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 

Labour's written to the Prime Minister supporting the India Free Trade Deal being signed in New Delhi next week.&nbsp;
National needed their support to pass the deal into law, since it was opposed by coalition partner New Zealand First.&nbsp;
But Chris Hipkins remains concerned about the commitment to promote billions of dollars of investment in India, saying it's not affordable.&nbsp;
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.&nbsp;
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. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

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

Damien O'Connor: Labour's Trade Spokesperson on the party agreeing to support the India Free Trade deal

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/67fab64f-27d9-45f4-9df3-b4350017d5aa/transcript

It’s another slow patch for the property market, with some who bought in the post-Covid boom now tossing up their options.  

Cotality's latest data shows property sales down 2.4% in March, compared to the same time last year – the third consecutive month to fall.  

Property investment coach Steve Goodey says they’re seeing a large number of people struggling with whether to swallow a paper loss or rent out the property.  

He told Kerre Woodham when it comes to waiting it out, people don’t necessarily do the numbers and account for how long that may take. 

Goodey says someone could be losing $200 a week in cash and be down $200,000 in equity, and recovery may take quite a few years. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

It’s another slow patch for the property market, with some who bought in the post-Covid boom now tossing up their options. &nbsp;
Cotality's latest data shows property sales down 2.4% in March, compared to the same time last year – the third consecutive month to fall. &nbsp;
Property investment coach Steve Goodey says they’re seeing a large number of people struggling with whether to swallow a paper loss or rent out the property. &nbsp;
He told Kerre Woodham when it comes to waiting it out, people don’t necessarily do the numbers and account for how long that may take.&nbsp;
Goodey says someone could be losing $200 a week in cash and be down $200,000 in equity, and recovery may take quite a few years.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Steve Goodey: Property Investment Coach on the tough decision facing investors - sell or wait?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/98d81c8c-8d37-4ca0-9741-b435001f87a0/transcript

Remember back in February, the Government announced it was proposing to give police officers the power to issue move on orders to deal with, as it's described, disorderly behaviour in public places. What they mean is antisocial homeless people who are startling the horses, putting people off coming into the city, creating all sorts of disgusting messes for business owners to clean up. People who don't comply with the move on orders could be fined up to $2,000 or face three months in prison. Documents proactively released by the Ministry of Justice show that officials estimate up to six people a year could be jailed for noncompliance with the move on orders. 

The Labour Party obtained some documents under the Official Information Act, and those documents quoted Treasury saying it didn't support the orders given the benefits of the proposal are not clearly evidenced and implementation will exacerbate justice sector cost pressures. Treasury also questioned the highly uncertain modelling suggesting six people could be jailed per year. Treasury seems to think there will be far more than six. 

I don't know why they would think that. You can kill somebody as a drunk driver and not go to prison. You can commit all sorts of heinous crimes and be excused because you had a dreadful upbringing again, having been excused the previous two to three times you appeared before the beak. So I don't know why Treasury suddenly thinks that all of a sudden the judges are going to grow some cojones and send people to prison, because if they're not doing it for people who kill others because of their drunk driving and dangerous driving, they're not going to do it for some poor hapless soul who's got nowhere to go and addiction issues, are they? 

Paul Goldsmith, the Justice Minister, said just like the gang legislation, which prompted similar warnings from similar agencies, the Government was confident in its policy. He said police can operationalise this —what an ugly, terrible word, but nonetheless, that's the one he used— in a way that's highly effective. He said the policy was about reclaiming the streets and city centres for the enjoyment of everybody. He reiterated that only people who refuse the orders will face prosecution and said a move on order is not a criminal charge, although refusing to comply with one is. 

I have an awful lot of sympathy for retailers, business owners, those who live in the city or the cities around New Zealand having to put up with antisocial behaviour from very odd people. Not everybody is like that. There are a lot of people who are on the street who are lovely, who are perfectly reasonable humans who have had a string of bad luck – there but for the grace of God go you or I. They are not all the same at all. 

But having wandered the length of Queen Street at the end of last year, it was a beautiful day, I had to be somewhere, and I thought I'd take the long way and see for myself what the city was like. Yeah, there are real issues to deal with within, certainly within Auckland, Auckland's Queen Street, and no doubt in your main centre as well. There were drunken shirtless men brawling very close to the Louis Vuitton and the Christian Louboutin shops. There were troubled individuals displaying aggressive and frightening behaviour, the yipping, yelping man that jumped out at passersby. He wasn't bad, he was just sad, but you know, it was alarming, and especially if you had the kids with you while you were doing some last minute Christmas shopping. It wasn't conducive to an easy, pleasant experience. And it should have been, it was a beautiful day, you know, there are some lovely historic buildings, there's some nice parks where you can sit. It should have been lovely. 

But because of the unpredictable and in some cases aggressive behaviour of a small number of people, it wasn't. And I haven't been back since. But when the inner-city motels were opened to the homeless during Covid and communities were formed and made, it created a whole new vibe, if you will, in the city. When you have nothing, a routine, a bunch of mates, a place you know can be everything. So once they arrived, they stayed. I have some sympathy for those who are homeless for myriad reasons, but unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable behaviour. When people are brawling, when they're being public nuisances, when they're impinging on the right of other individuals to walk freely, when they're using shop entrances as bathrooms that other people then have to clean up, that is behaviour that needs to be curbed. And if move on orders help restore order to the cities, if move on orders sharpen the focus of social agencies to find permanent homes for those without them, so much the better. 

Remember back in February, the Government announced it was proposing to give police officers the power to issue move on orders to deal with, as it's described, disorderly behaviour in public places. What they mean is antisocial homeless people who are startling the horses, putting people off coming into the city, creating all sorts of disgusting messes for business owners to clean up. People who don't comply with the move on orders could be fined up to $2,000 or face three months in prison. Documents proactively released by the Ministry of Justice show that officials estimate up to six people a year could be jailed for noncompliance with the move on orders.&nbsp;
The Labour Party obtained some documents under the Official Information Act, and those documents quoted Treasury saying it didn't support the orders given the benefits of the proposal are not clearly evidenced and implementation will exacerbate justice sector cost pressures. Treasury also questioned the highly uncertain modelling suggesting six people could be jailed per year. Treasury seems to think there will be far more than six.&nbsp;
I don't know why they would think that. You can kill somebody as a drunk driver and not go to prison. You can commit all sorts of heinous crimes and be excused because you had a dreadful upbringing again, having been excused the previous two to three times you appeared before the beak. So I don't know why Treasury suddenly thinks that all of a sudden the judges are going to grow some cojones and send people to prison, because if they're not doing it for people who kill others because of their drunk driving and dangerous driving, they're not going to do it for some poor hapless soul who's got nowhere to go and addiction issues, are they?&nbsp;
Paul Goldsmith, the Justice Minister, said just like the gang legislation, which prompted similar warnings from similar agencies, the Government was confident in its policy. He said police can operationalise this —what an ugly, terrible word, but nonetheless, that's the one he used— in a way that's highly effective. He said the policy was about reclaiming the streets and city centres for the enjoyment of everybody. He reiterated that only people who refuse the orders will face prosecution and said a move on order is not a criminal charge, although refusing to comply with one is.&nbsp;
I have an awful lot of sympathy for retailers, business owners, those who live in the city or the cities around New Zealand having to put up with antisocial behaviour from very odd people. Not everybody is like that. There are a lot of people who are on the street who are lovely, who are perfectly reasonable humans who have had a string of bad luck – there but for the grace of God go you or I. They are not all the same at all.&nbsp;
But having wandered the length of Queen Street at the end of last year, it was a beautiful day, I had to be somewhere, and I thought I'd take the long way and see for myself what the city was like. Yeah, there are real issues to deal with within, certainly within Auckland, Auckland's Queen Street, and no doubt in your main centre as well. There were drunken shirtless men brawling very close to the Louis Vuitton and the Christian Louboutin shops. There were troubled individuals displaying aggressive and frightening behaviour, the yipping, yelping man that jumped out at passersby. He wasn't bad, he was just sad, but you know, it was alarming, and especially if you had the kids with you while you were doing some last minute Christmas shopping. It wasn't conducive to an easy, pleasant experience. And it should have been, it was a beautiful day, you know, there are some lovely historic buildings, there's some nice parks where you can sit. It should have been lovely.&nbsp;
But because of the unpredictable and in some cases aggressive behaviour of a small number of people, it wasn't. And I haven't been back since. But when the inner-city motels were opened to the homeless during Covid and communities were formed and made, it created a whole new vibe, if you will, in the city. When you have nothing, a routine, a bunch of mates, a place you know can be everything. So once they arrived, they stayed. I have some sympathy for those who are homeless for myriad reasons, but unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable behaviour. When people are brawling, when they're being public nuisances, when they're impinging on the right of other individuals to walk freely, when they're using shop entrances as bathrooms that other people then have to clean up, that is behaviour that needs to be curbed. And if move on orders help restore order to the cities, if move on orders sharpen the focus of social agencies to find permanent homes for those without them, so much the better.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable behaviour

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b3afd47b-9193-4f51-8e8a-b435000cf95d/transcript

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 

The reputations of the five MPs believed to be frustrated with Christopher Luxon’s leadership are suffering. &nbsp;
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.&nbsp;
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.&nbsp;
However, they’re all denying their involvement.&nbsp;
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. &nbsp;
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. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Barry Soper: Newstalk ZB Senior Political Correspondent on the five MPs allegedly involved in leaking party details, National leadership vote

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/7649d522-b0e4-4d95-8b24-b434001affff/transcript

Damien O'Connor: Labour's Trade Spokesperson on the party agreeing to support the India Free Trade deal

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips