A reminder to construction workers to keep looking out for each other on World Suicide Prevention Day.  

MATES in Construction's recent survey finds 85% of workers reported good mental health last year, an improvement from previous years. 

But also last year, 80 workers died from suspected suicides, a jump from previous years.

Dr Chris Bowden, MATES in Construction’s Academic Director, told Kerre Woodham the participants in their study group talked a lot about the bullying, harassment, aggression, and conflict that was common on job sites, as well as the ritual hazing that often comes with being a new member of the community.

But on the plus side, he said, they heard that things are slowly changing in that culture, and people are starting to take safety and mental health and wellbeing a lot more seriously in the workplace.

LISTEN ABOVE

A reminder to construction workers to keep looking out for each other on World Suicide Prevention Day.   
MATES in Construction's recent survey finds 85% of workers reported good mental health last year, an improvement from previous years.  
But also last year, 80 workers died from suspected suicides, a jump from previous years. 
Dr Chris Bowden, MATES in Construction’s Academic Director, told Kerre Woodham the participants in their study group talked a lot about the bullying, harassment, aggression, and conflict that was common on job sites, as well as the ritual hazing that often comes with being a new member of the community. 
But on the plus side, he said, they heard that things are slowly changing in that culture, and people are starting to take safety and mental health and wellbeing a lot more seriously in the workplace. 
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

Chris Bowden: MATES in Construction Academic Director on the mental health and suicide rates in the sector

It won't be a particularly good morning for the people of the central North Island. There was a sense of inevitability really, though, with the announcement that Winstone International will be closing its two mills near Ohakune. For months now, Winstone have been working on trying to find a way to keep the mills open in the face of declining commodity prices and astronomically high power prices. More than 200 workers are directly affected, but of course many, many more will feel the ripple effects of the mills closure. And this comes right on the heels of Ruapehu Alpine lifts troubles as well. It's a real double whammy for the region. The Tangiwai Sawmill and the Karioi Pulpmill have been a part of the central North Island community for more than 40 years. Generations have worked at the mills, but no more. 

Resources Minister Shane Jones was with Mike Hosking this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast and says the reason for the closure can be laid squarely at the feet of the electricity authority, and we need to make changes to the energy sector. 

“Look, it's up to you and I, as Kiwis and your listeners, do you want an economy where the price of power is internationally competitive to keep businesses functioning? Or do you want to disembowel your economy and turn it into an import model? I don't want that. Which is why Simeon Brown and I are signing off now the criteria and that criteria for the review of the power sector will involve structural separation, but look, mate, people have their had this nervousness, they've had this skittishness - don't touch the power system. We trusted the power system to deliver outcomes that boost international competitiveness and national security, they haven't so we have to change it, simple.”

Well, it's not going to be that simple, is it? Changing it is not going to be that simple at all.  I'd be really interested to hear from other manufacturers or those involved in manufacturing and in business. Is it the fluctuating power prices? Can you point to the electricity authority if your business is really struggling and saying you, you as an entity are the reason that I may well go to the wall? There have been so many stresses put on business, put on manufacturers in particular, over the past four or five years.  

Is the fluctuating price of electricity the straw that's breaking many camel's backs, or is it just four or five years of really tough times? Is it international prices making you uncompetitive when compared with product from the rest of the world and the electricity authority is being used as the whipping boy? I love the way he says simple, he’s going to break up the electricity authority. Well no, it’s not going to be simple. And it's too late for Ohakune, far too late. When Shane Jones says it's the electricity market that's going to stuff our economy, I would have thought there was a bit more to it than that. For people having to pay high interest on business loans, the cost of living crisis, which means spending is reduced internationally competitive prices, other countries being able to outbid you, the high wages that you have to pay here compared to other countries, really the electricity component, I would have thought is just another big pressing, weighty issue coming into your office, not the only one.  

It won't be a particularly good morning for the people of the central North Island. There was a sense of inevitability really, though, with the announcement that Winstone International will be closing its two mills near Ohakune. For months now, Winstone have been working on trying to find a way to keep the mills open in the face of declining commodity prices and astronomically high power prices. More than 200 workers are directly affected, but of course many, many more will feel the ripple effects of the mills closure. And this comes right on the heels of Ruapehu Alpine lifts troubles as well. It's a real double whammy for the region. The Tangiwai Sawmill and the Karioi Pulpmill have been a part of the central North Island community for more than 40 years. Generations have worked at the mills, but no more.  
Resources Minister Shane Jones was with Mike Hosking this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast and says the reason for the closure can be laid squarely at the feet of the electricity authority, and we need to make changes to the energy sector.  
“Look, it's up to you and I, as Kiwis and your listeners, do you want an economy where the price of power is internationally competitive to keep businesses functioning? Or do you want to disembowel your economy and turn it into an import model? I don't want that. Which is why Simeon Brown and I are signing off now the criteria and that criteria for the review of the power sector will involve structural separation, but look, mate, people have their had this nervousness, they've had this skittishness - don't touch the power system. We trusted the power system to deliver outcomes that boost international competitiveness and national security, they haven't so we have to change it, simple.” 
Well, it's not going to be that simple, is it? Changing it is not going to be that simple at all.  I'd be really interested to hear from other manufacturers or those involved in manufacturing and in business. Is it the fluctuating power prices? Can you point to the electricity authority if your business is really struggling and saying you, you as an entity are the reason that I may well go to the wall? There have been so many stresses put on business, put on manufacturers in particular, over the past four or five years.   
Is the fluctuating price of electricity the straw that's breaking many camel's backs, or is it just four or five years of really tough times? Is it international prices making you uncompetitive when compared with product from the rest of the world and the electricity authority is being used as the whipping boy? I love the way he says simple, he’s going to break up the electricity authority. Well no, it’s not going to be simple. And it's too late for Ohakune, far too late. When Shane Jones says it's the electricity market that's going to stuff our economy, I would have thought there was a bit more to it than that. For people having to pay high interest on business loans, the cost of living crisis, which means spending is reduced internationally competitive prices, other countries being able to outbid you, the high wages that you have to pay here compared to other countries, really the electricity component, I would have thought is just another big pressing, weighty issue coming into your office, not the only one.

Kerre Woodham: It won't be that simple to solve the electricity crisis

As much as I hate the gangs profiting from misery and tying up police time with their internecine feuds, the late amendment to the gangs bill, banning people from wearing their gang patches in their own homes, seems ludicrous for the reasons that have been given. 

The Gangs Bill, as it was tabled in July at the Justice Select Committee, will give police the power to disperse gatherings and to ban patches in public. All good. But a clause added a few weeks ago allows the police to apply to the courts for a gang prohibition order for repeat offenders, meaning anyone convicted of wearing their patch in public three times in five years won't be allowed to wear the patch in their own home. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Mike Hosking this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast that he makes no apologies for giving police extra tools to deal with gang members.

“What it's about is giving them, the police, that option to deal with what we think will be a small group of people who say, well, stuff you, I'm just gonna wear my patch and I'll pay my fine and I'll keep on doing it. And that would undermine the purpose of the bill and that's why we got that feedback during the Select Committee and so we're bringing in this extra tool to give the police extra powers to deal with that small number of repeat offenders.”

Well, all very well and good, but there's a couple of things here. This amendment really should have been discussed at Select Committee so that organisations, experts, and the public could have their say. You can't just discuss a bill at Select Committee, everybody knows what's in it, everybody has their say, and then after it's been tabled go - oh, hang on, hang on. I've got an idea. You can't have a thought bubble and pop it in (although it appears you can). But I think it sets a precedent that other substantial changes and amendments can be made to bills without the public getting to have their say. 

An open letter from the Law Society to Goldsmith urged him to withdraw the amendment, calling it an unjustified limitation on the right to freedom of expression and not rationally connected to the stated purpose of the gang patch ban, which is to reduce public intimidation. And it is. I don't like seeing them on the streets, we share the streets, I'm very unlikely to visit a gang member's home and if they want to wear their patch at home and they're not doing anything unlawful, then I find it hard to see how that is going to impact anybody around us. 

Then there's the policing of the ban. Making rules that are unenforceable weakens the impact of legislation and laws. Are the police really going to go around peering in the windows of gang members, hauling them into cells if they spot them wearing their patch while sitting on the couch watching The Chase? They're not. And I think this is where Paul Goldsmith should have just come clean. Surely the purpose of the law is to give the police licence to niggle. How could any recidivist patch wearer relax in the comfort of their own home, dealing their drugs or polishing their firearms or whatever it is that they do, if they know that at any time of the day or night the police can turn up? Oy, oy, oy, understand that you're a recidivist patch wearer, just checking you're not wearing your patch, Sir.Ostensibly, it would be to check that the patch is still in the wardrobe in its dry-cleaning bag, waiting for the no patch order to be served, but really, it's so that the police can just turn up and make the gang members life misery. 

And that's fine, because if you're going to keep wearing your patch, then it's probably pretty likely that you're going to ignore other laws as well, but I don't know why they didn't just come clean on that. It's the Operation Raptor approach that the Australian police used, niggle, niggle, niggle. Every time one of the Aussie gang members went out in public what they were wearing, what they were driving, what they were riding, was just put through the ringer. And it was just constant niggle. And if that's what it's for, fine, I still think it should have been put through at the right time. You can't have a thought bubble and pop it into your Bill. If they forgot, then it should go through the process and do it properly. 

But to say we're giving the police powers to stop recidivist gang members from wearing patches in their own home, to me sounds silly. If you say we're giving the police powers to niggle the living daylights out of recidivist gang members, fine with that.

As much as I hate the gangs profiting from misery and tying up police time with their internecine feuds, the late amendment to the gangs bill, banning people from wearing their gang patches in their own homes, seems ludicrous for the reasons that have been given.  
The Gangs Bill, as it was tabled in July at the Justice Select Committee, will give police the power to disperse gatherings and to ban patches in public. All good. But a clause added a few weeks ago allows the police to apply to the courts for a gang prohibition order for repeat offenders, meaning anyone convicted of wearing their patch in public three times in five years won't be allowed to wear the patch in their own home. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Mike Hosking this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast that he makes no apologies for giving police extra tools to deal with gang members. 
“What it's about is giving them, the police, that option to deal with what we think will be a small group of people who say, well, stuff you, I'm just gonna wear my patch and I'll pay my fine and I'll keep on doing it. And that would undermine the purpose of the bill and that's why we got that feedback during the Select Committee and so we're bringing in this extra tool to give the police extra powers to deal with that small number of repeat offenders.” 
Well, all very well and good, but there's a couple of things here. This amendment really should have been discussed at Select Committee so that organisations, experts, and the public could have their say. You can't just discuss a bill at Select Committee, everybody knows what's in it, everybody has their say, and then after it's been tabled go - oh, hang on, hang on. I've got an idea. You can't have a thought bubble and pop it in (although it appears you can). But I think it sets a precedent that other substantial changes and amendments can be made to bills without the public getting to have their say.  
An open letter from the Law Society to Goldsmith urged him to withdraw the amendment, calling it an unjustified limitation on the right to freedom of expression and not rationally connected to the stated purpose of the gang patch ban, which is to reduce public intimidation. And it is. I don't like seeing them on the streets, we share the streets, I'm very unlikely to visit a gang member's home and if they want to wear their patch at home and they're not doing anything unlawful, then I find it hard to see how that is going to impact anybody around us.  
Then there's the policing of the ban. Making rules that are unenforceable weakens the impact of legislation and laws. Are the police really going to go around peering in the windows of gang members, hauling them into cells if they spot them wearing their patch while sitting on the couch watching The Chase? They're not. And I think this is where Paul Goldsmith should have just come clean. Surely the purpose of the law is to give the police licence to niggle. How could any recidivist patch wearer relax in the comfort of their own home, dealing their drugs or polishing their firearms or whatever it is that they do, if they know that at any time of the day or night the police can turn up? Oy, oy, oy, understand that you're a recidivist patch wearer, just checking you're not wearing your patch, Sir. Ostensibly, it would be to check that the patch is still in the wardrobe in its dry-cleaning bag, waiting for the no patch order to be served, but really, it's so that the police can just turn up and make the gang members life misery.  
And that's fine, because if you're going to keep wearing your patch, then it's probably pretty likely that you're going to ignore other laws as well, but I don't know why they didn't just come clean on that. It's the Operation Raptor approach that the Australian police used, niggle, niggle, niggle. Every time one of the Aussie gang members went out in public what they were wearing, what they were driving, what they were riding, was just put through the ringer. And it was just constant niggle. And if that's what it's for, fine, I still think it should have been put through at the right time. You can't have a thought bubble and pop it into your Bill. If they forgot, then it should go through the process and do it properly.  
But to say we're giving the police powers to stop recidivist gang members from wearing patches in their own home, to me sounds silly. If you say we're giving the police powers to niggle the living daylights out of recidivist gang members, fine with that.

Kerre Woodham: The real purpose of the ban on gang patches in the home

This is one that has been discussed before and will no doubt be discussed again. Can pine forestry and livestock farming coexist in this country, or does one have to make way for the other? 

For the last decade, there have been major concerns about productive farmland, not only being converted into subdivisions, but being converted into forests. These concerns were ramped up in recent times with the previous administration’s One Billion Trees project. 

The area of land planted in trees is actually down from where it was two decades ago. New Zealand has about 12.1 million hectares in farmland. Another 1.7 million is in forestry, down from 2 million hectares in 2002, but reaching the 1 billion trees target by 2028 will require the planting of an estimated 43,000 hectares per year. 

Of course there's a distinction to make between the different sorts of forestry – plantation forestry is different from carbon forestry.  

Plantation trees will eventually be harvested. Carbon trees will never be harvested because the owners make enough through carbon credits alone. So what happens when a farmer sells their land for carbon farming or turns it over to plantation farming?  

It really does take a village to maintain a farm, to keep a farm alive. Dairy farms, beef farms, sheep farms require people and those living in rural communities are worried that as the trees advance the sharemilkers jobs will go, shearing jobs will go, along with the shepherds and the truck drivers and the families. The vets will go, the mechanics, the retailers, the schools. They'll become ghost towns filled with trees. 

Beef and Lamb NZ's sheep numbers fell 4.3% in the year to June. There was a 2.8 percent decrease in beef cattle numbers. And the lamb crop for spring 2025 is expected to fall nearly 5 percent. 

Now part of that is farmers reacting to the low prices they get for their stock. Some parts of the country it's drought, but the primary driver, according to Beef and Lamb, is land use change, as a result of the conversion of livestock farms to forestry. 

The Ministry for Primary Industries Todd McClay says the government is concerned in regards to excessive conversion of food-producing land to forest, however, he says it's also important that farmers retain choice over what they do with their land. 

Imagine you've slogged your guts out all your life, you and your husband, you and your wife. You have worked every hour God sent from sunup to sundown. Finally, after 40 years, the kids don't want the farm. They have gone off to university or they've gone overseas and they're living their best lives. The kids don't want to get into the farm. What do you? 

Imagine if the government said no, you cannot sell it to a nice fat cat overseas buyer who's going to put it all in trees because we need that land for you to produce food. No, you keep producing food until you collapse in the field. I mean, no government's going to do that.

Farmers have every right to do what they wish with their land. I mean it really is under threat, that kind of productive land is under threat as we heard the other day from alternative energy sources, from subdivisions, from plantation forestry, from carbon forestry. 

It's like watching different armies advancing towards these poor farmers standing there going, bloody hell, what am I going to do? I'm not getting enough on the international market for my product. I love farming. I don't want to sit there and watch pine trees growing, that's not my life’s dream but what am I to do? What can we do? What makes it worth a farmer's while to keep their land in livestock? 

For those of you who have stock, who have beef, who have lamb, who have dairy, do you sometimes look at the trees and think imagine, I wouldn't have to do a bloody thing. 

I could sit on the porch, think my thoughts, never have to go out because it's raining and wet and cold, and the baby lambs are going to die unless they get some shelter. Never have to get up early again. Just acres and acres of pine trees. Do any farmers think bliss? 

And when it comes to the rural communities, how are you going? How are you surviving? Do you see yourself as under threat or are you regaining lost ground?

This is one that has been discussed before and will no doubt be discussed again. Can pine forestry and livestock farming coexist in this country, or does one have to make way for the other?  
For the last decade, there have been major concerns about productive farmland, not only being converted into subdivisions, but being converted into forests. These concerns were ramped up in recent times with the previous administration’s One Billion Trees project.  
The area of land planted in trees is actually down from where it was two decades ago. New Zealand has about 12.1 million hectares in farmland. Another 1.7 million is in forestry, down from 2 million hectares in 2002, but reaching the 1 billion trees target by 2028 will require the planting of an estimated 43,000 hectares per year.  
Of course there's a distinction to make between the different sorts of forestry – plantation forestry is different from carbon forestry.   
Plantation trees will eventually be harvested. Carbon trees will never be harvested because the owners make enough through carbon credits alone. So what happens when a farmer sells their land for carbon farming or turns it over to plantation farming?   
It really does take a village to maintain a farm, to keep a farm alive. Dairy farms, beef farms, sheep farms require people and those living in rural communities are worried that as the trees advance the sharemilkers jobs will go, shearing jobs will go, along with the shepherds and the truck drivers and the families. The vets will go, the mechanics, the retailers, the schools. They'll become ghost towns filled with trees.  
Beef and Lamb NZ's sheep numbers fell 4.3% in the year to June. There was a 2.8 percent decrease in beef cattle numbers. And the lamb crop for spring 2025 is expected to fall nearly 5 percent.  
Now part of that is farmers reacting to the low prices they get for their stock. Some parts of the country it's drought, but the primary driver, according to Beef and Lamb, is land use change, as a result of the conversion of livestock farms to forestry.  
The Ministry for Primary Industries Todd McClay says the government is concerned in regards to excessive conversion of food-producing land to forest, however, he says it's also important that farmers retain choice over what they do with their land.  
Imagine you've slogged your guts out all your life, you and your husband, you and your wife. You have worked every hour God sent from sunup to sundown. Finally, after 40 years, the kids don't want the farm. They have gone off to university or they've gone overseas and they're living their best lives. The kids don't want to get into the farm. What do you?  
Imagine if the government said no, you cannot sell it to a nice fat cat overseas buyer who's going to put it all in trees because we need that land for you to produce food. No, you keep producing food until you collapse in the field. I mean, no government's going to do that. 
Farmers have every right to do what they wish with their land. I mean it really is under threat, that kind of productive land is under threat as we heard the other day from alternative energy sources, from subdivisions, from plantation forestry, from carbon forestry.  
It's like watching different armies advancing towards these poor farmers standing there going, bloody hell, what am I going to do? I'm not getting enough on the international market for my product. I love farming. I don't want to sit there and watch pine trees growing, that's not my life’s dream but what am I to do? What can we do? What makes it worth a farmer's while to keep their land in livestock?  
For those of you who have stock, who have beef, who have lamb, who have dairy, do you sometimes look at the trees and think imagine, I wouldn't have to do a bloody thing.  
I could sit on the porch, think my thoughts, never have to go out because it's raining and wet and cold, and the baby lambs are going to die unless they get some shelter. Never have to get up early again. Just acres and acres of pine trees. Do any farmers think bliss?  
And when it comes to the rural communities, how are you going? How are you surviving? Do you see yourself as under threat or are you regaining lost ground?

Chris Bowden: MATES in Construction Academic Director on the mental health and suicide rates in the sector

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips