It’s being billed as the best thing to happen to NZ’s pothole-margeddon problem since the infamous Pothole Penis Painter.

For the first time in New Zealand, an all-in-one pothole repairing machine has arrived that is revolutionising pothole repairs worldwide. There is nothing else like it.

The Pothole Pro repairs potholes in a fraction of the time and cost of current manual labour methods. It also means fewer orange road cones and fewer frustrated motorists.

JCB Construction Sales Manager, Tony Hennessy, told Kerre Woodham that generally it can take workers quite a while to rip up the road and crop the pothole for repair properly.

He said that the Pothole Pro can cut the crop and clean it up in about eight minutes, roughly a quarter of the time needed without it.

LISTEN ABOVE

It’s being billed as the best thing to happen to NZ’s pothole-margeddon problem since the infamous Pothole Penis Painter. 
For the first time in New Zealand, an all-in-one pothole repairing machine has arrived that is revolutionising pothole repairs worldwide. There is nothing else like it. 
The Pothole Pro repairs potholes in a fraction of the time and cost of current manual labour methods. It also means fewer orange road cones and fewer frustrated motorists. 
JCB Construction Sales Manager, Tony Hennessy, told Kerre Woodham that generally it can take workers quite a while to rip up the road and crop the pothole for repair properly. 
He said that the Pothole Pro can cut the crop and clean it up in about eight minutes, roughly a quarter of the time needed without it. 
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

Tony Hennessy: JCB Construction Sales Manager on the all-in-one pothole repair machine the Pothole Pro

The first phase of the Royal Commission of inquiry into the COVID-19 response will be handed to the Government today. There’s one of finding I know is going to really resonate with a section of this listening audience and members of the wider community. The head of the inquiry, Professor Tony Blakely, says vaccine mandates caused huge pain to a “substantial minority” during the pandemic, and the government should consider whether their benefits, that is the vaccine mandates, outweighed their harms. The report found while the mandates during the later stages of the pandemic were supported by most New Zealanders, the damage to social cohesion needed to be considered when planning for future outbreaks as he told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning.  

“I think a lot of us around the world are learning that those mandates might have gone a bit too far, for a bit too long and it's a very delicate balance. In a future pandemic, which is what we're really focused on now, you can't rule out the need for doing mandatory measures again because the virus might be two/four times as fatal, and two or four times as infectious, and you just need to do everything. However, if we had something like Covid again, I think all of us are saying that if we prepare better, have better contact tracing, then we'll need less of the mandatory measures like lockdowns and vaccine mandates.” 

Absolutely. I heard Mike too say this morning that inquiries and reports aren't really worth the paper they're written on. That enormous amounts of energy are expended on them, and then they're delivered behind closed doors, and that's that. He said the response to a crisis will depend on whomever you have in government – if they're halfway capable, you get a halfway capable response. If they're not, you don't. But I disagree. I think you can learn from what you've done right and what you've done wrong, and I think the way the government handled the mandates, among other things, was poor.  

I mean, first of all, not getting the vaccines when they did so we're behind the eight-ball. And I would have put anything, anywhere, up any orifice, to get the hell out of lockdown. The frustration and fury felt by many, mainly North Islanders, over following increasingly more ludicrous rules as we struggled to get to some arbitrary vaccination target is still ongoing. As is the fury felt by the significant minority of New Zealanders who lost their jobs and their livelihoods, because they refused to get vaccinated – and this is despite Jacinda Ardern saying in September of 2020 there would be no forced vaccinations and there weren't, and those who chose to opt out, more importantly, would not face sanctions. So that's what she said, and then it all changed again.  

So people chose not to get vaccinated for many, many reasons. Do not lump them all into one basket. I mean, there were some basket cases in amongst them, the people who had the tin foil on top of their heads, but there were also people who were extremely genuine in their motivations and their reasons for not getting vaccinated. Think Novak Djokovic, sort of as the poster boy for that - very, very careful about what they put into their bodies and why they choose to put into their bodies what they do. I mean, these were not the lovies who jumped on the bandwagon who were pumped full of Botox and filler and the like. There are many, many reasons why people chose not to get vaccinated, and initially they were assured by the Prime Minister they wouldn't have to and there would be no sanctions if they chose not to.  

So I think Professor Blakely is right, that you can learn from the past and you can learn how to manage it, because the fallout is ongoing. Every time we get something about the rising colorectal cancer - well, yes, that'll be the vax. So, you've got people who don't believe in science. You've got vaccine fatigue. Now we've got a rise in whooping cough because people are just sick to death of the of the word vaccination. They don't trust vaccinations. They don't trust governments telling you to get vaccinated because of what has happened, and this is the Western world over, not just in New Zealand. So the fallout from not managing the vaccination program is going to be felt for years to come. They did say in this first phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that some aspects were handled well. The first six weeks – great. After that, the wheels fell off. I think he said the wheels were wobbly, I'd go further and say the wheels fell completely and utterly off. I think we can learn, and I think we should learn, and I think there are lessons that can be learned, and the first phase of the inquiry has proven that. 

The first phase of the Royal Commission of inquiry into the COVID-19 response will be handed to the Government today. There’s one of finding I know is going to really resonate with a section of this listening audience and members of the wider community. The head of the inquiry, Professor Tony Blakely, says vaccine mandates caused huge pain to a “substantial minority” during the pandemic, and the government should consider whether their benefits, that is the vaccine mandates, outweighed their harms. The report found while the mandates during the later stages of the pandemic were supported by most New Zealanders, the damage to social cohesion needed to be considered when planning for future outbreaks as he told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. &nbsp;
“I think a lot of us around the world are learning that those mandates might have gone a bit too far, for a bit too long and it's a very delicate balance. In a future pandemic, which is what we're really focused on now, you can't rule out the need for doing mandatory measures again because the virus might be two/four times as fatal, and two or four times as infectious, and you just need to do everything. However, if we had something like Covid again, I think all of us are saying that if we prepare better, have better contact tracing, then we'll need less of the mandatory measures like lockdowns and vaccine mandates.”&nbsp;
Absolutely. I heard Mike too say this morning that inquiries and reports aren't really worth the paper they're written on. That enormous amounts of energy are expended on them, and then they're delivered behind closed doors, and that's that. He said the response to a crisis will depend on whomever you have in government – if they're halfway capable, you get a halfway capable response. If they're not, you don't. But I disagree. I think you can learn from what you've done right and what you've done wrong, and I think the way the government handled the mandates, among other things, was poor. &nbsp;
I mean, first of all, not getting the vaccines when they did so we're behind the eight-ball. And I would have put anything, anywhere, up any orifice, to get the hell out of lockdown. The frustration and fury felt by many, mainly North Islanders, over following increasingly more ludicrous rules as we struggled to get to some arbitrary vaccination target is still ongoing. As is the fury felt by the significant minority of New Zealanders who lost their jobs and their livelihoods, because they refused to get vaccinated – and this is despite Jacinda Ardern saying in September of 2020 there would be no forced vaccinations and there weren't, and those who chose to opt out, more importantly, would not face sanctions. So that's what she said, and then it all changed again. &nbsp;
So people chose not to get vaccinated for many, many reasons. Do not lump them all into one basket. I mean, there were some basket cases in amongst them, the people who had the tin foil on top of their heads, but there were also people who were extremely genuine in their motivations and their reasons for not getting vaccinated. Think Novak Djokovic, sort of as the poster boy for that - very, very careful about what they put into their bodies and why they choose to put into their bodies what they do. I mean, these were not the lovies who jumped on the bandwagon who were pumped full of Botox and filler and the like. There are many, many reasons why people chose not to get vaccinated, and initially they were assured by the Prime Minister they wouldn't have to and there would be no sanctions if they chose not to. &nbsp;
So I think Professor Blakely is right, that you can learn from the past and you can learn how to manage it, because the fallout is ongoing. Every time we get something about the rising colorectal cancer - well, yes, that'll be the vax. So, you've got people who don't believe in science. You've got vaccine fatigue. Now we've got a rise in whooping cough because people are just sick to death of the of the word vaccination. They don't trust vaccinations. They don't trust governments telling you to get vaccinated because of what has happened, and this is the Western world over, not just in New Zealand. So the fallout from not managing the vaccination program is going to be felt for years to come. They did say in this first phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that some aspects were handled well. The first six weeks – great. After that, the wheels fell off. I think he said the wheels were wobbly, I'd go further and say the wheels fell completely and utterly off. I think we can learn, and I think we should learn, and I think there are lessons that can be learned, and the first phase of the inquiry has proven that.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: There are lessons to learn from the Covid response

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/02188424-1a90-4f50-be67-b235018adbbb/transcript

Who on Earth would want Chris Bishop's job? The Minister for Housing has launched a new scheme designed to make it easier for community housing providers to provide social housing. The previous administration was all about the government, we're from the government, we're here to help – people within the industry have told me of a rather bunkered attitude towards housing provision. The attitude was no, the private developers can't do anything about the shortage of housing, they can't do anything about social housing, we the government will do it better because we, the government, have the most pure of motives, so we'll do it. Community housing providers they had a place for, but ultimately it was Kainga Ora who was going to solve the problem of affordable housing, in the mind of the previous government. It didn't work out like that.

Now Chris Bishop has said the government is looking to community housing providers to fill more of the gap, and they're going to help them by treating them on a level playing field with Kianga Ora when it comes to competing for funding to deliver social housing. They're not going to give them money, but they will allow them to compete on a level playing field when it comes to bidding to provide social housing. Chris Bishop says that unlike the last government, they’re agnostic as to whether it's the state or the community sector that delivers social housing.

At the moment, Kainga Ora provides some 72,000 public homes, which is the vast majority of the more than 80,000 public housing places offered by the government. Community housing providers, the Salvation Army and the like, receive government funding to provide a similar service in privately owned homes —so they're not owned by the state, they're owned by trusts or organisations— but they are only providing around 8000 homes for people.

We know that Kainga Ora is struggling. The Bill English report says it's basically not financially viable because under Labour, Kainga Ora became an urban development agency. It was a bold ambition, and if it had worked, it would have been amazing. If they'd been the money, if they'd been the governance, if they'd been, if if, if, if. It was a large-scale urban renewal project that mixed all kinds of housing, public and private, it was next to public transport, which was going to be built as well. It was going to be hoots wahay and amazing, incredible. But that didn't happen.

To be fair, Kainga Ora is also struggling because successive governments, including the John Key/Bill English government, underinvested in state housing. The lack of social housing and affordable housing was one of the hot issues of the 2017 election campaign and that helped get Labour into office. Housing is still a political hot potato, with this government struggling to wrangle Kainga Ora into financial shape and provide more housing for people who are really struggling to find a place to live. So Chris Bishop is hoping that by changing contracts for new housing supply, it's going to make it more attractive for investors and financiers to invest in community housing.

They are going to allow increased use of leasing to provide social houses where leasing delivers value for money – that could help deliver more social housing very quickly and would only be available for newly built homes that have not yet been occupied. And they would also capitalise part of the operating supplement currently paid to community housing providers for new housing developments, to be paid upfront when contracts for new social housing are agreed. So if your eyes are glazing over, it will mean that the money will be given to them up front rather than in various portions as the housing comes online.

Labour's Kieran McAnulty says Chris Bishop's all talk. He said it was hoped that there would have been government support for desperately needed public housing. And by support, I guess he means money - upfront money. Instead, there was no commitment to build any more public homes and no further support for the community housing providers, no increases to income related rent subsidies. Everyone was hoping the government would at least announce it would guarantee loans for the newly established Community Housing Funding Agency to make them cheaper, but again, no commitment from the Minister.

When it comes to providing state housing the government has always been the first port of call, traditionally and historically. Then there was underinvestment from successive governments in the Kainga Ora stock, and also the needs of people changed. You didn't need a three bedroom house with room for a veggie garden and a nice kitchen for mum to bake the afternoon tea for the kids when they came home from school. That's just not what the modern family looks like compared to 1933, so there have had to be changes to stock. People who go into social housing, many of them have jobs, they have families, they raise them, they move on. Others are their longer term and as tenants, they need to be as they need more management.

The Community Housing providers tend to do that better because they have fewer tenants. When you've got a Kainga Ora tenant manager, they have far more people that they're trying to manage. Community Housing providers can prevent problems happening before they happen, Kainga Ora tends to be more reactive because there are just more people. There's also an expectation than once you get a State House, that's where you land, you don't move on, you've got it for life. Whereas in the past it was understood that it was a stepping stone.

So when it comes to the provision of social housing, do we need to put more in the hands of the community housing providers? Will these changes, as far as you're concerned, make it easier for them to do so? I think the leasing will probably make it easier. Whether the changes to the contracts for new housing supply will make it more attractive for investors, that will be for them to decide. Do we want Kainga Ora to fulfil its vision of being a developer? Bold, visionary, large scale developer of urban renewal projects? I mean I get where they were coming from, but they couldn't deliver, they didn't have the money, they didn't have the governance, they were operating in it time when the housing market was going completely and utterly insane in the post pandemic years. It was a perfect storm.

If you're looking for a home, do you care whether it comes from Kainga Ora? Do you care whether it comes from a community housing provider? If you're living in an area where social housing developments are being built, are they being done so thoughtfully? What is the role of the state to provide public housing? Should it be, as Keiran McAnulty said, just give them loans - give the Community Housing providers loans. Let them get on with it because they do it well.

Who on Earth would want Chris Bishop's job? The Minister for Housing has launched a new scheme designed to make it easier for community housing providers to provide social housing. The previous administration was all about the government, we're from the government, we're here to help – people within the industry have told me of a rather bunkered attitude towards housing provision. The attitude was no, the private developers can't do anything about the shortage of housing, they can't do anything about social housing, we the government will do it better because we, the government, have the most pure of motives, so we'll do it. Community housing providers they had a place for, but ultimately it was Kainga Ora who was going to solve the problem of affordable housing, in the mind of the previous government. It didn't work out like that.
Now Chris Bishop has said the government is looking to community housing providers to fill more of the gap, and they're going to help them by treating them on a level playing field with Kianga Ora when it comes to competing for funding to deliver social housing. They're not going to give them money, but they will allow them to compete on a level playing field when it comes to bidding to provide social housing. Chris Bishop says that unlike the last government, they’re agnostic as to whether it's the state or the community sector that delivers social housing.
At the moment, Kainga Ora provides some 72,000 public homes, which is the vast majority of the more than 80,000 public housing places offered by the government. Community housing providers, the Salvation Army and the like, receive government funding to provide a similar service in privately owned homes —so they're not owned by the state, they're owned by trusts or organisations— but they are only providing around 8000 homes for people.
We know that Kainga Ora is struggling. The Bill English report says it's basically not financially viable because under Labour, Kainga Ora became an urban development agency. It was a bold ambition, and if it had worked, it would have been amazing. If they'd been the money, if they'd been the governance, if they'd been, if if, if, if. It was a large-scale urban renewal project that mixed all kinds of housing, public and private, it was next to public transport, which was going to be built as well. It was going to be hoots wahay and amazing, incredible. But that didn't happen.
To be fair, Kainga Ora is also struggling because successive governments, including the John Key/Bill English government, underinvested in state housing. The lack of social housing and affordable housing was one of the hot issues of the 2017 election campaign and that helped get Labour into office. Housing is still a political hot potato, with this government struggling to wrangle Kainga Ora into financial shape and provide more housing for people who are really struggling to find a place to live. So Chris Bishop is hoping that by changing contracts for new housing supply, it's going to make it more attractive for investors and financiers to invest in community housing.
They are going to allow increased use of leasing to provide social houses where leasing delivers value for money – that could help deliver more social housing very quickly and would only be available for newly built homes that have not yet been occupied. And they would also capitalise part of the operating supplement currently paid to community housing providers for new housing developments, to be paid upfront when contracts for new social housing are agreed. So if your eyes are glazing over, it will mean that the money will be given to them up front rather than in various portions as the housing comes online.
Labour's Kieran McAnulty says Chris Bishop's all talk. He said it was hoped that there would have been government support for desperately needed public housing. And by support, I guess he means money - upfront money. Instead, there was no commitment to build any more public homes and no further support for the community housing providers, no increases to income related rent subsidies. Everyone was hoping the government would at least announce it would guarantee loans for the newly established Community Housing Funding Agency to make them cheaper, but again, no commitment from the Minister.
When it comes to providing state housing the government has always been the first port of call, traditionally and historically. Then there was underinvestment from successive governments in the Kainga Ora stock, and also the needs of people changed. You didn't need a three bedroom house with room for a veggie garden and a nice kitchen for mum to bake the afternoon tea for the kids when they came home from school. That's just not what the modern family looks like compared to 1933, so there have had to be changes to stock. People who go into social housing, many of them have jobs, they have families, they raise them, they move on. Others are their longer term and as tenants, they need to be as they need more management.
The Community Housing providers tend to do that better because they have fewer tenants. When you've got a Kainga Ora tenant manager, they have far more people that they're trying to manage. Community Housing providers can prevent problems happening before they happen, Kainga Ora tends to be more reactive because there are just more people. There's also an expectation than once you get a State House, that's where you land, you don't move on, you've got it for life. Whereas in the past it was understood that it was a stepping stone.
So when it comes to the provision of social housing, do we need to put more in the hands of the community housing providers? Will these changes, as far as you're concerned, make it easier for them to do so? I think the leasing will probably make it easier. Whether the changes to the contracts for new housing supply will make it more attractive for investors, that will be for them to decide. Do we want Kainga Ora to fulfil its vision of being a developer? Bold, visionary, large scale developer of urban renewal projects? I mean I get where they were coming from, but they couldn't deliver, they didn't have the money, they didn't have the governance, they were operating in it time when the housing market was going completely and utterly insane in the post pandemic years. It was a perfect storm.
If you're looking for a home, do you care whether it comes from Kainga Ora? Do you care whether it comes from a community housing provider? If you're living in an area where social housing developments are being built, are they being done so thoughtfully? What is the role of the state to provide public housing? Should it be, as Keiran McAnulty said, just give them loans - give the Community Housing providers loans. Let them get on with it because they do it well.

Kerre Woodham: Who's hands should social housing be in?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f03cb06e-f62c-4313-898f-b23500007a14/transcript

One of the questions we’ll be putting to Chris Hipkins, of course, is a question around the capital gains tax, because this is an issue that simply will not die. Labour Party members will vote on whether to formally endorse continuing work on a capital gains or wealth tax at their party conference in Christchurch this weekend. The party's been debating tax policy since losing the election last year, part of a broader truth and reconciliation soul searching. The people loved us so much and then they didn't. How did it all go so wrong? So that's there's been a lot of that.  

Former Labour Party leader, David Cunliffe was on with Mike Hosking this morning and he says he has no insider knowledge, but thinks the conference members will be pushing hard for some sort of wealth tax.  

“CGTs have actually polled really well, and one might, with a wry smile on your case, say that the CGT poll better than the Labour Party, so it's unlikely to be a net vote loser. Most middle ground National voters I know would also support CGT, no so a wealth tax. I mean a wealth tax has got a retrospective element sometimes, because it goes to accumulated wealth and high wealth individuals might vote with their feet, so I think that's a much riskier proposition. I think Labour should be moderate here and just do a sensible, relatively low-rate broad based CGT.” 

Which is what David Parker and Grant Robertson last time wanted when they had a mandate. They had a mandate, they had the popular vote, they were governing alone – they could do pretty much what they wanted and what senior members of the party wanted, senior members of the government wanted was a capital gains tax. So I would argue with David Cunliffe that if there were votes in it, you can bet your bippy that Chris Hipkins would have been chucking it out there. He was desperate to stay in power. He was putting things on the bonfire and offering trinkets and displaying baubles, and you know if capital gains tax had had any votes in it, you can bet he would have put it out there.  

Instead, he brassed off some really senior members of his government by saying it wouldn't happen. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. The text machine went wild after David Cunliffe's interview with Mike. And in news that will surprise no one, the Newstalk ZB audience appears to be overwhelmingly against the idea of a capital gains tax. I don't buy all the criticisms of a capital gains tax, but one of them rings true: I simply do not trust that the Labour government will spend my money wisely when they take it off me, if the last administration is anything to go by. There has to be some sort of understanding, some sort of relationship between the government and taxpayers, some level of trust.  

If the government is coming to us to tax us, they have to say we're going to take money off you, and you might not like it but look at what we can deliver for the whole country for future generations with your contribution. Look at what you can do when we all contribute towards the country, this is what we can deliver. And you accept that. You say okay, I don't particularly like it, but I don't agree with everything you're doing but I can see results. I can see the country is improving, I can see that services are being delivered, that people who are working hard can get ahead, that kids can get an education, that my grandmother can get a hip replacement, I can see that it's moving in the right direction. But to take money off us and be left worse off as a country and as a people than when we started, yeah nah. She's a harder sell there. 

One of the questions we’ll be putting to Chris Hipkins, of course, is a question around the capital gains tax, because this is an issue that simply will not die. Labour Party members will vote on whether to formally endorse continuing work on a capital gains or wealth tax at their party conference in Christchurch this weekend. The party's been debating tax policy since losing the election last year, part of a broader truth and reconciliation soul searching. The people loved us so much and then they didn't. How did it all go so wrong? So that's there's been a lot of that. &nbsp;
Former Labour Party leader, David Cunliffe was on with Mike Hosking this morning and he says he has no insider knowledge, but thinks the conference members will be pushing hard for some sort of wealth tax. &nbsp;
“CGTs have actually polled really well, and one might, with a wry smile on your case, say that the CGT poll better than the Labour Party, so it's unlikely to be a net vote loser. Most middle ground National voters I know would also support CGT, no so a wealth tax. I mean a wealth tax has got a retrospective element sometimes, because it goes to accumulated wealth and high wealth individuals might vote with their feet, so I think that's a much riskier proposition. I think Labour should be moderate here and just do a sensible, relatively low-rate broad based CGT.”&nbsp;
Which is what David Parker and Grant Robertson last time wanted when they had a mandate. They had a mandate, they had the popular vote, they were governing alone – they could do pretty much what they wanted and what senior members of the party wanted, senior members of the government wanted was a capital gains tax. So I would argue with David Cunliffe that if there were votes in it, you can bet your bippy that Chris Hipkins would have been chucking it out there. He was desperate to stay in power. He was putting things on the bonfire and offering trinkets and displaying baubles, and you know if capital gains tax had had any votes in it, you can bet he would have put it out there. &nbsp;
Instead, he brassed off some really senior members of his government by saying it wouldn't happen. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. The text machine went wild after David Cunliffe's interview with Mike. And in news that will surprise no one, the Newstalk ZB audience appears to be overwhelmingly against the idea of a capital gains tax. I don't buy all the criticisms of a capital gains tax, but one of them rings true: I simply do not trust that the Labour government will spend my money wisely when they take it off me, if the last administration is anything to go by. There has to be some sort of understanding, some sort of relationship between the government and taxpayers, some level of trust. &nbsp;
If the government is coming to us to tax us, they have to say we're going to take money off you, and you might not like it but look at what we can deliver for the whole country for future generations with your contribution. Look at what you can do when we all contribute towards the country, this is what we can deliver. And you accept that. You say okay, I don't particularly like it, but I don't agree with everything you're doing but I can see results. I can see the country is improving, I can see that services are being delivered, that people who are working hard can get ahead, that kids can get an education, that my grandmother can get a hip replacement, I can see that it's moving in the right direction. But to take money off us and be left worse off as a country and as a people than when we started, yeah nah. She's a harder sell there.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Do people trust Labour with a capital gains tax?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4dc9b519-a748-4100-8a3b-b23301858e6f/transcript

Tony Hennessy: JCB Construction Sales Manager on the all-in-one pothole repair machine the Pothole Pro

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips