Fear the cost of living crisis may be getting worse for Aucklanders following the super city's largest ever rates increase.  

The 7.9% rise will see the average ratepayer's bill increase by $320 a year.  

The Auckland Ratepayer's Alliance says the council's budget is bloated and it needs to focus on cutting costs, and they already hear from people on fixed incomes and pensioners struggling to make ends meet.  

Age Brightly’s Hannah McQueen joined Kerre Woodham to discuss some of the options available for those on fixed incomes, who might struggle with the increase. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Fear the cost of living crisis may be getting worse for Aucklanders following the super city's largest ever rates increase. &nbsp;
The 7.9% rise will see the average ratepayer's bill increase by $320 a year. &nbsp;
The Auckland Ratepayer's Alliance says the council's budget is bloated and it needs to focus on cutting costs, and they already hear from people on fixed incomes and pensioners struggling to make ends meet. &nbsp;
Age Brightly’s Hannah McQueen joined Kerre Woodham to discuss some of the options available for those on fixed incomes, who might struggle with the increase.&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

Hannah McQueen: Age Brightly Founder discusses options for those with fixed incomes struggling with rates increases

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/58fa0b8c-ff68-40ba-bbe5-b457000d6795/transcript

As far as Budgets in economically precarious times go, I thought it was a pretty good one. 

And save yourself the 20 cents, anonymous texter. I can see you typing from here. "Well, you would say that, Tokyo Rose, wouldn't you?"  Well yes, come on, be fair though – what on Earth were they supposed to do? We were warned that there would be very little money to spend. The Government resisted throwing lollies, instant sugar hits to voters and did concentrate on spending what money there is where it will get the most returns. Not on policies like Fees Free third year of education for tertiary students, which was not delivering on the metrics, but on things like capital works that have been sorely, sorely needed for so many years and will provide pipelines of work for years to come. 

So there'll be jobs, there'll be increased spending and there'll be necessary upgrades that so many communities have been waiting for, like the new 158 bed tower block at Whangārei Hospital, plans for a new hospital in Drury for the South Auckland population, the Cambridge to Piarere expressway, redevelopment programs for Tauranga, Palmerston North and Hawke's Bay hospitals, the rail network investment program, building 232 new classrooms across the country, new police stations in Greymouth and Whanganui, 2,250 additional social houses, new courthouses in Rotorua. You cannot argue that this is a poor use of what money there is.  

It feeds into the Keynesian school of economic thought, which I've always thought was really sensible and I don't think any other better alternatives exist, that during tough economic times, consumers and businesses will typically hoard cash and spend less. So, the theory argues, Governments should then step in and break that cycle because once you close everything down, it just gets worse. You can't make consumers and businesses spend money, but governments can. So they fund public works and infrastructure, the sort of sensible kind of spending, the long-term spending, spending with a long-term outcome. It will create jobs by doing that, inject money directly into the economy and provide the sort of capital infrastructure that the country so desperately needs. And the workers who work on these projects spend their money on goods and services and that creates jobs and income for others. It’s called the multiplier effect – it brings an economy out of a slump. And I think that's what we've been asking for and arguing for a while, isn't it? The tax cuts, not so much, but that's okay, that was back then. So, you know, we'll draw a veil over that. But this kind of spending where you're spending on works that have to be done. There are no ifs or maybe one days or these are not nice to haves, these are essential works that need to be done. 

I thought it was, as far as Budgets in tough times go, I thought it was a pretty good Budget. I'd very much like to get your feedback on this. I thought the that old school style of reporting of “there was nothing in it for you, was there?”, to the beneficiaries and to the state housing tenants and the “what about me's”, is lazy. I think that's really lazy reporting. You have to look at the bigger picture and you have to have an expectation that when people are on benefits, it doesn't mean they might have lost their job or they might have lost their ability to work for a time, doesn't mean they've lost their minds or their brains. They can understand too that you've got to fix the economy, it's got to improve, it's got to get better before their chances of finding work improve. And if they're unable to work, you know, they're going to get improved services and improved benefits if we are financially prosperous, if we're in a position to spend extra money. We're not in that position right now and it's going to take a few more years yet.  

For the first time, I felt a little bit of hope. A little bit of hope that you could actually see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's not the train bearing down upon you. There is a way out. It was sensible spending for the most part. I'd give it an eight out of ten, but I'd love to hear from you. 

As far as Budgets in economically precarious times go, I thought it was a pretty good one.&nbsp;
And save yourself the 20 cents, anonymous texter. I can see you typing from here. "Well, you would say that, Tokyo Rose, wouldn't you?" &nbsp;Well yes, come on, be fair though – what on Earth were they supposed to do? We were warned that there would be very little money to spend. The Government resisted throwing lollies, instant sugar hits to voters and did concentrate on spending what money there is where it will get the most returns. Not on policies like Fees Free third year of education for tertiary students, which was not delivering on the metrics, but on things like capital works that have been sorely, sorely needed for so many years and will provide pipelines of work for years to come.&nbsp;
So there'll be jobs, there'll be increased spending and there'll be necessary upgrades that so many communities have been waiting for, like the new 158 bed tower block at Whangārei Hospital, plans for a new hospital in Drury for the South Auckland population, the Cambridge to Piarere expressway, redevelopment programs for Tauranga, Palmerston North and Hawke's Bay hospitals, the rail network investment program, building 232 new classrooms across the country, new police stations in Greymouth and Whanganui, 2,250 additional social houses, new courthouses in Rotorua. You cannot argue that this is a poor use of what money there is. &nbsp;
It feeds into the Keynesian school of economic thought, which I've always thought was really sensible and I don't think any other better alternatives exist, that during tough economic times, consumers and businesses will typically hoard cash and spend less. So, the theory argues, Governments should then step in and break that cycle because once you close everything down, it just gets worse. You can't make consumers and businesses spend money, but governments can. So they fund public works and infrastructure, the sort of sensible kind of spending, the long-term spending, spending with a long-term outcome. It will create jobs by doing that, inject money directly into the economy and provide the sort of capital infrastructure that the country so desperately needs. And the workers who work on these projects spend their money on goods and services and that creates jobs and income for others. It’s called the multiplier effect – it brings an economy out of a slump. And I think that's what we've been asking for and arguing for a while, isn't it? The tax cuts, not so much, but that's okay, that was back then. So, you know, we'll draw a veil over that. But this kind of spending where you're spending on works that have to be done. There are no ifs or maybe one days or these are not nice to haves, these are essential works that need to be done.&nbsp;
I thought it was, as far as Budgets in tough times go, I thought it was a pretty good Budget. I'd very much like to get your feedback on this. I thought the that old school style of reporting of “there was nothing in it for you, was there?”, to the beneficiaries and to the state housing tenants and the “what about me's”, is lazy. I think that's really lazy reporting. You have to look at the bigger picture and you have to have an expectation that when people are on benefits, it doesn't mean they might have lost their job or they might have lost their ability to work for a time, doesn't mean they've lost their minds or their brains. They can understand too that you've got to fix the economy, it's got to improve, it's got to get better before their chances of finding work improve. And if they're unable to work, you know, they're going to get improved services and improved benefits if we are financially prosperous, if we're in a position to spend extra money. We're not in that position right now and it's going to take a few more years yet. &nbsp;
For the first time, I felt a little bit of hope. A little bit of hope that you could actually see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's not the train bearing down upon you. There is a way out. It was sensible spending for the most part. I'd give it an eight out of ten, but I'd love to hear from you.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: As far as Budgets in tough times go, this was a pretty good one

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/7b9d36e7-d7e2-4d73-bbb7-b459001a7eba/transcript

So what would you rather? A little bit of pain now or a whole lot more later? The Reserve Bank yesterday opted to keep the official cash rate at 2.25%, but the decision to hold was a close-run thing. And we know that now because of the transparency around the decisions being made and a jolly good thing it is too. Governor Dr. Anna Breman had to use her casting vote. The Monetary Policy Committee was evenly split on whether to raise the rate. The three Reserve Bank officials wanted to hold, the external committee members wanted to hike and therefore Governor Breman had to use her casting vote. 

One of the external committee members, economic consultant Carl Hansen, has given an interview with the Newsroom website explaining why he wanted to shift the rate now. He and the other two external committee members argued it would limit the overall magnitude of the increase in the OCR when it settles at the top of the imminent hiking phase. Translated, that means a bit of pain now is better than a whole lot later.  

Dr. Breman signalled that a rates rise is very likely when the committee next meets, but how high remains to be seen. And if it starts going up around about July, around about October, which is when the committee meets again, it's not just going to be mortgage holders who feel the pain, the Government will feel the pain too. They don't want to be associated with increased mortgage payments, but that's precisely what will happen. Carl Hansen argues that moving the OCR up a notch now, as in yesterday, would mean rates then wouldn't have to be yanked higher up further down the track. He says the uncertain environment in which we're living and in which we're making decisions won't disappear quickly and he and the other external members felt by going up 2.5% it would be an easier decision to either hold or go up in July. 

So if the experts don't know, how the hell do we? You've got six people whose job it is to understand the economy, to read the tea leaves and say, okay, this is what we think's going to happen in 18 months to two years and here are the decisions that we're going to make that we best we feel will best support the economy, the environment, the living conditions. It's going to help keep inflation in check, it's not going to stifle growth, this is what we believe. But if they're divided, it just shows how precarious and uncertain the times in which we live are. I like knowing that it was a 50/50 call and I can understand both sides. I can understand what the external committee members are saying, if we increase it just a teeny tiny bit now, it's not it shouldn't dampen spending, it shouldn't dampen growth and then it won't be such a shock if we do have to yank rates up further down the line. But I can also understand where the Reserve Bank officials are coming from too, it's just too uncertain. We don't know, it might fix itself. 

Although even in saying that, I feel like my extra 15 kilos might just drop off too. You know, hope is not a strategy – it's just a reckon. When you've got an election coming up and when you've got an election where nobody's willing to call how it's going to go, whether we go with a National/ACT/New Zealand First coalition or a Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori/independent/whoever they can cobble together coalition, it's too close to call from the polls. So there's uncertainty. If you're in business, you're unlikely, I would imagine, to be investing in extra staff, in capital expenditure, you're not going to be going gangbusters while there's uncertainty. So I get I can totally understand both sides of the coin when it comes to the decision made yesterday. 

Do you think the call was right? Do you think the Governor was correct in using her casting vote to keep things as they are and that things might come right? That the uncertainty – actually the only thing that is certain is that there will be uncertainty, I think. I cannot see it rectifying itself anytime soon. But was the right call made in holding things steady with an election coming up where nobody's certain what the result is going to be? Is this a time where businesses are just holding tight, keeping steady, not making big investments, not making big decisions, taihoa, wait and see. I'd love to hear from those of you in business, I'd love to hear from those of you with a passing interest in economics and I love being able to see the decisions now. I think it's I think it makes it really interesting. I like the transparency. I am so glad. I don't know. I mean, Governor Breman just seems to be a steady, cool hand which is what we need right now, not some flamboyant rockstar rocking and rolling through the economy because we are still suffering. 

So what would you rather? A little bit of pain now or a whole lot more later? The Reserve Bank yesterday opted to keep the official cash rate at 2.25%, but the decision to hold was a close-run thing. And we know that now because of the transparency around the decisions being made and a jolly good thing it is too. Governor Dr. Anna Breman had to use her casting vote. The Monetary Policy Committee was evenly split on whether to raise the rate. The three Reserve Bank officials wanted to hold, the external committee members wanted to hike and therefore Governor Breman had to use her casting vote.&nbsp;
One of the external committee members, economic consultant Carl Hansen, has given an interview with the Newsroom website explaining why he wanted to shift the rate now. He and the other two external committee members argued it would limit the overall magnitude of the increase in the OCR when it settles at the top of the imminent hiking phase. Translated, that means a bit of pain now is better than a whole lot later. &nbsp;
Dr. Breman signalled that a rates rise is very likely when the committee next meets, but how high remains to be seen. And if it starts going up around about July, around about October, which is when the committee meets again, it's not just going to be mortgage holders who feel the pain, the Government will feel the pain too. They don't want to be associated with increased mortgage payments, but that's precisely what will happen. Carl Hansen argues that moving the OCR up a notch now, as in yesterday, would mean rates then wouldn't have to be yanked higher up further down the track. He says the uncertain environment in which we're living and in which we're making decisions won't disappear quickly and he and the other external members felt by going up 2.5% it would be an easier decision to either hold or go up in July.&nbsp;
So if the experts don't know, how the hell do we? You've got six people whose job it is to understand the economy, to read the tea leaves and say, okay, this is what we think's going to happen in 18 months to two years and here are the decisions that we're going to make that we best we feel will best support the economy, the environment, the living conditions. It's going to help keep inflation in check, it's not going to stifle growth, this is what we believe. But if they're divided, it just shows how precarious and uncertain the times in which we live are. I like knowing that it was a 50/50 call and I can understand both sides. I can understand what the external committee members are saying, if we increase it just a teeny tiny bit now, it's not it shouldn't dampen spending, it shouldn't dampen growth and then it won't be such a shock if we do have to yank rates up further down the line. But I can also understand where the Reserve Bank officials are coming from too, it's just too uncertain. We don't know, it might fix itself.&nbsp;
Although even in saying that, I feel like my extra 15 kilos might just drop off too. You know, hope is not a strategy – it's just a reckon. When you've got an election coming up and when you've got an election where nobody's willing to call how it's going to go, whether we go with a National/ACT/New Zealand First coalition or a Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori/independent/whoever they can cobble together coalition, it's too close to call from the polls. So there's uncertainty. If you're in business, you're unlikely, I would imagine, to be investing in extra staff, in capital expenditure, you're not going to be going gangbusters while there's uncertainty. So I get I can totally understand both sides of the coin when it comes to the decision made yesterday.&nbsp;
Do you think the call was right? Do you think the Governor was correct in using her casting vote to keep things as they are and that things might come right? That the uncertainty – actually the only thing that is certain is that there will be uncertainty, I think. I cannot see it rectifying itself anytime soon. But was the right call made in holding things steady with an election coming up where nobody's certain what the result is going to be? Is this a time where businesses are just holding tight, keeping steady, not making big investments, not making big decisions, taihoa, wait and see. I'd love to hear from those of you in business, I'd love to hear from those of you with a passing interest in economics and I love being able to see the decisions now. I think it's I think it makes it really interesting. I like the transparency. I am so glad. I don't know. I mean, Governor Breman just seems to be a steady, cool hand which is what we need right now, not some flamboyant rockstar rocking and rolling through the economy because we are still suffering.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Was holding the OCR the right decision?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f64771d4-b514-47bb-a3ac-b45800075a78/transcript

No matter how meticulously you plan, there’s always a chance something will go wrong while travelling. 

New data from Southern Cross Travel Insurance shows it’s often the small moments that end up costing the most, whether it’s a simple fall on a walking track or a broken bone before even leaving the country. 

Chief Customer Officer Jess Strange told Kerre Woodham that as costs increase across the board, they’re seeing more Kiwis cutting corners on travel insurance – opting to go with a less comprehensive policy. 

She says a lot of people don’t realise what travel insurance covers. Comprehensive has cover for things like pre-trip cancellations, Strange says, an example of which being a $40 thousand payout for a family who had to cancel their overseas because their child broke their ankle. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

No matter how meticulously you plan, there’s always a chance something will go wrong while travelling.&nbsp;
New data from Southern Cross Travel Insurance shows it’s often the small moments that end up costing the most, whether it’s a simple fall on a walking track or a broken bone before even leaving the country.&nbsp;
Chief Customer Officer Jess Strange told Kerre Woodham that as costs increase across the board, they’re seeing more Kiwis cutting corners on travel insurance – opting to go with a less comprehensive policy.&nbsp;
She says a lot of people don’t realise what travel insurance covers. Comprehensive has cover for things like pre-trip cancellations, Strange says, an example of which being a $40 thousand payout for a family who had to cancel their overseas because their child broke their ankle.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Jess Strange: Southern Cross Travel Insurance Chief Customer Officer on what travel insurance covers, the cost of not having it

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/aadae861-d627-4d15-abf5-b457001996f8/transcript

Hannah McQueen: Age Brightly Founder discusses options for those with fixed incomes struggling with rates increases

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips