Requiring people to have health insurance could take some pressure off our health system. 

Chronic underfunding has put the public health system under strain, leading to stretched emergency departments, lengthy wait times, and difficulty accessing care. 

The problems are compounded by a shortage of medical staff. 

Financial Services Council CEO Kirk Hope told Kerre Woodham that insurers are incentivised to keep people healthy, as they have to pay out claims if they're not. 

He says it might look like access to different types of medications to keep people out of the hospital, which creates a fence at the top of the cliff as opposed to an ambulance at the bottom. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Requiring people to have health insurance could take some pressure off our health system.&nbsp;
Chronic underfunding has put the public health system under strain, leading to stretched emergency departments, lengthy wait times, and difficulty accessing care.&nbsp;
The problems are compounded by a shortage of medical staff.&nbsp;
Financial Services Council CEO Kirk Hope told Kerre Woodham that insurers are incentivised to keep people healthy, as they have to pay out claims if they're not.&nbsp;
He says it might look like access to different types of medications to keep people out of the hospital, which creates a fence at the top of the cliff as opposed to an ambulance at the bottom.&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

Kirk Hope: Financial Services Council CEO on whether requiring more people to have private health insurance could take pressure off the health system

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/2391f776-def3-4bc5-9d4d-b4e90016e2ad/transcript

There's a text here, "talk about a beat up by ZB on politicians and threats. If you raise the possibility and keep flagging potential problems, you may get what you predict. So stupid to highlight this on your news at this time," says Paul. I don't think that's true. I think there are very, very, very few people worldwide, even with all the problems that abound, that would act in the way that this 43 year old Australian has done. Very few. But what people need to understand is that violent words, violent rhetoric can breed violent actions, and it may help temper the kind of madness that you see online. And the attack on the Australian independent MP Helen Haines is absolutely horrific, and it will make the news. It is newsworthy.  

The 43 year old man has been charged with a number of serious offences in relation to the attack, which was brutal and premeditated. Haines was unloading her car outside her electoral office when the man did a U turn and ran into her a number of times with his Land Cruiser, crushing her between the two vehicles. It wasn't a one off, it wasn't a moment of madness, it was several moments of madness. She has lost one leg, doctors are fighting to save the other, and in a cruel irony, it appears the man was a family friend. His father and stepmother have been friends with Haines for more than 20 years.  

She certainly sounds like one of the good guys, one of the very people you want to attract to Parliament. She had a life before entering Parliament, she was a nurse, a mother, an advocate for the rural community, and then once elected she led an anti corruption campaign within Parliament. It was a senseless, cruel attack on a good woman.  

And our MPs must have had a shiver go down their spines because many of them have been on the receiving end of personal attacks and death threats. My own MP, Dan Bidois, had to bring in the police when he received death threats that were deemed credible. Dan is a hardworking MP, a dad of two little ones, he's always at the local community events, does an amazing job for his constituents, but for whatever reason, probably because he had the temerity to stand for National, he received death threats. Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee says they are well aware of the threats to MPs and even to candidates, and they take it very seriously. 

"Massive increase in threats to members of Parliament, particularly to women members of Parliament. And I think it's also the nature of those threats has changed from, you know, it might have been a bit of personal abuse about how someone presented themselves or other such, right down to now increasingly threats of physical violence as well. We've had to respond, we've set up a unit called the Security Intelligence Research Advisory Service, SIRAS, and they've got a team that will go out and be with MPs, they've deployed quite considerably during this period. But it's also candidates out there, and I think the work we've been able to do with the New Zealand Police, and I've got to take my hat off to them, I think they've done a great job in contacting all candidates and giving them personal numbers to be able to call should they feel threatened. Because, you know, you just don't know, you can't blanket everybody all the time, but you certainly need to have something that makes it very clear that if people are out of line, they're going to get prosecuted or at least deterred." 

And they do need to be prosecuted and deterred because that angry, angry rhetoric, that violent rhetoric can lead to physical assaults. I mean, look at James Shaw, he's one of the more reasonable, hardworking, lovely MPs, whatever you think of his politics, assaulted by a man in the street and needed hospital attention when he was in Parliament. And a lot of people throw off at the fact that Jacinda Ardern lives offshore with her family, well, in large part that's because of the truly horrific threats that were made not just against her, but her daughter, her little girl.  

You can have an opinion, you can have a reckon, you can have a strong opinion, and that's the other thing that concerns me, that people are so wary of the nutters out there that you can't even voice a strong opinion against policy or against decisions made by MPs, which dampens down free speech because people aren't responsible when it comes to the right to free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you can abuse, insult, threaten to kill, threaten to rape, threaten to murder MPs and members of their families. It's a responsibility as well as a right, and you have to use it accordingly.  

Social media's given people license to be real heroes. They say terrible things that they would never say when they were face to face with the individual. A friend of mine who's got quite a high profile on the social medias, that's part of how she makes a living, said, "Whatever happened to the days of talking about people behind their back? I don't need some troll to come on my page and tell me how ugly and revolting and what a loser I am. Tell your mates! I don't need to know about it. Bring back the days of talking about people behind their backs." And she's got a point. Not everybody has to hear your views of how ugly or how stupid or how ignorant or how politically misguided you are.  

I've never done it. I've been annoyed with people before online, people have annoyed me, and I've thought, "Well, I won't read this anymore. I'll make sure that my algorithms don't throw up this kind of content." I don't really feel the need to go on and tell people that they're ugly losers and completely hopeless at what they do and I'll shoot them. No matter how annoyed I've got over the years about political decisions, I have never wished the individuals harm. Ever. Ever. You don't even think it. I really do think that the rhetoric that people feel emboldened to use because they feel they can be anonymous can fuel the kind of completely irrational violence that we saw in Australia yesterday. It's not very far away in terms of geographical distance in Australia, but also in terms of that kind of violence. We need to be careful. 

There's a text here, "talk about a beat up by ZB on politicians and threats. If you raise the possibility and keep flagging potential problems, you may get what you predict. So stupid to highlight this on your news at this time," says Paul. I don't think that's true. I think there are very, very, very few people worldwide, even with all the problems that abound, that would act in the way that this 43 year old Australian has done. Very few. But what people need to understand is that violent words, violent rhetoric can breed violent actions, and it may help temper the kind of madness that you see online. And the attack on the Australian independent MP Helen Haines is absolutely horrific, and it will make the news. It is newsworthy. &nbsp;
The 43 year old man has been charged with a number of serious offences in relation to the attack, which was brutal and premeditated. Haines was unloading her car outside her electoral office when the man did a U turn and ran into her a number of times with his Land Cruiser, crushing her between the two vehicles. It wasn't a one off, it wasn't a moment of madness, it was several moments of madness. She has lost one leg, doctors are fighting to save the other, and in a cruel irony, it appears the man was a family friend. His father and stepmother have been friends with Haines for more than 20 years. &nbsp;
She certainly sounds like one of the good guys, one of the very people you want to attract to Parliament. She had a life before entering Parliament, she was a nurse, a mother, an advocate for the rural community, and then once elected she led an anti corruption campaign within Parliament. It was a senseless, cruel attack on a good woman. &nbsp;
And our MPs must have had a shiver go down their spines because many of them have been on the receiving end of personal attacks and death threats. My own MP, Dan Bidois, had to bring in the police when he received death threats that were deemed credible. Dan is a hardworking MP, a dad of two little ones, he's always at the local community events, does an amazing job for his constituents, but for whatever reason, probably because he had the temerity to stand for National, he received death threats. Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee says they are well aware of the threats to MPs and even to candidates, and they take it very seriously.&nbsp;
"Massive increase in threats to members of Parliament, particularly to women members of Parliament. And I think it's also the nature of those threats has changed from, you know, it might have been a bit of personal abuse about how someone presented themselves or other such, right down to now increasingly threats of physical violence as well. We've had to respond, we've set up a unit called the Security Intelligence Research Advisory Service, SIRAS, and they've got a team that will go out and be with MPs, they've deployed quite considerably during this period. But it's also candidates out there, and I think the work we've been able to do with the New Zealand Police, and I've got to take my hat off to them, I think they've done a great job in contacting all candidates and giving them personal numbers to be able to call should they feel threatened. Because, you know, you just don't know, you can't blanket everybody all the time, but you certainly need to have something that makes it very clear that if people are out of line, they're going to get prosecuted or at least deterred."&nbsp;
And they do need to be prosecuted and deterred because that angry, angry rhetoric, that violent rhetoric can lead to physical assaults. I mean, look at James Shaw, he's one of the more reasonable, hardworking, lovely MPs, whatever you think of his politics, assaulted by a man in the street and needed hospital attention when he was in Parliament. And a lot of people throw off at the fact that Jacinda Ardern lives offshore with her family, well, in large part that's because of the truly horrific threats that were made not just against her, but her daughter, her little girl. &nbsp;
You can have an opinion, you can have a reckon, you can have a strong opinion, and that's the other thing that concerns me, that people are so wary of the nutters out there that you can't even voice a strong opinion against policy or against decisions made by MPs, which dampens down free speech because people aren't responsible when it comes to the right to free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you can abuse, insult, threaten to kill, threaten to rape, threaten to murder MPs and members of their families. It's a responsibility as well as a right, and you have to use it accordingly. &nbsp;
Social media's given people license to be real heroes. They say terrible things that they would never say when they were face to face with the individual. A friend of mine who's got quite a high profile on the social medias, that's part of how she makes a living, said, "Whatever happened to the days of talking about people behind their back? I don't need some troll to come on my page and tell me how ugly and revolting and what a loser I am. Tell your mates! I don't need to know about it. Bring back the days of talking about people behind their backs." And she's got a point. Not everybody has to hear your views of how ugly or how stupid or how ignorant or how politically misguided you are. &nbsp;
I've never done it. I've been annoyed with people before online, people have annoyed me, and I've thought, "Well, I won't read this anymore. I'll make sure that my algorithms don't throw up this kind of content." I don't really feel the need to go on and tell people that they're ugly losers and completely hopeless at what they do and I'll shoot them. No matter how annoyed I've got over the years about political decisions, I have never wished the individuals harm. Ever. Ever. You don't even think it. I really do think that the rhetoric that people feel emboldened to use because they feel they can be anonymous can fuel the kind of completely irrational violence that we saw in Australia yesterday. It's not very far away in terms of geographical distance in Australia, but also in terms of that kind of violence. We need to be careful.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Free speech doesn't mean you can threaten people

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/067a424c-b0ac-4497-8935-b4ea00035a2a/transcript

The Greens co-leader says she's not taking anything for granted as the party surges in the polls. 

The latest 1News-Verian poll has the Greens up one point to 16% — retaining a record high result— with National on top, rising a huge four points to 32% and Labour dropping one to 27%. 

Chlöe Swarbrick told Kerre Woodham people have felt disillusioned by legacy parties, and it's a global trend. 

"They have failed to reach the challenges of our time and tackle the big structural economic issues, in particular wealth inequality, which means regular hard working people are struggling to get by day-to-day." 

Swarbrick said whether you're on the left or the right, when you look at the current theatre —"or circus"— on Parliament TV, it is clearly not fit for purpose or working. 

"I think that's part of the reason we're starting to see a convergence from New Zealanders on all sides of the aisle, all sides of the political spectrum, on the need to just agree on some really big long-term plans to address the issues that we are facing. And that has really changed the tone quite a lot this election. 

"There are a lot of people sick of the tit-for-tat and just want genuine solutions." 

Swarbrick said it is really important for future governments to collaborate and work together on the big issues. 

She said the last few weeks since Parliament has risen have been "amazing", describing the last three years as "challenging" because of the amount of legislation that has been rushed through under urgency. 

WATCH ABOVE

The Greens co-leader says she's not taking anything for granted as the party surges in the polls.&nbsp;
The latest 1News-Verian poll has the Greens up one point to 16% — retaining a record high result— with National on top, rising a huge four points to 32% and Labour dropping one to 27%.&nbsp;
Chlöe&nbsp;Swarbrick told Kerre Woodham people have felt disillusioned by legacy parties, and it's a global trend.&nbsp;
"They have failed to reach the challenges of our time and tackle the big structural economic issues, in particular wealth inequality, which means regular hard working people are struggling to get by day-to-day."&nbsp;

Swarbrick said whether you're on the left or the right, when you look at the current theatre —"or circus"— on Parliament TV, it is clearly not fit for purpose or working.&nbsp;
"I think that's part of the reason we're starting to see a convergence from New Zealanders on all sides of the aisle, all sides of the political spectrum, on the need to just agree on some really big long-term plans to address the issues that we are facing. And that has really changed the tone quite a lot this election.&nbsp;
"There are a lot of people sick of the tit-for-tat and just want genuine solutions."&nbsp;
Swarbrick said it is really important for future governments to collaborate and work together on the big issues.&nbsp;
She said the last few weeks since Parliament has risen have been "amazing", describing the last three years as "challenging" because of the amount of legislation that has been rushed through under urgency.&nbsp;
WATCH ABOVE

Chlöe Swarbrick: Green Party Co-Leader takes talkback live in studio with Kerre Woodham

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/ba0b710b-0be0-43ad-a6ca-b4e901760870/transcript

In light of the Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs' visit to the Mongrel Mob pad and their stated determination to restore the mana of the mob, I read Jamie Ensor's piece in the Herald with interest. According to Jamie, Labour hasn't proposed any specific new law and order policies with just days to go until the election. 

Law and order was a big flashpoint at the last election. The cost of living was also big, but law and order was right up there. People were fed up with teenage ram raiders and neighbourhood robbery sprees. Remember the footage, the awful footage from people's home cameras of young children being shoved out of cars, like nine and ten year olds, and pushed over fences in the middle of the night to nick what they could find. 

But this time around, it's the economy, stupid. Law and order isn't a thing because for the most part, there is law and order. Obviously, crime still occurs, but violent crime is down and the gangs aren't so in your face taking over the streets and drumming up business and recruiting young kids on every street corner. And the kids themselves seem to have moved on to another TikTok trend other than ram raids. And to be fair, according to the data, the ram raids were starting, starting to come down by the end of 2023. 

Even for the main opposition party, law and order is not a priority come this election. It seems to be pretty much, yeah, what they're doing, we'll do that. Earlier in the year, Labour promised to repeal the boot camps. Fair enough, if the evidence isn't there to support keeping them, do away with them. They were going to focus on evidence-based interventions. And without explicitly stating what those are, I imagine it would be a continuation of that wrap around support that they introduced in 2023 that was starting to get the ram raids down. Every time a kid was caught, they'd bring in what parents they could find or what caregivers they could find, police, school, social workers, psychologists, the whole shebang. And that did seem to be working. 

Labour has said their thoughts on law and order, if you really want to know what they are, are in the manifesto. And besides, as is quoted in Jamie's piece, "We're campaigning on policies focused on the cost of living, jobs, health, and homes as a priority." That's what they see as the main drivers of the 2026 election. In '23 law and order was a thing. It's a bit like diseases, really, childhood diseases. They were a thing back in our grandparents' day, a really big thing. When vaccinations came in, it was fantastic. And then a couple of generations later, we don't see them anymore. They're not a thing. You don't vaccinate because they're not around, so you don't think of them. Law and order's a bit like that. When, when things are steady as she goes, you don't think about it because you don't have to. 

I spoke to Chris Hipkins' person, and she said she'd get a list of their law and order policies to me. They were updating the website right now because when Jamie did a search on justice, police, crime, nothing came up on the Labour Party website. And I had another check and nope, nothing came up either. It's not a thing for them. They don't see it as something that's going to be a flashpoint for voters this election. 

I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on this one. When it comes to this election, what are the main things you're focusing on? What is it for you? Are you voting the way you've always voted because that's the way you vote? Are you voting on policies? That's pretty much what I'll be doing. For me, it's education and law and order. They were the things that were really bugging me last time around. I don't think there's a lot you can do about the cost of living. That's international influences and it really wouldn't matter who was in. Yes, Labour contributed to it by spending so much money that was not Covid related on Covid related things, but ultimately, they had to borrow a lot of money, we have to pay it back. I do wonder where they're going to get the money from for the pay parity and that makes me nervous. I don't care about a capital gains tax. I am concerned about who comes in, but I have to hold my nose if I vote National too, given their political partners. Ultimately, what it comes down to is the policies for me. And education, law and order, and that's what I'm going to be voting on. 

What concerns you? One of our callers the other day said he was thinking about the Opportunity Party because of the cost of living. Opportunity Party because he thought he was sick of the others. Another caller said he was going to vote the Greens because of their supermarket, because he was so sick of trying to find the money to pay for the family's household grocery bill. Anything that was going to relieve that he'd look at. So is it the economy, stupid? Is that what concerns you most? Are you looking at the different parties' policies and deciding, or are you just going with who you've always gone for and that's the way it is? 

In light of the Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs' visit to the Mongrel Mob pad and their stated determination to restore the mana of the mob, I read Jamie Ensor's piece in the Herald with interest. According to Jamie, Labour hasn't proposed any specific new law and order policies with just days to go until the election.&nbsp;
Law and order was a big flashpoint at the last election. The cost of living was also big, but law and order was right up there. People were fed up with teenage ram raiders and neighbourhood robbery sprees. Remember the footage, the awful footage from people's home cameras of young children being shoved out of cars, like nine and ten year olds, and pushed over fences in the middle of the night to nick what they could find.&nbsp;
But this time around, it's the economy, stupid. Law and order isn't a thing because for the most part, there is law and order. Obviously, crime still occurs, but violent crime is down and the gangs aren't so in your face taking over the streets and drumming up business and recruiting young kids on every street corner. And the kids themselves seem to have moved on to another TikTok trend other than ram raids. And to be fair, according to the data, the ram raids were starting, starting to come down by the end of 2023.&nbsp;
Even for the main opposition party, law and order is not a priority come this election. It seems to be pretty much, yeah, what they're doing, we'll do that. Earlier in the year, Labour promised to repeal the boot camps. Fair enough, if the evidence isn't there to support keeping them, do away with them. They were going to focus on evidence-based interventions. And without explicitly stating what those are, I imagine it would be a continuation of that wrap around support that they introduced in 2023 that was starting to get the ram raids down. Every time a kid was caught, they'd bring in what parents they could find or what caregivers they could find, police, school, social workers, psychologists, the whole shebang. And that did seem to be working.&nbsp;
Labour has said their thoughts on law and order, if you really want to know what they are, are in the manifesto. And besides, as is quoted in Jamie's piece, "We're campaigning on policies focused on the cost of living, jobs, health, and homes as a priority." That's what they see as the main drivers of the 2026 election. In '23 law and order was a thing. It's a bit like diseases, really, childhood diseases. They were a thing back in our grandparents' day, a really big thing. When vaccinations came in, it was fantastic. And then a couple of generations later, we don't see them anymore. They're not a thing. You don't vaccinate because they're not around, so you don't think of them. Law and order's a bit like that. When, when things are steady as she goes, you don't think about it because you don't have to.&nbsp;
I spoke to Chris Hipkins' person, and she said she'd get a list of their law and order policies to me. They were updating the website right now because when Jamie did a search on justice, police, crime, nothing came up on the Labour Party website. And I had another check and nope, nothing came up either. It's not a thing for them. They don't see it as something that's going to be a flashpoint for voters this election.&nbsp;
I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on this one. When it comes to this election, what are the main things you're focusing on? What is it for you? Are you voting the way you've always voted because that's the way you vote? Are you voting on policies? That's pretty much what I'll be doing. For me, it's education and law and order. They were the things that were really bugging me last time around. I don't think there's a lot you can do about the cost of living. That's international influences and it really wouldn't matter who was in. Yes, Labour contributed to it by spending so much money that was not Covid related on Covid related things, but ultimately, they had to borrow a lot of money, we have to pay it back. I do wonder where they're going to get the money from for the pay parity and that makes me nervous. I don't care about a capital gains tax. I am concerned about who comes in, but I have to hold my nose if I vote National too, given their political partners. Ultimately, what it comes down to is the policies for me. And education, law and order, and that's what I'm going to be voting on.&nbsp;
What concerns you? One of our callers the other day said he was thinking about the Opportunity Party because of the cost of living. Opportunity Party because he thought he was sick of the others. Another caller said he was going to vote the Greens because of their supermarket, because he was so sick of trying to find the money to pay for the family's household grocery bill. Anything that was going to relieve that he'd look at. So is it the economy, stupid? Is that what concerns you most? Are you looking at the different parties' policies and deciding, or are you just going with who you've always gone for and that's the way it is?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: What issues are concerning you this election?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b0cb7623-0d75-40a8-bbdf-b4e90006669a/transcript

Kirk Hope: Financial Services Council CEO on whether requiring more people to have private health insurance could take pressure off the health system

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips