Infrastructure in New Zealand is being called out for being too political. 

A significant jolt to the construction sector thanks to Government investment to hospital and school infrastructure. 

Almost half a billion dollars will go towards upgrades and maintenance projects across the country. 

Construction activity is at a six year low, with thousands of jobs lost in the last two years. 

Infrastructure NZ CEO Nick Leggett told Kerre Woodham the mindset we apply to infrastructure is too political – too stop/start.  

He says there’s often too much division within government, with each portfolio responsible for their own projects, and we don’t centralise the good skills and capabilities. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Infrastructure in New Zealand is being called out for being too political.&nbsp;
A significant jolt to the construction sector thanks to Government investment to hospital and school infrastructure.&nbsp;
Almost half a billion dollars will go towards upgrades and maintenance projects across the country.&nbsp;
Construction activity is at a six year low, with thousands of jobs lost in the last two years.&nbsp;
Infrastructure NZ CEO Nick Leggett told Kerre Woodham the mindset we apply to infrastructure is too political – too stop/start. &nbsp;
He says there’s often too much division within government, with each portfolio responsible for their own projects, and we don’t centralise the good skills and capabilities.&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

Nick Leggett: Infrastructure NZ CEO on the $413 infrastructure project investment

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/315e20d7-77b1-471f-882a-b361001036bb/transcript

While I was away over Easter and then another week, I was not a slave to the news cycle. I opted out for a while because I figured the insanity would still be here when I came back on duty and I was right.

The Straits of Hormuz are still closed, Trump is still threatening to obliterate Iran. New Zealand homes are still being flooded, roads are still being closed in weather events, they're just in different parts of the country. And political commentators are still saying Christopher Luxon is a dead man walking.

When he came in for his weekly chat with Mike this morning, the Prime Minister didn't sound as exasperated as I thought he might. I thought he'd be getting so fed up with it. He was very calm and seemed to understand I suppose a bit why the questions were being asked.

He said when it came to the dissent within his own party he thought there were about five grumpy backbenchers who were the root cause of all the grumblings, who would lose their jobs if they got their wish and saw him rolled because New Zealand voters in the past have not responded well when sitting Prime Ministers are dumped if you look at David Lange and Geoffrey Palmer and Jim Bolger. New Zealand voters don't like that.

So the backbenchers might be the turkeys voting for an early Christmas or an early Thanksgiving depending on which part of the country you're in.

When it came to the polls, Christopher Luxon said well which one do you believe?

That's the problem.

I've seen polls in a given week where I've had one that has us at 36 one that would have us at 30 just a couple months ago.

So you can get bounced around by polls and I listen to it to a degree, but at the end of the day the public do not want me fixated on that.

We've seen examples in the Australian election where polls were all over the place.

So you've got to listen to it because there's some genuinely good feedback in there about what you need to do better, which is good.

Perfectly reasonable. I don't think I would have been as reasonable. Must be so frustrating.

But look, if some New Zealanders think a Labour Greens Te Pāti Māori coalition would get the Straits of Hormuz open tomorrow and gas prices down, well good luck to them.

They probably believe in unicorns and they probably still believe in Santa.

And the polls are starting to trigger oppositional defiance in some people I've been talking to.

They can work a number of different ways. They can be informative for voters, they can give parties feedback about their performance or perceived performance as Christopher Luxon was saying. But Grant Duncan from the Public Policy Institute at the University of Auckland was writing in The Conversation and they can be unhelpful when framed by media in sensationalist or biased ways.

Ya reckon?

He says people should be left to make up their own minds about which candidate or party best represents them rather than view an election as a contest narrated in terms of who's up and who's down.

And I think people do, I think people do start to look at the polls and go don't tell me what to think or do.

He says in the end we should read the polls and the media critically, check for example who's done the survey, who's sponsored it, what the methodology was, and he says remember that they don't predict future outcomes, they're only looking at past trends, they're a snapshot in time of what happened before.

He says they can also, you can't even take anything from the polls like oh well with everybody saying Labour Greens and Te Pāti Māori are going to win, which was almost like coughing up a furball but there we go.

If you see a poll saying that you might think 'oh well better tick them, I'll go with the winner'. Or you might think 'oh well I better give a tick to the centre right, I'll go for the underdog'. Or you might think it's a foregone conclusion and not vote at all.

So, as Grant's saying, you can't even take anything from what voters will do from the polls. If you look at the US presidential election it was neck and neck up until the actual result, which was not. And when you look at our past elections, the polls at this time of the year did not get it right in the lead up to the election. They massively overestimated National support and underestimated the sort of support that Labour would get.

So the polls in a way are a media construct. They're sponsored by media organisations, the media organisations have their names in them and it helps generate a headline.

Bang, kapow, wham as Mikey Sherman might say on 1News. They're feeding themselves.

We all have a vote, we all have different views about how best this country should be run, we all have a view about the sort of priorities a government should have and we'll be able to exercise our democratic right later in the year.

Are the polls going to make a blind bit of difference to you?

We're not allowed to publish polls on polling day. In European countries there's a blackout on polls a little bit earlier than that. Quite frankly I'd like to see a moratorium on them for three years.

I'm sick to death of them.

It's a bit like the weather news, you know, in a way I want to be informed, I want to know where the storm is coming and when it's supposed to be hitting, but once a day, not every minute of every hour because otherwise you just become inured to the news that they're supposed to be giving you.

I'd like to know perhaps once a day, but turning it into a media circus I don't think is very helpful. And it's the same with the polls. In the end you get a bit of oppositional defiance and stick one finger and say 'I'll vote exactly how I want to vote thank you very much and all of the hype in the world is not going to make me change my mind'.

While I was away over Easter and then another week, I was not a slave to the news cycle. I opted out for a while because I figured the insanity would still be here when I came back on duty and I was right.
The Straits of Hormuz are still closed, Trump is still threatening to obliterate Iran. New Zealand homes are still being flooded, roads are still being closed in weather events, they're just in different parts of the country. And political commentators are still saying Christopher Luxon is a dead man walking.
When he came in for his weekly chat with Mike this morning, the Prime Minister didn't sound as exasperated as I thought he might. I thought he'd be getting so fed up with it. He was very calm and seemed to understand I suppose a bit why the questions were being asked.
He said when it came to the dissent within his own party he thought there were about five grumpy backbenchers who were the root cause of all the grumblings, who would lose their jobs if they got their wish and saw him rolled because New Zealand voters in the past have not responded well when sitting Prime Ministers are dumped if you look at David Lange and Geoffrey Palmer and Jim Bolger. New Zealand voters don't like that.
So the backbenchers might be the turkeys voting for an early Christmas or an early Thanksgiving depending on which part of the country you're in.
When it came to the polls, Christopher Luxon said well which one do you believe?
That's the problem.
I've seen polls in a given week where I've had one that has us at 36 one that would have us at 30 just a couple months ago.
So you can get bounced around by polls and I listen to it to a degree, but at the end of the day the public do not want me fixated on that.
We've seen examples in the Australian election where polls were all over the place.
So you've got to listen to it because there's some genuinely good feedback in there about what you need to do better, which is good.
Perfectly reasonable. I don't think I would have been as reasonable. Must be so frustrating.
But look, if some New Zealanders think a Labour Greens Te Pāti Māori coalition would get the Straits of Hormuz open tomorrow and gas prices down, well good luck to them.
They probably believe in unicorns and they probably still believe in Santa.
And the polls are starting to trigger oppositional defiance in some people I've been talking to.
They can work a number of different ways. They can be informative for voters, they can give parties feedback about their performance or perceived performance as Christopher Luxon was saying. But Grant Duncan from the Public Policy Institute at the University of Auckland was writing in The Conversation and they can be unhelpful when framed by media in sensationalist or biased ways.
Ya reckon?
He says people should be left to make up their own minds about which candidate or party best represents them rather than view an election as a contest narrated in terms of who's up and who's down.
And I think people do, I think people do start to look at the polls and go don't tell me what to think or do.
He says in the end we should read the polls and the media critically, check for example who's done the survey, who's sponsored it, what the methodology was, and he says remember that they don't predict future outcomes, they're only looking at past trends, they're a snapshot in time of what happened before.
He says they can also, you can't even take anything from the polls like oh well with everybody saying Labour Greens and Te Pāti Māori are going to win, which was almost like coughing up a furball but there we go.
If you see a poll saying that you might think 'oh well better tick them, I'll go with the winner'. Or you might think 'oh well I better give a tick to the centre right, I'll go for the underdog'. Or you might think it's a foregone conclusion and not vote at all.
So, as Grant's saying, you can't even take anything from what voters will do from the polls. If you look at the US presidential election it was neck and neck up until the actual result, which was not. And when you look at our past elections, the polls at this time of the year did not get it right in the lead up to the election. They massively overestimated National support and underestimated the sort of support that Labour would get.
So the polls in a way are a media construct. They're sponsored by media organisations, the media organisations have their names in them and it helps generate a headline.
Bang, kapow, wham as Mikey Sherman might say on 1News. They're feeding themselves.
We all have a vote, we all have different views about how best this country should be run, we all have a view about the sort of priorities a government should have and we'll be able to exercise our democratic right later in the year.
Are the polls going to make a blind bit of difference to you?
We're not allowed to publish polls on polling day. In European countries there's a blackout on polls a little bit earlier than that. Quite frankly I'd like to see a moratorium on them for three years.
I'm sick to death of them.
It's a bit like the weather news, you know, in a way I want to be informed, I want to know where the storm is coming and when it's supposed to be hitting, but once a day, not every minute of every hour because otherwise you just become inured to the news that they're supposed to be giving you.
I'd like to know perhaps once a day, but turning it into a media circus I don't think is very helpful. And it's the same with the polls. In the end you get a bit of oppositional defiance and stick one finger and say 'I'll vote exactly how I want to vote thank you very much and all of the hype in the world is not going to make me change my mind'.

Kerre Woodham: I'm sick to death of polls

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6f024779-e6bc-4107-b0ce-b43101776b03/transcript

The story that has made the front page of the Herald this morning and dominated the conversation was the leadership of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. He is facing what party insiders describe as “the most difficult fortnight of his leadership”, with growing speculation about his support within National's caucus as Parliament returns next week. Sources say that the whip, Stuart Smith, tried to present Christopher Luxon with evidence that caucus backing for his leadership had weakened. He tried to do that before Easter, but Christopher Luxon did not want to hear this. They did not have the meeting. It's understood those who believe Luxon should step aside might act in the next two weeks, although a formal leadership challenge or confidence vote is still seen as unlikely. Instead, the preferred option amongst critics appears to be having a good old chat with Christopher Luxon with evidence of his diminished support within his caucus, and that might prompt him to resign or step aside and bring about a change of leader. Now, if that doesn't happen, a challenge could follow, but there's no declared challenger at this stage.  

All of this is at a critical time. Parliament's back for a short sitting block before recessing again ahead of the Budget. Here comes the Budget. Political analysts say removing a Prime Minister during the Budget period risks destabilising the Government. So it's this next fortnight or not, because after that we're into Budget time and that would be even worse for National. 

National Minister Chris Bishop, who has been widely rumoured as a potential contender, was on the radio with Mike Hosking this morning. He came on to talk about the changes to the Warrants of Fitness, but instead he got a little surprise of talk of a coup. Chris Bishop described the situation as “untidy and unhelpful”. He said there's no leadership challenge underway, and he said he will not be the National leader before the election. But the general consensus to that interview was that he was being a little shifty, and he knows a lot more than he was letting on. How could he not know the feeling in the caucus? He's around there the whole time. How could he not know that three guys had actually come to Thomas Coughlan? But he claimed he didn't. 

Furthermore, can I just remind you that Chris Bishop is scheduled for an interview with Jack Tame on Q&A on Sunday, so you know this issue is going to continue bubbling away. Behind the scenes, tensions were already evident before Parliament recessed. We reported, everybody reported, that Christopher Luxon faced pressure from within caucus during the final sitting week and he ended up reshuffling the party, hopefully to stabilise it, but look at this, it's still rumbling on. When party whip Stuart Smith got ghosted by Christopher Luxon, he ended up raising all his concerns with deputy leader Nicola Willis instead. We've got a poll out right now and those numbers are adding to the pressure. National is currently sitting well below Labour and another major poll is due next week. So, all eyes are now on the coming days and how Christopher Luxon and his senior colleagues respond. 

The story that has made the front page of the Herald this morning and dominated the conversation was the leadership of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. He is facing what party insiders describe as “the most difficult fortnight of his leadership”, with growing speculation about his support within National's caucus as Parliament returns next week. Sources say that the whip, Stuart Smith, tried to present Christopher Luxon with evidence that caucus backing for his leadership had weakened. He tried to do that before Easter, but Christopher Luxon did not want to hear this. They did not have the meeting. It's understood those who believe Luxon should step aside might act in the next two weeks, although a formal leadership challenge or confidence vote is still seen as unlikely. Instead, the preferred option amongst critics appears to be having a good old chat with Christopher Luxon with evidence of his diminished support within his caucus, and that might prompt him to resign or step aside and bring about a change of leader. Now, if that doesn't happen, a challenge could follow, but there's no declared challenger at this stage. &nbsp;
All of this is at a critical time. Parliament's back for a short sitting block before recessing again ahead of the Budget. Here comes the Budget. Political analysts say removing a Prime Minister during the Budget period risks destabilising the Government. So it's this next fortnight or not, because after that we're into Budget time and that would be even worse for National.&nbsp;
National Minister Chris Bishop, who has been widely rumoured as a potential contender, was on the radio with Mike Hosking this morning. He came on to talk about the changes to the Warrants of Fitness, but instead he got a little surprise of talk of a coup. Chris Bishop described the situation as “untidy and unhelpful”. He said there's no leadership challenge underway, and he said he will not be the National leader before the election. But the general consensus to that interview was that he was being a little shifty, and he knows a lot more than he was letting on. How could he not know the feeling in the caucus? He's around there the whole time. How could he not know that three guys had actually come to Thomas Coughlan? But he claimed he didn't.&nbsp;
Furthermore, can I just remind you that Chris Bishop is scheduled for an interview with Jack Tame on Q&amp;A on Sunday, so you know this issue is going to continue bubbling away. Behind the scenes, tensions were already evident before Parliament recessed. We reported, everybody reported, that Christopher Luxon faced pressure from within caucus during the final sitting week and he ended up reshuffling the party, hopefully to stabilise it, but look at this, it's still rumbling on. When party whip Stuart Smith got ghosted by Christopher Luxon, he ended up raising all his concerns with deputy leader Nicola Willis instead. We've got a poll out right now and those numbers are adding to the pressure. National is currently sitting well below Labour and another major poll is due next week. So, all eyes are now on the coming days and how Christopher Luxon and his senior colleagues respond.&nbsp;

Andrew Dickens: All eyes are on Christopher Luxon

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6d239e20-aeca-4a1c-90be-b42f0007bb84/transcript

Bunnings have begun rolling out facial recognition technology in its New Zealand stores, saying it's needed to protect staff and customers because violent incidents continue to rise, despite the fact we've got tough on crime, and we've had a bit of a crackdown. The first two stores to switch on the facial recognition technology are in Te Rapa and Hamilton South, both in the Waikato, but a nationwide rollout is planned. The company says the technology will help identify serious repeat offenders, it will reduce theft, and they do this after what they say is a sharp increase in threatening behaviour.  

Now this whole thing has taken forever for Bunnings. In Australia, Bunnings fought for four years to get permission to do this. There were courts involved, there were tribunals involved, there was a lot of controversy, and a four-year battle. Here, for Bunnings, it's only taken six months because Foodstuffs had already got approval from the Privacy Commissioner, so the hard work was done. But even so, six months for Bunnings to finally roll out a little bit of facial recognition in their stores. They worked hard at it, they've been taking privacy guidance. The Foodstuffs trial last year scanned 225 million faces and they deleted all the images within a minute, but there were concerns at the time about misidentification and bias and the need for strong safeguards, so Bunnings worked away at all of this. They hired a Māori digital sovereignty expert —who knew such a thing existed or was even needed— to make sure cultural considerations are built in. There is bilingual signage for the facial recognition, and if you think you've been wrongly identified as a bad guy, there are clear pathways for you to object to all of this.  

But you know, all this kafuffle about getting the permission shows all of us that there are still a load of people in this world who do not like the idea. There's more issues to come, but are you worried about the rise and rise and rise of facial recognition technology? Or do you have no problem with it because it's a tool to fight crime?  

Now all of this reminds me of debates I used to listen to on when Leighton Smith used to do this show. And he would do a show and it's all about freedom and liberty, and people would come on and say, “Oh, there's no problem, no problem at all, mate. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." And Leighton would say, “Yes, but bit by bit, little by little, our personal freedom and liberty is being stripped and replaced by an all-powerful state monitoring our every step and then controlling the way we behave. It's the threat of Big Brother." But the difference now that time has passed, it's not actually the state that's doing all the facial recognition, it's the corporate world.  

So it's not the state, it's the corporates, and the corporates seem to want to know every little thing about us. Your phone is monitoring where you are, what you do, what you look at, it's telling you what to think. And I get tired of being told what I should be listening to next by Spotify because they've looked at what I've listened to before and said, “well, this is you," and I go, “well, actually, I'm a broader, wider person than that, and stop bothering me." I'm tired of my car telling me how to drive, “your tyres are a little flat, would you like to check into the service centre?" No, I would not. I don't have the time right now. Would you shut up, car? I'm trying to drive.  

Facial recognition technology, do you have any problem with it? And I know you do because look how long it's taken to get approval and how many people have had conniptions about it and had worries about it, and the Privacy Commissioner has spent millions on it just investigating this sort of thing. Is this the rise and rise of Big Brother, or is this necessary as we fight crime? 

Bunnings have begun rolling out facial recognition technology in its New Zealand stores, saying it's needed to protect staff and customers because violent incidents continue to rise, despite the fact we've got tough on crime, and we've had a bit of a crackdown. The first two stores to switch on the facial recognition technology are in Te Rapa and Hamilton South, both in the Waikato, but a nationwide rollout is planned. The company says the technology will help identify serious repeat offenders, it will reduce theft, and they do this after what they say is a sharp increase in threatening behaviour. &nbsp;
Now this whole thing has taken forever for Bunnings. In Australia, Bunnings fought for four years to get permission to do this. There were courts involved, there were tribunals involved, there was a lot of controversy, and a four-year battle. Here, for Bunnings, it's only taken six months because Foodstuffs had already got approval from the Privacy Commissioner, so the hard work was done. But even so, six months for Bunnings to finally roll out a little bit of facial recognition in their stores. They worked hard at it, they've been taking privacy guidance. The Foodstuffs trial last year scanned 225 million faces and they deleted all the images within a minute, but there were concerns at the time about misidentification and bias and the need for strong safeguards, so Bunnings worked away at all of this. They hired a Māori digital sovereignty expert —who knew such a thing existed or was even needed— to make sure cultural considerations are built in. There is bilingual signage for the facial recognition, and if you think you've been wrongly identified as a bad guy, there are clear pathways for you to object to all of this. &nbsp;
But you know, all this kafuffle about getting the permission shows all of us that there are still a load of people in this world who do not like the idea. There's more issues to come, but are you worried about the rise and rise and rise of facial recognition technology? Or do you have no problem with it because it's a tool to fight crime? &nbsp;
Now all of this reminds me of debates I used to listen to on when Leighton Smith used to do this show. And he would do a show and it's all about freedom and liberty, and people would come on and say, “Oh, there's no problem, no problem at all, mate. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." And Leighton would say, “Yes, but bit by bit, little by little, our personal freedom and liberty is being stripped and replaced by an all-powerful state monitoring our every step and then controlling the way we behave. It's the threat of Big Brother." But the difference now that time has passed, it's not actually the state that's doing all the facial recognition, it's the corporate world. &nbsp;
So it's not the state, it's the corporates, and the corporates seem to want to know every little thing about us. Your phone is monitoring where you are, what you do, what you look at, it's telling you what to think. And I get tired of being told what I should be listening to next by Spotify because they've looked at what I've listened to before and said, “well, this is you," and I go, “well, actually, I'm a broader, wider person than that, and stop bothering me." I'm tired of my car telling me how to drive, “your tyres are a little flat, would you like to check into the service centre?" No, I would not. I don't have the time right now. Would you shut up, car? I'm trying to drive. &nbsp;
Facial recognition technology, do you have any problem with it? And I know you do because look how long it's taken to get approval and how many people have had conniptions about it and had worries about it, and the Privacy Commissioner has spent millions on it just investigating this sort of thing. Is this the rise and rise of Big Brother, or is this necessary as we fight crime?&nbsp;

Andrew Dickens: Facial recognition – the rise of Big Brother or a necessary tool?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/dea6bd8a-27fa-4162-8b46-b42e0011f1e0/transcript

Nick Leggett: Infrastructure NZ CEO on the $413 infrastructure project investment

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips