopeful the majority will come in and say wearing life jackets while a vessel is on the water and in motion is common sense.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    9 分
  • Kerre Woodham: Is it necessary to make wearing a life jacket a legal requirement?
    2026/05/05

    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.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分
  • Dr Ezekiel Emanuel: US Health Policy expert chats ahead of NZ summit
    2026/05/03

    The Health Innovators' Summit takes place in Auckland tomorrow with this year's discussion centring around ideas to create a world-class, high performing health system for New Zealand.

    The keynote speaker is one of the world’s foremost health policy experts and author of Which Country Has The World’s Best Health Care?, Dr Ezekiel Emanuel.

    He joined Kerre Woodham to chat about the state of New Zealand healthcare and how other countries operate differently.

    "New Zealand is exactly where there's a line how rich a country is versus how much it spends on healthcare, and New Zealand's exactly on that line for the per capita GDP," Emanuel said.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    13 分
  • Kerre Woodham: ACT's immigration plan is not exactly 'ground-breaking'
    2026/05/03
    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...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分