Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast Podcast Por Newstalk ZB arte de portada

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

De: Newstalk ZB
Escúchala gratis

Acerca de esta escucha

 Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.2025 Newstalk ZB Ciencia Política Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • Matt Crockett: Kāinga Ora CEO on increased warnings and evictions, vacant properties

    Matt Crockett: Kāinga Ora CEO on increased warnings and evictions, vacant properties
    Jun 6 2025

    Clearer boundaries around Kāinga Ora tenant behaviour could explain a 600% surge in formal warnings.

    In the past 10 months, 63 tenancies were terminated because of abusive, threatening, or persistently disruptive behaviour.

    Nearly 1,500 warnings have been issued in the financial year to date.

    Chief executive Matt Crockett told Kerre Woodham behaviour isn't worse, rather the previous framework wasn't as sharp.

    He says clearer boundaries and more follow through now have more people's behaviour changing for the better.

    The fate of multiple vacant Kāinga Ora sections sitting empty will be confirmed in the next month.

    Multiple projects are on pause as the state housing agency re-focuses on the Government turnaround plan.

    This includes selling 900 older homes a year and a new build programme.

    Crockett told Woodham Kāinga Ora's been reviewing which areas are cost effective and serve populations.

    He says about 20% of its current land holdings will be sold back to the market.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Más Menos
    34 m
  • Kerre Woodham: Who should be paying more for home insurance?

    Kerre Woodham: Who should be paying more for home insurance?
    Jun 5 2025
    It's not really a huge shock, is it? The news that homeowners will have to pay even more for home insurance to help the Natural Hazards Commission (formerly known as the EQC), is to be expected. Insurers have been warning for years that premiums will rise and will continue to rise, that they may have to put some of the cost of risky properties back onto homeowners and in some cases, they'll be declining to insure homes altogether. And we've already started to see that. In 2017, a then-record $242 million in weather-related claims was paid out. Just six years later, climate related claims were more than $3.5 billion due to the Auckland anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. It's incredible when you see the insurers' charts, 20 odd years ago they'd say this is a record year or this is a once in 100 year, then the next year, or three years later it would treble in terms of the cost of the claims that had to be paid out. So there's a pattern, you'd be a fool to ignore it, and the government is not doing so. Nor is the insurance industry. The Natural Hazards Commission provides cover for capped portions of residential buildings and land damaged by earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes, hydrothermal activities, tsunamis, storms, and floods (land cover only). Leaving private insurers to cover the rest. The NHC has struggled to recover following the Canterbury earthquakes and faces huge future claims costs. The new modelling lifts the likelihood of a big earthquake, with construction costs soaring post-pandemic and the reinsurance market hardening. The NHC is so underfunded that there's only a 37% chance the levy income will meet the costs over the next five years, according to the Treasury. And the NHC must cover the first $2.1 billion of claims related to a natural disaster before it can tap into its reinsurance cover. So just like any insurance claim, you must pay your excess, and then it will chip in. It's just in this case, $2.1 billion is your excess. Given there's only $500 million in the kitty, if there was a big disaster today or tomorrow, the government would have to find more than $1.6 billion to cover the claim costs before reinsurance cover could kick in. Associate Finance Minister David Seymour says levies will almost certainly need to rise, Cabinet’s set to decide on the changes in the coming months. An insurance consultant told Ryan Bridge this morning it'll probably cost homeowners an extra $200 to $300 more a year. And if that sounds like a lot, well count yourself lucky, because there are some people who simply won't be able to get insurance for their homes. And it's not just people in the obvious places on cliffs or banks next to rivers who will be paying. Everyone is at risk. And those living up the top, who’s homes are built on traditional drainage areas or water soak areas are part of the problem. We're all in this together. So, what are your options? If you have a mortgage you have to be insured, but it might mean that people take the bare minimum because that's all they can afford, meaning they are left underinsured and depending on the kindness of strangers to recover after disaster strikes. Will Give A Little be the insurer of choice for people who can't afford to cover themselves? I assumed Hamilton might be the safest place to live, and I was right. Volcanologists say Hamilton is probably the safest place to live. It’s away from the coast which cancels out tsunamis. It’s a safe distance from known fault lines, although there is the caveat that one could be lurking. It's far enough away from Auckland's volcanic field to be considered safe, and even if the Waikato River flooded its much lower than the houses around it. In the North Island, there's no real escape so should the north be paying more? Do we start pointing the finger at other areas? Can the people of the Waikato say “Hey, not us. We are living in a really safe area. If you choose to live anywhere outside of Hamilton, it's on you.” Do we ban the rebuilding? Make them no go zones of any area that's been flooded 2, 3, 4 times in the past 100 years. It's all very well and good for those who have not been flooded or have not been affected or haven't seen their homes turned to smithereens to say just move. But for most people, their home is their castle. It is their most significant financial investment. If they can't sell their home, they can't move. They have to patch it up and make do. So I would be really interested to hear your thoughts on this one. Do we go in this as “we're all in this together?” We accept that we're living on the shaky aisles, that we are a natural hazard magnet and that's the price you pay for living in a bucolic paradise. Should some areas pay more than others? Do you get the insurance companies whose business it is to gauge risk to set cover across the country based on the riskiness of each region.? Do we ban the rebuilding on known flood areas? What do you ...
    Más Menos
    8 m
  • Kerre Woodham: How can we take polls seriously?

    Kerre Woodham: How can we take polls seriously?
    Jun 4 2025
    Honestly, I don't know why we report on polls. Seriously, I don't know why I'm even talking about them myself, but it's really ripped my nightie overnight. They're so frustrating, and because media companies commission them, it makes the media look like master manipulators. This is from 1News last night (I didn't watch 1News, obvs) but this is from their website – both National and Labour have slid in the latest 1News-Verian poll, while New Zealand First have moved to their strongest position in eight years. If an election were to be held today, the right bloc of National, ACT, and New Zealand First would have 63 seats —enough to form a coalition— while the left bloc of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pati Māori would have 58 seats. So that's from 1News and their Verian poll. This is from Radio New Zealand – after the budget and pay equity changes, the left bloc would have the support to turf the coalition out of power, the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll shows. The preferred Prime Minister and leadership ratings are also bad news for the government, with the exception of Winston Peters, who's seen his highest results since 2017. The ratings of the government's general performance have also continued to slide, with Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Māori all gaining compared to the previous poll, they would have a majority with 63 seats between them, compared to the coalitions 57. A direct opposite of what 1News-Verian said. How can this be? And it's always headline news. You've got 1News talking about the right bloc being able to hold on to power, but only just, and look out. You've got RNZ crowing about the fact that the coalition government would be turfed out of power with the left gaining hold. And both lead with it, and it leaves me scratching my head and doubting both of them. How do you imagine the pollsters collect their data? Random phone calls of 1000 people? No, no, no. It's far more tricky than that, and they put it in every story. It must be an obligation on the part of the media company to say how the data was collected. From TVNZ: Between May 24 and May 28, 1002 eligible voters were polled by mobile phone (500) and online, using online panels (502). What are online panels? Are they things you sign up to yourself? Who knows? The maximum sampling area is approximately plus 3.1%. Party support percentages have been rounded up or down to whole numbers. The data has been weighted to align with Stats NZ population counts for age, gender, region, ethnic identification and education level. So what does that mean? If I'm a numpty, am I worth 2 points as opposed to somebody who leaves school worth NCEA and that's worth one? What does that mean? If I'm 18 and I respond, does that mean because there are fewer 18 year olds who respond, does it mean that my reckon is worth double that of somebody who's 50+. How can you weight the information? And not all 18 year olds think the same way. If you're looking at ethnic identification, not all Māori, not all Pakeha, not all Pasifika, not all Chinese people, think the same way. The sample for mobile phones is selected by random dialling using probability sampling. Online sample is collected using an online panel. So that's from 1News. This is from RNZ: This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between the 23rd and 30th of May 2025, has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1%. I'm of a mind to never discuss the polls again. The statisticians and the research pollsters and the companies all say, oh, no, no, no, it's terribly scientific. Is it really? When you've got two polls conducted over the same time, presumably using the same scientific methods, coming up with two completely different results. If the polls were scientific, surely you'd see a consensus of opinion. You wouldn't go sniffing like a truffle hunter looking for respondents that agree with your particular version of the way things should be. It's like you're researching into an echo chamber. It's not worth the time and the money. If this is what RNZ is spending their money on, given that they are funded by the taxpayer, I'd rather they spend it on training up young reporters or allowing a veteran reporter to spend some time doing some investigative journalism, rather than coming up with a poll that supports their worldview. And which is in direct contrast to the other taxpayer funded organisation, which is kind of paying its way at the moment, which is 1News. What is the point? How on earth can we take them seriously when they come up with completely different results and when all the data is weighed, quotas are taken, samplings adjusted. It's an absolute crock. The emperor is stark naked and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Más Menos
    7 m
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_T1_webcro805_stickypopup
Todavía no hay opiniones