The Kākā by Bernard Hickey

The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-host Bernard Hickey talking about the week’s news with:

* The Kākā’s climate correspondent Cathrine Dyer on the latest climate news, including media coverage of extreme events and how big tech is gobbling up so much renewable power growth;

* Robert Patman on exploding pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon, an exploding munitions dump deep inside Russia and an intensifying debate on Aukus; and

* Special guest CTU Chief Economist Craig Renney on Aotearoa’s deepest real per capita recession in modern times.

The Hoon’s podcast version above was recorded on Thursday night during a live webinar for over 120 paying subscribers and was produced by Simon Josey.

(This is a sampler for all free subscribers and anyone else who stumbles on it. Thanks to the support of paying subscribers here, we’re able to spread my public interest journalism here about housing affordability, climate change and poverty reduction other public venues. Join the community supporting and contributing to this work with your ideas, feedback and comments, and by subscribing in full.)

Ngā mihi nui.

Bernard

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe

Long story short, the Government’s myopia of only choosing transport policies that reduce travel times means we’re missing out on the health benefits of more cycling and walking, along with the health cost savings from fewer accidents, less pollution and mentally healthier ways of getting around.

In our first solutions interview in The Kākā Project of 2026 for 2050 (TKP 26/50), University of Canterbury Professor Simon Kingham analyses the limited analysis used by Transport Minister Simeon Brown in deciding on a roading-heavy and high speed approach to Transport.

In particular, Kingham calls for much more limited use of time savings in investment decisions, as is the case overseas, and the inclusion of the health benefits, climate benei and climate benefits of more active modes, including cycling and walking, and lower speed limits in urban areas.

We spoke after he and Global Road Safety Partnership CEO Dave Cliff organised and sent an open letter to the Government from dozens of road safety and transport experts globally arguing against its plan for higher speed limits illustrates again just how little real economic analysis is being done by the Government. They cited a 2024 World Bank report which argues that lowering speed limits, not raising them, facilitates economic development via improved public health.

Potential policy ideas for TKP 26/50:

* only measure time savings in cost-benefit analyses (CBA) for transport projects and policies that apply to business and freight travel;

* include productivity and health cost savings, including mental health cost savings, accident reduction cost savings and respiratory condition cost savings from the health benefits of active modes of transport, such as walking and cycling in CBAs;

* include emissions credits savings in CBAs from transport projects and savings; and,

* only adopt projects and policies with the highest Benefit to Cost Ratios (BCRs).

Further questions, interviews and deep-dives?

We’d welcome suggestions for further interviews, deep-dive topics and suggestions for policies in the comments.

From my point of view, I need to find out more about Wales’ approach to CBAs for transport projects and ask ministers and Waka Kotahi NZTA more about the BCRs on the RONS projects, and how they compare to walking and cycling.

Here’s the full transcript of the discussion:

Bernard Hickey (00:03.465): Well, kia ora and welcome to Simon Kingham from the University of Canterbury. Simon, great to have you on The Kaka.

Simon Kingham (00:07.982)

Thanks so much. Nice to be here.

Bernard Hickey (00:12.157)

For an audience who maybe aren't aware of what you've been doing, what you do, could you give us a brief precis of what gives you some authority to talk about these things?

Simon Kingham (00:25.838)

So I'm a professor of Geography at the University of Canterbury. Obviously you can tell from my accent I wasn't born here. I came from England nearly 25 years ago. And for the last six years until May this year, I was seconded from the University to the Ministry of Transport two days a week as their Chief Science Advisor. I was advising. My job really was to try and ensure that any policy that went up to ministers was evidence -based. That was kind of one line of what I did. So I remained at the University teaching and researching, but for two days a week the Ministry paid for my time. And there are other ministries do the same. So there's a network of us who are seconded and in some cases fully employed but mainly seconded into government ministries and we're meant to provide independent free and frank advice to ensure policy is evidence-based.

Bernard Hickey (01:10.28)

What is the evidence that you consider when you're thinking about transport policies. The way transport policy works in New Zealand, the central government has a very big role. You could argue a bigger role than a central government in some other countries. We've just seen the government change quite a few transport policies. I just thought we would start off with this issue of, you know, what evidence should be considered when you're thinking about how much money you spend or what type of transport, these sorts of things. So what sort of evidence base should be in front of a minister or a ministry?

Simon Kingham (01:41.966)

I mean, you should be pulling evidence from anywhere and everywhere. And in my case, I mean, I didn't pretend to know everything, so I'd go and seek people, but it should be coming from everywhere.

And I think one of the neat things the Ministry of Transport has, and it still has, and it's actually kind of talked about by other governments in other parts of the world and other ministries, we have a thing called the Transport Outcomes Framework, which is actually really neat. And it actually says … we have a transport system that improves wellbeing and liveability. So that's the central thing.

Our transport system is there to improve wellbeing and livability. And it has five outcomes. Inclusive access, so we're trying to make it so everybody can access stuff. Healthy and safe people, so we want people to be safe on the roads. We want to reduce vehicle casualties, deaths and serious injuries. We want air pollution to be low. And we want people to be able to choose to use active transport because that's healthier.

Economic prosperity, so we want business to be able to go around. We want people to be able to deliver stuff. We want to be able to get goods and services. We want to be able to get people to the workplace. Environmental sustainability as we want to reduce emissions. So that's greenhouse gas emissions, but air pollution. want to enhance biodiversity, et cetera, et cetera. And then resilience and security. And there's two parts to that. One is kind of international. So we're resilient to international shocks so that our airlines can get people in when COVID happens, that sort of thing.

But we're also resilient to sea level rise, climate change, storms, all these other things that are happening. So we had these five outcomes and the idea is that notionally what was meant to happen is that when you looked at a policy, you assessed them against those five outcomes. say, what is this policy going to do to this outcome? And it doesn't mean that every policy is going to be really good for all the outcomes, but you at least have to assess it against them and say, these are the outcomes we're trying to achieve through the transport system.

Bernard Hickey (03:43.668)

So you'd look at things like if you change the policy how many extra deaths or fewer deaths how many how much extra cost of the health system, know lost hours working you know number of deaths from air pollution or cost of air pollution, climate emissions, you know the number of extra tons that sort of thing. So we've seen

Simon Kingham (04.06.00)

Climate emissions are interesting. I'll just start you if I can just quickly. But when we look at, for instance, electric vehicles, know, electric vehicles are a way to reduce emissions. But actually, electric vehicles don't do quite so well against, for instance, healthy and safe people. They're good for emissions, but they're not, you know, you're not reducing, you're not making active travel more attractive by them. They're not any different for resilience and security. If we're relying on electricity, that's good because we're not relying on oil. But that's kind of an example where if you compare, if you want to reduce emissions and that's a policy or thing you're wanting to achieve, electric vehicles are one part, but actually active travel probably ticks off more.

So that's kind of an example where you can have two policies and one can hit multiple outcomes and one might only hit one.

Bernard Hickey (04:52.569)

So this government has shifted the emphasis in spending from trying to encourage active travel, a bit more cycling and walking, maybe look to use buses, trains, maybe try to not to build quite so many motorways, and shifted from there to it's all about the roads of national significance and the roads of regional significance.

And this government has talked a lot about, you know, just ‘make the economic boat go faster’, which is, you know, that's one aim you can have. And it struck me when looking at the decisions being made, I wondered if they'd done a proper, wider economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits of, you know, shifting that. For example, moving away from electric cars perhaps back to cars that are petrol and diesel, you know, might increase your fuel costs and it might increase the number of people with health problems from particulates. Reducing reliance on cycling and walking may mean you know that you have more people who are have mental health issues or health issues, it means they have to go to the hospital and the government has to pay for that. So i just wondered if you were looking at shifting from what we had to what we have now, what sort of aspects would you think about, what sort of evidence should have been in that decision?

Simon Kingham (06:29.58)

Yeah, it's a very good question. think they're very much focusing, if you look at the five outcomes, they're very much focusing on economic prosperity and they've been quite overt about that.

But they're also looking at economic prosperity in a very narrow lens. It's very much about productivity in the context, so that's, if you listen to all the information, the things we've read recently about speed limits, it's very much in the context of economic productivity from a very narrow lens. So actually, for instance, if you look at, we talked a bit about walking and cycling and the the government policy statement and the funding, they basically cut all, there's zero funding left for walking and cycling. So the only money that's actually in their budget is funding that's already committed. So there's no extra. And that's because they don't, when we look at benefit cost ratios, they're not including wellbeing benefits, health benefits. So they're very much saying, on the one hand, we're interested in crashes. So we are looking at deaths and serious injuries. And on the other hand, it's time savings.

And there's a number of problems with that. So time savings, if I ask you when you go to work or when you go somewhere and you get back a minute earlier to home, what do do with that minute? And we know that when we do a benefit/cost ratio is what we do is we multiply that minute up. So we say, we multiply the minutes up by the number of people doing that journey and we get a big number and we quantify it according to a value of somewhere upwards of $30 an hour and you get a really big number.

And the problem is time savings and productivity are not the same. Productivity is someone being able to do an extra delivery or get some products, some slightly quicker so they can get the next product to the next place, et cetera. It's not you and me or other people getting home 45 seconds or 51 seconds earlier. That's good. It's nice to be home earlier, well, in some cases, but not always! But it's also not productive.

Now, the other thing of course is actually taking longer on your, if you walk or cycle, some people who walk and cycle actually go a longer route because they enjoy it. And actually that's beneficial, right? Because it's good for exercise.

In many cases, people choose to go a longer route because it's more attractive. It's good for mental health. If you walk slowly, I mean, that's a really interesting example: if you walk down your street and you talk to a neighbour, economically, that's really bad. Mentally and physically, and in terms of society, of course it's good, but we have this bizarre thing that we treat time savings in this really odd way.

And the minister, I don't know if he quite understands that time savings and productivity aren't the same, but certainly you discount a whole load of really, really positive things. So the example of walking down the street talking to your neighbour, that's a really good thing, isn't it? You talk about your neighbour when there's a natural disaster, as we know from Christchurch. Talking to your neighbour is a really good thing because when that bad things happen, you know, someone who can help you.

Bernard Hickey (09:08.198)

So there must be quite a bit of research on this area of taking account of time savings, doing the simple blunt multiplication and calculating it. You think all over the world, there must be transport departments and ministries and people going, the whole, way that we've thought about transport, about our motorway systems, about people driving in cars, is really being driven by this time saving drive. So what's the state of the world's research on using that as your, as your, you know, north star?

Simon Kingham (09:42.862)

Two things about it. One is we know that if you make it easier for people to travel further faster, they often choose to live further away from things. So there's heaps of research. It's a concept called induced demand, which I'm sure many people listening to this are familiar with. In our minds, many people have this thing that we want to spend about 20 to 30 minutes getting to and from work. So if we can get further in 20 to 30 minutes, we travel further. And that actually has loads of dis-benefits. So we have to provide more infrastructure if we live further away, bad for the environment.

Now what's interesting, the example I've heard of recently is in Wales. So I met the former Minister of Transport in Wales recently, guy called Lee Waters who was in Australia and I was there as well at the same time. And he said in Wales now, private time on journeys is now not allowed to be included in decisions about road building. You can only include the time for freight and business journeys. And so of course that takes out the vast majority.

And that means that your benefits from time savings are dramatically decreased. And the reason they've done that is they said it is inconsistent with their transport strategy. And actually, if you think about the outcomes framework in New Zealand, it would be inconsistent with what we're trying to do for many reasons. So they've actually taken it out. They did that to some work, and they actually cut a whole lot of road building projects because they suddenly realised if you take that out, they don't make the cut. They still included some. They're not getting rid of road building projects, but they just said, let's look at it a slightly more science -based, evidence -based lens. And many of these roads don't cut the mustard. They don't meet the criteria. And so suddenly, when you start doing that, you actually design your transport system in a quite different way, and you value things really differently.

Bernard Hickey (11:21.861)

And also this business of understanding the health benefits, for example, of more walking and cycling, and also the equity benefits of having affordable public transport and buses and trains. How do you think about the of health benefits, economic benefits of walking and cycling, and what sort of benefit to cost ratios, what sort of analysis do we get if we do $100 million into cycling infrastructure or $100 million into one kilometre of a motorway? How would you measure the cycling, walking, public transport side of things?

Simon Kingham (12:05.774)

Really good question. So we know from the last round of roads of national significance, they did benefit/cost ratios on them. And many of them had benefit/cost ratios of under one and the good ones had benefit/cost ratios of just over two. And we know, of course, with all those projects, with all big infrastructure projects, the actual cost of the project goes up way more than when you actually do the benefit/cost ratio. So many of those, they would have had benefit/cost ratios of under one. And I remember probably a decade ago, hearing the then-Minister of Transport say when they realised the benefit/cost ratio was so bad, they said, ‘well, this is actually a resilience project’. It was the second route into, I think, Wellington. I think it was one of the roads into Wellington, which is OK if that's your primary driver. On the other side is, if you look at the cycleways, if you look at the big cycleway projects, when they ran the benefit/cost ratio on the Christchurch cycleways, this was before they were built, they came up with a benefit/cost ratio of eight.

Now the figure of eight, I think the problem with the figure of eight, it's almost too big. So people then go, I don't believe it. It can't be that much better than roading, but it's actually utterly consistent with projects all around the world. And in Christchurch, they've actually recalculated and the cost of the cycleways went up from when they were predicted, but the benefits went up. And I gather, I think that the benefit/cost ratio went up over 10. And this is with them now being built.

So … I almost think the government, if they said, we're only gonna go, on benefit /cost ratios, I would go ‘fantastic’, because when you lined up all the projects that anyone's ever put up, all the cycleway projects would be at the top and the roading projects would be at the bottom.

And even Auckland Light Rail, which is very criticised because of the cost, the benefit/cost ratio, I think I've heard someone say was about two. It's still not great, but when you put in the wider economic benefits, the urban development benefits of that project, it actually didn't do too badly, but it doesn't get anywhere near cycle projects which are consistently up around 10 and in some cases over - because, and it's primarily the health benefits, it's partly the environmental benefits, but the health benefits are so great. Because New Zealand is one of the most obese countries in the world. We are very physically inactive, diabetes is a big problem. And that's before we get into mental health. And we know now there's a very strong link between transport and mental health. If you walk, cycle, you meet your neighbours, your mental health is enhanced,  you don't get stressed. You hear people talk about road rage, you don't get road rage when you're walking. You you walk, you talk to your neighbours.

One of the best quotes I ever got in a project recently was someone, we did a research project post-Christchurch earthquake, and we asked people what they liked about the community. And one person said, “I really like where I live because it takes such a long time to get anywhere”. And what they meant was, it sounds like it of comes over as a negative comment, what they meant was, I walk down my street, I keep talking to people, I bump into people, can't, you know, in a really positive way.

And yet somehow we discount  that, but actually the mental health and community benefits of walking and cycling are also good. And that also applies with public transport because when you get off at either end, you get physical activity. And when you get off near your home, you walk down the street and you see people you know. And seeing people you know is difficult to quantify, but increasingly people are, and they're saying it's really important.

Bernard Hickey (15:19.36)

Another way to look at these things is to look at the health costs, in terms of accidents, in terms of particulates from pollution and how that affects people's asthma and various other chest conditions and the likes. What is the current evidence around, let's say for example, as the government has done increasing speed limits on some roads and sometimes outside schools at different times of the day, what do we know about how much that increases, with a purely economic lens, deaths, injuries, that sort of thing.

Simon Kingham (16:01.326)

So we know as an example since the in the last 12 months up till end of August this year, the number of deaths on the roads is 20% down from last year. And it's difficult to know. Obviously, there's lots of things doing that. But the one consistent thing that's happened in the last 12 months is councils have targeted speed limit reductions according to safety. They've consulted on them. And that's kind of the big thing that's happened in the last 12 months, lots of reductions of speed limits. And so most people are saying it's almost certainly a big part of that reduction [in deaths], is the reduction in speed limits. And we know that when you, you know, when we look at the value of life and that it's a controversial topic, how we calculate that, and you'll know far more about that than I do. But I think it's, we're valuing it around somewhere upwards of what, $6 million or $7 million a life. And so when you're saving, what's this about overall, that would equate to about 60 lives a year. That's a really big number.

The other one people often forget, I mean, obviously greenhouse gas emissions are talked about, but the current government is saying we don't really care about them going up because we're going to offset. They're really focusing on offsetting. But what they forget is that alongside carbon dioxide coming out of your exhaust is nitrogen dioxide. And nitrogen dioxide in this country at the moment is killing over, you know, and vehicle fumes across, killing over 2000 people a year. Now, I know it's staggering.

Bernard Hickey (17:18.353)

Hang on a minute. How does that work? I haven't seen any, you know, death road toll from pollution. I mean, how does that happen? Do people, what sort of diseases, what sort of, you know, what does it say?

Simon Kingham (17:23.17)

It's respiratory diseases and there is a difference obviously, we're talking about 350 people die from in car crashes and one of the things about that is they're mainly younger people and with respiratory diseases, it is mainly older people. It's mainly older people so perhaps we can value that differently or not, but the reality is that there's over 2 ,000 people a year dying from vehicle emissions and that was from the HAPINZ report which I think came out three years ago. It’s very well respected, peer reviewed by some of the top scientists in the world who said, yes, this is really good science. And somehow we forget about that.

We think it's okay to kill people from, we sort of accept the road toll. We even give it a name, the idea that we ‘pay a toll’, but we do actually forget the fact that we're also polluting people. And we don't need to. And if you reduce emissions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you also reduce emissions from nitrogen dioxide on particulates. And so again, we can put values on that. So every life we save, we save an amount of money.

Bernard Hickey (18:31.087)

Because in New Zealand, the government funds the hospital system and a good chunk of primary health care. And every one of those patients who has a respiratory illness or death is ending up in hospital. They're spending many nights there. They might be in and out of hospital. They certainly are seeing specialists and doctors forever. You'd think if you were looking at it from an economic holistic point of view, you could look to reduce the number of deaths from respiratory illnesses, from accidents - and therefore free up more space in your A &E departments for other things because apparently they're quite full at the moment.

Simon Kingham (19:12.59)

Absolutely. And if you factor in the fact that if you get people out of their cars and they're either using public transport or walking and cycling, they're also getting physical activity. Public transport vehicles tend to be newer. So we have one of the oldest vehicle fleets in the world. So this is the beauty of a holistic, like you said earlier, a holistic transport system where you actually value walking and cycling and public transport because it actually does really well against multiple outcomes.

And also it's about urban development and how we shape our cities and increasing density and how we use our streets. There's so many things that if you think holistically, you get really good outcomes. And unfortunately, the current government with its heavy focus on road building and increasing speed limits … isn't even delivering the time savings they think it's going to all the productivity benefits. The time savings are generally much smaller than they think. And it doesn't deliver any of the other outcomes. It's very bad for all the other outcomes.

Bernard Hickey (20:08.643)

I'm curious, then, what the rest of the world thinks of us. New Zealanders like to think that we're punching above our weight and we're ‘the little engine that could’ and we've got number eight wire and all of that and it's all great. But interestingly in the letter that you helped organize and were part of saying to the government that the speed limit changes were dangerous, not evidence-based and a backward step. It was interesting to see what the rest of the world thinks of all of this, because in the rest of the world they really are trying to drive down their road tolls to nought and they're trying to get rid of pollution and certainly emissions. So what is the rest of the world saying when they look at New Zealand in the last six months or so?

Simon Kingham (20:58.402)

Really good question. So Dave Cliff contacted me only last week. So this letter was we literally wrote it and got people to sign up in two days. We weren't cruising around the world trying to get people begging people to sign it. We literally sent it out to our networks and we got people a hundred, nearly a hundred signatures incredibly quickly. Backed up by that was a number of people saying, ‘I can't believe this is happening. What is New Zealand doing!?’.

Particularly the Australians, who are now copying what we've done for the last five years and now looking at us going, ‘what are you doing? We're finally on the right track and you're going backwards’. And I was at this conference in Australia a couple of weeks ago talking about science and policy and evidence. And it was, I find myself … it was a bit depressing. And these people are going, ‘can't believe what's happening because you've done so well’. And I even said an email, one Australian guy said, this must be pretty depressing for you. And I said, ‘yes, it's not many, it's not often recently, I've said, [that] I wish we were more like Australia in the context of transport’. And he said, ‘I didn't think you'd ever say that’, because we were doing so, we were certainly on the right direction. We were prioritising well-being. We were still delivering really good economic outcomes. We’re reducing emissions, improving air quality as we've seen in the current figures for road deaths and serious injuries or deaths on the roads, going really well in the right direction. And we've completely turned the ship around. We're going the wrong way at the moment. And it's really sad.

Bernard Hickey (22:22.006)

Simon Kingham, thank you very much for being on The Kaka and talking about this. Really appreciate it.

Simon Kingham (22:29.358)

Thank you, I really enjoyed it.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe

Kia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top six things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Wednesday, September 18:

* Locals gathered in Woodville last night to protest at the National-ACT-NZ First Government’s decision to toll the new road linking the Manawatu and Hawkes Bay, saying it will hurt vulnerable workers and dump repair costs for the free alternative route back onto the council, which is campagining against the toll.

* In scoop of the day, Health NZ Commissioner Lester Levy is working only three days a week for $320,000 per year in his key role to hack out $1.4 billion in costs, The Post-$$$’s Rachel Thomas reports this morning.

* In deep-dive of the day, officials have warned the Government’s policy to lengthen sentences would double the prison population and isn’t feasible, NZ Herald-$$$’s Derek Cheng writes this morning.

* In solutions news, a group of academics have called for a rooftop solar campaign to solve energy shortages and improve resilience.

* In quote of the day, Tararua’s Mayor asked what was the point of a new road that few could afford.

* In chart of the day, methane levels have spiked in the Arctic.

(There is more detail, analysis and links to documents below the paywall fold and in the podcast above for paying subscribers. If we get over 100 likes we’ll open it up for public reading, listening and sharing)

1. National’s tolling strategy faces big revolt in heartland

National MPS in Rangitikei, Wairarapa, Ōtaki and Tuki Tuki face revolts from voters angry at the last minute proposal for a $4.30/car and $8.60/truck toll on the new road due to open next year that links the Manawatu and Hawkes Bay.

Locals gathered last night in a packed meeting in Woodville to protest the plan, which is the first test of National’s tolling-led strategy to fund big new infrastructure. The Tararua Council has launched a campaign against the plan.

Tararua Mayor Tracey Collis is leading the campaign, publishing this statement on Monday, while 1News covered it last night, as did RNZ’s Jimmy Ellingham on Checkpoint.

A key issue is the road is replacing the now-closed Manawatu Gorge road, and was supposed to allow locals to stop using the Pahiatua Track road. However, Waka Kotahi-NZTA’s modelling shows about 4,000 vehicles a day would continue to use the Pahiatua Track to avoid the toll, leaving about 7,000 on the new road.

Tararua mayor Tracey Collis said her council would be left covering the increased maintenance costs.

Much of that is subsidised by the transport agency, but the district was already battling to cover costs on its large roading network from a ratepayer base of about 10,000.

"The Saddle Road and Pahīatua Track - they were existing farm roads. They were never designed for that level of traffic flowing over them."

The council has launched a Stop the Tolls campaign, while on Tuesday night community committee Positively Woodville was holding a public meeting to rally support.

Collis said she was unimpressed the consultation was online only, and open for just a few weeks. 1News

Jimmy Ellingham recorded locals further south with similar protests.

In Dannevirke, Shires Fruit and Vege Market co-owner Suresh Patel has already made a submission to the transport agency's online consultation, which closes in early October.

"It was such a surprise," he said.

"We've been waiting for the new road to open for quite some time now - seven or eight years - and there was never any talk to any toll charges at all."

The proposed charges are $4.30 a trip for light vehicles and $8.60 for trucks, which Patel said was an unexpected cost for businesses to absorb.

It would cost Shires $3500 a year, he said.

A particular problem is the need for commuters to Palmerston North and the Linton army camp, who moved to the Wairarapa for cheaper housing.

Meg Munro, 17, is planning to study at Massey University in Palmerston North, and live in Dannevirke to save money after spending next year in a hall of residence.

But the tolling proposal had put a spoke in that plan.

"It's a lot of money on top of what you'd already have to spent just to get over there for fuel and all of that.

"Paying nearly $50 a week is out of the budget for students, especially."

Munro was considering living in Palmerston North, or only using the slower Saddle Road.

Locals having to use the Palmerston North hospital were also concerned, as Ellingham reported.

Tararua residents also worried about access to healthcare.

When the old Dannevirke Hospital closed in the 1990s, Palmerston North became the destination for specialist care, as Dannevirke man Wilson Duff and his wife Debbie have found since she suffered a fall.

Duff said Debbie required at least weekly visits for about 18 months.

He worried people on fixed incomes, such as superannuation, would choose not to make the trip as often as they should if they had to pay.

Nurse Andrea Short had similar worries.

"We were promised an equitable service when they shut our hospital here. We've never had it."

Transport Minister Simeon Brown continues to talk up the benefits of the road, especially for freight operators.

Brown said the new highway was a significant upgrade for the region, rather than just a replacement project.

"Motorists and freight operators will also significantly benefit from travel time savings of 12-14 minutes per trip, and there are two alternatives for those who don't want to pay the toll."

Time savings and efficiency benefits from the new road would outweigh the cost of the toll for freight operators, he said.

Angry meeting shows toll road faces big fight

Tararua District Mayor Tracey Collis called the proposal "a kick in the guts to the community", 1News reported.

"In the cost of living crisis, we simply do not have the money."

Local councillor Scott Gilmore added that there needed to be "a stop to this ridiculous proposal".

Chants of 'Toll-free Tararua' rang out as a question and answer session got underway with local National MPs and NZTA.

"The announcement to potentially toll our replacement road Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū-Tararua Highway was a bolt out of the blue for many with the proposed tolls amongst the highest in the country," Collis said.

Collis said there were several factors behind community opposition to tolling.

"This is fundamentally different from other proposed toll roads, which are new builds. The toll proposal does not fully acknowledge the unique context of this project, where we are replacing vital infrastructure that has been lost."

She also said tolling was not part of the original business case for the project and, if residents ended up avoiding the road due to tolling costs, it would not achieve its goal of being a safe and efficient route.

"This was a road of great hope for our district with the growth that it promised. What good is it to our district to have a wonderful safe new highway that few can afford to use?"

Screenshot from 1News

2. Scoop of the day

Health & politics ‘Part-time’ health commissioner holding down two jobs. The man tasked with clawing back a billion dollar-plus deficit in the public health system is charging $320,000 a year for the role, while still working the equivalent of two days a week at his second job. The Post-$$$’s Rachel Thomas

Notables elsewhere:

Electricity & economy: Methanex job losses a blow to Govt’s gas plans Ed Miller in Newsroom

Foreign affairs: NZ asked to join Taiwan Strait military sailings Newsroom-$$$’s Sam Sachdeva

Electricity & economy: Energy crunch: Job losses loom at Oji Fibre just as lake levels normalise‘. One of the members came up to me and said ‘look, Justin, what do I do now, I’ve just bought a house.’ The Post-$$$’s Tom Pullar-Strecker

3. Deep Dive of the day

Prisons & Infrastructure: ‘Not feasible’: Ministry warns coalition commitment risks doubling prison population The Herald-$$$’s Derek Cheng

Notables elsewhere:

Climate & Environment East Coast forestry industry facing the axe The Detail’s Amanda Gillies

Health & poverty: 'No way' a 'one-size-fits-all' health approach will work - report author RNZ’s Bill Hickman

4. Solutions

Climate and cost of living: More rooftop solar in cities would help solve NZ’s energy crisis – and build disaster resilience. Op-Ed in The Conversation by Priscila Besen, Auckland University of Technology; Andrew Burgess, Auckland University of Technology; Ann Morrison, Auckland University of Technology; Imelda Piri, Auckland University of Technology, and Stacy Vallis, Auckland University of Technology

5. Quote of the day

“This was a road of great hope for our district with the growth that it promised. What good is it to our district to have a wonderful safe new highway that few can afford to use?" Tararua District Mayor Tracey Collis via 1News

6. Chart of the day

Tipping points and feedback loops

The Kākā’s Journal of Record for Wednesday, September 18

* Housing: Architecture product library EBOSS and New Zealand Certified Builders published research estimating that 2023 insulation standards can be met for as little as $2,200, if factored in during the design phases of building projects. EBOSS Managing Director Matthew Duder said the expected gains in energy efficiency from insulation will also quickly offset the costs.

* Poverty: Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced that low-to-middle income families can now apply for ECE cost support under the new 'FamilyBoost' scheme. Under the scheme, families earning up to $180,000 can claim up to 25% of weekly childcare fees, up to a maximum of $975 every three months.

* Health: Advocacy group Patient Voice Aotearoa is petitioning the Government to fix staffing shortages at Buller Hospital, RNZ reported. The petition notes that Buller has no ambulance service and that there's only one rescue helicopter to service the West Coast.

* Electricity: Transpower's weekly report showed that national hydro storage reached 104% of the historic mean last week, marking the first time it has been above the mean since May. Average wholesale electricity prices increased from the week prior, however, with the largest increase in Ōtāhuhu from $20 to $89/MWh.

* Poverty: A UNICEF report found that regional employment schemes, while bringing financial benefits to Pacific families, are leading to in some cases to marital breakdowns and mothers being "overburdened" with care responsibilites. The report also detailed educational impacts for older siblings called on to look after younger children. RNZ

* Employment: E tū said Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden refused to meet with unions to discuss upcoming changes to the Employment Relations Act, but "has met with Uber". E tū said the changes will prevent gig economy workers from challenging their employment status in future.

Cartoon of the day

Going down

Timeline cleansing nature pic of the day

Jewels of the sea

Ka kite ano

Bernard

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe

Kia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top six things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Tuesday, September 15:

* The Government’s faster speed limits will: kill more people; put even more drivers, pedestrians and cyclists in already-full hospitals; and increase emissions and other health costs, dozens of experts have told the Government.

* In scoop of the day, nurses working in chronically short-staffed hospitals say staff who go on leave, get sick or quit are not being replaced in many cases, RNZ’s Ruth Hill reports this morning.

* In deep-dive of the day, Q+A’s Whena Owen takes much closer look at the housing crises in Masterton and Rotorua. 1News

* In solutions news, the transport experts say lower speed limits improve economic growth, not the other way around.

* In quote of the day, former Transport Ministry Science Adviser Simon Kingham pleads for the Government to drop its speed limit increases, which contradict the evidence globally.’

* In chart of the day, the IMF has found political parties all around the world have been more fiscally expansive than they were in the 80s, except New Zealand.

(There is more detail, analysis and links to documents below the paywall fold and in the podcast above for paying subscribers. If we get over 100 likes we’ll open it up for public reading, listening and sharing)

1. Where’s the wider economic analysis?

An open letter to the Government from dozens of road safety and transport experts globally arguing against its plan for higher speed limits illustrates again just how little real economic analysis is being done by the Government.

It points to multiple studies showing lower speed limits reduce costs and improve economic development, but Transport Minister Simeon Brown is forging ahead with vague view that faster driving means more economic growth.

Here’s the experts in the letter:

A recent report from the World Bank details the economic advantages of effective speed management and refutes the misconception that higher speeds correlate with economic benefits.

Additionally, increased vehicle speeds lead to higher fuel consumption and emissions of CO2 and NO2 (which kills over 2,000 people per year in NZ), counteracting our efforts to reduce transport-related emissions.

2. Scoop of the day

Health Nursing jobs 'ghosted' as Health NZ cuts costs RNZ’s Ruth Hill

Health New Zealand insists recruitment has continued while it has been revising its budgets to find millions of dollars in savings - but front-line workers say job ads and even verbal offers have been "ghosted'.

Waikato Hospital emergency nurse Tracy Chrisholm said some patients were waiting 20 hours or more to be seen.

"In the last two to three years I can't remember coming in for a shift where we've had no-one at six hours plus."

There were simply not enough nurses, doctors or allied staff, she said.

"We have multiple people on maternity leave, we've had multiple resignations that haven't been signed off to be advertised and re-employed or covered because we're above our budget." RNZ

3. Deep Dive of the day

4. Solutions news

‘Cut the speed limits, don’t increase them’

The experts’ open letter to the Government was clear in stating the economic, health and climate benefits of lower speed limits, including evidence of the most recent cuts here, which Brown is reversing.

Proven success of local speed management: In New Zealand, both Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi NZTA have implemented speed limit reduction initiatives that have resulted in significant declines in road crash deaths and injuries.

These life-saving measures demonstrate the critical impact of lower speeds. The evidence is unequivocal: as mean vehicle speeds rise, so do the number of deaths and serious injuries. New Zealand has made considerable progress in recent years in adopting speed limits that align with safe system principles, saving countless lives in the process.

We strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed blanket speed limit increases. Should this rule be adopted, the tragic consequence will be more New Zealanders losing their lives or suffering severe injury, along with a substantial burden on the nation's healthcare and rehabilitation services.

5. Quote of the day

“All the experts are saying 'this is a really bad idea' and it's inconsistent with what's happening in the rest of the world, it's against all science and evidence, please don't implement it, it's a bad policy.” University of Canterbury transport academic and also former Ministry of Transport Chief Science Adviser Simon Kingham, via 1News

6. Chart of the day

Expansionary politicians most places except NZ

The Kākā’s Journal of Record for Tuesday, September 17

* Health: The Global Road Safety Partnership published an open letter warning that the Government's proposed speed limit increases will lead to more deaths and injuries. They cite a 2024 World Bank report which argues that lowering speed limits, not raising them, facilitates economic development via improved public health. 1News

* Health: The Asthma and Respiratory Foundation NZ reported that 1 in 5 NZers are affected by a respiratory illness, up from 1 in 7 in 2021. Foundation Medical Director Bob Hancox said that, despite this, hospitalisations from asthma and COPD have gone down, reflecting improvements in treatment of these conditions.

* Poverty: Presbyterian Support Northern (PSN) said Oranga Tamariki funding cuts could affect around 800 of PSN's clients and see the loss of 14 full-time equivalent jobs. PSN says the effectiveness of its social work programs at improving outcomes children and whānau is supported by Oranga Tamariki research undertaken in 2020.

* Economy: Auckland International Airport announced it's undertaking a $1.4 billion equity raising to replace ageing infrastructure, fund upgrades to the airfield and runway, and to improve connectivity between international & domestic flights. AIA also announced it’s signed a contract with Hawkins Limited to deliver its new domestic jet terminal. RNZ, NZ Herald

* Economy: Jetstar announced it will fly directly from the Gold Coast to Hamilton and Dunedin three times a week from June 2025. Queensland Tourism Minister Michael Healy noted that almost half a million NZers visited Queensland in the year ending March 2024.

* Crime & Punishment: Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced that sentencing reforms to be introduced to Parliament this week will reverse what he calls a "concerning trend" of courts imposing "fewer and shorter prison sentences." The reforms will reduce sentence discounts in various ways, and introduce harsher sentencing for adults who exploit children or offenders who livestream or post online about their offending.

Cartoon of the day

Going down

Timeline cleansing nature pic of the day

Let’s hope the petals survive the polar blast

Ka kite ano

Bernard

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe

Kia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top six things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Monday, September 14:

* The National/ACT/NZ First Government is considering shunting elderly patients out of hospitals and lifting thresholds for entry to try to ‘free up’ 200,000 bed-nights in a drive to save $1.4 billion.

* In scoop of the day, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts is considering removing the public sector’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2025.

* In deep-dive of the day, Simeon Brown removed car emissions standards early to meet an industry deadline, bulldozing over advice it would worsen emissions.

* In solutions news, new research from New Zealand data finds upzoning can improve residential construction productivity.

* In quote of the day, Matthew Maltman says ‘upzoning can both legalize new construction and improve building efficiency, addressing multiple aspects of our housing affordability challenge.’

* In chart of the day, Auckland upzoning of 2016 and an easing of rules for the Christchurch rebuild helped NZ’s building sector productivity beat Australia’s.

(There is more detail, analysis and links to documents below the paywall fold and in the podcast above for paying subscribers.)

1. Reti wants to ‘free up’ 200,000 bed-nights per year

Costello eyes raising ‘fragility level’ for entry into aged-care

The $1.4 billion in savings demanded of Te Whatu Ora Health NZ Commissioner Lester Levy will have to come from somewhere. Now we are starting to understand what that means, in particular for sick, elderly people after operations.

Here’s RNZ’s reporting from Friday night:

RNZ has seen internal Te Whatu Ora documents detailing options to raise the "fragility level" for entry into aged care, and to remove some levels of in-home support, such as housework, meal preparation and shopping for people with mobility problems or recovering from illness.

However, Costello said nothing had been presented to her, as it was "still in the review stage".

"The commentary that's come out just isn't accurate... there is no decision been made, there is no suggestion that we want to pull back from funding."

Costello said one option under consideration was to contract the residential care sector to supply "recovery beds" for people who would often be stuck in hospital after an accident or illness because there was nowhere for them to go.

"Hospital is often not the right place for them, it's an acute care facility and it can't provide a rehabilitative process.

"We want them to have options for care outside hospital." Minister for Seniors Casey Costello in a Nine to Noon interview. RNZ’s

Here’s the key metric that is powering this sort of activity:

RNZ understands Health Minister Shane Reti has directed Health NZ to "free up" 200,000 bed nights a year RNZ’s

2. Scoop of the day

Climate: Government considers removing public sector carbon neutrality goal RNZ’s Kate Green

3. Deep Dive of the day

Climate Simeon Brown pushed emissions standards to meet industry's deadline RNZ’s Eloise Gibson.

4. Solutions news

Upzoning is doubly good

Sydney-based economist Matthew Maltman published a piece over at his blog OneFinalEffort on Saturday about how construction productivity improved in Auckland and Christchurch after the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) upzoning of 2016 and earthquake rebuilds respectively. Importantly, productivity in these two cities improved relative to both New Zealand and Australia.

He’s not jumping to any conclusions, but it appears the upzoning may have worked to both increase housing supply and lift house-building productivity, the holy grails in our economy.

But why and how could upzoning improve productivity?

Here’s Matthew:

“The legalisation of the "missing middle" housing market may have created opportunities for smaller firms to enter the market and compete. Firms may need large amounts of capital to compete in the high-density market (e.g., needing cranes), and large amounts of land to compete in the low-density market. The “missing middle” requires neither of these. The smaller scale of projects may also have allowed for less overhead or more efficient construction techniques.

“(Also) there may be gains from a reduction in bureaucracy and red tape. "As-of-right" zoning could reduce uncertainties and delays from planning decisions.  Firms may need fewer staff to navigate government processes. It may also allow firms to manage and time their capital more efficiently.  Moreover, a shift from greenfield to infill may have eliminated the need to coordinate construction with infrastructure development.” Matthew Maltman

5. Quote of the day

“Zoning reform can improve residential construction productivity. A common critique of upzoning is that it is only a partial solution and might not be useful in a tight construction market. It is argued that in poor macroeconomic conditions the construction sector may not be able to scale up sufficiently to meet demand.  However, if upzoning can both legalize new construction and improve the efficiency with which it is carried out, it could address multiple aspects of our housing affordability challenge.” Matthew Maltman via OneFinalEffort

6. Chart of the day

The tragedy of Wellington City’s stall since 2010 writ large

The Kākā’s Journal of Record for Monday, September 16

* Te Tiriti: Minister for the Public Service Nicola Willis announced new policy directives to prevent Government contracts from being awarded on the basis of "ethnic identity or other forms of personal identity". Labour said the targets now being scrapped allowed Māori businesses to compete in an environment dominated by "a small number of large, established, and well-resourced businesses".

* Economy: A report produced for the Property Council found that the property industry is now the largest in NZ, doubling its share of NZ’s total GDP since 2012 to 15%. By comparison, the report found manufacturing accounted for 10% of GDP, healthcare and social assistance for 7%, and agriculture, forestry, and fishing for 6%. BusinessDesk

* Employment: Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced (link not up yet) that businesses will be given an additional set of criteria to determine whether someone is a contractor, under upcoming changes to the Employment Relations Act. The NZCTU said the changes will lead to more workers being misclassified as contractors and denied annual leave and holiday pay.

* Environment: Resources Minister Shane Jones announced a draft list which would categorise 35 minerals as being "essential to economic functions" and enable the Government to take action to facilitate exploration, mining or quarrying. Aggregate & Quarry Association CEO Wayne Scott welcomed the Critical Minerals List, Straterra CEO Josie Vidal called it a "big step forward" for the mining industry.

* Poverty: The Child Poverty Action Group urged the Government to adopt its suite of policy recommendations, following the Ministry of Social Development's finding that NZ children are more likely to go without essentials than children in most EU nations. CPAG recommends main benefits be increased to cover housing costs for people in the least expensive housing regions, while the Accommodation Supplement should only be used in high-cost areas.

* Climate: University of Tübingen researchers developed a method to produce a yeast rich in folate and protein from microbes fed on carbon dioxide. The researchers will next investigate the safety of the technology and how it might be scaled up and commercialised.

Cartoon of the day

Fertiliser application

Timeline cleansing nature pic of the day

Beautiful decay

Ka kite ano

Bernard

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe

Long stories short, here’s the top six news items of note in climate news for Aotearoa-NZ this week, and a discussion above between Bernard Hickey and The Kākā’s climate correspondent Cathrine Dyer:

* A Trump victory in the November US elections would doom global progress on climate change and reverberate through the geological record for a million years, according to Bill McKibben.

* Up to 68% of Australia’s tourism assets sit in a major climate risk category, according to insurance industry experts, putting as many as 30% of the industry’s 620,000 jobs and all 31 of the country’s busiest airports in jeopardy.

* Despite pledges from 150 countries to reduce methane emissions by 30% this decade, a recent report shows that they have been accelerating for the past five years, putting the world on a path to exceed 3˚C by 2100.

* A new study shows that climate change caused 10% more rain to fall during Cyclone Gabrielle, with scientists suggesting that it should become a benchmark informing how we respond to future disasters. However, there has been an ‘abject failure’ to learn lessons from the storm, with just one person at NEMA (the National Emergency Management Agency) dedicated to finding short-term fixes for the disaster coordination system that failed during Cyclone Gabrielle.

* Leading climate scientist Zeke Hausfather admits that some unknown ‘combination of forcings or changes in feedbacks’ is responsible for the recent acceleration in heating, reflecting a community that is confounded by the pace of events.

* The chart of the week shows how much time was dedicated to climate change in Tuesday evening’s Presidential debate – just 48 seconds.

(See more detail and analysis below, and in the video and podcast above. Cathrine Dyer’s journalism on climate and the environment is available free to all paying and non-paying subscribers to The Kākā and the public. It is made possible by subscribers signing up to the paid tier to ensure this sort of public interest journalism is fully available in public to read, listen to and share. Cathrine wrote the wrap. Bernard edited it. Lynn copy-edited and illustrated it.)

1. A Trump victory would doom global climate progress

The first debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris paid little attention to climate change. Nevertheless, the consequences of a Trump win has profound global climate implications, as Bill McKibben points out in The Guardian this week. He warns that a Trump win in US elections this November would reverberate through the geological record for a million years to come.

He quotes Donald Trump’s opinions on climate change at length, calling them gibberish, and suggesting that the best translation of that gibberish into actual policy is provided by Project 2025. Trump’s past actions as President are nowhere more consistent with Project 2025 plans than in his support for oil, gas and coal and his disparaging of wind and solar energy. Promised action includes:

“.. ending the effort to spur EV production in Detroit; ending support for renewables (Trump has promised to “kill wind”, whatever that means); and reversing a crucial 2009 finding from the EPA that carbon dioxide causes harm, a position that undergirds much of the federal effort to rein in climate pollution. He has also – chef’s kiss – promised to close down the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, otherwise known as the people who measure how much the temperature is rising. That’s on the grounds that those measurements are “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry”.”

Source: The Guardian

2. Majority of Australia’s key tourism sites at high risk

Up to 68% of Australian tourism assets sit in a major risk category under a “middle-of-the-road” scenario for climate change where the planet warms 2˚C by 2041-2060, according to a new report from insurance group Zurich and economic analysts Mandala.

The report used data to analyse the tourism sector’s vulnerability to nine “climate perils” including wind, flood, heat, cold, storm, drought, bushfire, hail and rain. According to the report:

“Australia’s tourism industry plays an important role in the nation’s economy, contributing more than $170 billion in annual expenditure and over 620,000 jobs.

In terms of economic impact, around 30 per cent (up to 176,000) of these jobs nationally could be jeopardised – 65 per cent of which are outside our capital cities – in the event of a disaster scenario similar to that experienced following the bushfires of 2019-20.”

Source: Zurich Insurance

The 31 busiest Australian airports all fell into the highest climate risk category because of their location and exposure to storms and wind. Queensland had more tourist sites in the highest of five risk categories than any other state at 52%. Some of the highest risk sites around the country included Uluru, Kakadu, Sydney’s royal botanic gardens and Bondi Beach. Wine growing regions, rainforests, national parks and scenic roads and rail lines were in the highest risk categories while museums, galleries and stadiums were lower risk.

“What struck us was just the sheer size of the problem,” said Adam Triggs, an economics expert and partner at Mandala. “As we looked at the different sites around the country, it became clear how systemic this risk is.”

Source: The Guardian

3. Record methane emissions put the world on-track for 3˚C

New research shows that methane emissions have grown faster than ever over the past five years, despite more than 150 nations pledging to slash them by 30% this decade. 

The study shows that over two-thirds of methane emissions arise from human activity including fossil fuel use, agriculture and waste. The trend “cannot continue if we are to maintain a habitable climate,” the researchers write.

“Atmospheric concentrations of methane are now more than 2.6 times higher than in pre-industrial times – the highest they’ve been in at least 800,000 years. Methane emission rates continue to rise along the most extreme trajectory used in emission scenarios by the world’s leading climate scientists. 

The current path leads to global warming above 3 degrees Celsius or 5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. “Right now, the goals of the Global Methane Pledge seem as distant as a desert oasis,” said Jackson, who is the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and lead author of the Environmental Research Letters paper. “We all hope they aren’t a mirage.” “

Source: Stanford Report

4. “Abject failure” to learn lessons from Cyclone Gabrielle

Researchers have shown that 10% more rain fell during Cyclone Gabrielle as a result of climate change.

The research, led by Niwa scientist Dr Daíthí Stone, was the result of a collaboration with scientists from MetService, Bodeker Scientific, the University of Waikato and the Norwegian Meteorological Institute. The results are consistent with findings from other similar studies looking at tropical cyclones around the world.

"Cyclone Gabrielle resembled some of the worst-case scenarios that we could have predicted for the region," Stone said.

"We therefore wanted to see how much climate change influenced its power, so we compared the actual MetService forecast of the storm against forecasts under conditions representative of a climate without human interference. Our study found a significant increase in rainfall under human-influenced conditions."

She said the atmosphere - warmed by human activity following the Industrial Revolution - held more water, which fuelled storm systems and increased wind speeds.” RNZ News

Stone added that Cyclone Gabrielle must become the benchmark for how we prepare for any future natural disaster.

However, another RNZ report reveals that the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) has just one person dedicated to finding short-term fixes for the disaster coordination system that failed during Cyclone Gabrielle.

“NEMA and the country are currently relying on an old system with half its parts working - and it largely failed in the cyclone more than 18 months ago.

Five of the 10 functions do not work, and it offers no effective "situation reporting, action planning and hazard assessments".

Tairāwhiti - driven by four years of storms that were capped by Gabrielle - has not waited, and brought in its own award-winning system.

"For Tairāwhiti ratepayers, it hasn't cost a dollar," said local Civil Defence and Emergency Management group manager Ben Green, who helped set up and run it.

It was already "battled-tested system" when Gabrielle hit - and now was 200-300 percent better on top of that, Green said.

But lessons were not being learned elsewhere, said ex-mayor of Christchurch and ex- Labour Cabinet Minister Lianne Dalziel, demonstrating "our abject failure to learn the lessons of our experiences and the experiences of others".”

5.“Some combination of forcings” driving higher temps

The state of play in climate science was summarised by Zeke Hausfather on The Climate Brink substack this week.

“Many of us hoped that if 2024 returned to a more predictable post-El-Nino regime it would provide evidence that what happened in the second half of 2023 was a blip – some short lived internal variability that drove a spike in global temperatures but did not persist.

However, with temperatures remaining elevated into September 2024, its looking increasingly less likely that last year’s elevated temperatures were a mostly transient phenomenon. Rather, some combination of forcings or changes in feedbacks may be driving higher global temperatures going forward.”

And that’s where the article ended. That is an indication that the climate science community is in a state of disarray, with no clear consensus explanation for what has happened to drive additional warming since late 2023.

6. Chart of the Week: 48 seconds later...

NBC News tracked the subjects that were discussed during the Presidential Debate on Tuesday evening US time, finding climate change rated just 48 seconds of debate time – not even enough to earn its own label on the graphic...

And in other news …

* Pacific Island countries have submitted a proposal to the International Criminal Court suggesting ‘ecocide’ be recognised as a crime alongside genocide.

* Scientists have discovered that grey reef sharks are abandoning their coral reef homes as the oceans heat up, further imperilling these struggling ecosystems.

* A study of the influence of fossil fuel interests on higher education has found that “universities are an established yet under-researched vehicle of climate obstruction by the fossil fuel industry, and that universities' lack of transparency about their partnerships with this industry poses a challenge to empirical research.”

* Chinese authorities have denied that their cloud seeding activity, designed to break a long-running heatwave in the megacity of Chongqing, were responsible for an unexpected windstorm that rained underwear onto the streets below from balconies containing peoples’ laundry.

Ka kite ano

Bernard and Cathrine

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe

This week we learned:

* The new National/ACT/NZ First Coalition Government ignored advice from Treasury that it didn’t have to reduce net public debt to an arbitrary range of 20%-40% of GDP and could instead borrow up to $80 billion in coming years to create an investment pipeline to grow productivity;

* instead, the new Government created a series of blunt and arbitrary instruments to cut spending in health, education, health, transport and social services in ways that are causing dangerous and poverty-inducing conditions in hospitals, schools and in housing, all to pursue a debt reduction strategy baked between 1984 and 1993 and now totally unnecessary in the eyes of the Government’s creditors;

* which meant the abrupt cancellations and suspensions of Government-funded water and transport infrastructure spending, a freeze in building and repairing of school buildings, hospitals and homes, and the sacking of thousands of staff during the Budget-building process of early 2024 also caused private sector hiring, spending, and investment to freeze up for the first six months of the year;

* the Government ignored official advice during the Budget process that these arbitrary spending cuts and freezes would make kids sicker and poorer, dump extra emissions into the climate and contradicted its own aspirations to grow investment and productivity in the wider economy;

* the new Government’s Climate Change Minister openly started musing about failing to meet our Paris Agreement targets for emissions reductions in a way that would breach our recently signed trade agreements with Europe and the UK; and,

* in another perverse outcome of the debt-reduction obsession, the Government is pushing ahead with a series of fee hikes, new levies and public-to-private cost transfers that amount to a fresh burst of domestically-administered inflation that is delaying a monetary policy easing.

My story of the week

Treasury told the new Government it considered a 50% net core crown debt limit fiscally prudent under the Public Finance Act (PFA), but the National/ACT/NZ First coalition decided in Budget 2024 to go ahead with a 20%-40% target range.

Treasury warned the new lower 20%-40% range might undermine the coalition’s aim of building a stable public investment pipeline and risked “passing up on productivity and growth enhancing investments.” See more in Friday’s email.

Scoop of the week elsewhere

RNZ’s Ruth Hill reported this week Te Whatu Ora-Health New Zealand has scrapped the highest Code Black alert used by some emergency departments to show when they are critically overcrowded or understaffed.

Solutions news charts of the week

Quote of the week

“Feedback from schools, teachers, and learners was that student-level targeting ('means-testing') requires learners to self-identify as in-need, which generates a stigma, shame, and whakamā so significant that they will, in almost every situation, refuse to engage with free kai programmes.” Ministry advice to the Government that cutting back the Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch programme would hurt poor kids. RNZ

Charts of the week

Job losses ramped up in earnest from April onwards

Real per-capita retail and hospitality spending is back at 2012 levels

Cartoons of the week

Timeline cleansing video of the week

Timeline cleansing nature pic of the week

Have a great weekend

Mā te wa

Bernard

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe

The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-hosts Bernard Hickey and Peter Bale talking about the week’s news with:

* The Kākā’s climate correspondent Cathrine Dyer on the latest climate science on rising temperatures and the climate implications of the US Presidential elections;

* Robert Patman and special guests Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, the hosts of their international justice podcast Asymmetrical Haircuts;

* Special guest Vincent O’Malley, the historian and author who has published numerous books on the New Zealand Wars, including his latest, The Invasion of Waikato / Te Riri ki Tainui, via BWB.

The Hoon’s podcast version above was recorded on Thursday night during a live webinar for over 120 paying subscribers and was produced by Simon Josey.

(This is a sampler for all free subscribers and anyone else who stumbles on it. Thanks to the support of paying subscribers here, we’re able to spread my public interest journalism here about housing affordability, climate change and poverty reduction other public venues. Join the community supporting and contributing to this work with your ideas, feedback and comments, and by subscribing in full.)

Ngā mihi nui.

Bernard

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe

Kia ora. Long stories short, here’s my top six things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Friday, September 13:

* Treasury told the new Government it considered a 50% net core crown debt limit fiscally prudent under the Public Finance Act (PFA), but the National/ACT/NZ First coalition decided in Budget 2024 to go ahead with a 20%-40% target range.

* Treasury warned the new lower 20%-40% range might undermine the coalition’s aim of building a stable public investment pipeline and risked “passing up on productivity and growth enhancing investments.”

* In solutions news, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said this week it was unlikely the public would accept the Government spending billions on overseas emissions credits, meaning any Government would instead have to do a lot more to reduce emissions locally, although he didn’t say how, and noted it was getting very late in the day to do that without reneging on the Paris Agreement.

* In Quote of the Day, outgoing Climate Change Commission Chair Rod Carr cursed politicians elected to lead, but who don’t on climate change.

* Our Chart of the day shows real per-capita consumer spending with credit and debit cards in New Zealand has fallen to levels last seen 12 years ago.

* Our Climate graphic of the day shows a massive increase in renewable electricity generation globally over the last four years, and much more than in New Zealand.

(There is more detail, analysis and links to documents below the paywall fold and in the podcast above for paying subscribers.)

The Top Six on Friday, September 13

1. ‘You can actually safely borrow $80b more’

Treasury published its advice and a range of papers for ministers and Cabinet used to prepare Budget 2024 yesterday, including advice the new Government could actually prudently carry net core Crown debt of up to 50% of GDP, rather than than the 20% to 40% chosen by the Government as its target range.

In effect, Treasury told the Government it could safely borrow around $80 billion more over the coming years to invest in a pipeline of ‘productivity-enhancing’ investments if it wanted. The official advice went so far as telling the National/ACT/NZ First Coalition that choosing the lower target range meant the Government would be “passing up” opportunities to establish a decent pipeline of infrastructure work that would enhance the potential for the economy to grow real wages.

Instead, PM Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis chose to portray the Government’s finances as in such a mess the new Government had no choice but to carve 6.5% to 7.5% off most ministerial budgets in often arbitrary ways to pay for tax cuts that Treasury advised would mostly go to those on the highest incomes.

Here’s how Treasury framed the situation:

“Treasury has done extensive analysis on the maximum sustainable debt level in 2022 and considers that a net core Crown debt level of up to 50% of GDP is prudent.

“The increased emphasis on the debt objective (20%-40% of GDP) may result in sharper trade-offs between the Government’s fiscal strategy and the objective of increasing the stability of the capital investment pipeline,” Treasury advised in various papers before the May 30 Budget, which included the new Government’s Fiscal Strategy.

It also included this advice to the Government in several papers:

“The Treasury’s indicative forecast update shows that net Core Crown debt may not return to within the 20-40 % of GDP range until well after the forecast period. The proposed objective could therefore create additional pressure to offset capital investment with future forecast operating surpluses.

“Moreover, the increased emphasis on the debt objective may result in sharper trade-offs between your fiscal strategy and your objective of increasing the stability of the capital investment pipeline. In the event that operating deficits increase in response to an economic shock, there would be stronger incentives to reduce investment to meet the debt objective (assuming that it is not suspended).

“Note that a 20 – 40% debt range based on net core Crown debt would be a more binding debt objective than recommended by the Treasury, and is more likely to create a tension between the fiscal strategy and a stable pipeline for capital investment.

“The implication of a more binding debt rule is that it will be more likely to constrain your future fiscal decisions, potentially including your ability to borrow to finance future capital investment.

“We understand that you would like to ensure that any debt objective does not cut off opportunities for high-quality public investment, given that additional capital investment and making better use of existing asset may help boost long-term productivity growth.

“The Treasury’s early analysis suggests that a 20 – 40% debt range could create additional pressure to offset capital investment with increased forecast operating surpluses.” Treasury advice.

2. ‘You’re passing up productivity-enhancing investments’

Its starkest framing of the issue was in one paper with talking points in Q&A form for the Government (bolding mine):

“Will the new debt objective mean that there is less room to borrow to undertake capital investments?

“Having a range for debt levels recognises that pursuing very low levels of debt can involve reducing capital investment and passing up on productivity and growth enhancing investments.” Treasury advice

3. Solutions news? Or setting us up to renege?

‘We’ll have to do more here to meet our Paris commitments’

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts made some comments earlier this week to the Climate Change and Business Conference in Auckland that raised quite a few eyebrows around whether the Government remained committed to reaching our Paris Agreement Committments to reduce climate emissions, which are now hard-coded into our trade agreements with the EU and UK.

Carbon News’ Liz Kivi reported Watts told the conference it was unrealistic for the Government to spend billions on emissions credits overseas needed account for 100 million tonnes extra of emissions to meet our Paris Committments, even though that is the current avowed strategy, under both Labour and National. A charitable interprepretation is the minister was foreshadowing a significant ramping up of emissions reductions efforts by the Government to meet our targets wholly domestically.

Here’s the key quotes:

“When I stand up and say, ‘Guess what, I'm going to write a cheque for $4 billion in your taxpayer money to some country overseas,’ you know people go: 'I sort of want my hospital and I want my health care over that. You know, I love it, but I sort of want other stuff.'

“The political reality of writing a cheque to someone overseas, for benefits that will be achieved overseas, is sort of nice, but I don't think it's realistic, and hence why the conversation, from a government point of view, is we need to do everything possible in order to reduce our domestic emissions at a profile that doesn't decimate our economy.

“We didn't inherit a plan when we came in that would have hit that target, let's be really clear about that, other than writing a cheque overseas,” Watts said.  “The reality in a deficit situation, and a fiscal situation is politically, and I think just realistically, that is not the option that I think the majority of Kiwis want their government [to take]. They want us to do everything that we can do back here at home.

“All options are on the table in the context of us being able to do that. The challenge is, and I've got to be realistic and up front, even if we did everything that I could do today in the next 65 months, because time is my biggest challenge really, what can you do in 65 months?” Simon Watts talking at the conference, quoted by Carbon News.

Climate Change policy academic and ETS expert Christina Hood noted the comments in this LinkedIn post (bolding mine):

“Some astonishing comments reported here from the NZ Climate Minister Hon. Simon Watts - at face value contradicting the government's election promise (and repeated recent assurances to Pacific nations and trading partners) that the NZ government is committed to the Paris Agreement and to achieving our NDC.

“If paying for Article 6 cooperation is "unrealistic" that would mean New Zealand reneging on its Paris Agreement NDC, given that use of Article 6 is essential to meet that target.

“If he means something different, he'll need to clarify.” Christina Hood

4. Quote of the day

‘I curse those who we elect to lead and fail’

"I think we are making a horrible mistake when we make climate-related investment decisions discounting the future as if it was some sort of financial instrument at a 6% discount. You halve the value of the future every 12 years.

“Thirdly, I curse those who we elect to lead and fail. On behalf of all New Zealanders, I curse those who only pander to their stakeholders and vested interests.” Retiring He Pou a Rangi-Climate Change Commission Chair Rod Carr speaking with RNZ’s Eloise Gibson at this week’s Climate Change and Business conference. Via BusinessDesk-$$$’s Greg Hurrell

5. Chart of the day

The true scale of our retail and hospo recession. Back at 2012 levels.

6. Climate chart/pic/graphic of the day

‘Always look on the bright side of life…then some whistling’

The best of the rest on Friday, September 13

Top six scoops, deep-dives, columns & Op-Eds

* Health: 'Unfair and illegal': GPs lay complaint with Commerce Commission NZ Herald’s Michael Morrah

* Science; Cost cutting could ‘devastate’ research on NZ’s biggest tsunami threat - 85 experts NZ Herald’s Jamie Morton

* Op-Ed by Dr Art Nahill in NZ Herald-$$$: 'I Can no longer bear to patch people up' - retiring doc's fix for failing health system

* Column by Audrey Young in NZ Herald-$$$ Audrey Young: David Seymour's Treaty bill is already a disaster

* Deep-dive: Budget docs: Treasury recommended less health funding, lower tax cuts NZ Herald

* Poverty: Govt aware of school lunch benefits before cutting funding RNZ’s John Gerritsen

The Kākā’s Journal of Record for September 13

* Energy: Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment data showed that, due to low hydro lake levels, more coal and gas were needed to meet electricity demand between April and June. Despite a 50% increase in wind capacity, coal generated more electricity than wind for the first time since June 2021. BusinessDesk

* Climate: A report published in The Lancet Planetary Health differentiated between 'safe' Earth-system boundaries, which ensure the basic stability of Earth systems, and 'just' boundaries, which would allow for a minimum standard of living to be enjoyed by everyone on Earth. The report builds on 2023 research which argued that seven of eight safe and just boundaries had already been exceeded. Guardian

* Health: Associate Health Minister Casey Costello announced that disposable vapes will be completely banned under the new Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill. The Bill also increases fines for sales to under 18s, and introduces restrictions on the visibility of vape products and the proximity of vape stores to ECE centres.

* Economy: Stats NZ reported that NZ food prices increased 0.4% in the year to August 2024, with restaurant/cafe food and ready-to-eat foods mostly responsible. Fruit and vegetable prices fell 12.2% in the year to August, however, driven by kūmara, potatoes, and lettuce. RNZ

* Health: Health Minister Shane Reti elaborated on the Government’s health targets, including increasing childhood vaccination and reducing wait times for cancer treatment and emergency departments. Reti said the Government is planning to deliver more community chemotherapy centres and radiography machines, and increase the number of beds, and operating theatres in public hospitals. 1News

* Health: The Public Health Communication Centre warned that NZ's decision to opt out of proposed joint Australia-NZ infant formula marketing standards could undermine infant health. A study in the Lancet found that infant formula sales are driven by misleading claims with little to no supporting evidence, and recommends that infant formula marketing should be banned.

Finally, some fun things

Cartoon of the day

‘Yes, Maestro…’

Timeline-cleansing nature pic

Some colour to brighten up our days

Ka kite ano

Bernard

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe

I spoke with Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie yesterday, just before the Trump-Harris debate, about how Substack is doing its thing during the US elections.

He talks in particular about how Substack’s focus on paid subscriptions rather than ads has made political debate on the platform calmer, simpler, deeper and more satisfying than in other social media, where the ad-driven need to maximise outrage, tribalism and performative pile-ons has contributed to a polarisation and toxicity in politics more generally.

Hamish details Substack’s growth since the last US Presidential elections and the key role of trustworthiness in the communities on the platform. We also have a chat the similarites and differences of last-minute candidates Kamala Harris and Jacinda Ardern, who were both elevated from roles as deputies to leaders, Joe Biden and Andrew Little, who stood down at the last minute because they believed they couldn’t win.

"When you change the business model, you change the thing that sits at the very root, the very heart of these media systems, you can get better and different results." Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie

Here’s the full transcript for those who prefer text

We spoke three hours before the one and only TV debate between US Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. I’ve edited it lightly for clarity and brevity.

Bernard Hickey (00:01.836)

Kia ora and welcome to Hamish from Substack. It's wonderful to have you here on The Kākā by Bernard Hickey talking about these US elections, which are a big deal for everyone, but increasingly a big deal for Substack. Could you tell us about how it's different this time than four years ago when Substack was a slightly smaller thing?

Hamish McKenzie (00:29.437)

Kia ora Bernard and all your subscribers. Four years ago, Substack was just sort of getting going. The onset of the pandemic was a huge accelerant for Substack where we had some really strong early growth. But even then, Substack was probably only known in Silicon Valley and media circles and must have had a few million people in the ecosystem as subscribers. And today there many tens of millions of subscribers, active readers, active watches, listeners, and we've got comfortably more than 3 million paid subscriptions.

Some of the biggest names in the world in politics writing and politics coverage are on Substack and it's (politics) our biggest category. So the election is a huge deal for us and we're really leaning into it.

Bernard (01:28.588)

From down here in New Zealand, we watch what we can, but we're not really immersed in it. Could you give us a sense of, how much of the audience who are looking at the various substacks are thinking about the election, debating the election, and also the prominence and the quality of the writers and everything else you've got on?

Hamish (01:57.073)

Yeah, everyone's obsessed with it for obvious reasons. It's another carnival election in that it's spectacle and it's full of froth and vigor and color. But it's also a really important election. It's going to say something about America, like it's either going to go this way and become something, or go the other way and become something else.

There are lot, no one really knows. It's another toss up. It's looking very sort of 50, 50 -ish at the moment. No one really knows what's going to happen. So it's a, there's deep fascination, a deep interest. This election also has a dynamic that others haven't with Biden dropping out sort of halfway through his campaign and being replaced by Kamala.

And the people of Substack covering it with gusto and we have people from Nate Silver, who's writing the projection models and editorial around that, to Mehdi Hasan, who's sort of doing TV style coverage that he used to do on MSNBC and is now doing it here, to Sean Spicer , who was former communications director for Donald Trump or a press secretary.

And he's interviewing some of the big figures from the MAGA world. And there's a true diversity of political opinion. It's not like picking up the New York Times where you kind of know what you're to get. It's not like turning on Fox News where you definitely know what you're going to get. And it's not like social media like Twitter, where it's kind of like an all-in brawl. It's kind of like the Thunderdome where you score points, not for your thoughtfulness, but by how spectacularly you take down your opponent. It's something different.

And some of that's happening with posts, which tend to be long form and more considered, or some of it's happening in notes, which is our Twitter-like feed, but for Substack, where there is actually some productive discussion across communities on Substack. And there's also chat, which became really interesting and important on the first debate for Trump versus Biden.

Chat really popped off with commentary and chat is based around the writers. So Nate Silver might have a chat or Judd Legum of Popular Information might have a chat. Joy-Ann Reid , who's an MSNBC host still, just sent out a message a couple of minutes ago saying she's starting the chat around the debate.

So we expect those chats to be extremely lively and fun today. And that's a good way to follow along. That's a little taste of the whole ecosystem view of Substack.

Bernard (04:37.004)

One of the things I was really attracted to with Substack and I've found very useful over the last three or four years is that the people who we can interact with on Substack are there for different reasons. The incentives are different within the network. And one of the things I've struggled with with various social media over the last four five years is that the algorithmic drivers have been for those networks where advertising is the main way that people have made money. Those algorithmic drivers have been really all about pushing my various buttons for that surge of dopamine or to be angry or whatever it is.

And that algorithmic driver has created a sort of a feedback loop which has separated people. You put out a piece a few days ago called ‘a less sterile derangement’, which I thought was a really clever and thoughtful way of thinking about the election and also the way that Substack operates. And you quote Sam Kriss at Numb at the Lodge as saying, ‘we're no longer comprehensible to each other.’

Could you talk about, you cause you're right in the middle of it and you must've thought quite deeply about this area of incentives and how algorithms work to drive people in certain directions. How does the pure business model of Substack create a different set of drivers and incentives, particularly around political debate?

Hamish (06:27.635)

Yeah, it's a huge topic. I think that people tend to say that the algorithms are the problem and the algorithms themselves are just equations, they're technology. It's the driver, the word driver that you're using there that's the important part.

When the algorithms are tuned to seek out the maximization of attention so that more ads can be served to people, so people spend more time in feeds and therefore have more chance of seeing ads, then you get a certain quality of discourse and content as a result. And so the kinds of things that do really well in those systems are performative outrage, polarized takes,

Scrapping and fighting on the streets and those things can be compelling. They can be fun. They can be interesting sometimes. They can be enlightening, but they don't really have that much to do with truth or trust or seeking to understand one another in fact. Oftentimes they're completely eroding those things. And so Substack does have algorithms. We have a Twitter type thing within Substack that is supposed to help people discover work and writers and journalists that they otherwise don't know.

And that is different because that algorithm seeks to maximize paid subscriptions, money for the writers. And the way that's important for us as a company, because that's the only way we make money. That's how you know that we are not going to not going to mess with that rule book. We're not going to mess with that system. The only way we make money is by taking a 10 % cut of the publisher's subscription revenue. So we want them to make as much money as possible. You want to maximize their paid subscriptions. But on the ideological level, it's also a better way to uphold and promote and support trustworthiness and truth seeking and good faith discussion with people seeking to understand each other.

Because the way you make money as the publisher, who is Substack's main customer, is to win and then keep the trust of your subscribers. And that is about more than performative outrage in a single moment, or in like a little Twitter bot on a feed. That's about consistently showing up over time, demonstrating that you're a thoughtful player.

In some cases, demonstrating that you're willing to speak up against your tribe, that you have some courage, that you have some conviction and values. And we think that when you switch, when you change the business model, you change the thing that sits at the very root, the very heart of these media systems, you can get better and different results. You switch to the good business model, the one that maximizes trust and defending yourself at length then you're going to get better results than the one that maximizes performative outrage.

Bernard (09:29.346)

It's fascinating to think how a lot of this is about human brain chemistry in a way and how the social media engines that are based on advertising have used those gamification techniques to hook us in and get us active and get us clicking and moving around and, of course, seeing the ads.

I wonder though, whether over time people become sort of burned out by the outrage. And you often hear about people who are, withdrawing from social media, having a break. I've had a few myself, where you have a sense of exhaustion and it's almost a chemistry thing. You rinse your head with dopamine enough, eventually you're exhausted. And I wonder if you're seeing this after a good 10, 15 years of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and the likes, where there is a sense of exhaustion amongst internet users generally, and people who are weaning themselves off the dopamine and going to something a bit more, as you say, fulfilling, trustworthy, in a way, something a bit more about the protein than the sugar.

Hamish (10:57.927)

We see and hear a lot of anecdotally people saying Substack is a breath of fresh air. It helps me get back to what I really care about. And it's helping me rediscover the joy of writing or photography or making podcasts or even being a listener or a reader or a viewer of these things. And then I think we see it through behaviors generally like people are kind of fed up. I know TikTok is still doing really well. They still have a bunch of addicts who are spending all their time there.

But I think I also heard recently, this is not scientific yet, I don't have the source at hand to prove it, that the younger generations are a little bit hip to this kind of exhaustion this crazy state, crazy mind state that people try themselves into because they see the older generations. There's nothing more embarrassing than a GenX person who was addled by Twitter or addled by Instagram and they stop becoming like well -grounded individuals in public society. And so that's not like the younger people should rebel against that.

And I think we are seeing that. I think we're going to see more of it. I do think this is where the internet is still growing up. We've had, you and I have seen it from the start, we've had 30 years of this stuff where people are scrambling around trying to make the best stuff for the internet and find the biggest audiences and have the best conversations. And so far the attempts to commercialize it have revolved around one business model really.

There are some few exceptions, but the central ones undergirding the biggest media platforms that have ever existed — Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube — is all advertising focused. And so we only have known kind of one thing for 30 years, three generations, the entire life of the internet, at least the commercial internet.

And I think what we moving into here with models like Substacks and like Patreons and some others that are out there is like the discovery of a new kind of model that can support culture and that can support creativity online and that can lead to different types of discussions and different kinds of outcomes.

It's still early days for that model but I think from a distant view, in the future looking back on this time, I think we'll think of the internet where people were still trying to figure out how this whole thing would work. And I think we'll look back with a little bit of embarrassment for how naive we were in this early time of the internet when everything was assumed to just have to revolve around aggregators and ad-based models.

Bernard Hickey (14:00.31)

It feels like we've just had a decade long experiment in real time with our brains. And in a way, this election is a sort of a test of it, whether the fits of madness that have emerged from our social media world maybe is about to end.

Hamish (14:08.413)

I think it's still going on.

Bernard Hickey (14:28.056)

I'm curious too about how you've thought at Substack about issues like hate speech, objectionable material,bad behavior, that sort of thing, because it's clear it's one of these issues that social media have had to deal with over the years. And you're starting to see now, you know, states pushing back, Brazil, Australia, various other places are going, okay, we're going to turn you off. So how does Substack approach all of this in an election year when, know, the stakes are high and emotions are high too?

Hamish (15:18.557)

I'm not sure that the states have the right solutions here, but I'm also not sure that the previous generation of internet companies had the right solutions. The way we think about it is that it's impossible to stop all bad things being said, bad things are gonna be said online, bad people are gonna say them and you have to have guardrails. So in our case, if there are incitements to violence, there's porn, there's spam, if there's doxing, that kind of stuff isn't allowed.

But beyond that, I don't think that the right approach is to come up with an ever more sophisticated content moderation apparatus. Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and the likes have spent billions of dollars on this over the years. They've hundreds of thousands of people. They've got policy documents that are 150 pages long with arcane stipulations like it's okay to show nipples as long as they're not female presenting nipples or is okay to show buttocks as long as the buttocks are like Photoshopped or something. You can fact check me. If it's not specifically that, but you understand the absurdity of some of the definitions that they're forced to make when they're down this path of trying to regulate speech through sophisticated content moderation apparatuses.

Our approach is not we’re not going to do that and be smarter than they are at like building the content moderation apparatus. Our approach is we don't actually think that the problem is that content moderation is not good enough, or that there's not enough resources being pumped into content moderation, or that the technology platforms are not responsive enough to demands from governments that have their own ideas about what kinds of speech should be allowed and what should not be allowed.

Hamish (17:08.079)

Our approach, the way we think about it is that the problem again is at the root level. It's the business model level. And that's the problems that we've seen from the last generation, the last decade in particular, are problems related to having a centralized aggregator who controls what gets rewarded and who gets paid, what gets seen the most. And instead of something like Substack, which is about a decentralized system where can have more decentralized moderation, where the publishers and the consumers can have direct relationships and the publishers can have the power to moderate their own communities and decide how they want the tenor of those communities to exist. And given that they are direct relationships, that Substack is facilitating, not mediating, then the bar for intervention and the bar for like coming in as the wise authority on what stands as far as what can be said and what cannot be said should be much, much higher.

And with this approach, I think that we're seeing that again, because you change the business model from this other thing that encourages bad things to this new thing that encourages good things, you get different results.

The substack ecosystem is not perfect. There are some nut jobs saying crazy things, and there are people that we have to kick off for breaching those content guidelines that I mentioned before. But overall, the tenor of the discourse, the tenor of the discussion, the productiveness of the works that are being produced and considered and shared is a hell of a lot better than what has come before.

Obviously, I'm extremely biased on this, but this is one of the reasons I wanted to build this company and that I continue to build this company and give everything to it , because it's not perfect, but it's about a hundred times better than what you see on Twitter or a hundred times better than what you get on Facebook or Instagram.

I'm confident that the reason for that is the business model is different. It's changed and different at the kernel of the platform.

Bernard Hickey (19:15.84)

Is there any way to sort of measure the pool of nastiness, ugliness, of, of horribleness that you have on Twitter X, YouTube comments, those sorts of things, where people feel completely relaxed about attacking, saying nasty things about each other, particularly when they're not paying for it and often it's anonymous.

I've seen it myself with our subscribers. I only allow paying subscribers or people on that top paying tier to comment. It's like if you've paid to go into a pub and you've paid for the beer, you really don't want other people tipping their beer into your beer, or you don't want the sound to be a squelch underneath your feet.

So no one wants to really mess in something that they're paying for. And I wonder if there's any data out there showing that that difference in incentives and the way that people tend not to destroy the nest that they build themselves.

Hamish (21:08.083)

I'll say a quick thing that backs up what you're saying. It's not only that, it's not just if you've paid, the quality of discussion is gonna be better probably. Even if you've just given your email address as a free subscriber, there's a moment of intention there that is different from being in the great wash where you can get like a pretty good reward if your goal is just to get someone's attention or just to piss someone off, just while you're doing a drive by comment. So Heather Cox Richardson, one of the top revenue earners on Substack publishes exactly the same thing every day on Facebook than she does, that she publishes on Substack. On Facebook, she makes zero dollars for it. On Substack, she makes millions of dollars from it. The same content. And the discussion on Facebook is a total troll fest. And the discussion on Substack is a total love fest or a thought fest.

We don't measure how much bad stuff is going. We actually don't pay much attention. We don't focus on it at least. We're more interested in measuring how many subscription dollars come in or how many subscriptions generally come in because that's a positive measure. That's the thing we're trying to encourage. And it's when you have a successful writer and a happy writer and that means their community is happy as well, then things are generally working well. So I don't have tip of the tongue sort of numbers to to share it, that would give us some indication of negativity. I could only do what you do, which is like, anecdotally, it seems a lot better. I have to deal with a lot fewer trolls.

Bernard Hickey (22:44.293)

One of the differences this time around versus 2020 is that you've got notes this time and also chat, which has again given us a discovery engine to find out other things. What are you seeing in terms of people discovering new substacks using notes as the launching off point to become subscribers, compared to four years ago when it was a bit more accidentally-on-purpose stumbling into things and discovery was the main problem.

Hamish (23:23.165)

Four years ago, I (don’t) think we really drove a significant percentage of subscriptions to any publications. There were definitely psychological network effects. If you came across something in the wild and you recognize it as a substack, maybe you'll be more likely to subscribe. Maybe your email address is already in system. Maybe your credit card is already in the system. You recognize the format and you know how that kind of game works. That kind of stuff is true.

Two and a half years ago, we introduced recommendations, which is a peer to peer recommendation thing. So when I sign up to The Kākā by Bernard Hickey, I see three or five other writers who you really trust that you're recommending I subscribe to. And that goodwill growth loop is really meaningful because it's coming from you — a person. It's not Amazon saying, I think you might want to buy this next.

And notes is an extension of that where people have a lot more power to set their own terms of engagement and the discovery is driven from me seeing something that you might have posted on notes like a more of a casual place that is global and reach is not just limited to your subscribers can reach other people's subscribers and me being seduced by your how interesting your mind is or the like the cleverness of how you describe something with a beautiful image you posted and later on and I might click on your face and say who's this guy and go down the rabbit hole and hopefully become a subscriber.

So that system now, which is a combination of the recommendations and notes and the app, which is becoming more and more of a destination, people open the Substack app every day to find good stuff to read and watch. That system now accounts for 50 % of all subscriptions across the platform. I think it's actually trending towards 60% and it's 30 % of all paid subscriptions across Substack. So probably The Kākā, I'm not 100 % sure, I haven't looked at your numbers and you started early, but if you looked in the last 90 days, probably 30 % of your paid subscriptions came as a direct result of the Substack network.

Hamish (25:29.417)

And we charge 10%. So it's like 10 % of your revenue. That's what it costs you to use substack, or it’s otherwise totally free. But in return, you are going to get subscribers for free and paid subscribers especially.

Bernard Hickey (25:44.814)

I'm certainly seeing closer to 50%. Now for viewers of this from outside Aotearoa, you'll notice that we have a similar sort of accent going on here. As a former editor of a student newspaper in New Zealand, one where the former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister (Grant Robertson) is now the Vice -Chancellor. You've thought about New Zealand politics a lot, and although I know you've been in the States for well over 15 years, I'm sure you've got a vein of New Zealand political memory in your body somewhere.

Hamish (26:26.121) I think it's 14 years now.

Bernard Hickey (26:36.562)

You've got a pretty good idea of how the American system works for New Zealanders and for Americans. What could you say about this current situation we've got where Kamala Harris was at the last minute a vice president launched in as the party's leader pretty close to the election. That actually happened in New Zealand in 2017 with Jacinda Ardern. You would have kept an eye on that from a distance. What are the things that stand out for you as similar and different in that comparison? Because Jacinda Ardern did appear at the Democratic National Convention.

Hamish (27:26.825)

She did. They should have given her a main stage speaking slot. It seems similar on the dynamics on the kind of like momentum and hype and sort of cultural dynamic. I remember Andrew Little in 2017 was tanking, Andrew Little's Labour was tanking in the polls, he was not a popular leader and he made the self -sacrifice so that Jacinda could come in and inject new blood.

She was still a relatively unknown quantity when that first happened. They didn't know if she was going to be loved and successful. And it turns out like that changed, helped elevate her to the place where people decided that, they really did like her. And there's this massive momentum shift that ended up with Labour getting into power and Jacinda having two terms as prime minister. And that was still a pretty close to one thing, wasn't it?

The election, the government, was decided by (now-again-Deputy PM) Winston Peters's decision to ally with Labour back then, but it was in the balance. It could have gone the other way. And I think we've got a similar situation here. It's a 50 -50 race now, but it wasn't when Biden was the candidate. I think Nate Silver's projection was that he had a 28 % chance of winning. The writing was on the wall.

And the switch to Kamala has given the Democrats a totally new lease of life and totally new momentum and wiped out that polling difference. essentially put it into a 50 -50 tie again, which is a much better place to be than 28 -72.

The one difference here is that the election cycle is so much longer. The campaign cycle is so much longer in the US. And so the time from Kamala becoming the candidate, the nominee to now is probably longer than it was for the entire campaign cycle for that 2017 campaign.

So that strong hype and news cycle for her that is just starting to like tail off a bit. And so had the election been held today, I think she'd probably have a really strong chance. And now we've got this debate tonight that is a chance for her to sort of revive the momentum that is otherwise starting to flag. So it's a really high stakes debate. Everyone's going to be watching with intense interest.

Maybe she can kickstart that momentum again. But I think it's going to be similar to like, similar to what happened in 2017 without the benefit of MMP. So could go one way or the other. It's definitely not a done deal, but they're in a much stronger position than they were when Biden was a candidate.

And I think this similar switch is the reason for it. It's not actually necessarily because this is specifically a better candidate with better policies or anything like that. I don't think it's the politics of it, the policy of it. I think it's the psychological effect, the momentum, and it feels much better to have someone who's kind of younger being up there on stage and more dynamic.

Bernard Hickey (30:56.578)

The American system being presidential really depends on the person less so than the party.

Hamish (31:02.823)

So much of it is a show. It's just a great thing about America, and a shitty thing about America. It's like the greatest show on earth. America is the greatest show on earth. But if you look closely behind the curtain, you know you can see the cracks. The cracks are pretty ugly.

Bernard Hickey (31:17.696)

The difference too is the immense scale of the spending on advertising and on, you know, politics in America compared to here, even, you know, dollars per vote, we have increased our ad spending and the likes here. But how does that look and feel for a New Zealander looking at the American political system and the role of money compared to when we grew up?

Hamish (31:47.911)

I'm not going to have an intelligent thing to say, except, when you first get exposed to it and first come into it, it seems disgusting that that money could play such a huge role. And then, over time, I think maybe trying to control that might have some serious negative outcomes as well. And so maybe the best thing you can do is like set a playing field where the rules are the same for each party and each candidate and then let chaos reign. So it's definitely a different kind of game.

The government here as well is less central in the everyday lives of people. I'm always struck going back to New Zealand when I watch the nightly news, how almost every story has a government spokesperson or an MP or the Prime Minister quoted or featured. And that's just not the same in the US, where the President is this like important figurehead and Congress does important stuff. But the private sector has much more of a role to play and people are not defaulting to the government as the source of all the answers or the source of all support. That's about all I've got.

Bernard Hickey (33:12.958)

That's great Hamish. It's been wonderful to have you on talking about this. I'm fascinated by it, being part of it, and I just wanted to say thank you as well for all the enormous work you've done building a different engine. And it's great to see four years on from the last election, just how much progress is being made.

Hamish (33:31.657)

Can I say I'm really proud that The Kākā is on Substack and that you personally are driving it and seeing the success of The Kākā is a huge source of satisfaction to me. So thanks for showing the way for others.

Bernard Hickey (33:42.508)

Yeah, nah, it's fantastic. Just in the last couple of years, the amount of political, economic, cultural coverage on Substack about Aotearoa is just so much more, and the quality is so much higher. And yeah, it's been a real thrill to be part of it and I'm sure it's just the start. Ngā mihi nui and mā te wa.

Hamish (34:11.849)

Cool, thanks so much.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe