Today marks the end of Dry July, an annual campaign that challenges people to abstain from alcohol to raise funds for cancer support organisations.

For some people, July has them realising they’d rather stay sober.

Kerre Woodham was joined by Maree MacLean, the author of ‘The No B*llshit Guide to Staying Sober’ for a chat about staying sober.

LISTEN ABOVE

Today marks the end of Dry July, an annual campaign that challenges people to abstain from alcohol to raise funds for cancer support organisations. 
For some people, July has them realising they’d rather stay sober. 
Kerre Woodham was joined by Maree MacLean, the author of ‘The No B*llshit Guide to Staying Sober’ for a chat about staying sober. 
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

Maree MacLean: Author on how stay sober

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/acd8d4eb-0068-447a-bedc-b1be0013597f/transcript

The hīkoi we were discussing last week has gone down the country through the weekend, rolls into Wellington City, and should arrive at Parliament around midday. Police say they don't expect any problems, certainly nothing like the descent into chaos we saw at the end of the last demonstration at Parliament. We'll see.  

So far, it seems hīkoi participants have abided by the organisers’ requests. There's all sorts of rules and regulations before you can join the hīkoi, and participants are following them thus far, adhering to the principles of peaceful protest. The police have been working with the organisers, and they told Mike Hosking this morning: so far so good. It does mean, of course, that a lot of police will be tied up at the hīkoi, and if they're there they're not out investigating crime. And they need to be nabbing criminals and hauling them before court and engaging in crime prevention if police Minister Mark Mitchell is to keep his job.  

Back in August of 2023, Mark Mitchell told us that if New Zealanders hadn't started to see a change in public safety within a year of his appointment as Police Minister he would resign – so how's he doing? Well, ram raids are down 61%. Foot patrols are up 30%, so that's got to be good news - a visible police presence does an awful lot to help prevent crime. Aggravated robbery is down 11%. Robbery, extortion and the like are down 6%. Serious assaults are down 3%. However, counting against him, common assaults didn't go down, and theft had increased 12%. So how does he think he's doing?  

“I just thought it was coming up 12 months and it was important for me, I did that to hold myself to account because we were in such a bad place as a country that the expectation is that whoever took over as Police Minister, it's a huge responsibility, you've got to show that your things are changing. Otherwise, I wasn't the right guy for the job or the right person for the job. So we are starting to see change.  

“Like I said, we've got a long way to go, but we're starting to see some trends moving in the right direction. And I want to say that's not attributable to me. I mean it's, it's the fact that, yes, I've got the, the privileged position of Minister so I can bring everyone together ... the Auckland CBD is a good example. We brought the Residence and Ratepayers groups together, the business associations, our social service providers, Māori Wardens, CPNZ, KO, MSD, police, St. John's, we've all come together, we've been aligned. I had my latest meeting on Friday and we're seeing real success. So I've been going around the country trying to pull that together and trying to get some real change and it's happening.”  

So how do you think he's doing? You know, just based on your community, your neighbourhood, your retail area, how do you think the Police Minister is doing? I think the stats speak for themselves. Of course, as he also said in the interview with Mike, you're never going to get rid of crime altogether. There is never going to be a day where the police wake up and log no crime, ever. That's just not the way human beings are. But in terms of your community, your neighbourhood, your shopping precinct, do you feel safer?  

I mean, certainly I no longer have a low-level sense of alert when I'm going into a mall and walking past a Michael Hill Jewellers store. You know, there had been so many and a number in our area had been hit, so when I was taking the kids to the mall – I wouldn't say I was fearful. I certainly didn't stop going. I wasn't fearful, but I was on alert. Anything that looked a little bit out of the ordinary and I was going to get out of there with those children before hell broke loose. So, I'm more relaxed I think. There isn't the posturing and the advertising and the visibility of gangs in my hood. A few red sneakers, but hey, they might just like the colour.  

There aren't the same sort of video footage from doorbells and street cameras of families taking little ones out to go robbing in the early hours of the morning. I haven't seen that being posted for quite some time. So yeah, I feel as though things are getting better and the stats would seem to indicate they are.  

Is that because a line has been drawn in the sand? Is that because the focus of the police has shifted slightly? I would certainly say the foot patrols would have helped. Is it an indication from police and indeed from the community? It was voters who said up with this we will not put. We could have gone one way, we went this way when it came to the polling booths. We don't want to see any more softly, softly. We would like to see a line in the sand when it comes to crime.  

There's a lot more to do. There's a lot more work to do around addictions, there's a lot more work to do around mental health because a lot of those are precursors to crime. The crime is not actually the problem, it's the addictions that are. But so far, if you were to mark Mark Mitchell, what would you give him a B plus? A minus? A very good start? 

The hīkoi we were discussing last week has gone down the country through the weekend, rolls into Wellington City, and should arrive at Parliament around midday. Police say they don't expect any problems, certainly nothing like the descent into chaos we saw at the end of the last demonstration at Parliament. We'll see. &nbsp;
So far, it seems hīkoi participants have abided by the organisers’ requests. There's all sorts of rules and regulations before you can join the hīkoi, and participants are following them thus far, adhering to the principles of peaceful protest. The police have been working with the organisers, and they told Mike Hosking this morning: so far so good. It does mean, of course, that a lot of police will be tied up at the hīkoi, and if they're there they're not out investigating crime. And they need to be nabbing criminals and hauling them before court and engaging in crime prevention if police Minister Mark Mitchell is to keep his job. &nbsp;
Back in August of 2023, Mark Mitchell told us that if New Zealanders hadn't started to see a change in public safety within a year of his appointment as Police Minister he would resign – so how's he doing? Well, ram raids are down 61%. Foot patrols are up 30%, so that's got to be good news - a visible police presence does an awful lot to help prevent crime. Aggravated robbery is down 11%. Robbery, extortion and the like are down 6%. Serious assaults are down 3%. However, counting against him, common assaults didn't go down, and theft had increased 12%. So how does he think he's doing? &nbsp;
“I just thought it was coming up 12 months and it was important for me, I did that to hold myself to account because we were in such a bad place as a country that the expectation is that whoever took over as Police Minister, it's a huge responsibility, you've got to show that your things are changing. Otherwise, I wasn't the right guy for the job or the right person for the job. So we are starting to see change. &nbsp;
“Like I said, we've got a long way to go, but we're starting to see some trends moving in the right direction. And I want to say that's not attributable to me. I mean it's, it's the fact that, yes, I've got the, the privileged position of Minister so I can bring everyone together ... the Auckland CBD is a good example. We brought the Residence and Ratepayers groups together, the business associations, our social service providers, Māori Wardens, CPNZ, KO, MSD, police, St. John's, we've all come together, we've been aligned. I had my latest meeting on Friday and we're seeing real success. So I've been going around the country trying to pull that together and trying to get some real change and it's happening.” &nbsp;
So how do you think he's doing? You know, just based on your community, your neighbourhood, your retail area, how do you think the Police Minister is doing? I think the stats speak for themselves. Of course, as he also said in the interview with Mike, you're never going to get rid of crime altogether. There is never going to be a day where the police wake up and log no crime, ever. That's just not the way human beings are. But in terms of your community, your neighbourhood, your shopping precinct, do you feel safer? &nbsp;
I mean, certainly I no longer have a low-level sense of alert when I'm going into a mall and walking past a Michael Hill Jewellers store. You know, there had been so many and a number in our area had been hit, so when I was taking the kids to the mall – I wouldn't say I was fearful. I certainly didn't stop going. I wasn't fearful, but I was on alert. Anything that looked a little bit out of the ordinary and I was going to get out of there with those children before hell broke loose. So, I'm more relaxed I think. There isn't the posturing and the advertising and the visibility of gangs in my hood. A few red sneakers, but hey, they might just like the colour. &nbsp;
There aren't the same sort of video footage from doorbells and street cameras of families taking little ones out to go robbing in the early hours of the morning. I haven't seen that being posted for quite some time. So yeah, I feel as though things are getting better and the stats would seem to indicate they are. &nbsp;
Is that because a line has been drawn in the sand? Is that because the focus of the police has shifted slightly? I would certainly say the foot patrols would have helped. Is it an indication from police and indeed from the community? It was voters who said up with this we will not put. We could have gone one way, we went this way when it came to the polling booths. We don't want to see any more softly, softly. We would like to see a line in the sand when it comes to crime. &nbsp;
There's a lot more to do. There's a lot more work to do around addictions, there's a lot more work to do around mental health because a lot of those are precursors to crime. The crime is not actually the problem, it's the addictions that are. But so far, if you were to mark Mark Mitchell, what would you give him a B plus? A minus? A very good start?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: How would you rank the Police Minister?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/639e50c1-6b77-4271-b265-b22d0002819d/transcript

Foodstuffs North Island chief executive Chris Quin has confirmed that the company will appeal the decision by the Commerce Commission to block its proposed merger.

Speaking on Newstalk ZB this morning, Quin said the company’s advisers had been working their way through ComCom’s reason for the decision for the last few weeks.

“The biggest concern in the document seems to be about whether suppliers would be worse off as a result of the co-op merging between the North Island and South Island,” Quin said.

“Our internal teams have the view that we passed that legal test and that the proposition we put up should have been cleared.”

Foodstuffs will appeal the decision in the High Court and expects to have officially filed its appeal by November 21.

Quin reiterated Foodstuffs' position that the two regional co-operatives in the North and South Islands don’t compete with each other in any way. 

He said that if the co-operatives were merged it would make them “incredibly more efficient”. 

On the suggested impacts on suppliers that ComCom posited, Quin said he briefed hundreds of suppliers after the decision last month. 

“We get a lot of conversation with them almost every day on meeting with one or other and the advantages for suppliers would be dealing with one not two,” Quin said. 

“The possibility would be you could do a deal to be nationally ranged, so we see a number of advantages for suppliers.” 

He believed a merger would allow Foodstuffs to make prices much more competitive, ultimately benefiting consumers. 

Mary Devine, chief executive of Foodstuffs South Island, also said the merger woujld bring long-term benefits to customers and communities, citing increased efficiency and faster innovation. 

“Combining our operations allows us to streamline operations, reduce overheads and better invest in new technology and services that our customers want,” Devine said. 

“This isn’t just a merger - it’s an evolution to ensure we remain competitive and sustainable for the future.” The original decision 

Now that Foodstuffs has confirmed its appeal, the process will likely be a lengthy one. 

Foodstuffs North Island and Foodstuffs South Island operate some of New Zealand’s best-known supermarket banners – New World, Pak’nSave and Four Square – and while each retails only in its respective island, the companies already collaborate across various business areas, including marketing and home-brand purchasing. Their combined revenue was nearly $13 billion in the last fiscal year. 

In their application to the commission for clearance to merge, the parties essentially argued that they do not compete at either the retail or wholesale level and they would be more efficient and better equipped to drive down grocery prices as a single streamlined entity. 

However, the commission was not convinced the benefits of such an arrangement would flow to customers and moreover, its main concern was that a merger would reduce the number of buyers in the “upstream market” for grocery supply from three to two – this market is currently dominated by the two Foodstuffs entities and Woolworths NZ. 

In its decision, the commission noted that this reduction would be a structural change and would likely lessen competition in multiple acquisition and retail markets. It also emphasised that competition in the country’s highly concentrated grocery market was already weak. 

Tom Raynel is a multimedia business journalist for the Herald, covering small business and retail. 

Foodstuffs North Island chief executive Chris Quin has confirmed that the company will appeal the decision by the Commerce Commission to block its proposed merger.
Speaking on Newstalk ZB this morning, Quin said the company’s advisers had been working their way through ComCom’s reason for the decision for the last few weeks.
“The biggest concern in the document seems to be about whether suppliers would be worse off as a result of the co-op merging between the North Island and South Island,” Quin said.
“Our internal teams have the view that we passed that legal test and that the proposition we put up should have been cleared.”
Foodstuffs will appeal the decision in the High Court and expects to have officially filed its appeal by November 21.

Quin reiterated Foodstuffs' position that the two regional co-operatives in the North and South Islands don’t compete with each other in any way.&nbsp;
He said that if the co-operatives were merged it would make them “incredibly more efficient”.&nbsp;
On the suggested impacts on suppliers that ComCom posited, Quin said he briefed hundreds of suppliers after the decision last month.&nbsp;
“We get a lot of conversation with them almost every day on meeting with one or other and the advantages for suppliers would be dealing with one not two,” Quin said.&nbsp;
“The possibility would be you could do a deal to be nationally ranged, so we see a number of advantages for suppliers.”&nbsp;
He believed a merger would allow Foodstuffs to make prices much more competitive, ultimately benefiting consumers.&nbsp;
Mary Devine, chief executive of Foodstuffs South Island, also said the merger woujld bring long-term benefits to customers and communities, citing increased efficiency and faster innovation.&nbsp;
“Combining our operations allows us to streamline operations, reduce overheads and better invest in new technology and services that our customers want,” Devine said.&nbsp;
“This isn’t just a merger - it’s an evolution to ensure we remain competitive and sustainable for the future.”&nbsp;
<h2>The original decision&nbsp;</h2>
Now that Foodstuffs has confirmed its appeal, the process will likely be a lengthy one.&nbsp;
Foodstuffs North Island and Foodstuffs South Island operate some of New Zealand’s best-known supermarket banners – New World, Pak’nSave and Four Square – and while each retails only in its respective island, the companies already collaborate across various business areas, including marketing and home-brand purchasing. Their combined revenue was nearly $13 billion in the last fiscal year.&nbsp;
In their application to the commission for clearance to merge, the parties essentially argued that they do not compete at either the retail or wholesale level and they would be more efficient and better equipped to drive down grocery prices as a single streamlined entity.&nbsp;
However, the commission was not convinced the benefits of such an arrangement would flow to customers and moreover, its main concern was that a merger would reduce the number of buyers in the “upstream market” for grocery supply from three to two – this market is currently dominated by the two Foodstuffs entities and Woolworths NZ.&nbsp;
In its decision, the commission noted that this reduction would be a structural change and would likely lessen competition in multiple acquisition and retail markets. It also emphasised that competition in the country’s highly concentrated grocery market was already weak.&nbsp;
Tom Raynel is a multimedia business journalist for the Herald, covering small business and retail.&nbsp;

Chris Quin: Foodstuffs North Island CEO on the Commerce Commission's merger decision, grocery prices

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/bdc6ba30-8c8a-4d54-92a5-b22c0174aef2/transcript

If I asked you how many demerit points you have right now, reckon you’d be able to tell me? 

If you could, then you’re better than most people. Because, unless you get enough demerits to have your licence suspended, then I think most people don’t care. 

And a study out today is telling us that we do need to care if we want to make the roads safer. 

The people behind the study are telling us that most of us won’t care until we have tougher penalties for speeding. And I’m with them. Because, if we keep on doing things the way we do, not much is going to change. 

Here’s the gist of what this study connected with the University of Canterbury is telling us. It's found that drivers ticketed for speeding are nearly three times more likely to be involved in a crash. 

And you know why that is, don’t you? It’s because the fines for speeding are so piddly that people just take their chances. 

The speed cameras don’t help, either. Because, if you get ticketed by a speed camera,  you don't even get the demerit points. Because it can be difficult to prove who was driving. 

So, while the speed cameras are useful, they're not going to do much in terms of slowing people down if, the only impact, is paying a piddly fine and still keeping your licence. 

Which is why I like the idea that these researchers are floating today. That if you get a speeding ticket and keep on speeding, you get a higher fine each time. 

I’d go a step further than that, though, and say that the fines themselves need to be way higher than what they are now. 

As one of the people involved in this study is pointing out today, it’s crazy that you can actually pay more for a parking fine than for a speeding fine. 

So rank up the fines each time someone is caught speeding - but sting people for a lot more than we do at the moment. 

The other idea that these experts are putting out there today is, essentially, means testing people when they get fined for speeding. 

Which might sound like a good idea. But it’s not.  

Because someone who speeds is just as much of a menace on the road whether they’re driving some sort of Flash Harry 4-wheel-drive or whether they’re driving a Demio or a clapped-out old Toyota. 

Besides which, when you drive too fast on the road you are breaking the law. So I think giving speeding fines to people on how rich they are, or otherwise, makes no sense. 

Not to mention the fact that it would be an absolute nightmare to run. 

Can you imagine getting pulled over by a cop? Getting some sort of ticket. Then having to go home and submit your income details and whatever else they’d need to determine what means you have to pay the fine. 

It might sound like a great idea when you’re writing your research paper at university and trying to “push the envelope” a bit. But it would be a disaster. 

Although, to be fair to Dr Darren Walton at the University of Canterbury, he hasn’t just plucked this idea out of thin air. He says, in Switzerland, speeding fines are scaled to wealth. 

But I don't see how that would encourage someone with plenty of money to slow down. They’d just go “pfft” and pay the fine. 

And I don’t buy this argument that speeding fines need to be “equitable”. That’s what the university guy is saying. You speed, you get caught, and you should pay exactly the same fine - whatever your financial situation. That’s what I think. 

But, if this research is telling us that drivers ticketed for speeding are nearly three times more likely than other drivers to be involved in a crash, then something does need to change. 

And I do like the idea of scaling-up the speeding fine system. So that, each time you get a ticket, you have to pay a higher fine. 

What do you think? 

LISTEN ABOVE

If I asked you how many demerit points you have right now, reckon you’d be able to tell me?&nbsp;
If you could, then you’re better than most people. Because, unless you get enough demerits to have your licence suspended, then I think most people don’t care.&nbsp;
And a study out today is telling us that we do need to care if we want to make the roads safer.&nbsp;
The people behind the study are telling us that most of us won’t care until we have tougher penalties for speeding. And I’m with them. Because, if we keep on doing things the way we do, not much is going to change.&nbsp;
Here’s the gist of what this study connected with the University of Canterbury is telling us. It's found that drivers ticketed for speeding are nearly three times more likely to be involved in a crash.&nbsp;
And you know why that is, don’t you? It’s because the fines for speeding are so piddly that people just take their chances.&nbsp;
The speed cameras don’t help, either. Because, if you get ticketed by a speed camera, &nbsp;you don't even get the demerit points. Because it can be difficult to prove who was driving.&nbsp;
So, while the speed cameras are useful, they're not going to do much in terms of slowing people down if, the only impact, is paying a piddly fine and still keeping your licence.&nbsp;
Which is why I like the idea that these researchers are floating today. That if you get a speeding ticket and keep on speeding, you get a higher fine each time.&nbsp;
I’d go a step further than that, though, and say that the fines themselves need to be way higher than what they are now.&nbsp;
As one of the people involved in this study is pointing out today, it’s crazy that you can actually pay more for a parking fine than for a speeding fine.&nbsp;
So rank up the fines each time someone is caught speeding - but sting people for a lot more than we do at the moment.&nbsp;
The other idea that these experts are putting out there today is, essentially, means testing people when they get fined for speeding.&nbsp;
Which might sound like a good idea. But it’s not. &nbsp;
Because someone who speeds is just as much of a menace on the road whether they’re driving some sort of Flash Harry 4-wheel-drive or whether they’re driving a Demio or a clapped-out old Toyota.&nbsp;
Besides which, when you drive too fast on the road you are breaking the law. So I think giving speeding fines to people on how rich they are, or otherwise, makes no sense.&nbsp;
Not to mention the fact that it would be an absolute nightmare to run.&nbsp;
Can you imagine getting pulled over by a cop? Getting some sort of ticket. Then having to go home and submit your income details and whatever else they’d need to determine what means you have to pay the fine.&nbsp;
It might sound like a great idea when you’re writing your research paper at university and trying to “push the envelope” a bit. But it would be a disaster.&nbsp;
Although, to be fair to Dr Darren Walton at the University of Canterbury, he hasn’t just plucked this idea out of thin air. He says, in Switzerland, speeding fines are scaled to wealth.&nbsp;
But I don't see how that would encourage someone with plenty of money to slow down. They’d just go “pfft” and pay the fine.&nbsp;
And I don’t buy this argument that speeding fines need to be “equitable”. That’s what the university guy is saying. You speed, you get caught, and you should pay exactly the same fine - whatever your financial situation. That’s what I think.&nbsp;
But, if this research is telling us that drivers ticketed for speeding are nearly three times more likely than other drivers to be involved in a crash, then something does need to change.&nbsp;
And I do like the idea of scaling-up the speeding fine system. So that, each time you get a ticket, you have to pay a higher fine.&nbsp;
What do you think?&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Our speeding fines are a joke

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f5b5b01e-400e-4c1f-88fc-b22b018486cb/transcript

Maree MacLean: Author on how stay sober

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips