Connectivity is top of mind for many South Island voters.  

South Island businesses are banding together to push their priorities onto the election agenda, using a major new conference to pressure political leaders on growth, infrastructure and workforce issues. 

And for the average person, mobile coverage and connectivity is a big issue – with dropouts and lacking 4G/5G coverage causing problems. 

NZ Telecommunications Forum CEO Paul Brislen told Kerre Woodham that telco companies are reliant on the government to co-fund towers, as there’s no commercial reason to put towers in places only a handful of people will use them every once in a while.  

He says it’s very much a joint venture, and he doesn’t recall anything in the Budget about more funding – but it’s an election year so that may change. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Connectivity is top of mind for many South Island voters. &nbsp;
South Island businesses are banding together to push their priorities onto the election agenda, using a major new conference to pressure political leaders on growth, infrastructure and workforce issues.&nbsp;
And for the average person, mobile coverage and connectivity is a big issue – with dropouts and lacking 4G/5G coverage causing problems.&nbsp;
NZ Telecommunications Forum CEO Paul Brislen told Kerre Woodham that telco companies are reliant on the government to co-fund towers, as there’s no commercial reason to put towers in places only a handful of people will use them every once in a while. &nbsp;
He says it’s very much a joint venture, and he doesn’t recall anything in the Budget about more funding – but it’s an election year so that may change.&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

Paul Brislen: NZ Telecommunications Forum CEO on the call from rural New Zealand for better mobile coverage and connectivity

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/2d060a63-716b-4d45-9cf7-b466001a9d09/transcript

Our meth use continues to break records. According to the latest wastewater drug test, methamphetamine use is up 15% since the last quarter. And wastewater testing is pretty accurate. Consumption of methamphetamine and MDMA both increased. MDMA use does have a seasonal component though, they said, with increases during the summer music festival period from January to March. People pop a pill while they're at the festivals and then pretty much get on with their lives.  

But meth use, up 15% since the last quarter, and my question is why? Why? Why are people taking up this pernicious drug when there is so much harm associated with it? Do they think that all the stories they hear, all the stats you read or hear, all the pearl-clutching is just middle class, middle New Zealand moral panic? Surely not. Meth use seems to be across all socioeconomic groups, but even on TikTok, Instagram, you've got former users who are saying how much better their lives are now that they've got free of the clutches of the drug and the gangs who control it, that they can't believe that they let themselves get hooked, that they were so low that they wanted to die and now they're out of it. 

Why are people still picking up the pipe and giving it a go? To a certain extent, I can understand how people become sellers and pushers of the drug. They don't actually want to work to make a buck. They see a way of making easy dollars, far more than they could ever earn in their small town with their small skills, and the lure of the money is just too great to withstand the overtures from gang members. So selling it, I can understand how you would get into that. You don't want to work, you don't want to work hard, you haven't got the ability to earn the sort of money that you get from selling drugs, I sell drugs. But why become a user? 

There was much hoohah yesterday with a major drugs bust in Northland. Operation Phoenix has dismantled an operation manufacturing and supplying meth in remote parts of the Far North – it's a huge problem up there. 14 people have been arrested with links to the Tribesmen and Head Hunters. Police say the gangs were getting single mums addicted to meth with the intent of turning them into dealers of the drug. So give it to them for free, get them addicted, get them to pay off the debt in the time-honoured way that desperate women pay off debts, get them becoming dealers, and off you go. Nothing new here.  

Kids from private schools have also been targeted for decades. Good looking boys hang around the girls' schools, good looking girls hang around the boys' schools, they give them drugs for free. They know that even if these kids don't have money, they know people who do, and off you go. So yay Operation Phoenix for busting this gang operation, but even the police know that meth use won't drop. They said in the press conference that it's a long game they're playing, it's not about one off jobs. It will have an impact on this particular gang for a certain amount of time. But why? Why are people using? 

Sir Paul Holmes, bless him, once he saw the damage that drugs could do within his family, he was on an absolute rampage against the drugs and the pushers of the drugs. We've all known the dangers of it, the dangers of being associated with it after all the publicity, the horror stories from former addicts. Why are people still picking up the pipe? I get that the world is a tough place if you feel like you can't get out from under the crushing weight of bills and debt and trying to be somebody, trying to do better, trying to escape a dreadful childhood, you just want to turn off. But nowhere have I ever seen somebody say, well, that meth use really helped, that turned my life around for the better, boy do I feel like a better, more whole human being as a result of using meth. Nobody. Not one person. There are other drugs, there are legal drugs. Alcohol does terrible, terrible harm too, but at least you're not in the claws of the gangs. If you need a drug to switch off, there are other far less damaging drugs than meth. Why? Why? 

I'd love to hear from those who might have been there, done that, who've got family members. And if you are trying to get off or you have managed to, how hard is it to get away from the gangs, to settle your debts to your dealer and walk away, and then how hard is it to get off the stuff? Because it's only by getting rid of the users that you get rid of the sellers and the pushers. If the gangs don't see a market in it, they won't be selling it, they'll move on to something else. It's the dumb shmucks who allow themselves to get hooked that ensure that the gangs keep earning good money, that they keep riding the flash bikes that you've bought them. Your money's funded their lifestyle while you're living in squalid, desperate poverty. The gangs are travelling the world in first class, the gang leaders, laughing all the way to their crooked accountant. 

Our meth use continues to break records. According to the latest wastewater drug test, methamphetamine use is up 15% since the last quarter. And wastewater testing is pretty accurate. Consumption of methamphetamine and MDMA both increased. MDMA use does have a seasonal component though, they said, with increases during the summer music festival period from January to March. People pop a pill while they're at the festivals and then pretty much get on with their lives. &nbsp;
But meth use, up 15% since the last quarter, and my question is why? Why? Why are people taking up this pernicious drug when there is so much harm associated with it? Do they think that all the stories they hear, all the stats you read or hear, all the pearl-clutching is just middle class, middle New Zealand moral panic? Surely not. Meth use seems to be across all socioeconomic groups, but even on TikTok, Instagram, you've got former users who are saying how much better their lives are now that they've got free of the clutches of the drug and the gangs who control it, that they can't believe that they let themselves get hooked, that they were so low that they wanted to die and now they're out of it.&nbsp;
Why are people still picking up the pipe and giving it a go? To a certain extent, I can understand how people become sellers and pushers of the drug. They don't actually want to work to make a buck. They see a way of making easy dollars, far more than they could ever earn in their small town with their small skills, and the lure of the money is just too great to withstand the overtures from gang members. So selling it, I can understand how you would get into that. You don't want to work, you don't want to work hard, you haven't got the ability to earn the sort of money that you get from selling drugs, I sell drugs. But why become a user?&nbsp;
There was much hoohah yesterday with a major drugs bust in Northland. Operation Phoenix has dismantled an operation manufacturing and supplying meth in remote parts of the Far North – it's a huge problem up there. 14 people have been arrested with links to the Tribesmen and Head Hunters. Police say the gangs were getting single mums addicted to meth with the intent of turning them into dealers of the drug. So give it to them for free, get them addicted, get them to pay off the debt in the time-honoured way that desperate women pay off debts, get them becoming dealers, and off you go. Nothing new here. &nbsp;
Kids from private schools have also been targeted for decades. Good looking boys hang around the girls' schools, good looking girls hang around the boys' schools, they give them drugs for free. They know that even if these kids don't have money, they know people who do, and off you go. So yay Operation Phoenix for busting this gang operation, but even the police know that meth use won't drop. They said in the press conference that it's a long game they're playing, it's not about one off jobs. It will have an impact on this particular gang for a certain amount of time. But why? Why are people using?&nbsp;
Sir Paul Holmes, bless him, once he saw the damage that drugs could do within his family, he was on an absolute rampage against the drugs and the pushers of the drugs. We've all known the dangers of it, the dangers of being associated with it after all the publicity, the horror stories from former addicts. Why are people still picking up the pipe? I get that the world is a tough place if you feel like you can't get out from under the crushing weight of bills and debt and trying to be somebody, trying to do better, trying to escape a dreadful childhood, you just want to turn off. But nowhere have I ever seen somebody say, well, that meth use really helped, that turned my life around for the better, boy do I feel like a better, more whole human being as a result of using meth. Nobody. Not one person. There are other drugs, there are legal drugs. Alcohol does terrible, terrible harm too, but at least you're not in the claws of the gangs. If you need a drug to switch off, there are other far less damaging drugs than meth. Why? Why?&nbsp;
I'd love to hear from those who might have been there, done that, who've got family members. And if you are trying to get off or you have managed to, how hard is it to get away from the gangs, to settle your debts to your dealer and walk away, and then how hard is it to get off the stuff? Because it's only by getting rid of the users that you get rid of the sellers and the pushers. If the gangs don't see a market in it, they won't be selling it, they'll move on to something else. It's the dumb shmucks who allow themselves to get hooked that ensure that the gangs keep earning good money, that they keep riding the flash bikes that you've bought them. Your money's funded their lifestyle while you're living in squalid, desperate poverty. The gangs are travelling the world in first class, the gang leaders, laughing all the way to their crooked accountant.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Why are people still using meth?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/91725bd5-0025-4bb5-a249-b467000f2c2e/transcript

They say hope is the last thing to die. And thus it was yesterday when I heard Labour's first policy announcement in months. Give me a reason to vote for Labour – and they didn't. Chris Hipkins and Tangi Utikere announced a cap of some public transport fares —mostly for the cities, mostly for Auckland, where there's already a cap— that cuts off at a lower spending base. Not really the sort of bold and visionary policy you'd hope would come from a party that's been sitting around for years in Opposition, promising policy once the Budget's been released like it's going to be something quite seismic, revolutionary, changing the way we do things. A bit like the bold and visionary Labour of yore.  

That's what they came up with, starting with Michael Joseph Savage and moving through. Labour governments in the past have given us state housing, and the welfare state, and GST, and a shakeup of our economic policy, and a nuclear free New Zealand, and the Super Fund, and Kiwibank, although via Jim Anderton's Progressive Party. You would hardly say that this lot are the visionary Labour politicians of yesteryear. From them we get a lowered cap on public transport – after months, years, of being able to sit and develop policy, this is what they come up with. Labour's transport spokesperson was bigging it up, Tangi Utikere saying it will be a game changer for those who use public transport. 

“This is a real policy that will make a huge difference to households, commuters, shift workers, students, people who get from A to B every single day, every week. They're sitting around the kitchen table realising that their household bills are getting higher. This will provide absolute certainty for them when it comes to sorting their public transport.” 

Will it make a difference? I'm not sure how shift workers will benefit given the last bus in Auckland during the week finishes at 12:30am. Did Tangi even look at a bus timetable before he talked about how shift workers will find this absolutely a game changer? For some, I'm sure the extra 30 bucks will make a huge difference. I had a text yesterday that said, “it takes me three buses each way to get to and from work. As someone who's on a low income with a new baby, that extra $30 will go a long way. The current $50 cap does help with clear budgeting, but at $20 it feels like a godsend."  

So that's fantastic, but wouldn't it be better all round for the country, for people who are doing it tough right now, if we had targeted assistance? At the moment, Labour's spraying around universal policies, universal benefits, universal – although in the case of the public transport it's only universal if you happen to live in an area where there is public transport. As I say, it's mainly for the cities, mainly for Auckland. But the three GP visits for all... The taxes are going to be targeted, so why aren't the benefits? Why not give young Taylor who has to take three buses to work and has a young baby and is right at that stage of life where it's really grindy and in a particular stage in history where it's particularly, particularly grindy, why not give those young people a bit of extra assistance and not have young urban professionals who live close to public transport who don't need the cap putting it towards their end of week espresso martinis?  

Now I had an email from Dean who says, “my wife and I are both professionals who commute to the Auckland CBD. We have two sons, 22 and 23, one who lives at home. We'll be saving around $165 a week or close to $8,000 a year – that's simply going to pay for our next family holiday." They're just going to put the money, the public transport subsidy that taxpayers who don't live anywhere near a bus are helping to fund, towards a holiday and they don't even have the option of turning it down really. Once you hit that cap, that's it. Okay, so will it help you? Do you need the help? Would you like to see that help targeted more to those who need it rather than being universal? Would you like to see some visionary bold Labour policy? Hand up, yes I would. 

They say hope is the last thing to die. And thus it was yesterday when I heard Labour's first policy announcement in months. Give me a reason to vote for Labour – and they didn't. Chris Hipkins and Tangi Utikere announced a cap of some public transport fares —mostly for the cities, mostly for Auckland, where there's already a cap— that cuts off at a lower spending base. Not really the sort of bold and visionary policy you'd hope would come from a party that's been sitting around for years in Opposition, promising policy once the Budget's been released like it's going to be something quite seismic, revolutionary, changing the way we do things. A bit like the bold and visionary Labour of yore. &nbsp;
That's what they came up with, starting with Michael Joseph Savage and moving through. Labour governments in the past have given us state housing, and the welfare state, and GST, and a shakeup of our economic policy, and a nuclear free New Zealand, and the Super Fund, and Kiwibank, although via Jim Anderton's Progressive Party. You would hardly say that this lot are the visionary Labour politicians of yesteryear. From them we get a lowered cap on public transport – after months, years, of being able to sit and develop policy, this is what they come up with. Labour's transport spokesperson was bigging it up, Tangi Utikere saying it will be a game changer for those who use public transport.&nbsp;
“This is a real policy that will make a huge difference to households, commuters, shift workers, students, people who get from A to B every single day, every week. They're sitting around the kitchen table realising that their household bills are getting higher. This will provide absolute certainty for them when it comes to sorting their public transport.”&nbsp;
Will it make a difference? I'm not sure how shift workers will benefit given the last bus in Auckland during the week finishes at 12:30am. Did Tangi even look at a bus timetable before he talked about how shift workers will find this absolutely a game changer? For some, I'm sure the extra 30 bucks will make a huge difference. I had a text yesterday that said, “it takes me three buses each way to get to and from work. As someone who's on a low income with a new baby, that extra $30 will go a long way. The current $50 cap does help with clear budgeting, but at $20 it feels like a godsend." &nbsp;
So that's fantastic, but wouldn't it be better all round for the country, for people who are doing it tough right now, if we had targeted assistance? At the moment, Labour's spraying around universal policies, universal benefits, universal – although in the case of the public transport it's only universal if you happen to live in an area where there is public transport. As I say, it's mainly for the cities, mainly for Auckland. But the three GP visits for all... The taxes are going to be targeted, so why aren't the benefits? Why not give young Taylor who has to take three buses to work and has a young baby and is right at that stage of life where it's really grindy and in a particular stage in history where it's particularly, particularly grindy, why not give those young people a bit of extra assistance and not have young urban professionals who live close to public transport who don't need the cap putting it towards their end of week espresso martinis? &nbsp;
Now I had an email from Dean who says, “my wife and I are both professionals who commute to the Auckland CBD. We have two sons, 22 and 23, one who lives at home. We'll be saving around $165 a week or close to $8,000 a year – that's simply going to pay for our next family holiday." They're just going to put the money, the public transport subsidy that taxpayers who don't live anywhere near a bus are helping to fund, towards a holiday and they don't even have the option of turning it down really. Once you hit that cap, that's it. Okay, so will it help you? Do you need the help? Would you like to see that help targeted more to those who need it rather than being universal? Would you like to see some visionary bold Labour policy? Hand up, yes I would.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: This is not bold and visionary policy from Labour

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/8dcde6dd-d3e4-4345-9729-b466000f11ce/transcript

The fact that life is a bit of a grind for many people, and has been for some time, means we start to question the natural order of things. When you can pay your bills, have time to spend doing what you enjoy with the people you love, when there aren't glaring inequities, when the failure of the present system and the people who run it aren't up in your face, when you don't see homeless people and beggars and violence, then everything's good. You accept the status quo; things are chugging along nicely. Democracy, capitalism, everybody's getting their fair share, everything's fine. 

But when things start to go wrong, and go wrong the Western world over, you start to wonder. Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century political philosopher who formulated the social contract theory, whereby people collectively agree —you'll remember this from your political theory studies back in the days of yore— to surrender some of their individual freedoms and transfer their power to a central absolute authority. In exchange, that authority —in this case our government— provides security, maintains order, and guarantees the preservation of life. In modern life, we've wanted a bit more than the preservation of life, we've wanted a little bit of fun, some enjoyment. 

Be that as it may, without the social contract, Hobbes argues that man's life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. And when you look at his definitions, we're heading that way. Solitary he defines as the constant distrust that prevents people from forming lasting bonds or cooperation. He didn't know anything about social media at the time, but that's what you're starting to get solitary individuals who don't want to or don't know how to connect with others. Poor he defines as having no incentive to build, farm, or invest labour, as others will simply steal the fruits of your work. Nasty violence and conflict are ever present. Brutish life devolves into a primitive existence stripped of any kind of enjoyment, civilisation, art, culture. And short the perpetual threat and danger of a sudden violent death looming over everyone. 

It might not be violence that gets us, but if our healthcare systems are failing and you can't afford private care, death or a long unpleasant illness might be our version of Hobbes' short life. We are not there yet. If you've popped into the car and think, “bloody hell, she's a depressing tart, honestly, she does go on," consider me the canary down the coal mine. I'm warning we could well be on our way there. Look at his definitions and tell me I'm wrong. Solitary, poor, nasty as in violent, brutish where there's no time or money to enjoy the nicer things in life.  

So if the social contract is failing us, we need a better system. And what is a better system than an MMP government and capitalism? When MMP was voted in, it was voted in in anger. People were either devastated or appalled, or they'd seen New Zealand's old way of life completely destroyed by Rogernomics and by Ruth Richardson. Now, maybe it had to be done, but it was done pretty brutally, and people suffered as a result. So the public voted First Past the Post out as a punishment to those politicians, but also because the smaller parties that came up as an alternative, like Social Credit and New Zealand Party, despite getting 20% in the case of Social Credit, 12% in the case of the New Zealand Party, they had very few MPs or no MPs in Parliament despite having so many people. 

And in '78 and '81, Labour actually got more votes than National, but fewer electorates, so they stayed in opposition and National was in power. So with MMP, Ruth Richardson argues that we have a high level of representation, which is great, but a really low level of government, which is failing us. Helen Clark says MMP has produced a stop go, stop go system of policies which has been detrimental to New Zealand in the long run. So where do we go from here? I'd argue that we're at a point in the Western world where we're on a descent and we need to ascend. 

With MMP, we were trying to find a better way of doing things. We looked at what a First Past the Post government did and said, “No, we don't want this to happen again. So we're going to bring in MMP and things will be better.” I don't think they are. Having lived under both, I don't think they are. Capitalism well, what's the alternative to capitalism? Communism doesn't work and has caused far more harm to the ordinary person around the world than capitalism has, but there'd be others who'd argue against that. What do we do from here? We're willing to cede our own individual powers to an authority, a government, to live a better life. If we're not getting that better life, then where do we go from here? What alternatives do we have? If this system right now and I'm talking the Western world, not just New Zealand, because have a look at any other country and you can't really see a shining example of where democracy and capitalism is working. Is there anything better, or do we just have to wait for this system to recover? 

The fact that life is a bit of a grind for many people, and has been for some time, means we start to question the natural order of things. When you can pay your bills, have time to spend doing what you enjoy with the people you love, when there aren't glaring inequities, when the failure of the present system and the people who run it aren't up in your face, when you don't see homeless people and beggars and violence, then everything's good. You accept the status quo; things are chugging along nicely. Democracy, capitalism, everybody's getting their fair share, everything's fine.&nbsp;
But when things start to go wrong, and go wrong the Western world over, you start to wonder. Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century political philosopher who formulated the social contract theory, whereby people collectively agree —you'll remember this from your political theory studies back in the days of yore— to surrender some of their individual freedoms and transfer their power to a central absolute authority. In exchange, that authority —in this case our government— provides security, maintains order, and guarantees the preservation of life. In modern life, we've wanted a bit more than the preservation of life, we've wanted a little bit of fun, some enjoyment.&nbsp;
Be that as it may, without the social contract, Hobbes argues that man's life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. And when you look at his definitions, we're heading that way. Solitary he defines as the constant distrust that prevents people from forming lasting bonds or cooperation. He didn't know anything about social media at the time, but that's what you're starting to get solitary individuals who don't want to or don't know how to connect with others. Poor he defines as having no incentive to build, farm, or invest labour, as others will simply steal the fruits of your work. Nasty violence and conflict are ever present. Brutish life devolves into a primitive existence stripped of any kind of enjoyment, civilisation, art, culture. And short the perpetual threat and danger of a sudden violent death looming over everyone.&nbsp;
It might not be violence that gets us, but if our healthcare systems are failing and you can't afford private care, death or a long unpleasant illness might be our version of Hobbes' short life. We are not there yet. If you've popped into the car and think, “bloody hell, she's a depressing tart, honestly, she does go on," consider me the canary down the coal mine. I'm warning we could well be on our way there. Look at his definitions and tell me I'm wrong. Solitary, poor, nasty as in violent, brutish where there's no time or money to enjoy the nicer things in life. &nbsp;
So if the social contract is failing us, we need a better system. And what is a better system than an MMP government and capitalism? When MMP was voted in, it was voted in in anger. People were either devastated or appalled, or they'd seen New Zealand's old way of life completely destroyed by Rogernomics and by Ruth Richardson. Now, maybe it had to be done, but it was done pretty brutally, and people suffered as a result. So the public voted First Past the Post out as a punishment to those politicians, but also because the smaller parties that came up as an alternative, like Social Credit and New Zealand Party, despite getting 20% in the case of Social Credit, 12% in the case of the New Zealand Party, they had very few MPs or no MPs in Parliament despite having so many people.&nbsp;
And in '78 and '81, Labour actually got more votes than National, but fewer electorates, so they stayed in opposition and National was in power. So with MMP, Ruth Richardson argues that we have a high level of representation, which is great, but a really low level of government, which is failing us. Helen Clark says MMP has produced a stop go, stop go system of policies which has been detrimental to New Zealand in the long run. So where do we go from here? I'd argue that we're at a point in the Western world where we're on a descent and we need to ascend.&nbsp;
With MMP, we were trying to find a better way of doing things. We looked at what a First Past the Post government did and said, “No, we don't want this to happen again. So we're going to bring in MMP and things will be better.” I don't think they are. Having lived under both, I don't think they are. Capitalism well, what's the alternative to capitalism? Communism doesn't work and has caused far more harm to the ordinary person around the world than capitalism has, but there'd be others who'd argue against that. What do we do from here? We're willing to cede our own individual powers to an authority, a government, to live a better life. If we're not getting that better life, then where do we go from here? What alternatives do we have? If this system right now and I'm talking the Western world, not just New Zealand, because have a look at any other country and you can't really see a shining example of where democracy and capitalism is working. Is there anything better, or do we just have to wait for this system to recover?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: What alternatives do we have to capitalism and MMP?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/084635fb-5a16-42f3-9676-b4650002ca66/transcript

Paul Brislen: NZ Telecommunications Forum CEO on the call from rural New Zealand for better mobile coverage and connectivity

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips