The Government is preparing to respond to a Productivity Commission inquiry encouraging more rapid but more carefully planned immigration.

The Reserve Bank reveals there are now two job vacancies for every unemployed person. Immigration would help address both unemployment and inflation.

New Reserve Bank chief economist Paul Conway also says it's more a social question than an economic one, and asks whether New Zealand wants to become a large country or not.

Paul Conway joined Kerre Woodham.

LISTEN ABOVE

The Government is preparing to respond to a Productivity Commission inquiry encouraging more rapid but more carefully planned immigration.
The Reserve Bank reveals there are now two job vacancies for every unemployed person. Immigration would help address both unemployment and inflation.
New Reserve Bank chief economist Paul Conway also says it's more a social question than an economic one, and asks whether New Zealand wants to become a large country or not.
Paul Conway joined Kerre Woodham.
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

Paul Conway: RBNZ chief economist on New Zealand's 'optimum population'

Welcome to another war of words between the greenies and the government over changes to the Resource Management Act. 

With the poor old farmers stuck in the middle, just wanting the chance to be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to protecting the environment. And that’s what I think we should be doing. 

You know how people have this concept of Mother Nature and how it’s all peace and love and milk and honey and bees buzzing and gentle rivers and all of that? It’s amazing, isn’t it, how quickly all that goes out the window if the milk and honey brigade don’t like something?     

Here’s an example in relation to the Government making five changes to the RMA: “The Government is hellbent on pushing our natural environment to the brink, exploiting everything it can for any profit that can be squeezed out of it".

Who’s saying that do you think?

It’s not Federated Farmers, they’re saying pretty much the complete opposite. They’re saying that the changes announced yesterday are “an end to the war on farming”.

It’s the Green Party which is talking about pushing the natural environment to the brink. In particular, its environment spokesperson Lan Pham. Who comes from the same part of the country I'm in: Canterbury. 

Which is a hotspot for dairy farming, especially. Where truckloads of farms have been converted to dairy over the last 20 or 30 years. 

One stat I saw today said that the number of cows in Canterbury went from 113,000 in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2019. I’d always thought that we have the most number of dairy cows than anywhere else in the country, But I’ve been looking around online and it might be Waikato. But Canterbury still has a lot. 

And the thing that people often talk about when it comes to dairy farming, is the impact that level of expansion and intensity of farming has had and will continue to have on the environment. Because when a cow takes a pee out in the paddock today, it takes 20 years for the nitrates in that urine to work through the soils.

Which means that dairy farmers get a bad rap, but they’re not on their own, all farmers have been feeling the heat. 

And, according to Federated Farmers anyway, that’s about to ease with these changes to the RMA that the Government announced yesterday, which are about doing away with things like limits on how much land farmers can use for winter grazing and water quality considerations in consent applications.

If you were to ask me which of the viewpoints I noted earlier align most closely with my view of the world when it comes to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, if I was honest and I had to choose one of them, I’d go with what the Greens are saying.

But, unlike climate activists and politicians, I’m willing to accept that things aren’t black and white. Which is why I think it’s time we just trusted farmers to do the right thing and let them get on with it.

And I say that for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I’ve got friends who are farmers and every time I go and see them, I can see that they just want to do the right thing. But, instead, they’ve had governments and government departments behaving like helicopter parents and watching their every move just in case they do something wrong. And that’s nuts.

And secondly, show me a farmer who wants to poo in their own nest.

They don’t. And this is where the greenies lose it. Because if they think farmers want to destroy the natural environment on their properties for short-term financial gain, then they know nothing about how it all works.

Farms are businesses, yes. But they’re also assets. And why would anyone want to do anything to damage their asset? They wouldn’t.

And that’s why I think that, instead of pulling farmers to bits, we should be trusting them to do the right thing. 

Yes, I know, there are muppet farmers - just like there are muppet townies. But we can’t do anything about that. And if you think the Resource Management Act is how you sort out muppets, then you might want to think again. So, we can’t do anything about the muppets. 

What we can do, though, is say to the farmers who aren’t muppets, that we trust them to do the right thing - and leave them to it.

Welcome to another war of words between the greenies and the government over changes to the Resource Management Act.  
With the poor old farmers stuck in the middle, just wanting the chance to be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to protecting the environment. And that’s what I think we should be doing.  
You know how people have this concept of Mother Nature and how it’s all peace and love and milk and honey and bees buzzing and gentle rivers and all of that? It’s amazing, isn’t it, how quickly all that goes out the window if the milk and honey brigade don’t like something?      
Here’s an example in relation to the Government making five changes to the RMA: “The Government is hellbent on pushing our natural environment to the brink, exploiting everything it can for any profit that can be squeezed out of it". 
Who’s saying that do you think? 
It’s not Federated Farmers, they’re saying pretty much the complete opposite. They’re saying that the changes announced yesterday are “an end to the war on farming”. 
It’s the Green Party which is talking about pushing the natural environment to the brink. In particular, its environment spokesperson Lan Pham. Who comes from the same part of the country I'm in: Canterbury.  
Which is a hotspot for dairy farming, especially. Where truckloads of farms have been converted to dairy over the last 20 or 30 years.  
One stat I saw today said that the number of cows in Canterbury went from 113,000 in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2019. I’d always thought that we have the most number of dairy cows than anywhere else in the country, But I’ve been looking around online and it might be Waikato. But Canterbury still has a lot.  
And the thing that people often talk about when it comes to dairy farming, is the impact that level of expansion and intensity of farming has had and will continue to have on the environment. Because when a cow takes a pee out in the paddock today, it takes 20 years for the nitrates in that urine to work through the soils. 
Which means that dairy farmers get a bad rap, but they’re not on their own, all farmers have been feeling the heat.  
And, according to Federated Farmers anyway, that’s about to ease with these changes to the RMA that the Government announced yesterday, which are about doing away with things like limits on how much land farmers can use for winter grazing and water quality considerations in consent applications. 
If you were to ask me which of the viewpoints I noted earlier align most closely with my view of the world when it comes to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, if I was honest and I had to choose one of them, I’d go with what the Greens are saying. 
But, unlike climate activists and politicians, I’m willing to accept that things aren’t black and white. Which is why I think it’s time we just trusted farmers to do the right thing and let them get on with it. 
And I say that for a couple of reasons. 
Firstly, I’ve got friends who are farmers and every time I go and see them, I can see that they just want to do the right thing. But, instead, they’ve had governments and government departments behaving like helicopter parents and watching their every move just in case they do something wrong. And that’s nuts. 
And secondly, show me a farmer who wants to poo in their own nest. 
They don’t. And this is where the greenies lose it. Because if they think farmers want to destroy the natural environment on their properties for short-term financial gain, then they know nothing about how it all works. 
Farms are businesses, yes. But they’re also assets. And why would anyone want to do anything to damage their asset? They wouldn’t. 
And that’s why I think that, instead of pulling farmers to bits, we should be trusting them to do the right thing.  
Yes, I know, there are muppet farmers - just like there are muppet townies. But we can’t do anything about that. And if you think the Resource Management Act is how you sort out muppets, then you might want to think again. So, we can’t do anything about the muppets.  
What we can do, though, is say to the farmers who aren’t muppets, that we trust them to do the right thing - and leave them to it.

John MacDonald: Who says farmers can't be trusted?

Have you ever heard of a placebo policy? That’s what this Three Strikes law is, and I don’t think bringing it back is going to make one bit of difference.

You’ll know what a placebo is when it comes to things like clinical trials where they give someone a sugar pill but tell them it’s medicine, and the person says ‘oh I feel much better, thanks’. 

The person thinks they’re using a real pill, or a real drug and their mind tells them that, because they're doing something, it’s working. It’s making a difference. But it’s actually not doing anything.

And placebo policies are exactly the same. They’re policies that people think will work —will make a difference— just because they exist. 

Or more to the point, they are policies that politicians latch onto because they think it makes them look like they’re doing something. Even though, at the end of the day, it doesn’t change a thing.  

And that’s exactly what the Government is doing with its plan to bring back the Three Strikes legislation. You commit crimes with punishments longer than two years and, the third time, the judge has to give out the maximum sentence. None of this discount business.

That two-year bit is key, because the new version of Three Strikes Version isn’t going to apply to low-level offending.

The idea behind that is to make sure there isn't a repeat of situations that even Labour thought were nutbar. Example: a mentally ill man serving nearly five years in prison for kissing a woman in the street. 

Nevertheless, some people love the idea of it. But there is no clear proof that it reduced the amount of serious crime the last time we had it. But the Government is bringing it back anyway because it can and because it will look like it’s doing something.

Criminal defence lawyer John Munro said on Newstalk ZB today that, even though we’ve had this law here before, the Government is pretty much flying blind on this one because there hasn't been any long-term research on its effectiveness the last time we had it.

And some people are saying that it’s likely some criminals, once they’ve been done twice already for serious crimes, will think even less about consequences because they have nothing to lose.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not in the least bit sympathetic to criminals. Not in the least bit. 

All criminals, but especially the lowlifes who commit the likes of the 41 different violent and sexual crimes we’re talking about with this Three Strikes law. You can imagine what they are, I don’t need to go through a list. Although, this time around, there’ll be a new strangulation and suffocation offence included.      

But, in your heart of hearts, do you really think bringing this law back is going to make any difference? I don’t think it is. If the aim is to reduce violent crime, then the Government is barking up the wrong tree with this one.

Have you ever heard of a placebo policy? That’s what this Three Strikes law is, and I don’t think bringing it back is going to make one bit of difference. 
You’ll know what a placebo is when it comes to things like clinical trials where they give someone a sugar pill but tell them it’s medicine, and the person says ‘oh I feel much better, thanks’.  
The person thinks they’re using a real pill, or a real drug and their mind tells them that, because they're doing something, it’s working. It’s making a difference. But it’s actually not doing anything. 
And placebo policies are exactly the same. They’re policies that people think will work —will make a difference— just because they exist.  
Or more to the point, they are policies that politicians latch onto because they think it makes them look like they’re doing something. Even though, at the end of the day, it doesn’t change a thing.   
And that’s exactly what the Government is doing with its plan to bring back the Three Strikes legislation. You commit crimes with punishments longer than two years and, the third time, the judge has to give out the maximum sentence. None of this discount business. 
That two-year bit is key, because the new version of Three Strikes Version isn’t going to apply to low-level offending. 
The idea behind that is to make sure there isn't a repeat of situations that even Labour thought were nutbar. Example: a mentally ill man serving nearly five years in prison for kissing a woman in the street.  
Nevertheless, some people love the idea of it. But there is no clear proof that it reduced the amount of serious crime the last time we had it. But the Government is bringing it back anyway because it can and because it will look like it’s doing something. 
Criminal defence lawyer John Munro said on Newstalk ZB today that, even though we’ve had this law here before, the Government is pretty much flying blind on this one because there hasn't been any long-term research on its effectiveness the last time we had it. 
And some people are saying that it’s likely some criminals, once they’ve been done twice already for serious crimes, will think even less about consequences because they have nothing to lose. 
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not in the least bit sympathetic to criminals. Not in the least bit.  
All criminals, but especially the lowlifes who commit the likes of the 41 different violent and sexual crimes we’re talking about with this Three Strikes law. You can imagine what they are, I don’t need to go through a list. Although, this time around, there’ll be a new strangulation and suffocation offence included.       
But, in your heart of hearts, do you really think bringing this law back is going to make any difference? I don’t think it is. If the aim is to reduce violent crime, then the Government is barking up the wrong tree with this one.

John MacDonald: The Government is playing placebo politics

Well, the Reserve Bank has got what it wanted. Maybe not what it wanted, it's possibly the hard landing that they were hoping to avoid, but it got what it engineered. 

Back in 2022 the Reserve Bank told a Select Committee that, yes, it was deliberately engineering a recession to rein back inflation after being slow to raise interest rates. Governor Adrian Orr said as a result of raising interest rates to slow spending, there would likely be a rise in unemployment, but it may be a job-rich slow down because of the severe lack of labour in the economy. 

Remember, this was two years ago. Back in 2022, before the influx of migrants in 2023. He predicted that unemployment would peak at 5.7% in 2025 before things started to come right in terms of inflation, in terms of giving mortgage holders a bit of a breathing space. 

Figures released yesterday show that those on Jobseeker at the end of March have surpassed 5.7% of the working population already, we’re at 5.9 % in the middle of 2024. Still less than 6.4% of the working population we saw in March 2021, but it will make National’s aim of getting 50,000 people off Jobseeker benefits by 2030 that little bit harder in the short term. However, Social Development Minister Louise Upston isn't letting up on the message that those who can work should work.

“These sanctions will really show up those that are not doing their bit. That's why in the short term it's good to see that there's been an increase. People need to know if they can work, they should. And actually, any job is better than no job. And when times are tough and you need to put food on the table for your family, you get out there and do whatever is available. And that's the message I want to send really clearly, if you can work, you should, and the sanctions will mean you need to do your bit.”

Yep, the number of beneficiaries sanctioned in the March quarter is already 20% higher than a year ago. This is Ministry of Social Development, taking its cue from the Government. Louise Upson said the ministry seems to be taking the initiative on its own. While we'd rather see beneficiaries with work obligations comply to avoid being sanctioned, it's good to see the ministry utilising all the tools at its disposal to incentivise people into work. Those sanctions would have been well used back in 21/22/23, when we were screaming out for labour, and nobody could get workers for love nor money. When unemployment was at its highest, that's when we needed the workers the most. 

Right now, though, the job market has tightened and everybody is battening down their economic hatches until mid 2025, when hopefully the storm will have passed. 

Louise Upston says people shouldn't be sniffy about the type of work they do. Again, a sentiment I totally agree with, but who's hiring? 

I remember a number of people pivoting during Covid; airline pilots went farm labouring and opened cafes, executives went truck driving, but that was again different times. Our borders were closed, everybody was screaming out for workers in any and every field. They'd take all comers. 

Times have changed. All well and good to say people should take the jobs available, that they shouldn't be choosy and picky about what sort of work they do, and I'm stunned at the number of people who are. I'm stunned at the number of people who won't go to work because they're worth more. You know, the market kind of dictates. 

So, a sentiment I agree with, take the jobs that are available. Ok, what jobs are available? Are the same people who phoned me, the same employers who phoned me, begging for workers saying they'd help with relocation expenses, they would pay anything to anybody, you didn't have to be the perfect employee. Are you still in that same position? Or now can you pick and choose? 

Are you in the position of being able to say ordinarily I'd have picked you up, but I've got three people better right now, better qualifications, better work history. What jobs are available? If you're looking for workers, who are you looking for? And if you are one who is looking for work, is it as easy as Louise Upston says? There are jobs out there. Get cracking if you want to put food on the table, off you go.

Well, the Reserve Bank has got what it wanted. Maybe not what it wanted, it's possibly the hard landing that they were hoping to avoid, but it got what it engineered.  
Back in 2022 the Reserve Bank told a Select Committee that, yes, it was deliberately engineering a recession to rein back inflation after being slow to raise interest rates. Governor Adrian Orr said as a result of raising interest rates to slow spending, there would likely be a rise in unemployment, but it may be a job-rich slow down because of the severe lack of labour in the economy.  
Remember, this was two years ago. Back in 2022, before the influx of migrants in 2023. He predicted that unemployment would peak at 5.7% in 2025 before things started to come right in terms of inflation, in terms of giving mortgage holders a bit of a breathing space.  
Figures released yesterday show that those on Jobseeker at the end of March have surpassed 5.7% of the working population already, we’re at 5.9 % in the middle of 2024. Still less than 6.4% of the working population we saw in March 2021, but it will make National’s aim of getting 50,000 people off Jobseeker benefits by 2030 that little bit harder in the short term. However, Social Development Minister Louise Upston isn't letting up on the message that those who can work should work. 
“These sanctions will really show up those that are not doing their bit. That's why in the short term it's good to see that there's been an increase. People need to know if they can work, they should. And actually, any job is better than no job. And when times are tough and you need to put food on the table for your family, you get out there and do whatever is available. And that's the message I want to send really clearly, if you can work, you should, and the sanctions will mean you need to do your bit.” 
Yep, the number of beneficiaries sanctioned in the March quarter is already 20% higher than a year ago. This is Ministry of Social Development, taking its cue from the Government. Louise Upson said the ministry seems to be taking the initiative on its own. While we'd rather see beneficiaries with work obligations comply to avoid being sanctioned, it's good to see the ministry utilising all the tools at its disposal to incentivise people into work. Those sanctions would have been well used back in 21/22/23, when we were screaming out for labour, and nobody could get workers for love nor money. When unemployment was at its highest, that's when we needed the workers the most.  
Right now, though, the job market has tightened and everybody is battening down their economic hatches until mid 2025, when hopefully the storm will have passed.  
Louise Upston says people shouldn't be sniffy about the type of work they do. Again, a sentiment I totally agree with, but who's hiring?  
I remember a number of people pivoting during Covid; airline pilots went farm labouring and opened cafes, executives went truck driving, but that was again different times. Our borders were closed, everybody was screaming out for workers in any and every field. They'd take all comers.  
Times have changed. All well and good to say people should take the jobs available, that they shouldn't be choosy and picky about what sort of work they do, and I'm stunned at the number of people who are. I'm stunned at the number of people who won't go to work because they're worth more. You know, the market kind of dictates.  
So, a sentiment I agree with, take the jobs that are available. Ok, what jobs are available? Are the same people who phoned me, the same employers who phoned me, begging for workers saying they'd help with relocation expenses, they would pay anything to anybody, you didn't have to be the perfect employee. Are you still in that same position? Or now can you pick and choose?  
Are you in the position of being able to say ordinarily I'd have picked you up, but I've got three people better right now, better qualifications, better work history. What jobs are available? If you're looking for workers, who are you looking for? And if you are one who is looking for work, is it as easy as Louise Upston says? There are jobs out there. Get cracking if you want to put food on the table, off you go.

Paul Conway: RBNZ chief economist on New Zealand's 'optimum population'

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips