Penalties could be on the cards for careless builders as the Government looks to strengthen professional requirements. 

It's eyeing key changes to the registration and licensing regimes, with a focus on lifting competence and accountability requirements; as well as improving Building Act consumer protections.

Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk confirms it's also looking into a new offence for deliberately hiding non-compliant building work in remote inspections. 

That would mean a $50,000 fine for individuals or $150,000 for businesses, should it become law. 

Kerre Woodham is joined by Master Builders Chief Executive Ankit Sharma to discuss further. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Penalties could be on the cards for careless builders as the Government looks to strengthen professional requirements.&nbsp;
It's eyeing key changes to the registration and licensing regimes, with a focus on lifting competence and accountability requirements; as well as improving Building Act consumer protections.
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk confirms it's also looking into a new offence for deliberately hiding non-compliant building work in remote inspections.&nbsp;
That would mean a $50,000 fine for individuals or $150,000 for businesses, should it become law.&nbsp;
Kerre Woodham is joined by Master Builders Chief Executive Ankit Sharma to discuss further.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

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.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Ankit Sharma: Higher penalties for careless builders

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/bee676da-c29e-46a8-b0f3-b20400057980/transcript

To me, what is news is the fact that there are so many people who are working vital jobs, who are doing incredibly important work like our home support workers, and they are really struggling because of the petrol prices. That to me is news, and that to me is something we can do something about. That is going to impact us all as petrol prices surge past three bucks a litre. Sky appears to be the limit. It's going to impact all of us, even the EV drivers who'll end up paying more for anything that's delivered by road. But it's the people like the home support workers who rely on their own cars and fuel to visit their clients that you worry about. It's particularly tough.  

Their union, E tū, is urging the Minister of Health to step in and increase the mileage reimbursement rate for home support workers. There is a review scheduled of travel payments before the 20th of May, but for many that'll be too late. Home support workers are currently reimbursed at 63.5 cents per kilometre, averaged to 3.8kms per visit regardless of the actual distance, unless they reach a specific threshold. The rate was last increased in 2022 – things are vastly different now. Workers receive nothing towards vehicle registration, warrant, servicing, tyres, or insurance, all of which they must cover themselves. Freight companies have contracts that enable them to hedge their fuel costs, but of course home support workers don't.  

At what point is it actually costing you to go to work? There was a text a few days ago from, I think it was a St John trainer, but they were a person who taught CPR and they have to wander around with a dummy to do the CPR on and said they couldn't catch the bus, but I felt that if you put the dummy next to you on the bus then you wouldn't have to sit next to someone you didn't want to. Thought that would be a useful shield. But they were saying they have to go city to city, Auckland to Hamilton, Auckland to Tauranga. At what point does it cost you to go to work? At what point do you say I simply cannot afford to do this? And there are so many workers who need their cars to either do the job, as in our home support carers, or to get to work. You're living somewhere where the rent is cheaper or the cost of a home is cheaper, but you have to drive a long way to get to your actual place of work.  

In this week's edition of Fuel Watch, I'm asking at what point do you think ‘I simply cannot afford to do my job any longer or to get to work any longer’? Have you reached that point yet? I mean we're past $3, I think, at one of the cheapest fuel stations, this was for 95 though, it was $3.26. Hitting $4 is not beyond the realm of possibility. At what point are you going to go I can't do this anymore? E tū are saying the Government, the Minister of Health, needs to step in and help out the home support workers whose work is vital. Without them you would have people in wards, in hospitals, clogging them up. You need to have that continuum of care starting with GPs working your way through to the home support workers. They're a vital part of the chain. 

To me, what is news is the fact that there are so many people who are working vital jobs, who are doing incredibly important work like our home support workers, and they are really struggling because of the petrol prices. That to me is news, and that to me is something we can do something about. That is going to impact us all as petrol prices surge past three bucks a litre. Sky appears to be the limit. It's going to impact all of us, even the EV drivers who'll end up paying more for anything that's delivered by road. But it's the people like the home support workers who rely on their own cars and fuel to visit their clients that you worry about. It's particularly tough. &nbsp;
Their union, E tū, is urging the Minister of Health to step in and increase the mileage reimbursement rate for home support workers. There is a review scheduled of travel payments before the 20th of May, but for many that'll be too late. Home support workers are currently reimbursed at 63.5 cents per kilometre, averaged to 3.8kms per visit regardless of the actual distance, unless they reach a specific threshold. The rate was last increased in 2022 – things are vastly different now. Workers receive nothing towards vehicle registration, warrant, servicing, tyres, or insurance, all of which they must cover themselves. Freight companies have contracts that enable them to hedge their fuel costs, but of course home support workers don't. &nbsp;
At what point is it actually costing you to go to work? There was a text a few days ago from, I think it was a St John trainer, but they were a person who taught CPR and they have to wander around with a dummy to do the CPR on and said they couldn't catch the bus, but I felt that if you put the dummy next to you on the bus then you wouldn't have to sit next to someone you didn't want to. Thought that would be a useful shield. But they were saying they have to go city to city, Auckland to Hamilton, Auckland to Tauranga. At what point does it cost you to go to work? At what point do you say I simply cannot afford to do this? And there are so many workers who need their cars to either do the job, as in our home support carers, or to get to work. You're living somewhere where the rent is cheaper or the cost of a home is cheaper, but you have to drive a long way to get to your actual place of work. &nbsp;
In this week's edition of Fuel Watch, I'm asking at what point do you think ‘I simply cannot afford to do my job any longer or to get to work any longer’? Have you reached that point yet? I mean we're past $3, I think, at one of the cheapest fuel stations, this was for 95 though, it was $3.26. Hitting $4 is not beyond the realm of possibility. At what point are you going to go I can't do this anymore? E tū are saying the Government, the Minister of Health, needs to step in and help out the home support workers whose work is vital. Without them you would have people in wards, in hospitals, clogging them up. You need to have that continuum of care starting with GPs working your way through to the home support workers. They're a vital part of the chain.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: At what point does it become unaffordable to work?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1f69ea9b-2a10-48ea-be34-b4100180abf5/transcript

Political appointments are being scrutinised after the resignation of KiwiRail director Scott O’Donnell due to conflicts of interest. 

Political analyst Bryce Edwards described the appointment as a “farce”, and the result of a broken system and “rotten governance.” 

O’Donnell is a major player in the trucking and transport sector, and some of the ten companies he’s involved in supply services to KiwiRail – though a management plan was put in place to mitigate that. 

While he doesn’t think there should be a rule against political appointments, Edwards told Kerre Woodham that there needs to be better processes and more scrutiny.  

He says at the moment, any government of the day can get away with whatever they want.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

Political appointments are being scrutinised after the resignation of KiwiRail director Scott O’Donnell due to conflicts of interest.&nbsp;
Political analyst Bryce Edwards described the appointment as a “farce”, and the result of a broken system and “rotten governance.”&nbsp;
O’Donnell is a major player in the trucking and transport sector, and some of the ten companies he’s involved in supply services to KiwiRail – though a management plan was put in place to mitigate that.&nbsp;
While he doesn’t think there should be a rule against political appointments, Edwards told Kerre Woodham that there needs to be better processes and more scrutiny. &nbsp;
He says at the moment, any government of the day can get away with whatever they want. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Bryce Edwards: Political Analyst on political appointments and conflicts of interest in NZ

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/5c69a936-01f4-40b0-bafb-b410000f408f/transcript

What I found more outrageous on the internet yesterday was yet another example of this country's propensity for doling out jobs for the boys and indeed the girls. Every political party does it, every government does it, rewards the party faithful and their generous donors and backers with cushy sinecures. Grafter-in-chief would have to be Trevor Mallard's posting to Dublin – although would it? Because there are plenty of other opportunities to point the finger. Look at Simon Bridges, the ex-National Party leader was appointed as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency, Waka Kotahi, in March 24. 

There are many, many examples of political cronyism. And in the latest one, a KiwiRail director has quit the board two years early after only a couple of months in the role. That's not the news. What is news is that he was appointed to the board at all given his conflict of interest. Scott O'Donnell is a big player in trucking and freight. And given some of the 10 companies he's involved with supply services to KiwiRail, what on earth was he doing being made a director of KiwiRail? The conflicts required Treasury to put a management plan in place. 

The conflict of interest mitigation plan contained seven measures to manage conflicts, including recusing himself from board meeting discussions where there was a conflict of interest. It was simply unsustainable. He was being paid to do a job that he simply could not do because of the conflicts of interest. He ended up leaving meetings early and missing agenda items and, you know, became apparent that this wasn't going to work. He'll be stepping down next week and thanked for his service. But he should never ever have been appointed in the first place. 

So not only are there existing conflicts of interest, he's one of four directors of HW Richardson's Transport Tapunui, which donated $20,000 to New Zealand First in July 2024. The company's also involved in a project that recently received a government regional infrastructure loan, Shane Jones slush fund of $8 million. And then he's appointed by Winston to the board of KiwiRail. It's just another example and it's so common that it barely registered. I mean, I have to give credit to Radio New Zealand who were following this all the way through and BusinessDesk pointing it out going, No, no, no, this isn't good, this isn't right, this doesn't work. 

Do we have so few people in this country of five million who can do governance jobs and chief executive jobs that we have to accept there'll only be one or two degrees of separation, if that? That there is always going to be a conflict? If you think of the five million of us, how many of us could do a chief executive job or be on a board, take a director's role on a board? 

Look at the yawning vacancies that we have for our major companies, with a new one with Fonterra now. I mean, Miles Hurrell could walk into about 20 jobs in this country right now, either in sports governance or in business. There are so few people able to do the job. Do we have to accept that there is going to be a conflict of interest in just about every single appointment made? 

Do more of us have to put up our hands and do the directors' courses so that you can find maybe somebody somewhere who doesn't, hasn't made a donation or hasn't worked or hasn't been a politician who can then do the job? Or are we just simply too small? 

How we haven't appeared on the dirt list of corruption is beyond me. It shows either a really, really principled closed doors approach to business in this country, being able to separate your different business interests and focus on them solely and leave everything at the door when you go in, or we just haven't uncovered it yet. I'd really love to see an end of the appointments of jobs for the girls and the boys, but then who would do the job when you look at the vacancies that exist right now. 

What I found more outrageous on the internet yesterday was yet another example of this country's propensity for doling out jobs for the boys and indeed the girls. Every political party does it, every government does it, rewards the party faithful and their generous donors and backers with cushy sinecures. Grafter-in-chief would have to be Trevor Mallard's posting to Dublin – although would it? Because there are plenty of other opportunities to point the finger. Look at Simon Bridges, the ex-National Party leader was appointed as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency, Waka Kotahi, in March 24.&nbsp;
There are many, many examples of political cronyism. And in the latest one, a KiwiRail director has quit the board two years early after only a couple of months in the role. That's not the news. What is news is that he was appointed to the board at all given his conflict of interest. Scott O'Donnell is a big player in trucking and freight. And given some of the 10 companies he's involved with supply services to KiwiRail, what on earth was he doing being made a director of KiwiRail? The conflicts required Treasury to put a management plan in place.&nbsp;
The conflict of interest mitigation plan contained seven measures to manage conflicts, including recusing himself from board meeting discussions where there was a conflict of interest. It was simply unsustainable. He was being paid to do a job that he simply could not do because of the conflicts of interest. He ended up leaving meetings early and missing agenda items and, you know, became apparent that this wasn't going to work. He'll be stepping down next week and thanked for his service. But he should never ever have been appointed in the first place.&nbsp;
So not only are there existing conflicts of interest, he's one of four directors of HW Richardson's Transport Tapunui, which donated $20,000 to New Zealand First in July 2024. The company's also involved in a project that recently received a government regional infrastructure loan, Shane Jones slush fund of $8 million. And then he's appointed by Winston to the board of KiwiRail. It's just another example and it's so common that it barely registered. I mean, I have to give credit to Radio New Zealand who were following this all the way through and BusinessDesk pointing it out going, No, no, no, this isn't good, this isn't right, this doesn't work.&nbsp;
Do we have so few people in this country of five million who can do governance jobs and chief executive jobs that we have to accept there'll only be one or two degrees of separation, if that? That there is always going to be a conflict? If you think of the five million of us, how many of us could do a chief executive job or be on a board, take a director's role on a board?&nbsp;
Look at the yawning vacancies that we have for our major companies, with a new one with Fonterra now. I mean, Miles Hurrell could walk into about 20 jobs in this country right now, either in sports governance or in business. There are so few people able to do the job. Do we have to accept that there is going to be a conflict of interest in just about every single appointment made?&nbsp;
Do more of us have to put up our hands and do the directors' courses so that you can find maybe somebody somewhere who doesn't, hasn't made a donation or hasn't worked or hasn't been a politician who can then do the job? Or are we just simply too small?&nbsp;
How we haven't appeared on the dirt list of corruption is beyond me. It shows either a really, really principled closed doors approach to business in this country, being able to separate your different business interests and focus on them solely and leave everything at the door when you go in, or we just haven't uncovered it yet. I'd really love to see an end of the appointments of jobs for the girls and the boys, but then who would do the job when you look at the vacancies that exist right now.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: New Zealand's conflict of interest problem

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f7dcbeb2-a622-4a08-acc1-b4100003e464/transcript

Ankit Sharma: Higher penalties for careless builders

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips