Household budgets remain under pressure from rising costs, a credit expert says.

Centrix’s latest credit indicator shows consumer arrears fell by 7,000 in June to 478,000, representing 12.36% of the credit-active population.

But Centrix managing director Keith McLaughlin said there has been an increase in pressure on household budgets: “The slight year-on-year improvement in arrears we’ve observed so far this year has plateaued … and that just seems to be sticky."

“Consumers have cut back on discretionary spending … and were managing their non-discretionary [spending] quite nicely."

But he says there's a flow through of the increase in things like insurance and rates. 79% of mortgages due to be repriced over the next 12 months, many borrowers may benefit from lower rates.

Increases in rates, insurance, and power does make it very hard to get the benefit out of those reductions in interest rates.

Looking for the positive, the number of accounts reported in financial hardship in June was 14,450, down 550 from the prior month, Centrix said.

But year on year, financial hardships increased 7.1%.

We've plateaued in an uncomfortable place, so the question is what could we do to make things better?

Insurance is off the table and councils have had the hard word to decrease rates, but what else is there?

My family rarely buys takeaway coffees these days, but I fear all I'm doing is hurting small businesses. We've had an audit of streaming and subscription services, but that means we have less news sources in the house and less entertainment.

I bought an EV 18 months ago and that has radically lessened my petrol bill, even with the road user charges. There's any number of household hacks to stretch the household budget, but what can we do as a country?

Australia has just written off $16 billion in student loans. Albanese says getting an education shouldn't mean a lifetime of debt. Paying off student loans does curtail the young, which is why they're buying houses and starting families later and later.

Is that something we could do here? If not a full amnesty, then perhaps some partial easement that makes things easier.

My 29 year old son is just two pay packets away from wiping off his student debt from two degrees in environmental management, which is what he does for a job. He's counting down to liberation day and to finally have money to invest in his future rather than his past.

Now we're poor compared to Australia, and governments are dependent on the repaying of that debt to fund the country, and the liability is viewed as a positive on our balance sheet. But it's mythical money – could this help the young trying to start the sort of lives that previous generations who had no debt enjoyed?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let's face it, civil defence coordinators are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Fail to give people sufficient warning of a natural disaster and they're accused of having blood on their hands. Too many warnings of something that doesn't happen, they're accused of alarmist scaremongering, and they become the boy who cries wolf.

The reason for all of this, a magnitude 8.8 earthquake struck off the eastern coast of Russia yesterday morning. Why would an earthquake in Russia yesterday trigger four, three or two, if you're lucky, emergency alerts for New Zealanders 18 hours later? It's the long delay between the earthquake and its ripple effect here. It will arrive here, but it's got a long way to come. Apparently, tsunamis travel at speeds equivalent to an Air New Zealand Boeing plane, but it that still gives you plenty of time when you're in New Zealand. Your Boeing still takes a fair while to get to the eastern coast of Russia. Different story if it was a magnitude 8.8 earthquake off the coast of New Zealand - then you'd need an emergency alert. But in this particular case, we have the benefit of being a very long way away, and a Victoria University geophysicist quoted in a Stuff story, John Townend says that distance gives our experts time to do the calculations, do the assessments and work out what's likely to come before it arrives.

So what are we being told? Well, the NEMA director John Price was on with Ryan Bridge on Herald Now this morning and despite the fact that nothing has happened in any of the countries that have been in the tsunami's path as it makes its way here, he repeated that it's still very much an alive threat, a hazard for New Zealanders and the last thing we want, he says, is anyone to be harmed, injured, or killed as a result of going near the coastline. He said the rationale behind the alert at 6:30am this morning was that the commuters going to work and people preparing for school and the like, it would give them time, it would give them knowledge, don't go to the coastline. If normally you would go for a morning walk or you'd go for a morning surf, you might be intending to set out to go and catch some fish and have them for breakfast - don't do that today. The activity, he said, is seen as surges in the water rather than a typical wave formation, so you might think you know the tides. You might think you know the waves, but you don't know the way a tsunami works. He said in the Chatham Islands there's been up to a 40cm wave. To people who say that a 40cm wave is nothing to be worried about, NEMA Director Price said that's just an indicator of what could come, it could be a lot worse. I hope it's only going to be that high, he said.

You've also heard internationally that there have been other sizable waves that have occurred in other parts of the world. The last thing we want is to be complacent. We know complacency, he says, puts people at risk and may kill people. But nothing happened. And I think that's what the geophysicist John Townend was saying, is that is vastly different to having an 8.8 earthquake off the coast of New Zealand. This happened in Russia, and it gives us time to assess what the possible threat might be. If Hawaii was wiped out. You'd think, crikey, this is serious, and you take all possible precautions. When nothing has happened in Japan or Hawaii? When the danger has passed, you would assume we don't need that same level of urgency when it comes to warnings. If there are too many warnings of things that don't happen, then that makes people complacent, too.

There are a heck of a lot of texts to ZB this morning, not from grateful consumers of NEMA's emergency texts, but this is sort of representative: "Mike, for the love of God, make the emergency alerts for a non-existent emergency stop. I've just received my 4th in 12 hours. It really is the boy who cried wolf and does nothing but stress out my young children. If anyone knows how to disable them, please let me know," said Matt.

Well, you know I got one at 4pm yesterday. As I looked over the mud flats, across the water to a narrow channel, I thought crikey, I don't think we need to put the life jackets on just yet or evacuate the house. But you know, good to know. But 6.30am this morning, by then, surely we would know if this was building in strength? That is the advantage of distance. I get it, you know, damned if they do, damned if they don't. Complacency is dangerous, I agree. But I would argue when you have too many emergency alerts of things that do not happen, that is going to inculcate complacency and that will be dangerous.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Civil Defence Minister is staunch on the need for mobile emergency alerts.

An alert sent at 6.30am warned people to stay away from water, beaches, harbours, marinas, and estuaries - with uncertain sea conditions triggered by yesterday's massive Russia quake.

It applies until further notice.

But many received multiple messages, and others got none.

Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham they'll be looking into it, but early warning is important.

He says in the past emergencies with fatalities, it's because of optimism bias, but New Zealand doesn't have that luxury anymore.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gang membership is on the rise, but if you believe Assistant Police Commissioner Paul Basham, an increase in numbers is not necessarily a bad thing. Gang numbers have climbed past 10,000, up from 9,200 in 2023, but that might be, he says, because they're keeping a closer eye on gangs, their intelligence is better, they know who's in and who's out, the record keeping and the data is better. He told Mike Hosking they have a laser focus on gangs and since the Gang Act was passed, they've launched more than 9000 charges against gang members.

“Our staff are awesome, and I don't think we've ever been better. You know, there's been lots of reporting about the work we're undertaken against gangs like the Comancheros, last month, we were operating against the Greazy Dogs in Tauranga, two weeks ago we took out a chapter of the Hell's Angels in Whanganui. And that's pretty significant in policing terms because they don't make that easy for us, and to take out the Hell's Angels from a law enforcement point of view is significant and reflects the fact that our staff are doing awesome work.

“You know, we're operating in a way that the government and the community would want us to be in the way that we're tackling organised crime and gang criminal behaviour. You know, we have the ambition for our communities to be safe and feel safe and I think the gang legislation that dropped last year has had a significant impact out there in terms of community feelings of safety and the feedback that we're getting is very positive in that regard.”

Absolutely. You could also look at the rise in unemployment too and see correlation and rise in gang numbers. Smart people know that gangs are nothing but evil pyramid schemes. The only ones who make any money are the ones at the top and the favoured area managers. A bit like Nutrimetics on speed. Those at the bottom, the ones doing the door to door selling and the deliveries are dumb grunts who do the dirty work and pay the price.

There were ten Mongrel Mob members, defendants in a murder trial in Tauranga earlier this year. They are prime examples of dumb grunts. Google them. I don't think I've ever seen a more hopeless, hapless, pathetic group in my life – they are just collectively woeful. Smart people don't join gangs, they start them. So if you're someone in a small town with few options for employment, you have few options in life, then you might find the idea of gang life attractive. You've got very little else going on in your world and your brain and your life. Being a grunt in a gang when there is very, very high unemployment and few options in your town, might seem attractive.

But the good news is that police are acting – 9000 charges against the gang members since the new gang legislation was brought in. And I don't know about you, but I am not seeing the swaggering, posturing arrogance that I used to see on the streets, on the roads in my neighbourhood. I know the gangs are still operating as business as usual. That hasn't stopped. But what has changed is that the police are really inconveniencing them. They're making it difficult for them to do business. The legislation means that police can target gangs, they can target gang members, they can ginger them up, annoy them, make it difficult to go about their day-to-day business. I don't have to watch the gang members in my neighbourhood patched up strutting around the neighbourhood like they own it. And that that suits me. I know that they're still out there. I know that they're still doing what they can because they think they're untouchable.

It's going to take a wee while – it has only been 18 months since they were given the keys to cities, the keys to towns, and the keys to the open roads. So it's going to take a bit of a moment to shift that. Rising gang numbers, sure. I guess if you want to see it as a bad thing, you will, it’s certainly not good that 10,000 people feel they have little option other than to join a gang. That life is better for them in a gang than it is within the community. That's sad. That's a damning indictment. But police bringing 9000 charges against gang members. It's a very good start.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is much that this coalition government is dealing with that is not of their own making – they are mopping up, cleaning up the mess. Then there are the own goals that should not be happening 18 months into office – and I would argue that the announcement trumpeted yesterday afternoon is an example of an own goal.

The Government is planning to ban merchants from adding surcharges to in-store card payments, a change they say that will save shoppers from the unwelcome surprise they get at the till. Go the Government for protecting the consumer!

Well, no, hang on a minute. My first thought was well, surely the retailers will simply pass on the cost that they have to pay to the banks for the privilege of having debit cards, contactless payments, and credit cards. The bank charges them because the credit card companies charge them, the banks certainly aren't going to absorb it. The retailers say, well, if you want the privilege of contactless payment if you want the convenience of that, then you can pay the charge. But now they're going to have to absorb it.

My second thought was now I'm going to be paying more. I don't Tap and Go. I very seldom Tap and Go. I've got a business account and a personal account, and when I pay for something, I'll insert my card, select the account, and pay that way. It’s supposed to make things easier for the accountant, and I avoid the surcharge. So when the retailers pass on the cost of the surcharge, anyone else who inserts and pins or swipes and pins will be paying too.

Heather du Plessis-Allan covered most of my objections when I was listening to her interview with Scott Simpson last night. How can this possibly be trumpeted as a boon to consumers when all that happens is the price of goods will go up to cover the surcharge? Why not go after the credit card companies? And the banks?

I could certainly understand charging a surcharge in the olden days when we had the zip zap credit card machines. There would undoubtedly have been a cost involved in processing all that paper. But now? Come on. Sure, there are costs in terms of fraud protection and there'd be other costs involved if you want to use your credit card and have that added protection, then you pay the surcharge. I don't see why the retailer should pay it, and I don't see why I should pay it when I'm not using that facility.

Why didn't the Government go after the Ticketmasters, and the Air New Zealands, and the hotels of this world that charge processing fees and service fees, and “you've looked at our website so now we're going to charge you” fees. The Coalition Government did not cover themselves in glory yesterday with this announcement.

And then there was the announcement of the announcement from Brooke van Velden around scaffolding safety requirements. That was another unwelcome reminder of Labour's modus operandi too. No, she was a day to forget for the Government yesterday.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

BNZ is taking advantage of the Government’s ban on in-store card surcharges to promote its new banking platform.

Payap, an open banking platform, allows customers to pay directly from their bank account.

It provides a lower-cost alternative with transaction fees of just 0.39% or 0.59%, and is compatible with all major NZ banks.

BNZ Head of Payment Development Jonathan Dale told Kerre Woodham with yesterday’s surcharge announcement, it’s good to highlight some alternatives in the market that will leave businesses in a good position for both them and their customers.

Payap, he says, creates an even playing field, and the small transaction fee creates an opportunity for small and large businesses alike to keep on growing.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Politicians rely on voters having short memories. They all do it.

Politicians and governments get swept out of power, they fester away on the opposition benches, and then a year before the next election, they make sweeping statements and promises about what they'll do if voters have the good sense to put them in.

Chris Hipkins is no different from every other party. A lot of people might nod along with his comments and look at the price of butter or the whopping amount on their power bill and think ‘well this lot haven't fixed things the way they said they would, maybe I should vote Labour in 2026.’

In the Herald's Front Page podcast, the Labour leader said he wants us to have a look at how MP works, so smaller parties don't call the shots.

There should be some concessions and some trade-offs with the other parties to form a government, he says. That doesn't mean you should be doing things you specifically told the electorate before the election that you weren't going to do, Chris Hipkins said.

The Treaty Principles Bill, he says, is a good example. The Regulatory Standards Bill. Some of these things no one knew they were voting for at the last election. And now they're being inflicted on them. I don't think that's the spirit of MMP or democracy.

And amazingly, a bolt of lightning didn't strike him. Because can I remind the Labour leader, that Labour lost the last election - and absolutely tanked it.

After their landslide win in 2020, ministers felt they could implement un-signaled projects and projects that arose because of agitation within their caucus - from Three Waters to a social insurance scheme - and didn't bother taking the public along with them.

That was one of the main reasons that Labour tanked it. After their historic win, it was a historic defeat. ‘Bugger it’, they thought to themselves. ‘We've got a mandate, we'll do what we like’, which is not so very different from allowing minor parties to implement un-signaled projects, is it?

A lot of people who voted Labour last time did so because in 2020 National was a complete disaster as a party. A lot of people were very grateful to Labour for getting them through Covid. There were still some people who believed the rhetoric, despite clear evidence that they had no idea how to implement a lot of the more progressive and visionary policies.

There was no evidence they could actually implement them, but some people still believed it. But then they came and there were policies that nobody knew existed, even those who had done their homework.

Where did this come from? Well, it came from an antsy Māori block within Labours caucus who said,’ Well, if you don't do this, we'll go to Te Pati Māori!’ and Labour caved.

So, I am all for some reform around our electoral system. I think the party that wins the most votes on the night should be obliged to enter into negotiations with the minor parties.

And, perhaps more pertinently, the minor parties (looking at you Winston) should be obliged to begin negotiations with the party that wins the most votes on the night.

Forget about your petty power politics and your hurt feelings and your personal grievances. That's not what you should be there for. You should be there for the good of the people.

So, the party that wins the most votes on the night should have the minor parties knocking on their door, by law.

And if they cannot reach any kind of consensus, if they cannot agree on the principles that could help them form a government then by all means, shuffle the deck. Let’s see what kind of government you can come up with.

I would love to hear before the election from party leaders on who they will work with, which parties they will rule out, and which policies are non-negotiable. And again stressing, I would love to see petty power politics taken out of the equation too.

New Zealand voters have said have reaffirmed MMP as the system by which they want to be governed. Incomprehensibly to me, but there we go, we live in a democracy. They've said yes, MMP is the way to go, that's the form of proportional representation we will have.

But that doesn't mean that we can't tinker with it, make it better, or reform it. We don't agree on much Chris Hipkins and I, but on that, I do agree. Let's have a look at MMP and see how we can improve it.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Election Day is like Christmas Day, with some of us not getting ourselves organised until the very last minute - even though we’ve known for ages that it’s happening.

Christmas day is never sprung on us. We know it happens every 12 months, but there’s a lot of last-minute panicking, isn’t there?

We get even more warning with Election Day. We know it happens every three years, but there's the same last-minute rush.

Especially for the 110,000 people who were in the last-minute camp at the last election, enrolling to vote on the same day they voted.

But the Government’s not having any more of that and, as part of its changes to the way elections are run, it’s doing away with same-day enrolment. Which I think is a mistake.

But ACT MP Todd Stephenson is loving it, saying: “It’s outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.”

But he’s missing the point completely, because isn’t it brilliant that more than 100,000 people got to vote in the last election because they could enrol on the day?

Isn’t it the ones who didn’t vote at all who are the lazy ones?

The Government’s missing the point too. Because instead of penalising voters because it’s system can’t cope with last minute enrolments, it should be coming up with a system that can cope.

It should be building a system that enables same day enrolment instead of getting rid of it.

What it’s doing is effectively reversing something that was brought in for the 2020 election by the previous government. But it's going even further than just reversing what Labour did, and people are going to have to be enrolled and have their details up to date before the 12 days of advance voting begins.

The Government says it’s making the changes so the votes can be counted quicker. So that we get a result quicker, and so the politicians can get on with doing coalition deals.

But that’s just an excuse for not putting in the effort to come up with a better system to count the votes. And I’m not the only one saying that today either.

Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler is pouring cold water on it as well, saying there’s nothing stopping the politicians who look like they've been elected from beginning coalition negotiations before the final special votes are counted.

He says the final results can change by one or two seats, but nothing dramatic, and he says, “the time delay just doesn't seem like a particularly good reason for this."

As for one of the other changes it’s making —delivering on its promise to bring-in a total ban on prisoners voting— that gets a thumbs down from me too.

Again, it’s getting rid of something brought in by the previous government: voting rights for prisoners serving sentences of less than three years. Which is a mistake because I see a prisoner being able to vote as a way of keeping them engaged with the outside world.

You might recall a few months back, Sir Ron Young was finishing up as head of the Parole Board and he was saying that the reoffending rate for prisoners who serve short prison terms of two to three years is higher than those inside for longer.

That’s because they have way less opportunities to get themselves rehabilitated and they end up spending a lot of their time behind bars hanging out with serious crims.

So he was advocating for keeping these prisoners more engaged with the outside world, and I see voting rights as a way of doing that.

What’s more, how does a prisoner serving two years being allowed to vote affect you? Answer: it doesn’t. It has no impact on you and no impact on me.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.