Inflation is continuing to ease, particularly for essentials.

Latest Stats NZ figures show the Consumer Price Index increased 4% in the year to March, down from 4.7% in the year to December.

Housing's been the biggest contributor to inflation and rents rose at the fastest rate since records began in 1999.

But the Herald's Liam Dann says the cost of most other day-to-day essentials are going up more slowly.

He says grocery prices are stabilising, and fruit and vegetables have actually got a lot cheaper.

LISTEN ABOVE

Inflation is continuing to ease, particularly for essentials. 
Latest Stats NZ figures show the Consumer Price Index increased 4% in the year to March, down from 4.7% in the year to December. 
Housing's been the biggest contributor to inflation and rents rose at the fastest rate since records began in 1999. 
But the Herald's Liam Dann says the cost of most other day-to-day essentials are going up more slowly. 
He says grocery prices are stabilising, and fruit and vegetables have actually got a lot cheaper. 
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

Liam Dann: NZ Herald Business Editor on inflation dropping to 4%

Let's start with the big story of the day: the Finance Minister yesterday unveiling a major plan to shrink the public service. It's putting thousands of jobs on the line, but it is booking, potentially, billion-dollar savings into this year's Budget. So the interesting thing about her announcement —there were precursors to this, so this is stuff we knew, but it's all brought it into focus— is the pure numbers that we're talking about. 

So the Government wants to reduce the size of the core public sector. At the moment it's at 1.2% of the population. 1.2% of working New Zealanders work for the Government – they want to bring that down to 1%. So as we learned the other day, New Zealand's population sits at around 5.3 million. That, if you do the maths, means about 6–8,000 roles should go. The actual number they mentioned though was closer to 9,000. The savings will come from trimming staff numbers. They want to merge departments, and they want to increase the use of AI to improve efficiency.  

Now, of course some of us had thought that the cull of the public servants had already started. Wellington's economic stagnation has been blamed on that first round of efficiency cull, but it appears that not much was achieved. And here again, the numbers tell the real story. Back in 2017 there were 48,000 public servants. This ballooned under the Labour Government to 63,000. But despite all the angst in Wellington about bureaucratic redundancies over the past two years, the fact is there has not been a dramatic reduction in head count. In 2023, there were 63,000 public servants in this country. Today, in 2026, there are still 63,000 public servants.  

It's a dynamic world, the world of business and employment, and it's a bit like whack-a-mole. You cut here, but then you have to increase the cohort there every time you launch a new programme. If David Seymour gets his immigration policy over the line and we're going to crack down on overstayers more, they're going to need a whole lot more immigration workers – but they just fired a whole lot of those. Our search for 500 extra police officers was proof of how difficult all this can be. As fast as we hire a new cop, an old cop quits. So, we're running as fast as we can to stand still.  

These 63,000 people in the core public service, guess how much they cost the country? Guess how much? $11 billion a year. On average, and wait for this, each role costs about $175,000. I know. Well actually, the average wage is more like $100,000, but there's a whole lot of guys who are paid a whole heap more, so that brings that up a bit. Also it's the cost of disestablishing the role. But anyway, the fact of the matter is reducing those numbers will save hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potentially billions of dollars over the Government's four-year forecast period. 

Here's the thing, it's forecast over four years and even though these job cuts won't happen immediately, the Government plans to count these savings in this year's Budget, which is a week away. Based on the firm target that they're going to reduce head count by 9,000. So they're already talking about it. They're already saying before they've done a thing, hey, we've got an extra $2.4 billion and we'll be able to buy more services with that. And they're going to be doing that this election campaign; they'll be doing it next week over the course of the Budget. That's a very pretty $2.4 billion, isn't it? It sounds really good, but it'll take four years to achieve it if they achieve it. And I would ask you, is that counting your chickens before they hatch? 

So the process is easy to say, but I think you'll find it's much harder to do. And if you lay down an arbitrary target, we're cutting 9,000 jobs, that doesn't necessarily mean that the target will be met or met appropriately. So look, it's your show. What do you have to say about it? Are you confident that this can be done? Are you confident that this can be done and our services won't be unnecessarily reduced? 

There's another little debate we can have about the cut to the public service right now and that's the political fallout. This is an election year. Now many on the right will congratulate the move, and indeed they already have. And indeed, they're already asking why did this not happen two years ago? We thought the cull had started. I think the number you'll find that they've done is around about 2,000. Now they're talking about 9,000. Why didn't they talk about 9,000 two years ago? But anyway, the right will say great, good job, we need this. How will swinging voters feel about a cull? It's hard times and suddenly neighbours, family, friends are losing their job. 

And remember with every job cut, the ripples spread out, affecting the private economy. There's an old rule that says every job lost affects three more down the economic chain. So if we've got 9,000 jobs cut over the next four years, we've got nearly 40,000 other jobs that will be economically affected. So the political fallout, will this just harden the dislike for the Coalition among swinging voters who chop and change? And of course, the left, well they detest it immediately, don't they? They just hate this stuff. So the question politically, in doing this and doing it hard and doing it like this and doing it with such fanfare, is the Government shooting itself in the foot? Or will they be rewarded for finally stepping up their game? 

Let's start with the big story of the day: the Finance Minister yesterday unveiling a major plan to shrink the public service. It's putting thousands of jobs on the line, but it is booking, potentially, billion-dollar savings into this year's Budget. So the interesting thing about her announcement —there were precursors to this, so this is stuff we knew, but it's all brought it into focus— is the pure numbers that we're talking about.&nbsp;
So the Government wants to reduce the size of the core public sector. At the moment it's at 1.2% of the population. 1.2% of working New Zealanders work for the Government – they want to bring that down to 1%. So as we learned the other day, New Zealand's population sits at around 5.3 million. That, if you do the maths, means about 6–8,000 roles should go. The actual number they mentioned though was closer to 9,000. The savings will come from trimming staff numbers. They want to merge departments, and they want to increase the use of AI to improve efficiency. &nbsp;
Now, of course some of us had thought that the cull of the public servants had already started. Wellington's economic stagnation has been blamed on that first round of efficiency cull, but it appears that not much was achieved. And here again, the numbers tell the real story. Back in 2017 there were 48,000 public servants. This ballooned under the Labour Government to 63,000. But despite all the angst in Wellington about bureaucratic redundancies over the past two years, the fact is there has not been a dramatic reduction in head count. In 2023, there were 63,000 public servants in this country. Today, in 2026, there are still 63,000 public servants. &nbsp;
It's a dynamic world, the world of business and employment, and it's a bit like whack-a-mole. You cut here, but then you have to increase the cohort there every time you launch a new programme. If David Seymour gets his immigration policy over the line and we're going to crack down on overstayers more, they're going to need a whole lot more immigration workers – but they just fired a whole lot of those. Our search for 500 extra police officers was proof of how difficult all this can be. As fast as we hire a new cop, an old cop quits. So, we're running as fast as we can to stand still. &nbsp;
These 63,000 people in the core public service, guess how much they cost the country? Guess how much? $11 billion a year. On average, and wait for this, each role costs about $175,000. I know. Well actually, the average wage is more like $100,000, but there's a whole lot of guys who are paid a whole heap more, so that brings that up a bit. Also it's the cost of disestablishing the role. But anyway, the fact of the matter is reducing those numbers will save hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potentially billions of dollars over the Government's four-year forecast period.&nbsp;
Here's the thing, it's forecast over four years and even though these job cuts won't happen immediately, the Government plans to count these savings in this year's Budget, which is a week away. Based on the firm target that they're going to reduce head count by 9,000. So they're already talking about it. They're already saying before they've done a thing, hey, we've got an extra $2.4 billion and we'll be able to buy more services with that. And they're going to be doing that this election campaign; they'll be doing it next week over the course of the Budget. That's a very pretty $2.4 billion, isn't it? It sounds really good, but it'll take four years to achieve it if they achieve it. And I would ask you, is that counting your chickens before they hatch?&nbsp;
So the process is easy to say, but I think you'll find it's much harder to do. And if you lay down an arbitrary target, we're cutting 9,000 jobs, that doesn't necessarily mean that the target will be met or met appropriately. So look, it's your show. What do you have to say about it? Are you confident that this can be done? Are you confident that this can be done and our services won't be unnecessarily reduced?&nbsp;
There's another little debate we can have about the cut to the public service right now and that's the political fallout. This is an election year. Now many on the right will congratulate the move, and indeed they already have. And indeed, they're already asking why did this not happen two years ago? We thought the cull had started. I think the number you'll find that they've done is around about 2,000. Now they're talking about 9,000. Why didn't they talk about 9,000 two years ago? But anyway, the right will say great, good job, we need this. How will swinging voters feel about a cull? It's hard times and suddenly neighbours, family, friends are losing their job.&nbsp;
And remember with every job cut, the ripples spread out, affecting the private economy. There's an old rule that says every job lost affects three more down the economic chain. So if we've got 9,000 jobs cut over the next four years, we've got nearly 40,000 other jobs that will be economically affected. So the political fallout, will this just harden the dislike for the Coalition among swinging voters who chop and change? And of course, the left, well they detest it immediately, don't they? They just hate this stuff. So the question politically, in doing this and doing it hard and doing it like this and doing it with such fanfare, is the Government shooting itself in the foot? Or will they be rewarded for finally stepping up their game?&nbsp;

Andrew Dickens: Is the Government counting its chickens before they hatch?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c5da6e66-ae76-4cd4-bada-b45000105368/transcript

A five month old baby boy by the name of Bodhi lived in Hawke's Bay, and in October 2022 was found unresponsive in his sleeping pod. The sleeping pod was placed inside the cot. He was lying on his stomach. He had blankets around his face. His parents, distraught, immediately called emergency services, but he could not be revived and we lost Bodhi. And after these losses, of course, coroners then look into it. And we've had a coroner look into it and found that Bodhi's death was likely caused by suffocation or re breathing and pointed out the risk factors that Bodhi was experiencing: sleeping on his tummy, loose blankets, and the use of a soft sleeping pod. Experts say babies this young cannot lift their heads to clear their airways, so if you're on your tummy, you've got some loose blankets and you've got these soft sleeping pods all over the place, they can suffocate.  

The coroner is now urging urgent action to prevent similar deaths. She's called on MBIE, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to work with the Ministry of Health to introduce clear safety standards for infant sleep products like sleep pods, which apparently at the moment currently face no specific regulation in New Zealand. She says they could use the unsafe goods notices under the Fair Trading Act to restrict or remove dangerous products from the market. She's basically saying it's the sleeping pod, the sleeping pod is dangerous, and experts agree as well. Many of these sleeping pods are actually sold as lounges, but they're also of course sold for sleep, and all the experts say we need some stronger warnings and potentially an outright ban.  

And of course the coroner came out and said the obvious thing, she wants better education for parents whose health providers are encouraged to actively discourage the use of these products, right? So remember your guidelines, I still remember them from 25 years ago when I was looking after babies: always put your babies on their backs, always put them on a firm, flat surface, don't have loose blankets or soft items around them, and avoid unapproved sleep devices altogether.  

Have we just forgotten how to do this very basic thing? Because we've had talkback about this, sudden infant death syndrome, cot deaths, for ages, but then suddenly we have not. Put it this way, back in the 1980s, we used to have about 250 public health campaigns a year about how to put baby to bed. These days we have about 50 – that is a huge cut in public health campaigns. Can you remember the last time you saw an ad in a paper or on the telly or on the radio saying look after baby, put baby to sleep on back? And the thing I remember from back in the day was swaddling, making sure that baby is securely wrapped, restraining their movement, preventing them from rolling on their tummy and preventing the blankets to go and block their noses and their mouths. Have we forgotten this? 

A five month old baby boy by the name of Bodhi lived in Hawke's Bay, and in October 2022 was found unresponsive in his sleeping pod. The sleeping pod was placed inside the cot. He was lying on his stomach. He had blankets around his face. His parents, distraught, immediately called emergency services, but he could not be revived and we lost Bodhi. And after these losses, of course, coroners then look into it. And we've had a coroner look into it and found that Bodhi's death was likely caused by suffocation or re breathing and pointed out the risk factors that Bodhi was experiencing: sleeping on his tummy, loose blankets, and the use of a soft sleeping pod. Experts say babies this young cannot lift their heads to clear their airways, so if you're on your tummy, you've got some loose blankets and you've got these soft sleeping pods all over the place, they can suffocate. &nbsp;
The coroner is now urging urgent action to prevent similar deaths. She's called on MBIE, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to work with the Ministry of Health to introduce clear safety standards for infant sleep products like sleep pods, which apparently at the moment currently face no specific regulation in New Zealand. She says they could use the unsafe goods notices under the Fair Trading Act to restrict or remove dangerous products from the market. She's basically saying it's the sleeping pod, the sleeping pod is dangerous, and experts agree as well. Many of these sleeping pods are actually sold as lounges, but they're also of course sold for sleep, and all the experts say we need some stronger warnings and potentially an outright ban. &nbsp;
And of course the coroner came out and said the obvious thing, she wants better education for parents whose health providers are encouraged to actively discourage the use of these products, right? So remember your guidelines, I still remember them from 25 years ago when I was looking after babies: always put your babies on their backs, always put them on a firm, flat surface, don't have loose blankets or soft items around them, and avoid unapproved sleep devices altogether. &nbsp;
Have we just forgotten how to do this very basic thing? Because we've had talkback about this, sudden infant death syndrome, cot deaths, for ages, but then suddenly we have not. Put it this way, back in the 1980s, we used to have about 250 public health campaigns a year about how to put baby to bed. These days we have about 50 – that is a huge cut in public health campaigns. Can you remember the last time you saw an ad in a paper or on the telly or on the radio saying look after baby, put baby to sleep on back? And the thing I remember from back in the day was swaddling, making sure that baby is securely wrapped, restraining their movement, preventing them from rolling on their tummy and preventing the blankets to go and block their noses and their mouths. Have we forgotten this?&nbsp;

Andrew Dickens: Have we forgotten how to safely put babies to bed?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/586407eb-c007-4840-841b-b44f00084f8f/transcript

The government has confirmed major changes to New Zealand’s secondary school qualification system, officially replacing NCEA with a new subject-based model.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford announced the shift in Orewa, saying the current NCEA system is too complex and doesn’t clearly show how well students have mastered their subjects.

From 2029, Year 12 students will begin the New Zealand Certificate of Education, followed by the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education for Year 13 in 2030. Level 1 will be removed in 2028.

Under the new structure, students will take at least five subjects, and must pass a minimum of three to earn the qualification. Every subject will include internal assessments and an exam, and results will be reported using a six-point grading scale from A+ to E. Certificates will list each subject and the grade achieved, with endorsement awards for top performers.

Year 11 students will face new compulsory subjects — science, English or te reo rangatira, and mathematics — and all students will need to pass the new literacy and numeracy Foundational Award.

The curriculum will also expand to include new subjects such as Civics, Politics and Philosophy, Advanced Mathematics, and Journalism and Media, alongside industry-developed subjects like building and construction and primary industries.

Stanford says the changes are designed to move students away from “credit crunching” and toward genuine learning progress.

Current Year 9 students will be the first full cohort to move through the new system.

So all the statistics point to NCEA failing but like all tools it's because of the people who used the system not exclusively because of the system

A common reaction amongst older New Zealander is how tis resembles the School C, UE system we grew up with so it was less of a revolution and more of a return to basics that were well understood

The easy criticism for older folk was the marking system.  For some reason parents and employers did not understand the Excellence, Merit and Acheived rankings when obviously Excellence means an A, Merit a b and Acheived a C.  The A to E system is one that parents grew up with but in the cold light of day is just as abstract as the NCEA rankings.

The real problem lay in the rorting of the credits with students choosing easy to pass subjects and avoiding anything that seemed challenging.  But the real responsibility for the credit crunching surely lies with the parents as well

And the strength of NCEA was recognising that there is not one education for all.  That some people don't cope with maths or English or Science and the system recognised what talents they had.

My youngest and I had a big to do over his Year 13 subject choice.  He detested maths and wanted to study photography.  I said you have to have maths.  he argued that he had as much maths as any average student would need for real life.  He won.  And now he is a successful photographer doing his own taxes and playing Sharesies particularly well. So he was right.  But I'm just lucky he's such a rounded individual

But while the new system re-emphasises 3 basic pillars of knowledge in English Maths and Science a lot of those BS credit crunching subjects remain.

Other arguments are amongst those who say exams are artificial and how do you sit an exam on Food Technology which is the new fangled name for cooking. Or photography which still exists.

The question exists is this a brave new world or will the old problems still remain.

Luxon also used the event to comment on global instability, national security, and recent speculation about a potential National–Labour coalition, dismissing the idea outright.

LISTEN ABOVE

The government has confirmed major changes to New Zealand’s secondary school qualification system, officially replacing NCEA with a new subject-based model.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford announced the shift in Orewa, saying the current NCEA system is too complex and doesn’t clearly show how well students have mastered their subjects.
From 2029, Year 12 students will begin the New Zealand Certificate of Education, followed by the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education for Year 13 in 2030. Level 1 will be removed in 2028.
Under the new structure, students will take at least five subjects, and must pass a minimum of three to earn the qualification. Every subject will include internal assessments and an exam, and results will be reported using a six-point grading scale from A+ to E. Certificates will list each subject and the grade achieved, with endorsement awards for top performers.
Year 11 students will face new compulsory subjects — science, English or te reo rangatira, and mathematics — and all students will need to pass the new literacy and numeracy Foundational Award.
The curriculum will also expand to include new subjects such as Civics, Politics and Philosophy, Advanced Mathematics, and Journalism and Media, alongside industry-developed subjects like building and construction and primary industries.
Stanford says the changes are designed to move students away from “credit crunching” and toward genuine learning progress.
Current Year 9 students will be the first full cohort to move through the new system.
So all the statistics point to NCEA failing but like all tools it's because of the people who used the system not exclusively because of the system
A common reaction amongst older New Zealander is how tis resembles the School C, UE system we grew up with so it was less of a revolution and more of a return to basics that were well understood
The easy criticism for older folk was the marking system. &nbsp;For some reason parents and employers did not understand the Excellence, Merit and Acheived rankings when obviously Excellence means an A, Merit a b and Acheived a C. &nbsp;The A to E system is one that parents grew up with but in the cold light of day is just as abstract as the NCEA rankings.
The real problem lay in the rorting of the credits with students choosing easy to pass subjects and avoiding anything that seemed challenging. &nbsp;But the real responsibility for the credit crunching surely lies with the parents as well
And the strength of NCEA was recognising that there is not one education for all. &nbsp;That some people don't cope with maths or English or Science and the system recognised what talents they had.
My youngest and I had a big to do over his Year 13 subject choice. &nbsp;He detested maths and wanted to study photography. &nbsp;I said you have to have maths. &nbsp;he argued that he had as much maths as any average student would need for real life. &nbsp;He won. &nbsp;And now he is a successful photographer doing his own taxes and playing Sharesies particularly well. So he was right. &nbsp;But I'm just lucky he's such a rounded individual
But while the new system re-emphasises 3 basic pillars of knowledge in English Maths and Science a lot of those BS credit crunching subjects remain.
Other arguments are amongst those who say exams are artificial and how do you sit an exam on Food Technology which is the new fangled name for cooking. Or photography which still exists.
The question exists is this a brave new world or will the old problems still remain.
Luxon also used the event to comment on global instability, national security, and recent speculation about a potential National–Labour coalition, dismissing the idea outright.
<blockquote>
LISTEN ABOVE
</blockquote>

Andrew Dickens: Parents are responsible for avoiding 'credit crunching'

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e11b4fab-9f5d-47e5-babf-b44d01853237/transcript

Liam Dann: NZ Herald Business Editor on inflation dropping to 4%

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips