/on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/rss 九一星空无限 Fri, 31 Jan 2025 02:41:38 Z en /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-why-arent-all-schools-back-yet/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-why-arent-all-schools-back-yet/ It is the end of the month. There's only 12 of them in a year. Into the first month of the year and still there are schools that are not back yet. Could someone please explain to me how it is reasonable in this day and age to have such disparate and wide-ranging start dates for the school year?   I don't know about your particular school, or your area, but of the ones I know about, Auckland Grammar borders have been back for two weeks. That seems perfectly reasonable. Mount Albert borders have been back one night, one day, and now they're off for the weekend. Another college, one of our colleagues has a son at that college, they're not opening the gates till the 10th of February. The 10th of February. Some primary schools started back this week, our kids start back next week. But then of course, there's Waitangi Day in the middle, so that's a bit disruptive.   No slight against the teachers. I've been helping out a bit with pickups and childminding and whenever I've gone into school to pick up the kids from their holiday programme, teachers are there getting their classrooms ready for the school year and prepping and doing what they do. But why on Earth hasn't the school year started? Why are we still prepping for a school year that is now one month gone? Most kids that I've spoken to, of numerous ages, are desperate to get back to see their mates, to learn new stuff, to play sport, to have some routine.   And a lot of parents are coming to the end of their respective tethers too. The days of mum and dad disappearing with the family to the batch over Christmas and then mum and the kids staying down there for weeks on end, being oiled up with suntan oil and put out to fry in the sun while mum read the Jilly Cooper’s. Dad, going to work Monday to Friday, then coming back on Friday and you could hear Dad coming from miles away because they'd be towing the trailer with the Swappa Crates in the back, and they'd be clanking their way down the driveway. Those days are long gone. I'm sure some families still do that, but for most families, you have to work.   For a lot of parents, the pay packets from the first few weeks back at work goes straight to the holiday programmes that the kids are enrolled into so parents can keep their jobs. And as for the poor parents with children at primary, intermediate, and secondary, it is absolutely impossible. There must be a really good reason, she said optimistically and perhaps naively, there must be a really good reason why school start dates are so disparate, random and arbitrary. But for the life of me, I don't know what that good reason would be.   Do you think while the government is focused on revamping our education system and bringing some form of uniformity to what is taught and how it is taught so that it's not so random, depending on which school you go to and which part of the country, do you think while they're at it, they should be looking at standardising the start of the school year as well? I certainly do.  Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:15:18 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-banks-need-to-stick-to-their-knitting/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-banks-need-to-stick-to-their-knitting/ NZ First’s Shane Jones has joined the global fight against “woke” banks, taking aim at several banks' attempts to reduce lending and services to fossil fuel businesses. Jones told The Australian newspaper that Australian banks, whose New Zealand subsidiaries dominate the New Zealand market, must stop “being driven by unelected, UN-orientated climate apostles”.   Now this hoohah about the banks demanding that you prove your climate change worthiness is something I was told about last year. A number of your businesses were asked to outline what exactly you were doing in the fight against global warming. How you were going to achieve your bit towards the fight against climate change. Before you could get any kind of access to bank loans, you had to show your bank, your climate change amelioration credentials - not just your ability to service the loan, but that you understood the impending disaster of climate change, and you are committed to doing all you could to fight it.   This applied across the board to all business, but now Shane Jones is lending his support to Aussie opposition MPs who want to force banks back to offering services to everyone depending on their ability to pay the loans, not just to pick and choose their clients according to their moral values.   Banks. Moral values. Whoever would have thought? Where the hell would Australia's economy be without its extractive industries? Would the Nordic states be without their extractive industries?   This morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast, Shane Jones put the banks on notice:   “The banks themselves are writing letters threatening to debank God-fearing regional businesses. They have no options in terms of transactional banking. They are not breaking any commercial, they are not breaking any financial, they are not breaking any statutory laws. What they are doing is offending the luxury beliefs of these directors and executives and their chemtrail ways of wandering around the world spouting about climate change, whilst driving regional New Zealand to penury.   “I’ve got every right to take them on. I'm astounded that even Kiwibank seems to have swallowed the greenaid here. I mean, if NZ First had have known that Kiwibank was going to be involved in this type of falsehood, it’s highly unlikely we would have agreed for them to recapitalise. I’m hoping that Kiwibank reconsiders their position.  “Look, every bank in New Zealand has to operate within a license. Why on Earth should a licence be extended to an Aussie owned bank so they can come here, impose their own warped moral priorities, impose their luxury beliefs on garden variety Kiwis eeking out an existence selling minerals from regional New Zealand? What citizen mandated these corporate undertakers to impose this system of belief upon us?”  Yes. So that's Shane Jones in full flight as only Shane Jones can do. The Herald understands that NZ First is looking at a members' bill that would attempt to achieve something similar to what the Aussie opposition MPs are looking at. From what I understand, from what you told me last year, you can get the money, you just have to pay it at a much higher rate because you're a dirty, filthy polluter and you haven't shown any kind of remorse or attempt to ameliorate the climate change effects of your business.   The way our system works, the way capitalism works, is we need banks. We need a bank. Most people can't get paid in cash, you have to get paid through a bank. If you want a house, you have to take out a loan. If you want to set up a business, you have to take out a loan. Once the banks start putting riders and caveats on any of their lines based on moral values, not based on your ability to service loans, where does it end?   Going to be interesting though, the world's biggest financiers and asset managers are increasingly rethinking their approach to climate change initiatives, and the diversity, equity and inclusion policies as Donald Trump is reinstalled in the White House and not letting any grass grow under his feet as he signs executive order after executive order.   And therein lies the problem with putting moral values on money. Previously, under the other administration, to get money you had to prove your worthiness as a citizen of the 21st century, you had to prove that you were following the commandments of the current generation. It wasn't about your ability to service a loan. It was that you accepted the dogma and you were going to do something practical about it. If you need to fulfil certain values-based criteria to borrow money, then the values will change depending on who is in office, as has happened. If every time an administration with a different ideology comes into power, do the banks then have to change their criteria too? They need to stick to their knitting.   If it's a sound financial proposition, if a borrower can pay back the loan, then show them the money. Put up, and for the love of all that is holy, shut up.  Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:09:48 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-have-we-got-left-to-sell/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-have-we-got-left-to-sell/ You may have heard, the 80’s are making a comeback. Lookout for denim on denim, bubble skirts, and asset sales. David Seymour is stepping up his campaign to sell state assets and privatise public services.   In his State of the Nation speech last week, the ACT leader said we should be continually asking ourselves do we own the right stuff? NZ First, Labour and the Greens have all pinned their respective colours to the mast and said they are dead against the sale of any state-owned assets under their watch. NZ First and Winston Peters, of course, famously, long-standing opponent of the sale of state-owned assets. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has done what he does best and equivocated. Oh sure, I'm open to the idea, open to having a discussion, but if anything were to happen, not that I'm saying it will, but if anything were to happen, if the for sale signs were to go up, it wouldn't be until the 26th election. So, he hasn't committed either way, just waiting to see which way the wind blows.   The fourth Labour Government was the government that really sold off the silverware. New Zealand changed fundamentally as a society as a result of the economic reforms driven by Roger Douglas and his cabinet. David Lange, he might have been the Prime Minister, but it was Roger Douglas who was the driving force behind the economic reforms. One of those within the cabinet, Richard Prebble, argues it was the right thing to do in today's Herald. He says that they had huge debt, and they had to resolve that somehow. He says New Zealand's privatisation was extraordinarily successful. The investors provided much better services and lower prices. Only profitable businesses pay company taxes. The privatized businesses are paying every year in company taxes more than they ever did in dividends. In contrast, he says, the history of state-owned enterprises retained in government ownership is abysmal. Solid energy went from a valuation of $3.5 billion. To being worthless, that it's $390 million debt. He said his office valued TVNZ in 1990 at around $2 billion, $4.3 billion in today's money. The station now runs at a loss, he says.   Brian Gaynor argues that the asset sales were not a success, that the prime pieces of silverware were sold off and overseas investors made an absolute killing from them. There is a counter to what Richard Prebble claims. John Key brought back the prospect of state asset sales in 2010 with a deeply unpopular promise to privatise state-owned electricity companies such as Meridian. But he told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning there are better ways to improve the economy faster than by selling off what remains of New Zealand’s state-owned assets.   “In the scheme of things, we want the boat to go faster. There's a million things you can do, from cutting bureaucracy and taxes, and you know, making a more permissive society, better foreign investment, all those kinds of things. If you want my view, they'll make the boat go a lot faster than a few asset sales because, frankly, there ain't a hell of a lot to sell.”  And there isn't. What would we sell? We've got Quotable Value, which David Seymour quoted as being an example. It values property, it doesn't receive any taxpayer money. But it provides a dividend of between half a million and one million a year, which is the sort of chump change that Grant Robertson used to find down the back of the couch. So that's not going to save New Zealand. Anyone interested in buying a television station? Could chuck in a video store as well as a sweetener on the deal? Anyone? No? Because that's the thing, too, for a successful state asset sale, you have to find buyers. Anyone for a couple of clapped-out ferries? Anyone? No? There’s sort of plans for a kind of port infrastructure that's really expensive and hasn't been costed properly, that we could chuck in for free. No? Nobody?   State housing. Does the government have a responsibility to house vulnerable Kiwis? Which means owning a huge portfolio of properties and more to the point, maintaining that huge portfolio of properties. From what trades people have told us, anytime they know it's a job for Kianga Ora, everything gets inflated. The cost of the products that are going in there, the carpets, the door, the joinery, the electrics and the cost of the labour. And then, of course, there's Kainga Ora buying up houses at far more than their value and distorting the property market during the post-Covid boom. But I mean really, when you look at what's left after the fourth Labour government did the massive clean out in the 80s... Do we need to own homes to house people, or should that be left to charitable organisations and private individuals?   I suppose the only thing left is health, maybe? Hospitals? I mean, let's face it, it is a huge cumbersome beast. With the best will in the world, the changes to the Ministry of Health and to the hospitals that it oversees as part of its job, the changes are not going to be made within the next 10 years. Bringing everything together under one roof, all of the different hospital boards merged together as one operating unit across the country. And there's no guarantee of success. Do you put health out, privatise that? Still free to the taxpayer but not governed by the government. I don't know. I think most of it's gone. I think John Key is right, there are other, better, faster ways to improve the economy. The only thing I can see, and this is just looking at it theoretically, the only thing I can see that we've got worth selling is the property portfolio and is that what we really want to do?  Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:57:25 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-need-to-get-better-faster/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-need-to-get-better-faster/ Well, I might have been swanning about on holiday for an unseemly amount of time but the Government was back at work. You have already discussed, I have no doubt the PM's reshuffle of the cabinet, specifically Dr Reti losing Health to Simeon Brown in a bid to see change happening, change happening better, and there has been much chat about getting the country moving again.   In the last couple of days, economist Paul Bloxham, the man who coined the “rockstar economy” phrase back in 2014, confirmed what we all know: New Zealand's economy has suffered the biggest hit in the developed world. Specifically, interest rate increases in response to post-pandemic inflation had pushed the country into a recession and unemployment increased sharply across the developed world. HSBC, for whom Paul Bloxham works, estimates suggest that New Zealand's economy had the largest contraction in GDP in 2024.   So that was all inherited issues. This government was elected to put it right. How are they going? Well, not so great. The PM was on with Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning and got a gee up from Mike.  MH: My criticism of you is that you're too much yak and not enough do. If you don't like what the Commerce Commission is doing...  CL: You're just all fired up because of Trump's executive orders, my friend. Because of? Yeah.  MH: But that's what you need, exactly what you need are executive orders. You need to get a bloody marker pen and start scratching out a few signatures and doing some stuff.  CL: And the difference between a presidential system and a parliamentary system is quite profound in that regard.  MH: Look you and I are sick of the same things, you and I are sick of the same things.  CL: I just say I think we've done more in a year than most governments.  MH: But what I'm watching here is a Commerce Commission that's been looking at petrol and supermarkets and building products and everything else for eons and nothing’s happening.  Well things are happening, but I do get Mike's frustrations. We need to do better, and we need to do better faster. The first poll of the year —a Curia-Taxpayers Union poll at that— puts Labour ahead of National for the first time since the 2023 election. And it's no good blaming the last lot this year, it's going to have to be all on National and the coalition government to get cracking.   I'm not entirely sure the new growth plan announced a couple of days ago by Christopher Luxon in his State of the Nation speech will do the business either. Focusing on tourism is not going to lead to long-term prosperity. Being a service industry, which is ultimately what tourism is, isn't going to lead to long-term prosperity. The rest of the world is pushing back against over tourism, hell, we were pushing back against too many tourists back in 2019, so that's not going to do it.   Foreign investment’s good, but the right sort of foreign investment is what's required. And that's a little bit more difficult to find. We don't want to become tenants in our own land and good luck getting a lot of that past NZ First. Digital nomads, sure. This is something that's long overdue. People visiting New Zealand on short stays will be allowed to work remotely for their employers back home under the digital nomad scheme launched by the government yesterday. It's a popular concept overseas and it allows visitors to travel to New Zealand while continuing to work for their offshore employer. Internationally, the Harvard International Review puts the global economic value of digital nomads at US$787 billion per year. Which is great, we'll get a tiny share of that. Is that going to fix the economy?   You know, we have a lot to offer in this beautiful country, as you will have seen yourselves. A lot. But we need to get better, and we need to get better faster. I was listening yesterday to a young man who was 27 saying the last of his friends have left to go overseas. He’s got nobody left. He loves his job. He doesn't want to leave it, but he has no friends, they’re gone. And while I accept that this is a rite of passage and many young New Zealanders head overseas, there are a lot of people who are seeking better opportunities overseas because they are not finding them in their home country.    We have so much to offer, but is focusing on tourism the way to go? I did like the focus on science and a knowledge-based economy. Come in Helen Clark, what happened to that knowledge-based economy? But that is where New Zealand made its name, New Zealand made its fortune was around the science. Science, scientific brains – entrepreneurs have been leading this country for such a long time, since refrigerated shipping. That's what made our fortune and that's where our fortune lies. That, I agree, is where the focus needs to be. But that takes time and I'm not entirely sure that this government has got the amount of time it needs to turn this country around.  Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:10:18 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-our-hungry-kids-are-the-canaries-in-the-mine/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-our-hungry-kids-are-the-canaries-in-the-mine/ If you’ve ever been worried about the level of crime in New Zealand but you don’t think you need to worry about new research out today showing the scale of food poverty in New Zealand - then you need to think again. We’re talking food poverty among kids which has health researchers at Auckland University and the Eastern Institute of Technology saying that, instead of cutting costs, the Government should be doubling the school lunch programme. And, if that’s what the experts think is needed, then I’m with them. Because I’ll tell you now - some of the hungry kids of today are the criminals of tomorrow. They are the canary in the mine. And we better be listening. You’ll know as well as I do that, whenever we talk about crime, generally people want something done about it right now. But you do get the odd person saying that the solution isn’t in the here-and-now. The solution is nipping things in the bud as early as possible to try and prevent kids turning into criminals. And making sure kids are fed properly is one way to nip things in the bud.  I know it’s the responsibility of parents or caregivers to make sure that happens. But we can bang-on about that as much as we want and it won't change anything for these kids.   These findings out today paint a very sad picture of the scale of food poverty in New Zealand. And, instead of getting all excited about the cost and taxpayer money and lunches being thrown in the bin at the end of the day, we need to see the opportunity we have. Sohere’s what the researchers are saying. And here’s why we need to make this connection between hungry kids and crime. Academic performance. Essentially, that’s what this is all about. Which I know the Government seems to be all about too. But there’s more to it than new curriculums and and hour of maths and an hour of english and no cellphones.  Generally, it’s understood that if a child isn’t being fed properly, that has some impact on how they do at school. But these New Zealand researchers have been blown away by what they’ve found.  They have found that a child who goes hungry has a learning gap of two to four years - compared to the rest of their classmates. They didn’t expect it to be quite so bad. But that’s the reality. And there are quite a few kids in this camp. OECD data says 14 percent of New Zealand kids miss out on meals because there isn’t enough money at home to buy all the food they need. That’s 14 percent in New Zealand compared to the OECD average of 8 percent. So you take a child who is four years behind everyone else - how are things going to go for them? You can take your choice out of pretty badly, pretty badly or pretty badly. If you’re four years behind everyone else - or even two years - your chances of catching up are pretty slim. Even slimmer if you don't have enough food in your belly. Soyou’re behind everyone. You’ve got no energy. Your sense of self-worth goes out the door. Disaster waiting to happen. And, for some, the disaster does happen. And, with not much to offer the world, the only option they see for themselves is to link up with other people just like them. People left behind by the education system. People who grew up in families where food wasn’t a priority or it was just too expensive. People who have pretty much lost all hope by the time they finally get to escape from school. And who think the only way they’re going to get ahead in life is selling drugs or doing ram raids. And, when they do, anyone who doesn’t give a damn about this research out today, won’t have a leg to stand on when it’s their place that’s done over five or ten years from now. And that’s why, if these health experts are saying today that there is clear evidence that more money needs to go into school lunches, we should do it. Mon, 27 Jan 2025 00:18:51 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-yes-to-more-tourists-but/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-yes-to-more-tourists-but/ There’s nothing wrong with backing yourself but, as a country, we have some pretty high and mighty ideas sometimes.    A good example is the previous Labour government’s approach that, when it comes to tourism, we should only try to get the people with truckloads of money to come here for a holiday. What they called the “higher value tourists”.   And I’m delighted that the Government is saying we need to get over ourselves and pretty much anyone and everyone who wants to visit from overseas is going to be welcome to come here.   Nicola Willis, the new economic growth minister, is making the very good point that it was all very well for the previous government to think that getting the people with big money over here was the better bet. But that was no guarantee of big spending.   She’s saying today: “I want all tourists. Because, ultimately, it’s not the government that decides how much a tourist spends when they come to New Zealand. The tourist will make that decision.”   She says: “Our job is to make it easy for them to come in the door, easy for them to come to New Zealand. Then, when they get here, I’ve got great faith in our tourism providers that they’ll do everything they can to get as many dollars out of those back pockets as possible.”   No arguments from me there. Because we are not Venice, we are not overrun with tourists. In fact, I would say that we’ve never been overrun with tourists, not even before Covid.   Tell that to the bloke in Queenstown though who got into an argument with a mate of mine in a burger bar there one night.   We were there with a whole bunch of people and this guy was telling us how much of a pain in the backside it was to have all us out-of-towners there.     “Loopies” he called us. I remember, back in the day, the locals in Wanaka used to talk about all the “loopies” coming to visit for a holiday, as well.   But, as my mate politely pointed out to this guy in the burger bar - no tourists, no visitors, no Queenstown. Even our lot. Who were there on the smell of an oily rag.   Another thing too is that, if we’re totally honest with ourselves, we’re not actually that special compared to all the other countries that international tourists have the option of visiting.   Yes, New Zealand is beautiful. And when you go to places like Glenorchy, near Queenstown, for example —which I did a few weeks back, and which is a stunning part of the country— it reminds you what a special place this is.   But there are lots of other special and beautiful places in the world too.   Which is why I think it’s great that the Government plans to get us off this high horse that the last government put us on when it comes to the type of people we want to try and get over here for a holiday.   Why I think it’s great that the new thinking, is that anyone who wants to come here is welcome.     But. And there’s always a but – actually, there are a couple of buts.   One of them, is that tourism is not a silver bullet on its own. Because, generally, tourism jobs don’t pay all that well.    The other but —and this is the more significant one— is that if this is the approach the Government’s going to take, it has to do more than what Nicola Willis is talking about.   Because it’s all very well to say that it’s the Government’s job to get the tourists here and it’s the tourism operators’ job to get as much money as possible out of them once they’re here.   But, as people in places like Franz Josef know, more visitors means more demand for basic services like public toilets and all that stuff – a demand that local councils just can’t afford to meet.   And this is where the Government is going to have to have more skin in the game if it really wants this open-door policy to reap the economic benefits that it wants.   So yes, ditch the pipedream that New Zealand is only a place for wealthy tourists and sell us to the world and get as many visitors here as you can.   But don’t leave it to locals and their struggling councils to provide all the basic services and facilities that these visitors are going to need once they get here.  Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:16:10 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-why-we-have-a-teacher-shortage/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-why-we-have-a-teacher-shortage/ Do you know who’s to blame for the high school teacher shortage we’re hearing about today? You are. I am, as well. We’re both to blame. Because, whether you’re a parent or not, we have done an absolutely brilliant job of putting people off wanting to become a teacher. And it’s a weird mix of us doing too much of some stuff and too little of other stuff. And the outcome is 346 full-time vacancies unfilled just weeks out from the new school year. Now I know you might be thinking "oh yeah, we hear this every year from the unions. They take every opportunity to bang on about needing more pay, more resources blah blah blah.” But it’s not just the unions speaking out. There’s a principal in the news saying that in the 16 years he’s been in the job, there’s only been one where he’s started the year without enough teachers. Looks like this could be his second.   So why am I putting the blame on us? Because that’s not what the unions are saying. It’s certainly not what the government is saying, either. As if they would. So why am I saying it? I’m saying it because parents - and I’m one of them (our three are in their early 20s now) but, yep, I know I’ve been guilty over the years of poking my nose in - probably a bit too much. Not as badly as other parents - but I’m guilty. And what we’ve done in the process, is we have piled so many expectations and pressure on teachers that we are driving them nuts. We think that we deserve one-on-one time with them whenever we want it. So much so, that some schools have had to put a ban on parents barging into the classroom before or after school to “have a word”. We’ve been banging on the door, writing emails. The way some parents behave, you could describe it as harassment of teachers. This is the part of my argument where we have done “too much”, and it's part of the reason why I think we have to carry the blame for people not wanting to be teachers. Another part of my “too much” argument is the expectations we have placed on teachers and schools to provide not just an education but full-scale social services. As well as all the moaning about all the holidays they, supposedly, get - and let’s not forget all the tut-tutting over the keep cups about teacher-only days. Who would want to be a teacher with all that going on? Not me. As for the “too little” bit —this is where you and I have put people off wanting to be teachers by not doing enough— this is all about our lack of support and advocacy for teachers. And this is broad. At one end, you’ve got the way people are always far too busy to put their hand up to help out with anything at school. You’ll know as much as I do that the ones who do are always the same faces, and they get sick of it eventually. At the other end —on a broader level— we have done an absolutely hopeless job of standing up for our teachers. And there is an absolutely prime example. We have quietly sat-by and allowed to happen what I think is the most damaging thing that’s ever been done to our education system - the modern learning environment. The modern learning environment has been —in my opinion— an absolute disaster. And you and I - we’ve allowed it to happen. It gets moaned about, but no one ever takes it to the next level. The fact that teachers have been forced to teach kids in these barn-like settings with tents and bean bags and noise. Again, who would want to be a teacher in that kind of set-up? I wouldn’t!  But we have allowed the Ministry of Education to force these monstrosities on schools. Sure, we might have had a rant about it to our mates - but that’s all we’ve done. And by stopping there, we have let teachers down big-time. And by letting teachers down big time by not advocating for them as much as we should —and by placing such unrealistic expectations on them— by doing too much of some stuff and not enough of other stuff - we have done a first-class job of telling people to forget about being teachers.   Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:23:22 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-im-still-feeling-pretty-chill-about-trump/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-im-still-feeling-pretty-chill-about-trump/ "We will be the envy of every nation and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer. I will, very simply, put America first."   And with that, Donald Trump —the 47th US president— probably sent a chill down the spines of truckloads of people around the world.   And a chill down the spines of some people within America too - because, some Americans, he won’t be putting first. Which I’ll get to.   But do you know what? There was no chill down my spine when I listened to him.   Well, that’s not quite correct. There was probably a draught, but there was certainly no chill.    Because just like last year when he won the election —when I said that it’s very easy to jump on the hysteria bandwagon over Trump— that’s how I’m feeling too now that it’s happened and he’s the president.    I still generally think that. Although there are a couple of things he’s been saying today that have me thinking. But let’s see what happens. That’s what I meant when I said there was a draught down my spine instead of a chill.   But generally, when it comes to how I’m feeling about the next four years with him in the White House, I’m more intrigued than anything.   Yes, it will be weird at times, but that’s as bad as it’s going to get. For me, anyway, living here in New Zealand.   That does come with a few provisos, though.    Number one: I’m not an exporter - so I’m not going to be directly affected by any trade tariffs that he might bring in.   I do know though that —if it happens— we will all be affected in some way, shape or form, because when exporters do well, we all do well.    And when exporters don’t do well - we all feel it.   But, as anyone who has exported anything knows, there are always challenges to overcome. So, let’s wait and see what comes of that.    But overall, you’ve got to give it to him - he’s not shy on ambition.   He’s talking already about getting an American flag on Mars. The weird bit about that is he says it’s possible because America split the atom.   Now, this might be a bit of parochial New Zealand coming through, but I’m pretty sure it was Ernest Rutherford who did that.   And he wasn’t American. He was born in Brightwater, near Nelson.    He went to school in Nelson, went to university in Christchurch and then headed off overseas and did the splitting of the atom thing at the University of Manchester, in Britain.   But Donald Trump is never one to let the facts get in the way of anything.   He’s been banging on about the US “taking back” the Panama Canal because, at the moment, China’s operating it and there can’t be any more of that nonsense.   I’m paraphrasing the president there but that’s the gist of it. He says: “It is time for us to act with courage and vigour”.   And no surprises, he’s announced that he’s going to re-name the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”. But he was talking about that last week, wasn’t he?   So a lot of bluster. But here’s the bit where things get a bit ugly.    President Trump says his government will only recognise two genders: male and female. He’s going to stop the “social engineering” of “race and gender into every part of life.”   And he’s promising to bring back free speech by stopping all censorship.    Which is all stuff from the “go woke - go broke” manual. And that’s the bit I’m not liking.   Because even though I’m not part of the LGBTQIA+ community, why on earth would you refuse to recognise the way someone identifies?   Of course, there’ll be no shortage of people cheering Trump on, on this one. There’ll be no shortage of people, either —like me— who see this sort of talk from the new president as something from an age long gone.   But —despite those things— even though there are a few things that President Trump said this morning that I don’t like, I’m still feeling pretty relaxed about it all.  Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:13:49 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-the-get-stuff-done-guy-is-on-a-collision-course/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-the-get-stuff-done-guy-is-on-a-collision-course/ If you believed the Prime Minister when he said yesterday that he still has confidence in the now-former health minister Shane Reti, you will believe anything. Let’s face it, though, he couldn’t have said anything different. But whether you believe it or not - that’s another thing. And I don’t. Because he clearly doesn’t - or he clearly doesn’t have as much faith in Shane Reti as he used to. Otherwise, Simeon Brown wouldn’t be the new health minister. And who would want to be Simeon Brown? Being the minister of health, you’re on a hiding to nothing. And who would want to be working in the health system? I wouldn’t. Because, trust me, it’s about to get ugly. I know people working in health might say “it’s pretty ugly already mate”. In fact, one person I know who works pretty high up in the health system - and who is a big advocate of the public system - they’ve been telling anyone who will listen that they should be getting private health insurance. If they can afford it, of course. So here’s why I think things are about to get ugly - or uglier - with Simeon Brown in charge of health. Christopher Luxon says he’s given him the job because he “gets things done”. Which is a term that drives me nuts because this whole idea of “getting things done” says nothing about quality or improvement. It’s just ticking things off the to-do list. Or ticking things off the quarterly plan. And Simeon Brown has form. He’s got a track record from the other ministerial roles he’s had so far where he gets stuff done by telling people what they’re going to do. Local government. He’s made it very clear to local councils who is running the shop. And it’s not them. Transport .He’s flying in the face of what the experts say about speed and he’s going to increase speed limits. And, as of yesterday’s announcement, Dunedin can kiss goodbye to the hospital the people thought they were getting and the hospital they still want to get. Because the Prime Minister is going to be putting Simeon on a plane south to bang some heads together. Which is what the Prime Minister was really saying yesterday. It might’ve sounded like he was saying that the new health minister got the job because he gets stuff done. But what he really meant, was that Simeon’s got the gig because he’s good at banging heads together. Don’t get me wrong - he does get stuff done. But is that really the approach we should be taking when it comes to something as critical as our health system? I don’t think it is. Not that I think Shane Reti was up for the job, either. Last year I ended up in hospital for a night after some pretty bad complications from a flu bug I picked-up travelling back from the UK. And if you ask me how I felt about that experience - it was brilliant. Sure, I would have preferred not to be there in the first place. But I couldn’t have asked for more. And, a lot of the time, from what I hear people say - it seems that most are pretty happy - if not delighted - with the care they receive in hospital. Trick is, though, that’s once they get in the door. Get in the door of your local hospital and, generally, you’re fine. The only proviso I would put on that is that I live in New Zealand’s second-largest city and I know things - even once you’re through the door - can be a bit average at some of our smaller hospitals. Take Dargaville hospital. Last year there was that issue with no doctors on the wards overnight. That had been going on for a few months and the nurses weren’t happy about it. And poor old Shane Reti was in the firing line. Pouring cold water on rumours that the whole place was going to be shut down. But, of course, hospitals are only part of the health system. I heard Bryan Betty, who heads the organisation representing GPs, was saying that he thought Shane Reti had been doing a pretty good job. Which is another reason why I think Simeon Brown is on a collision course. Because even though the Prime Minister didn’t like the pace Shane Reti was working at - and even though I don’t think Shane Reti was all that good as a health minister - I don’t think Simeon Brown’s approach is going to do us any favours at all. Because Mr Get-Stuff-Done is also going to be Mr Get-Peoples-Backs-Up. And that’s not going to do anyone any favours. It’s not going to you any favours. It's not going to me any favours. And it’s certainly not going to do anyone working in the health system any favours. But if Simeon Brown proves me wrong - and if he does manage to get people on-side and does manage to make the health system better than it is now - then I’ll be the first to acknowledge it. Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:23:57 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-free-speech-rules-shouldnt-stop-at-universities/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-free-speech-rules-shouldnt-stop-at-universities/ Here’s how I would sum up the Government’s changes to the free speech rules for universities. It wants more Posie Parkers and less posey political statements. Which I’ve got no problem with - but I don’t think it should stop at universities. I think the Government also needs to look at other public entities, such as local councils, which actually seem to be making more posey political statements than universities. Because, if the Government doesn’t want universities taking positions on things like the war in Gaza because - whatever position they take - won’t reflect the views of all staff and students, then the same could apply to local councils, couldn’t it? If a council boycotts Israel, for example, there’s no way everyone who works for these councils or who pays rates to these councils will agree, is there? Let me come back to that. But the gist of all this is that the Government wants two changes to the way universities deal with free speech. For starters: It wants them to stop being so antsy about having guest speakers coming onto campus who might upset a few people with their views. Which has seen some universities pull the plug on certain events. Massey University, for example, stopped Don Brash from giving a speech there once because of what one person described as his "separatist and supremacist rhetoric". A more recent example is Victoria University cancelling a freedom of speech debate this year because of concerns it would turn into a cesspit of hate speech. So the Government wants no more of that. Because it thinks universities are places where all sorts of ideas and thoughts should be shared and debated. And I agree with that. So that’s what I mean when I say it wants more Posie Parker. The other change it’s making to the regulations that universities operate under, is to stop them taking positions on matters that don’tdirectly relate to their core business of research and teaching. Now this is not something that is going to impact academics who enjoy what’s known as academic freedom - which pretty much means they can think and say what they want. Although some academics have questioned that in recent years, saying that they don’t feel as free to think and say what they want as they used to. But, essentially, what the Government wants to stop is universities - as institutions - taking a view or a stance on international issues, for example. Some of our universities have been under pressure to condemn Israel for what’s going on in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. But, as far as I’m aware, none of them have given-in to that pressure. The closest example I could find here in New Zealand is an announcement three months ago by Victoria University's fundraising arm - the Victoria University Foundation - that it would be getting rid of its Israeli government bonds and its shares in companies listed in Israel. So maybe this is a pre-emptive move by the Government, as much as anything. And it says the reason it’s doing this, is that if a university takes a stand on something - it doesn’t reflect the views of all staff and students, and that is unfair. So, if that’s the motivation, then I reckon the Government needs to come down just as hard on other public entities. Public entities which, at the moment, seem to be going harder on this thing than any of our universities. And I’m thinking, specifically, about local councils around the country which have been more than happy to pile-in on Israel this year, with decisions to boycott companies which operate in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Christchurch City Council has done it. Environment Canterbury regional council has done it. And Nelson City Council’s done it. They’re the ones I’m aware of. There might be others. But, if we apply the argument the Government’s using to stop universities taking positions on global issues - because they won’t necessarily represent the views of all staff and students - then the same can be said of these local councils, can’t it? In Nelson, for example, after the council there voted to go with a boycott - there were some pretty fired-up locals. The mayor Nick Smith, who voted against it, got a whole lot of abuse too. And who says everyone working at these councils agrees with the position their employers have taken? They won’t. And who says everyone paying rates to these councils agrees with their anti-Israel positions? They don’t. Which is why I think the Government should be telling councils not to take political positions on issues outside their core business, just like it's telling the universities. Fri, 20 Dec 2024 01:16:47 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-timing-of-lake-alice-compo-offer-is-wrong/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-timing-of-lake-alice-compo-offer-is-wrong/ Some people think the Government’s offer of a $150,000 rapid payment to Lake Alice torture survivors is an insult, but I think it’s a mistake.    Not because I don’t think compensation should be paid. It’s just that I don’t think the Government should be offering it right now for people who went to Lake Alice between 1972 and 1977 and went through electric shock treatment or had paraldehyde injections. And here’s why.   Remember last month when the Prime Minister formally apologised to the victims of abuse in state and religious care?   On the day that happened, some survivors of that terrible time in our country’s history weren’t happy that the Government didn’t say anything at the same time about redress or compensation.   As Christopher Luxon explained it, the Government needed to take the time to make sure it got the compensation scheme right and wouldn’t be making any announcement until early next year.    Which I thought was perfectly reasonable. I acknowledged at the time that it was probably easy for me to say that, given I hadn’t been through the living nightmare that those 200,000 people went through.   But I genuinely believed that the Government was taking the right approach. I still do for the simple reason that compensating people for horrific abuse isn’t something that can be rushed. Because, whatever the Government decides to do, it will be setting a precedent.   There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So, this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse ongoing.   Which is why I think it’s making a mistake offering money to the Lake Alice survivors right now. Even though some compensation has already been paid to some and that this money specifically relates to the torture that was done to them.    Because, just as some of them are saying the $150,000 is pitiful, there’ll be others who think it sounds alright, they’ll take the money and get on with their lives.    People like Robyn Dandy who is in the news today saying that she’s going to take the rapid payment of $150,000 because it will mean she can buy a house bus and travel around the South Island with her pets.    She’s saying today: "I'm happy. I'm glad it's going to come to an end now and we can just all relax and concentrate on the rest of our lives and a bit of happiness which I really believe we deserve now.   "I just think $150,000, why fight it? That's a lot of money for us now. We're all elderly. I can have my dream.”   So I imagine that she’ll be taking up the Government’s invitation to register for the payment this week. The money should be in her bank by March.   Whereas another survivor also in the news today, Malcolm Richards, feels very differently.   He says: “It’s pathetic. I’ve spent more than that fighting to this point.”   He says the compensation guidelines for wrongful imprisonment say someone could receive up to $150,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. And he thinks the Government should be offering Lake Alice survivors millions of dollars each.   Now, of course, different people will feel differently about whatever compensation offer is made - but, in this case, I think we need to see it as something of a canary in the mine.    The government Minister responsible, Erica Standford, says this is completely different and separate from the abuse in care compensation and most of the victims have received compensation but this is a new offer because the State has acknowledged that they were tortured.  Nevertheless, I still think the Government is jumping the gun making this offer to Lake Alice victims before it’s said anything about compensation or redress for abuse in care victims.   Because, while Robyn Dandy —who I mentioned earlier— might think that $150,000 is perfectly fine right now - what if the abuse in care survivors are offered more?   What if the likes of the guy who thinks $150,000 is pitiful manages to, eventually, get himself a better deal from the Government?   See what I mean? What’s being offered now might sound good, but she may feel differently down the track when she sees what other people start getting. And that’s why I think the Government is making a mistake doing what it’s doing.   Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:13:57 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-kneejerk-reactions-wont-fix-the-fiscals/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-kneejerk-reactions-wont-fix-the-fiscals/ If New Zealand was a company staring down the barrel of running at a loss for at least the next five years and finding itself needing to borrow $20 billion more than it thought it did just six months ago, it would be lights out, wouldn’t it?   And no amount of creative accounting could change that picture.   Essentially, that’s the state we find ourselves in after yesterday’s fiscal update from the Government. With pretty much the only good news coming out of it being in the housing market, and an expectation that it is going to come back to life the year after next.   Unfortunately, I think Dunedin can kiss goodbye to winning the fight over cutbacks to the new hospital. I think all the noise about the IT cutbacks at Health NZ will fall on deaf ears in the Beehive too.   But I also think that the Government is doing the right thing holding its nerve and I think doing a Ruth Richardson and going harder and faster on the spending cuts would be a disaster.   I was listening to independent tax expert Geoff Nightingale on 九一星空无限talk ZB this morning and one of the things he mentioned was how much of a role welfare costs are playing in the Government’s overall financial position.   Which is why I mention Ruth Richardson. It was 1991 and Ruth Richardson was Minister of Finance and delivered what is forever known as the “Mother of all Budgets”. Because it was brutal - especially for beneficiaries and families.   Unemployed people had their dole cut by $14 a week. Anyone on the sickness benefit ended up $25 worse off each week - in fact it was nearly halved, going from $52-a-week to $27-a-week.   Universal payments for family benefits were completely abolished. She also brought-in more user-pays in health and education. Remember that was something Labour’s Roger Douglas stated in the 80s but Ruth Richardson took it further.   And, 30 years later, Labour’s Grant Robertson delivered a budget that he said was increasing benefit payments to “right the wrongs” of Ruth Richardson’s 1991 budget.     Nevertheless, the Finance Minister is saying today that, despite the way things are, we’re not going to see the Government going harder and faster on the spending cuts because it has already made spending commitments to the public.   But she says re-prioritising spending will happen.   So it seems that Nicola Willis isn’t going to channel her inner Ruth Richardson and deliver the Mother of all Budgets Volume 2. Which I think is wise.   Not that I’m saying that the Government isn’t to blame for any of the shambles unveiled in yesterday’s update. As you’d expect, it’s pointing the finger at Labour - accusing it of economic vandalism, and how this just shows how much of a fix-it job it has on its hands.   And don’t get me started on the creative accounting we saw yesterday, which Treasury was against the Government doing in the first place, and which some economists think is a justifiable thing to do but still kind of cheeky.   I’m not going to get bogged down in numbers, but I can’t resist pointing out that part of the problem is the Government’s revenue from taxation being down.   Over four years it’s going to earn $13 billion less. The cost of this year’s income tax changes is going to be $14.5 billion over five years. Just saying. But the tax cuts horse has bolted and there’s no going back from there.    The other reason for the tax take being down is that businesses aren’t earning so much - which, of course, means they’re paying less tax too.   And that’s going to be a key thing for the Government —and Nicola Willis said so this morning— it needs to do what it can to stimulate economic growth. It will say that that’s what things like the fast track legislation will do, all of that stuff.   But it can't fix things with legislation alone, the Government needs to keep investing. Which is why it would be a terrible mistake for it to go all knee-jerk on it.   Tue, 17 Dec 2024 23:54:05 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-its-time-we-had-less-local-councils/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-its-time-we-had-less-local-councils/ The Government thinks it’s getting all tough on it with local councils, but I think Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown are just tinkering around the edges and they need to go harder.   Instead of just telling the councils what they expect of them, they should be telling councils that, for some of them, their days are numbered.     But essentially what the Government’s doing is it’s waving the stick on behalf of ratepayers, saying that legislation changes are on the way that will force councils to focus on “the basics” as the Government likes to call them.   Which, on the face of it, most people who pay rates will love the sound of.   And I’m no different. I look at the ratepayer money that seems to go out the door from all these councils in all different directions and wonder what happened to all those promises about “zero rates increases if you vote for me”.   Not that I ever fall for that cheap talk.   And I think we know what the basics are that the Government wants these councils to focus on. It’s all the non-flashy things like making sure there’s safe water coming out of the taps, fixing the pipes, fixing the roads, building new ones, picking up the rubbish.    All the stuff that doesn't make council life all that exciting but is essential for every one of us, every day.   As for the flashy stuff —or the nice-to-haves— that’s what the Government wants councils to put the brakes on. One of the ways it’s going to make that happen is it’s going to make changes to the laws that councils operate under.   A big change is going to be removing the need for councils to think about these so-called social, economic, environmental and cultural “pillars” – because the Government thinks they’ve got councils involved in all sorts of non-essential stuff.    So, you know, “drop any big ideas about pouring ratepayer money into a big flash convention centre. Instead, stick in the ground, buy some new water pipes, get stuff done.”   That’s the message from Wellington.    Which the 2IC at the outfit that represents most councils in New Zealand —Local Government New Zealand— was sounding pretty diplomatic about it when he spoke to 九一星空无限talk ZB this morning.   Campbell Barry’s his name. It seems to me that any concerns he does have centres around this idea the Government has of bench-marking all the councils - comparing them against each other to see which ones are doing things the way the Government wants them to and which ones aren’t.   But all this is going to do is it’s going to create a truckload of dashboard reports, more admin and do you really think councils are going to be able to achieve what the Government wants?   Of course they’re not, because councils being councils, they get pulled in all sorts of directions by people demanding this and demanding that, and all your local councillors care about is not brassing people off so much that they stuff their chances of getting re-elected.   67 councils in a country the size of New Zealand is sometimes portrayed as a very good thing because it means you have people sitting around the council tables who really know their communities.   But I don’t see that as a virtue at all. In fact, I see that as an impediment. And the fact we have so many councils is something the Government should be doing something about.   Forget about your benchmarking and dashboard reports and big sticks - we are overdue in this country for some serious amalgamations of local councils.   Why do Napier and Hastings need their own councils? Answer: they don’t. Why does Christchurch need three councils? Answer: it doesn’t.   In Auckland, maybe the super city model hasn’t been everything it was cracked up to be, but it looks a much better option than a truckload of tinpot councils all being corralled by central government and told to get back to basics.   The Government needs to show some fortitude and it needs to reduce the number of local councils we have in New Zealand, because 67 is way too many.   Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:40:44 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-ignorance-is-not-bliss-when-it-comes-to-sex-education/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-ignorance-is-not-bliss-when-it-comes-to-sex-education/ How did you learn about sex? Was it your parents? Your friends? A nice, dry, factual at school, or Heaven forfend, the internet? I was at a Catholic girls’ school in the 80s —that would be the 1980s, not the 1880s just for clarification— and we got pretty much nothing, as you'd expect. I received the bare basics about body functions when I was at intermediate. Girls went one night to the school hall where a projector played an ancient movie about girls and boys developing bodies, and then the boys went the next night for the same screening.   Until I discovered Judith Krantz and Jilly Cooper's bonk-busters I had absolutely no idea, I knew they were there, but I didn't know what they were there for. Those books were absolutely great. I smuggled them into the boarding school because they described not only the sex itself, but the emotions and the passions that are tied up with sex. It’s like the difference between knowing that West Coast beach is a risky and then getting caught in a rip. You know that it's dangerous, but until you're in the middle of it, into the middle of those seas and thinking oh my God, this is more than I can handle. Until you experience it, you can know something, but until you experience it, you don't really know it.   A report out today says too many young people are leaving school without the knowledge they need to navigate the sexual landscape. Issues like consent, managing feelings, and online safety, and as a result, the Education Review Office says schools should not be required to consult parents about the content of relationships and sexuality lessons. Misinformation, bigotry, threats of violence for heaven's sake have derailed some schools attempts at consultation and prompted some schools to reduce or avoid teaching the topic. Which is bad enough, but a lot of that interference is coming from people in groups who have absolutely no relationship with the school. They don't have kids there, they're just sticking their beaks in and demanding that sex be taught their way.   Chris Abercrombie, the PPTA President, said on Early Edition this morning, there needs to be one clear curriculum taught in all schools across the country.   “The problem at the moment is in the hands of these schools, and it's not meeting really anyone's needs. As report said, 3/4 of recent school leavers said they didn't learn enough, so the idea of a national curriculum is that everyone knows what's expected, everyone’s got a clear understanding of what's happening, so parents could withdraw their students if they chose to or supplement their students learning if they chose to. It's just giving everyone a clear baseline.”  Quite. Well, that seems fair enough, doesn't it? If you don't want your child to be taught the national curriculum, you take them out of class and you teach them. And good luck to your kids if you think the curriculum is too tame, you can add in what you see as the necessary bits at home.   Since when did parents consult about the English curriculum? Maths or science curriculum? The one thing you don't want is your child to discover sex through the Internet. Sex education, like English, like maths, like science, needs to be taught the same way right around the country, so that our children have the best possible chance of making the right choices in their lives. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to sex education. And believing that real life relationships are what you see on internet pornography is positively dangerous.  Mon, 09 Dec 2024 23:29:03 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-on-where-the-bootcamps-stand-now/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-on-where-the-bootcamps-stand-now/ The hooha over the efficacy of the boot camps hasn't gone away anytime soon, although over the weekend we did hear supporters of the scheme, along with the critics. I frightened the horses on Friday morning when I suggested that this iteration of the boot camps - and there have been many, as you know, had got off to a very bad start with one young man dying in a car accident and then two young people fleeing from their community placements. Good news, the two youths have since been found. Bad news, the two were reportedly among four people taken into custody in Hamilton on Saturday night after a stolen Toyota Corolla was spotted on Cobham Drive in Hamilton. The driver allegedly fled after being signaled to stop until the car hit road spikes. Then wielding a machete, tried to carjack another vehicle which drove away. They were then arrested along with two others, the fourth being found about 5 minutes later by a dog unit. In a statement, Karen Chhour said the circumstances were disappointing, but she was relieved the pair had been found. She said the military style academy pilot programme is just that, a pilot programme. It consists of a three month in residence stay, then another nine months back out in the community with mentor support. Oranga Tamariki does not have the ability to restrict the movement of these young people or the choices they make once they're back in the community. The young people have been in either family or community placements where they're trusted to comply with their legal orders. End of statement. And as we all agreed on Friday, nobody is expecting there to be a 100% success rate. These kids are extremely troubled, that's why they're there. The key will be the successful execution of the support they've been promised out in the community. And over the weekend, as I say, we did hear from supporters of the scheme, along with the critics. Of those supporters was Phil O'Reilly, for Business NZ Chief Executive, but spoke to Heather du Plessis-Allan this morning as former welfare expert advisory group member. He says we should stick with the boot camps -they work.  I was on one not as a participant, but as a sponsor of one in the John Key government, that version of it. I was not necessarily an advocate turning up to see this thing work, but boy, at the end of it, these kids had their lives changed for the better and the only issue was afterwards they just went back to their old ways and then this new one I'm told attempts to solve that issue. But now these are troubled kids, and they've had tough upbringings, so who knew sometimes they might abscond and do bad things. I know that's a terrible thing that’s happened, but you can't blame the whole system just on that issue. And I think we need to see it through now because I can tell you from personal experience of seeing one of these things in action, these kids walk out better, sober, you know together more team building and so on and they just need support to reintegrate back into a better life ahead. The Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr. Claire Achmad, also came out in support of them and I must admit I was surprised. Which is my own stereotyping, my own prejudice about what the Chief Children's Commissioner might think or not think. I would have thought she’d be dead against them - not at all. She said, and I quote - “I don't think we could say that the programme is a failure. The key here is that we must not give up on these mokopuna. I've been to the military style academy pilot. I spent a few hours there while the rangatahi were there.  I saw how hard the staff there were working to put in place that multi-discipline support around these young people.  She says she saw how active and willing the boot camp participants from both sides were and hopes to see it continue with some finding employment and furthering their education. If somebody had said to you, do you believe the Chief Children's Commissioner is for or against the boot camps? I bet there are a few of you, like me, who would have said, oh, she'd be dead against them. Not all. Been there, seen it, likes what she’s seen. There's an amendment bill before Parliament that creates a framework. For the government's new attempt at military style academies and looking at extending them. But people who have worked on the boot camps, who I spoke to, who can't go on the record, say it's not the length of time that you spend on the boot camps. While you're on the boot camps you're safe, insulated from all these stresses, from all the temptations, from all the lure of your old. You're protected. People care about you. They give a damn about you. You're important while you're there. It's all about you and what you need. And the kids do respond to that. They want to be good; they want to be sober. They want to get off the drugs, they want to get away from the gangs. And then they go home. Now the difference between previous boot camps and this one is that there has been the promise of wrap around care, community support, that the young people will get what they need to make the right choices. And let's face it, sending them to prison is not going to help. There are only two young adult units in prison and none for young women, so I guess we’ve got to try everything because there's nowhere else for these young people to go. There has been the promise of support for these young people to help them make the right decisions.  Most of us made really stupid decisions when we were the age of these young ones. We just weren't involved in crime. So, making dumb decisions, multiplied by crime, equals trouble. I said on Friday that it got off to the worst possible start. That didn't mean I don't believe in them. I just said it wasn't a great look. The bad starts happened, but at least we've seen prominent supporters come out and say why they believe in it and what needs to happen for it to be a success. And that success does not mean a 100% strike rate and turning all of these young lives around. Hell, you'd take 20% and it would still be worth it. Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:20:46 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-not-a-great-start-for-the-governments-boot-camps/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-not-a-great-start-for-the-governments-boot-camps/ The Governments’ boot camps - the controversial boot camps, have got off to the worst possible start. One young man, a graduate of the camps, is dead. Another is on the run after attending the funeral of the young man. Oh, and one of them had already reoffended last month, after graduating from the boot camp. There's only 10 young men in the camps at a time, so you can't get much worse than that. The military style academy scheme is intended for serious youth offenders. The 10 taking part at any one time are aged 15 to 17 at the time of the offending. This iteration of a boot camp -there have been many, many previous iterations of boot camps - includes a period of three months in a youth justice residence, followed by 9 months transitioning the participants back into the community. National costed the academies at $15 million a year for 60 places and said the big difference between its boot camps and others that had been failures, was that they would provide wrap-around support services to the graduates. When they entered the community, that's a tough time for anybody, whether you're doing rehab or prison or youth justice, when you go back into the community, you haven't got the controls around you, you haven't got the security around you, that's the tough time. The camps themselves are based off the Limited Service Volunteer Programme, which is a six week motivational training course run by New Zealand Defence. At the moment, if you're a young person who's not studying or working, you can actually apply to go on the LSV course if you think that's going to do you some good. When Mark Mitchell was campaigning in 2023, he said National’s boot camps, based on the LSV, would be focused on numeracy and literacy skills, life skills, teamwork - allowing young people, he said, to have a good fighting chance to come and re-join society. This would move them into either meaningful employment or training and keep them out of the adult justice system, which sounded great. And I was all for them. Despite the fact that other boot camps had failed, and by failed I mean the recidivism rate for young offenders who graduated was up around the late 80’s and 90%, which is far higher than the general prison population. But then young people haven't got responsibilities or children to help them turn their lives around. So previous boot camps had seen recidivism up around the late 80s and 90s. I thought that the difference would be the wrap around support out in the community and you would have to say that if the boot camps do, if they keep going with them, prove successful, it would have been cheap at twice the price. To keep 60 young people out of the adult prison system would be a phenomenal success. Even keeping 30 out would be amazing. But one dead, another on the run, one who's already offended. That's not a great start and I really don't know how they can be justified continuing. Thu, 05 Dec 2024 23:31:01 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-will-the-new-farm-to-forest-changes-mean-for-farmers/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-will-the-new-farm-to-forest-changes-mean-for-farmers/ It is customary when governments announce restrictions on farmers’ ability to do anything that there be howls of protest – but not with this one. The Government has announced sweeping changes to limit the amount of full farm to forestry conversions. And the reason that there's very little in the way of dissent is that farming groups and rural communities have been raising concerns over the amount of productive farmland being converted into forestry for several years now. You'll have seen many billboards, and we’ve discussed it before on the show.   Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Todd McClay said the changes made delivered on a key election commitment to protect food production for farmers, while still providing ETS certainty for foresters. He told Mike Hosking this morning that while New Zealand absolutely needs to do its bit in terms of reducing harmful gases, we should not be leading the charge to the detriment of our economy.   “We only need to focus on what New Zealand does. We don't need to lead the world, we don't need to do more than others, we don't need to be right out in the front. We need to focus on what our obligations are and so that's what the Government is likely to do. But the Climate Change Commission is also going to come out with their report very soon. We'll take these two bits of advice, we'll look at it, take some time to be sensible next year, and then cabinet will make a decision.   “You know, there are two views out there. We should be right at the front of the queue, leading the world. That's harmful to New Zealand consumers and it's harmful to the economy. We are very small emitters compared to almost everybody else, but that's not a reason for us not to do our fair share. We should be leading the world in innovation, not in closing down businesses.”  Absolutely. There are a number of concerns around turning farms into forests. One is that rural communities and economies are being changed due to the replacement of good quality farmland with pine plantations. So if you've got a working farm, you've generally got two or three or four families who are working that farm, their kids go to school, and they buy at the local shops, and it's a village. If you've got a forest there, you just let it grow. You plant it, you leave. There are no families there, so school rolls drop and businesses suffer.   The second major concern was that the carbon forest would only be used to gain carbon credits and produce lumber, and then balancing those concerns with the property rights of farmers to choose what they wanted to use their land for.  Many, many, many, many farmers, the vast majority, only realise the work, the human investment, and the monetary investment they put into their farms when they sell them. They work every hour God sent and then, provided they live long enough, they sell the farm. Then they've got some good years, and their hard work has paid off. If they want to get the best possible price for their farm and somebody buys it, then they turn the farm into forestry, what's the farmer to do? And they can say I didn't know it was going to be forestry. They can say I did know it was going to be forestry, but I’ve got one shot at this.   So that's what the Government was trying to do. Federated Farmers has welcomed the news. Forestry spokesman Toby Williams said it was great that the Government was taking steps to stop the relentless march of pine trees across productive farmland. But he said it was also important changes were made to the way New Zealand set international emissions targets. He said New Zealand's rural communities are bearing the brunt of misguided climate change targets, as over 200,000 hectares of productive sheep and beef land have been planted in carbon farming in the last five years alone.   The Greens say it's not enough, that they're just tinkering around the edges and that it really needs to start at the production of the gases, not trying to mitigate the gases. And it all needs to be native forest anyway – but then nothing will ever be enough for the Greens until we're roaming from sustainable village to sustainable village by torch light, because there will be no power poles, and we'll be wearing hemp loin cloths, and I'll be trading my snapper for your kauri pole, and that will be the end of that. Nothing will ever really be enough.   The farm-to-forestry changes involve a lot of numbers. For example, an annual registration cap of 15,000 hectares for exotic forestry registrations on LUC 6 farmland. I'm not going to list out what the changes are, Google them if you wish, but changes there will be. I totally accept Todd McClay saying we need to do our bit, we have to do our bit, but we do not have to be leading the charge. We don't have to be bigger, better than, or more morally robust than China or the US, or all of those countries where it absolutely matters. So there's that part of it. We must do our bit. We must be the most efficient in the cleanest possible way. That's a great goal, but setting arbitrary targets that most countries are failing to meet, just seems pointless.   I'd love to hear from the farmers themselves. You've got one shot when you sell the farm – is this going to mean you're not going to get the best possible price, or that the price will be reduced somewhat because you're not going to have the same competition when you had foresters looking to put the farm into pine forest?  And what's it going to mean for the rural communities too? Is this an injection, a rejuvenation of rural communities that have slowly been dying?    Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:31:30 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-high-time-the-charity-loophole-was-closed/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-high-time-the-charity-loophole-was-closed/ Finance Minister Nicola Willis is promising tax changes ahead for charities and the closing of loopholes, and the details of that will be announced in next year's budget. And not before time, you'd have to say.   There's about $2 billion, it's estimated, in untaxed profit in the charitable sector, and politicians of varying hues have been eyeing up that revenue potential for some time. I think both Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins have said on this show that the charities loophole is something they want to look at. There's also the issue of fairness. A number of charities, operators, businesses —think high profile ones like Sanitarium and Best Start— compete with non-charitable businesses that do not have tax exemptions. The tax working group estimated that about 30% of charities were likely to have some sort of trading activity.   So when is a charity, not a charity? Michael Gousmett, from the University of Canterbury, says look at Christ College in Christchurch. He says they're shareholders in a forestry company, and he says if they're sending young men up to the North Island to teach them how to grow straight pine trees, how to mill timber, how to market it and so on, that would be advancing their education under charity law. The fact is they don't. Those boys wouldn't know a pine tree if it fell on them. It was a purely commercial operation, same as the chap down the road growing straight pine trees. The difference is one pays tax, one doesn't, and where's the fairness in that?   I think we need to tighten it up. It's not so much a loophole as what Michael Gousmett, describes as “a failure of fiscal policy”. The fact is, there's provision in the Income Tax Act for exemption for charities – he would argue that it's too broad. And you'd have to agree with him, and a number of people have said much the same thing when they have rung in when the topic has come up, and when we've had the leaders of the parties in for a chat. You've got Ngāi Tahu and their seafood businesses. Michael Gousmett said seafood production is not the same thing as advancing the purposes of iwi.   I mean, while you can get away with it, go for it. I mean, there are plenty of people who are setting up trusts to avoid paying the maximum amount of tax. They try to minimise their tax return, and that's legal at the moment as the way the law is written, but I think Nicola Willis is casting a gimlet eye over the law and looking to tighten it up. We're all agreed, aren't we, that the sooner that happens, the better? We've been going on like pork chops about Sanitarium and some of the iwi who are operating very, very successful businesses. All well and good to have a charity, set up your scholarships to send kids off to school and grants for housing and health and what have you – great, fabulous. But when the loophole exists, you know it exists, it's been pointed out people can see it, politicians of all shades have said this is a nonsense when we need every last bit of cash. Couldn't we do with Grant Robertson’s $600 million down the back of the couch right now? We need every last bit we've got.   High time the loophole was closed. I'm just sorry it's going to be next year's budget, and it couldn't happen with a stroke of a pen today.    Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:29:58 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-i-like-the-more-targeted-approach-to-jobseekers/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-i-like-the-more-targeted-approach-to-jobseekers/ As Jobseeker numbers continue to rise, the government has announced targeted management of Jobseeker beneficiaries. 8000 more people were receiving a Jobseeker benefit in the last quarter, and that'll come as no surprise to anyone who was reading the news and seeing factories closing, and more media outlets closing, and more jobs in the state sector being lost. The total number on Jobseeker benefit is just over 200,000. It’d be a big ask to achieve the Government-stated aim of reducing the number of Jobseekers to 140,000 in the first instance.   But the government is hoping that giving job seekers targeted assistance will see them get the skills and the confidence they need to get off a benefit and into work. Up to 70,000 Jobseekers are to receive a new, more comprehensive needs assessment of the challenges holding them back from finding work, and a personalized job plan to help overcome them, because of course, not all job seekers are created equal. You will have people with PhDs looking for work, classed as job seekers, alongside people who left school at 14, never got any formal qualifications, know how to work when they can work, but are quite often the first off when projects are cancelled.  And then you've got people who are completely overwhelmed at the thought of going to work, and need to be coaxed, cajoled, given a few light taps to get into work. So not all job seekers need the same assistance, need the same support, need the same encouragement. Social development and Employment Minister Louise Upston told Jack Tame on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive last night that they knew that the numbers were going to get worse before they got better, and they do have a plan to get people back into work.   “As I said, the numbers were forecast to get worse before they got better, which is why we've now got 70,000 people in case management, 10,000 over the phone, which is a new initiative and working really well. As part of our Welfare that Works reform, for the 70,000 that are on case management, they will have an individual needs assessment, and then they'll create a job plan with their manager.   “So we do know for some people they've got more barriers to work. It might be childcare, it might be they don't have a driver's license, it might be that they've got literacy or numeracy challenges. So they'll have those sorts of activities built into their individual job plan to improve their chances of being in work. So they'll, they'll create their individual plan, with their case manager, so if they need a driver's license, then yes, we'll connect them with a MSD funded program and there's some great programs around the country. For other people, it might be more complex, and so we want to make sure that we are addressing the individual barriers that someone faces to improve their chances of getting a job.”  Which I think is a good thing. I mean, when I look back, I was a single mother. And if I had been on a benefit, and somebody said, what are your issues? And I said well, nascent alcoholism, probably, single mother, rental accommodation —that's a bit precarious— and childcare. But I had a village that helped out, so I didn't need a benefit. I could go to work, and I had friends and family who helped me, who helped me do that, so I never needed to rely on the state.   But what if you don't? What if you don't have friends and family that can help out with the childcare? What if your alcoholism has gone from being sort of ‘oh, that was probably one too many’ to unable to get out of bed in the morning, it's a real addiction that you need to address. What if you haven’t got your license? It will be very tricky to find work if you haven't got your license.   I like this idea. If we spend a little bit to get people out of the torpor, and the lethargy, and the misery, really of having people controlling your life. Wouldn't you want choices? Under Labour, Louise Upston says, if someone under the age of 25 came on to a benefit, they were predicted to be on welfare for about 20 more years over their lifetime. That’s an appalling statistic, a really sad statistic. It is imperative for young people, especially, to see that they can be self-determining, that they can have choices, that they can be successful. They're not some loser with their hand out. That's certainly what I've been told, you start to feel like you've got nothing to offer because nobody's telling you that you're valuable, that you're essential – without you being part of the team, they couldn't do the job. That's a huge part of working, is being part of a team, a wider team.   I can’t imagine how soul destroying it must be to have you-yourself, the only person you see in a day, no money, nothing to spend it on. If there are ways that we can get people to understand that they they're valuable, they have skills that are valued and people will pay for those skills, it would be fantastic. We've also got highly skilled people who don't need to go along to “How to write a CV”, so it'd be great to see more targeted assistants. What would that look like for you, if you are one of those people, perhaps in the great public service job cull? Do you need assistance to find work or is it simply a matter of waiting for the economy to pick up and you'll be fine? Thanks very much. You just need to wait until people get over the collie wobbles and start hiring again.  Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:31:56 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-are-labours-promises-enough-to-turn-dissatisfied-voters-to-their-side/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-are-labours-promises-enough-to-turn-dissatisfied-voters-to-their-side/ The Labour Party wrapped up its conference yesterday, was a big deal because it was the first time the members had got together since losing the election last year. And if you listen to Andrew Little and Chris Hipkins with Mike this morning, you would hear from them that the conference went very well, the party is in good heart and Chris Hipkins is going to lead the Labour Party to victory in 2026. Will he be able to do that based on the promises he made at the conference? This was Chris Hipkins talking to Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning: CH: I think AUKUS ultimately is a nuclear submarine pact, if you look at Pillar 2 of AUKUS it's not something that we think is going to be in New Zealand's best interest to be involved with and you know ultimately we've made the decision that New Zealand's best interests will be best be served through our existing international arrangement, including things like the five country partnership that we have (Five Eyes) and any access to things like new technology should come through that avenue not the AUKUS arrangement. MH: Dunedin Hospital – to what extent will you build it no matter what the bill? CH: We said that we'll build it to the specification that we agreed to at the last election or before the last. MH: No matter what the cost? CH: Well, I mean, bearing in mind that the current government before the election was saying we're going to build a hospital that was even bigger than the one that we were committing to. MH: Yeah, but forget that, this is your promise, at no matter what cost, you were, whatever it was going to be specification-wise, you will pay that bill. CH: We will build a hospital to the spec that we had agreed to before the last election, that’s right. So that's pretty much at whatever cost. So, what did you make of it? If you were one of those who are middle-of-the-road voters, you'll go where the policies are, you're not absolutely tribal, you're one of the 30 percenters – you'll go if you think that there is a vision that party has, be they Labour or National. If you like the cut of the leaders jib, if you find policies that resonate with you, you can swap your vote between blue and red. So among the promises: Labour will build the new Dunedin hospital as you heard. Pledge to keep New Zealand out of AUKUS, announced Kieran McAnulty as the party's 2026 campaign chairman. Good idea keeping him close. And promised a publicly owned InterIsland ferry connection, including some form of rail transport. Is that enough to turn dissatisfied Labour and centrist voters away from National and NZ First and towards Labour? I wouldn't have thought so, but I would say I wouldn't have thought so yet. We all know that parties seldom give away their big policies two years before an election, so it is very early days. But there's going to have to be a little bit more forward-thinking than what they came up with at the conference. Willie Jackson when he spoke, criticised the coalition leaders for their respective roles in the Treaty bill. But he did say that there needs to be, an appeal to middle New Zealand. He said that the Labour Party conferencegoers had to remind their friends and fellow members that Labour was not under the influence of the Māori Party. He said working-class Labour values are to work together, not just for one's own interests, but everybody's interests. He said a middle-class New Zealand would support some policies from the Greens and Te Pati Māori, but they'd never agree he said about a Māori Parliament. He said we need to have Māori and Pakeha and middle New Zealand together with us so we can be the next government. Which is remarkably conciliatory for Willie Jackson, I think you'll agree. So they understand they need to appeal to the middle, they need to appeal to that 30 percent, those people that will switch where they see the best policies for New Zealand or for themselves where they see the most sensible and capable members of Parliament will be.   And hopefully though, the issue of who is going to lead the Labour Party to the next election is done and dusted. Because we do not want to see a repeat of the David Shearer, David Cunliffe, Andrew Little, Jacinda Ardern shenanigans. Because it still blows me away that Chris Hipkins said, yeah, we weren't really ready for Parliament. After nine years in opposition you're not ready to be in Parliament? What were we paying for? Why were we funding your wages? If you're going to use all of your taxpayer-funded salaries to faff around and spend the time trying to find a leader that is not money well spent, that is not a good return on investment for the taxpayer. So if what they're going to be doing is looking at flaws in the Coalition Government's plan for New Zealand and coming up with a better alternative, if they're looking at bold, innovative ways to grow the economy, to protect vulnerable New Zealanders, to create a more robust health system, great. But if all you're doing is faffing around doing third-form schoolyard politics to choose your leader, that is not a good return on investment. So, so far so good. Chris Hipkins said well, yes, I might be tainted by the last regime, but hey, I'm here for the long haul, I'm basically the best guy for the job, prove otherwise. LISTEN ABOVE Sun, 01 Dec 2024 23:48:01 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-australia-draws-a-line-in-the-sand-with-social-media-ban/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-australia-draws-a-line-in-the-sand-with-social-media-ban/ As you will have heard in the news, Australia has passed landmark rules to ban under-16s from social media. In a world first, social media firms will have to take all reasonable steps to prevent young teens from gaining access to sites like Facebook, Instagram, X - formally Twitter - and the like. The firms who own these sites will face fines of up to $50 million AUD if they fail to comply. The tech giants themselves have described the laws as vague, problematic and rushed, and that's probably quite true. The current legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced. Seems they're leaving it up to the tech giants to ensure compliance. It will be at least 12 months before the details are worked out by regulators, and the ban comes into effect. Naysayers say it's going to be impossible to police; young people will always find a way around the rules if they want to find them.  And that is quite true. Just as I'm sure there are young New Zealanders who have managed to get around the cell phone bans in schools that the government introduced earlier this year. But it's drawing a line in the sand. It's saying being on social media sites is harmful for young people, that the bad outweighs the good and that we as a society and a community are going to recognise that. We're not going to accept that just because everybody's on it, that it's going to be really difficult to police, that kids will always find a way around it. We're not going to accept that. We're not going to accept that the genie is out of the bottle and that there is nothing that can be done except endless hand wringing about the harm that's being caused. People said it would be impossible to stop kids using cell phones at schools and that the children themselves, the young people, would never put up with it. Well, guess what? It's working for the vast majority of students. Even the principal’s who said look, this is just not going to work, the kids have them, they’ve had them for a while now, it's part of their lives, we're not going to be able to police it. We don't want to spend our time policing this rather than teaching - even they have been forced to admit that concentration has improved. That young people are more interactive with one another. They're not heads down on their devices, they're not using their devices to cause harm or to receive harm. Again, it's that drawing a line in the sand just as a line has been drawn in the sand over school attendance. There are all sorts of reasons why our school attendance is so appallingly low. And it's going to be incredibly difficult to achieve this government's target of 80% of kids attending school, 90% of the time. But baby steps, baby steps. An expectation was made that you will send your children to school, that will become the norm. And so in term 3 of this year, 51.3% of students attended school regularly. Which is bloody low, but it is still an increase of 5.3 percentage points from term 3 of 2023 - baby steps. I feel like if the wind's blowing in the right direction, then. You know, encourage the kids to go to school, the expectation is there. That your children, our children, will attend school regularly. People have responded to that expectation. They rise to meet it. There is an expectation that children will be free from cell phone distraction at school. It wasn't there before. You know that expectation was not there. It was just oh well, we kind of have to put up with it, they're part of everyday life. This government came in and said no, there is an expectation that children will be free from the tyranny of their devices and schools and young people have responded to that. Even more topically, there's an expectation that gang insignia won't be flaunted in public. And as the police minister Mark Mitchell reported this morning, even the gangs are responding to that. The expectations have been made clear to them at hui and in the meetings around the country. And in the main, they have responded to that. So set expectations, don't settle for being steamrollered by the lowest common denominator. Or for being manipulated by billionaires, tech companies, or for the facile argument that everyone's doing it, nothing can be done. You know, have a go, set expectations if something is wrong, say so. The harm that is being done to young people by being on many of these social media sites outweighs the good. Acknowledge that, set expectations that they will be safe from that while they are at their most vulnerable. Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:23:42 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-there-are-lessons-to-learn-from-the-covid-response/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-there-are-lessons-to-learn-from-the-covid-response/ The first phase of the Royal Commission of inquiry into the COVID-19 response will be handed to the Government today. There’s one of finding I know is going to really resonate with a section of this listening audience and members of the wider community. The head of the inquiry, Professor Tony Blakely, says vaccine mandates caused huge pain to a “substantial minority” during the pandemic, and the government should consider whether their benefits, that is the vaccine mandates, outweighed their harms. The report found while the mandates during the later stages of the pandemic were supported by most New Zealanders, the damage to social cohesion needed to be considered when planning for future outbreaks as he told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning.   “I think a lot of us around the world are learning that those mandates might have gone a bit too far, for a bit too long and it's a very delicate balance. In a future pandemic, which is what we're really focused on now, you can't rule out the need for doing mandatory measures again because the virus might be two/four times as fatal, and two or four times as infectious, and you just need to do everything. However, if we had something like Covid again, I think all of us are saying that if we prepare better, have better contact tracing, then we'll need less of the mandatory measures like lockdowns and vaccine mandates.”  Absolutely. I heard Mike too say this morning that inquiries and reports aren't really worth the paper they're written on. That enormous amounts of energy are expended on them, and then they're delivered behind closed doors, and that's that. He said the response to a crisis will depend on whomever you have in government – if they're halfway capable, you get a halfway capable response. If they're not, you don't. But I disagree. I think you can learn from what you've done right and what you've done wrong, and I think the way the government handled the mandates, among other things, was poor.   I mean, first of all, not getting the vaccines when they did so we're behind the eight-ball. And I would have put anything, anywhere, up any orifice, to get the hell out of lockdown. The frustration and fury felt by many, mainly North Islanders, over following increasingly more ludicrous rules as we struggled to get to some arbitrary vaccination target is still ongoing. As is the fury felt by the significant minority of New Zealanders who lost their jobs and their livelihoods, because they refused to get vaccinated – and this is despite Jacinda Ardern saying in September of 2020 there would be no forced vaccinations and there weren't, and those who chose to opt out, more importantly, would not face sanctions. So that's what she said, and then it all changed again.   So people chose not to get vaccinated for many, many reasons. Do not lump them all into one basket. I mean, there were some basket cases in amongst them, the people who had the tin foil on top of their heads, but there were also people who were extremely genuine in their motivations and their reasons for not getting vaccinated. Think Novak Djokovic, sort of as the poster boy for that - very, very careful about what they put into their bodies and why they choose to put into their bodies what they do. I mean, these were not the lovies who jumped on the bandwagon who were pumped full of Botox and filler and the like. There are many, many reasons why people chose not to get vaccinated, and initially they were assured by the Prime Minister they wouldn't have to and there would be no sanctions if they chose not to.   So I think Professor Blakely is right, that you can learn from the past and you can learn how to manage it, because the fallout is ongoing. Every time we get something about the rising colorectal cancer - well, yes, that'll be the vax. So, you've got people who don't believe in science. You've got vaccine fatigue. Now we've got a rise in whooping cough because people are just sick to death of the of the word vaccination. They don't trust vaccinations. They don't trust governments telling you to get vaccinated because of what has happened, and this is the Western world over, not just in New Zealand. So the fallout from not managing the vaccination program is going to be felt for years to come. They did say in this first phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that some aspects were handled well. The first six weeks – great. After that, the wheels fell off. I think he said the wheels were wobbly, I'd go further and say the wheels fell completely and utterly off. I think we can learn, and I think we should learn, and I think there are lessons that can be learned, and the first phase of the inquiry has proven that.  Wed, 27 Nov 2024 23:57:15 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-whos-hands-should-social-housing-be-in/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-whos-hands-should-social-housing-be-in/ Who on Earth would want Chris Bishop's job? The Minister for Housing has launched a new scheme designed to make it easier for community housing providers to provide social housing. The previous administration was all about the government, we're from the government, we're here to help – people within the industry have told me of a rather bunkered attitude towards housing provision. The attitude was no, the private developers can't do anything about the shortage of housing, they can't do anything about social housing, we the government will do it better because we, the government, have the most pure of motives, so we'll do it. Community housing providers they had a place for, but ultimately it was Kainga Ora who was going to solve the problem of affordable housing, in the mind of the previous government. It didn't work out like that. Now Chris Bishop has said the government is looking to community housing providers to fill more of the gap, and they're going to help them by treating them on a level playing field with Kianga Ora when it comes to competing for funding to deliver social housing. They're not going to give them money, but they will allow them to compete on a level playing field when it comes to bidding to provide social housing. Chris Bishop says that unlike the last government, they’re agnostic as to whether it's the state or the community sector that delivers social housing. At the moment, Kainga Ora provides some 72,000 public homes, which is the vast majority of the more than 80,000 public housing places offered by the government. Community housing providers, the Salvation Army and the like, receive government funding to provide a similar service in privately owned homes —so they're not owned by the state, they're owned by trusts or organisations— but they are only providing around 8000 homes for people. We know that Kainga Ora is struggling. The Bill English report says it's basically not financially viable because under Labour, Kainga Ora became an urban development agency. It was a bold ambition, and if it had worked, it would have been amazing. If they'd been the money, if they'd been the governance, if they'd been, if if, if, if. It was a large-scale urban renewal project that mixed all kinds of housing, public and private, it was next to public transport, which was going to be built as well. It was going to be hoots wahay and amazing, incredible. But that didn't happen. To be fair, Kainga Ora is also struggling because successive governments, including the John Key/Bill English government, underinvested in state housing. The lack of social housing and affordable housing was one of the hot issues of the 2017 election campaign and that helped get Labour into office. Housing is still a political hot potato, with this government struggling to wrangle Kainga Ora into financial shape and provide more housing for people who are really struggling to find a place to live. So Chris Bishop is hoping that by changing contracts for new housing supply, it's going to make it more attractive for investors and financiers to invest in community housing. They are going to allow increased use of leasing to provide social houses where leasing delivers value for money – that could help deliver more social housing very quickly and would only be available for newly built homes that have not yet been occupied. And they would also capitalise part of the operating supplement currently paid to community housing providers for new housing developments, to be paid upfront when contracts for new social housing are agreed. So if your eyes are glazing over, it will mean that the money will be given to them up front rather than in various portions as the housing comes online. Labour's Kieran McAnulty says Chris Bishop's all talk. He said it was hoped that there would have been government support for desperately needed public housing. And by support, I guess he means money - upfront money. Instead, there was no commitment to build any more public homes and no further support for the community housing providers, no increases to income related rent subsidies. Everyone was hoping the government would at least announce it would guarantee loans for the newly established Community Housing Funding Agency to make them cheaper, but again, no commitment from the Minister. When it comes to providing state housing the government has always been the first port of call, traditionally and historically. Then there was underinvestment from successive governments in the Kainga Ora stock, and also the needs of people changed. You didn't need a three bedroom house with room for a veggie garden and a nice kitchen for mum to bake the afternoon tea for the kids when they came home from school. That's just not what the modern family looks like compared to 1933, so there have had to be changes to stock. People who go into social housing, many of them have jobs, they have families, they raise them, they move on. Others are their longer term and as tenants, they need to be as they need more management. The Community Housing providers tend to do that better because they have fewer tenants. When you've got a Kainga Ora tenant manager, they have far more people that they're trying to manage. Community Housing providers can prevent problems happening before they happen, Kainga Ora tends to be more reactive because there are just more people. There's also an expectation than once you get a State House, that's where you land, you don't move on, you've got it for life. Whereas in the past it was understood that it was a stepping stone. So when it comes to the provision of social housing, do we need to put more in the hands of the community housing providers? Will these changes, as far as you're concerned, make it easier for them to do so? I think the leasing will probably make it easier. Whether the changes to the contracts for new housing supply will make it more attractive for investors, that will be for them to decide. Do we want Kainga Ora to fulfil its vision of being a developer? Bold, visionary, large scale developer of urban renewal projects? I mean I get where they were coming from, but they couldn't deliver, they didn't have the money, they didn't have the governance, they were operating in it time when the housing market was going completely and utterly insane in the post pandemic years. It was a perfect storm. If you're looking for a home, do you care whether it comes from Kainga Ora? Do you care whether it comes from a community housing provider? If you're living in an area where social housing developments are being built, are they being done so thoughtfully? What is the role of the state to provide public housing? Should it be, as Keiran McAnulty said, just give them loans - give the Community Housing providers loans. Let them get on with it because they do it well. Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:01:18 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-do-people-trust-labour-with-a-capital-gains-tax/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-do-people-trust-labour-with-a-capital-gains-tax/ One of the questions we’ll be putting to Chris Hipkins, of course, is a question around the capital gains tax, because this is an issue that simply will not die. Labour Party members will vote on whether to formally endorse continuing work on a capital gains or wealth tax at their party conference in Christchurch this weekend. The party's been debating tax policy since losing the election last year, part of a broader truth and reconciliation soul searching. The people loved us so much and then they didn't. How did it all go so wrong? So that's there's been a lot of that.   Former Labour Party leader, David Cunliffe was on with Mike Hosking this morning and he says he has no insider knowledge, but thinks the conference members will be pushing hard for some sort of wealth tax.   “CGTs have actually polled really well, and one might, with a wry smile on your case, say that the CGT poll better than the Labour Party, so it's unlikely to be a net vote loser. Most middle ground National voters I know would also support CGT, no so a wealth tax. I mean a wealth tax has got a retrospective element sometimes, because it goes to accumulated wealth and high wealth individuals might vote with their feet, so I think that's a much riskier proposition. I think Labour should be moderate here and just do a sensible, relatively low-rate broad based CGT.”  Which is what David Parker and Grant Robertson last time wanted when they had a mandate. They had a mandate, they had the popular vote, they were governing alone – they could do pretty much what they wanted and what senior members of the party wanted, senior members of the government wanted was a capital gains tax. So I would argue with David Cunliffe that if there were votes in it, you can bet your bippy that Chris Hipkins would have been chucking it out there. He was desperate to stay in power. He was putting things on the bonfire and offering trinkets and displaying baubles, and you know if capital gains tax had had any votes in it, you can bet he would have put it out there.   Instead, he brassed off some really senior members of his government by saying it wouldn't happen. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. The text machine went wild after David Cunliffe's interview with Mike. And in news that will surprise no one, the 九一星空无限talk ZB audience appears to be overwhelmingly against the idea of a capital gains tax. I don't buy all the criticisms of a capital gains tax, but one of them rings true: I simply do not trust that the Labour government will spend my money wisely when they take it off me, if the last administration is anything to go by. There has to be some sort of understanding, some sort of relationship between the government and taxpayers, some level of trust.   If the government is coming to us to tax us, they have to say we're going to take money off you, and you might not like it but look at what we can deliver for the whole country for future generations with your contribution. Look at what you can do when we all contribute towards the country, this is what we can deliver. And you accept that. You say okay, I don't particularly like it, but I don't agree with everything you're doing but I can see results. I can see the country is improving, I can see that services are being delivered, that people who are working hard can get ahead, that kids can get an education, that my grandmother can get a hip replacement, I can see that it's moving in the right direction. But to take money off us and be left worse off as a country and as a people than when we started, yeah nah. She's a harder sell there.  Mon, 25 Nov 2024 23:37:50 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-need-to-do-something-about-preventing-obesity/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-we-need-to-do-something-about-preventing-obesity/ The health system, well, we're not really talking about the health system, but how not to get into the health system because every time we talk about the health system, we talk about the need to stop people getting into the health system in the first place, the need to focus on prevention rather than cure. And the Helen Clark Foundation has come up with a new report calling on politicians to take a new direction when it comes to problems with obesity and the health problems related to obesity. A third of New Zealand adults are obese and even if we want to split hairs and play fast and loose with the BMI - All Black front rowers are technically obese! Everybody knows you can be skinny fat! You know you can all protest as much as you like, but the fact is too many of us are unhealthy because we're fat and that leads to a long, miserable and expensive relationship with the country's health system. Obesity is now the leading risk factor for death and disability in this country. The Helen Clark Foundation Report, ‘Junk Food and Poor Policy’ says successive governments have primarily approached obesity as a matter of individual responsibility. And I would add to that, that society also sees obesity as a moral failing, which complicates matters. So if you're fat, you've got poor self-control, haven't you? Oh dear, you're not trying hard enough. Oh dear, you're clearly a person with lax morals, all that kind of judginess goes on as well. The foundation argues that successive governments have done far too little to address the underlying issues of what causes obesity. Only a fraction of school canteens meet the nutritional guidelines. The concentration of takeaways is highest in the most deprived suburbs in New Zealand, so the people who have the least amount of time to prepare nutritional meals, find themselves bombarded with takeaway stores just around the corner. The Helen Clark Foundation wants to see a healthier food environment, stricter rules for advertising junk food, giving local government the power to control new unhealthy food outlets (similar to bottle stores and how they're allowed to operate), and making the health star rating on food packaging mandatory. Regulation can work – soft drinks levy introduced in the UK in 2016, has led to a 35 percent reduction in the total sugar sold over four years and lowered hospital admissions for dental treatment. So that has got to be good news. The Foundation’s also calling for embedding healthier food across hospitals, schools, daycares and the like, and adopting and expanding new treatments like weight loss drugs. For a while, it was the bariatric surgery. I know so many people who've had it. And it's worked for the most part, for them, like overwhelmingly, it's worked for them. Now it’s Ozempic and the other related type injectables are said to be an absolute game changer when it comes to obesity. Basically, and putting into really fundamental terms, the makers of Ozempic have said people can not know when they're full – not all people, but there are a lot of people who don't know when they're full. Their bodies have no trigger switch that says, oh, that's enough, stop. With the injection, they take the injection and they have something to eat and their body says that's enough, we've got enough nutrition to get us through, and so you know when to stop. Which sounds amazingly easy. And if that is all it is, yay, it will make a huge difference. I mean, obviously following the the logic that David Seymour applied to Pharmac, if you can get people onto Ozempic or similar, a weight drug that regulates metabolism and regulates appetite that has got to be better in the long run than paying all of the health bills further down the track. I would love to hear from those of you who have thought about weight, struggled with weight, done something about weight. It occupies far too much of our time, but it is a very, very real problem. I mean, look at the figures. Obesity has overtaken smoking as the leading cause of death and disability in this country. We need to do something about it. What do we do?  LISTEN ABOVE Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:36:19 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-should-we-be-raising-the-alarm-over-drug-use/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-should-we-be-raising-the-alarm-over-drug-use/ Remember yesterday when we were talking about the declining rates of hazardous drinking among young people? Good news. And then so many of you positing that it's because they're popping pills and taking other drugs. Bad news. It looks like you might be right.   The 2024 New Zealand Drugs Trend Survey has found that the price of drugs is dropping, the meth market saturated, and drug use has increased in just about all the regions. The availability of LSD and other psychedelics is growing, prices have been dropping for the past seven years, Kiwis’ cocaine use is up the wazoo —I suppose you could put it up the wazoo, it’s usually up the nose— but that's everywhere in all the regions. Cannabis is everywhere and the price has dropped marginally.   The fact that meth has reached record-low prices is because new players are entering the market. Just as with anything that you manufacture, doing it yourself in New Zealand is more expensive than importing it from overseas, and that is concerning. Professor Chris Wilkins from Massey University says new players have entered the market and our drugs are no longer just a bit of marijuana growing locally.   CW: It's a global market, so a lot of the methamphetamine we have traditionally used has come from Southeast Asia, but Australian police are saying that 70% of the meth they now see is actually from North America, South America, actually are Mexican cartels, and they're essentially just like in the other market, they're seeing a market opportunity and they're selling at a cut price.   MH: There seems to be a tremendous amount of cocaine about the place?    CW: That's right. So there was another really surprising finding was that the level of cocaine use, level of cocaine availability, obviously in Auckland, but also in Northland, the Bay of Plenty, but really all over in New Zealand and this may well be some overlap with that Mexican cartel and of course, they're in the cocaine trade, and if they're selling meth to New Zealand and to Australia, then cocaine is also another thing that obviously got access to.   So yeah, the Mexican cartels sending down their meth and saying, “look, hey gift with purchase, you might like to try a little bit of cokie wokie when you’re taking your meth supplies”. So the survey says drugs are becoming increasingly prevalent, but illicit drug users are still in the minority if you believe the New Zealand Drug Foundation. You might think from that report and from what Professor Wilkins was saying that at every party in every town across New Zealand, there are mountains of cocaine and rows of meth pipes lined up on every table like little party favours, but the Drug Foundation says drugs like meth, MDMA and opioids are used by a relatively small percentage of the population.   According to their figures —self-reporting— 3.6% of the population aged 15 and over used MDMA last year. That's around 152,000 people. 1.1%, around 47,000, used amphetamines, and 0.4%, around 18,000, used opioids. They rely on self-reporting, and the New Zealand Health Survey, which is self-reporting and wastewater testing data – which you think would be more accurate, but surely there must be more people using drugs than those who are appearing in the wastewater or those who are self-reporting? Otherwise, how are so many people able to make a living peddling drugs? Why would the cartels bother sending drugs into New Zealand if it wasn't worth their while? Are we seeing a disconnect between the numbers of people who are self-reporting and the actual trade itself?   Do we need to know exactly what the extent of drug use is in New Zealand before we can have a conversation about drug use in New Zealand? If there are many, many people, like if it's more than 1%, if we're talking about 10% of the population using illicit drugs, then you'd think it would be time to take the Portuguese approach and decriminalise drugs to control the source and supplies so that it wasn't in the hands of the gangsters and the mobsters. And we really don't want Mexican cartels here, do we?  But then you can't just take the Portuguese experiment, which has worked in Portugal and import it holus-bolus into your own country. In Canada, in British Columbia, they became the first and only province thus far to decriminalise the possession of a small amount of hard drugs to reduce the barriers and stigma “that bar those with severe drug addiction from life saving help or treatment”. It's running on a pilot basis until 2026, but already it's a disaster. It's come under increasing pressure from British Columbian residents and political opponents, who have called it a harmful experiment with all the drug users out in the streets and slumped over and unconscious, no safeguards for the public, and one that utterly failed to reduce drug overdose deaths.   Remember the synnies that were doing so much damage, especially among the homeless people? They seem to have self regulated and thought, no, we're not going to use those because we're going to end up dying a horrible death.   According to the latest Drugs Trend Survey, drug use is increasing across most drugs across all regions of New Zealand. The price is dropping, its hoots wahay, party time as we go into summer. But according to the Drug Foundation, 3.6% of the population using illicit drugs, it's not a huge amount of people, is it? So where are we at? What numbers do you believe? Is it worth having a moral crisis and raising the alarm about the amount of drug use and the cartels moving into here, or is it a relatively small number of people? How is it that 3.6% of the population can support all those gangs and all those cartels?  Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:35:07 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-how-would-you-rank-the-police-minister/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-how-would-you-rank-the-police-minister/ The hīkoi we were discussing last week has gone down the country through the weekend, rolls into Wellington City, and should arrive at Parliament around midday. Police say they don't expect any problems, certainly nothing like the descent into chaos we saw at the end of the last demonstration at Parliament. We'll see.   So far, it seems hīkoi participants have abided by the organisers’ requests. There's all sorts of rules and regulations before you can join the hīkoi, and participants are following them thus far, adhering to the principles of peaceful protest. The police have been working with the organisers, and they told Mike Hosking this morning: so far so good. It does mean, of course, that a lot of police will be tied up at the hīkoi, and if they're there they're not out investigating crime. And they need to be nabbing criminals and hauling them before court and engaging in crime prevention if police Minister Mark Mitchell is to keep his job.   Back in August of 2023, Mark Mitchell told us that if New Zealanders hadn't started to see a change in public safety within a year of his appointment as Police Minister he would resign – so how's he doing? Well, ram raids are down 61%. Foot patrols are up 30%, so that's got to be good news - a visible police presence does an awful lot to help prevent crime. Aggravated robbery is down 11%. Robbery, extortion and the like are down 6%. Serious assaults are down 3%. However, counting against him, common assaults didn't go down, and theft had increased 12%. So how does he think he's doing?   “I just thought it was coming up 12 months and it was important for me, I did that to hold myself to account because we were in such a bad place as a country that the expectation is that whoever took over as Police Minister, it's a huge responsibility, you've got to show that your things are changing. Otherwise, I wasn't the right guy for the job or the right person for the job. So we are starting to see change.   “Like I said, we've got a long way to go, but we're starting to see some trends moving in the right direction. And I want to say that's not attributable to me. I mean it's, it's the fact that, yes, I've got the, the privileged position of Minister so I can bring everyone together ... the Auckland CBD is a good example. We brought the Residence and Ratepayers groups together, the business associations, our social service providers, Māori Wardens, CPNZ, KO, MSD, police, St. John's, we've all come together, we've been aligned. I had my latest meeting on Friday and we're seeing real success. So I've been going around the country trying to pull that together and trying to get some real change and it's happening.”   So how do you think he's doing? You know, just based on your community, your neighbourhood, your retail area, how do you think the Police Minister is doing? I think the stats speak for themselves. Of course, as he also said in the interview with Mike, you're never going to get rid of crime altogether. There is never going to be a day where the police wake up and log no crime, ever. That's just not the way human beings are. But in terms of your community, your neighbourhood, your shopping precinct, do you feel safer?   I mean, certainly I no longer have a low-level sense of alert when I'm going into a mall and walking past a Michael Hill Jewellers store. You know, there had been so many and a number in our area had been hit, so when I was taking the kids to the mall – I wouldn't say I was fearful. I certainly didn't stop going. I wasn't fearful, but I was on alert. Anything that looked a little bit out of the ordinary and I was going to get out of there with those children before hell broke loose. So, I'm more relaxed I think. There isn't the posturing and the advertising and the visibility of gangs in my hood. A few red sneakers, but hey, they might just like the colour.   There aren't the same sort of video footage from doorbells and street cameras of families taking little ones out to go robbing in the early hours of the morning. I haven't seen that being posted for quite some time. So yeah, I feel as though things are getting better and the stats would seem to indicate they are.   Is that because a line has been drawn in the sand? Is that because the focus of the police has shifted slightly? I would certainly say the foot patrols would have helped. Is it an indication from police and indeed from the community? It was voters who said up with this we will not put. We could have gone one way, we went this way when it came to the polling booths. We don't want to see any more softly, softly. We would like to see a line in the sand when it comes to crime.   There's a lot more to do. There's a lot more work to do around addictions, there's a lot more work to do around mental health because a lot of those are precursors to crime. The crime is not actually the problem, it's the addictions that are. But so far, if you were to mark Mark Mitchell, what would you give him a B plus? A minus? A very good start?  Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:08:43 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-our-speeding-fines-are-a-joke/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-our-speeding-fines-are-a-joke/ If I asked you how many demerit points you have right now, reckon you’d be able to tell me?  If you could, then you’re better than most people. Because, unless you get enough demerits to have your licence suspended, then I think most people don’t care.  And a study out today is telling us that we do need to care if we want to make the roads safer.  The people behind the study are telling us that most of us won’t care until we have tougher penalties for speeding. And I’m with them. Because, if we keep on doing things the way we do, not much is going to change.  Here’s the gist of what this study connected with the University of Canterbury is telling us. It's found that drivers ticketed for speeding are nearly three times more likely to be involved in a crash.  And you know why that is, don’t you? It’s because the fines for speeding are so piddly that people just take their chances.  The speed cameras don’t help, either. Because, if you get ticketed by a speed camera,  you don't even get the demerit points. Because it can be difficult to prove who was driving.  So, while the speed cameras are useful, they're not going to do much in terms of slowing people down if, the only impact, is paying a piddly fine and still keeping your licence.  Which is why I like the idea that these researchers are floating today. That if you get a speeding ticket and keep on speeding, you get a higher fine each time.  I’d go a step further than that, though, and say that the fines themselves need to be way higher than what they are now.  As one of the people involved in this study is pointing out today, it’s crazy that you can actually pay more for a parking fine than for a speeding fine.  So rank up the fines each time someone is caught speeding - but sting people for a lot more than we do at the moment.  The other idea that these experts are putting out there today is, essentially, means testing people when they get fined for speeding.  Which might sound like a good idea. But it’s not.   Because someone who speeds is just as much of a menace on the road whether they’re driving some sort of Flash Harry 4-wheel-drive or whether they’re driving a Demio or a clapped-out old Toyota.  Besides which, when you drive too fast on the road you are breaking the law. So I think giving speeding fines to people on how rich they are, or otherwise, makes no sense.  Not to mention the fact that it would be an absolute nightmare to run.  Can you imagine getting pulled over by a cop? Getting some sort of ticket. Then having to go home and submit your income details and whatever else they’d need to determine what means you have to pay the fine.  It might sound like a great idea when you’re writing your research paper at university and trying to “push the envelope” a bit. But it would be a disaster.  Although, to be fair to Dr Darren Walton at the University of Canterbury, he hasn’t just plucked this idea out of thin air. He says, in Switzerland, speeding fines are scaled to wealth.  But I don't see how that would encourage someone with plenty of money to slow down. They’d just go “pfft” and pay the fine.  And I don’t buy this argument that speeding fines need to be “equitable”. That’s what the university guy is saying. You speed, you get caught, and you should pay exactly the same fine - whatever your financial situation. That’s what I think.  But, if this research is telling us that drivers ticketed for speeding are nearly three times more likely than other drivers to be involved in a crash, then something does need to change.  And I do like the idea of scaling-up the speeding fine system. So that, each time you get a ticket, you have to pay a higher fine.  What do you think?  LISTEN ABOVE Sun, 17 Nov 2024 23:34:09 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-chaos-in-parliament-was-a-reflection-of-us/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-chaos-in-parliament-was-a-reflection-of-us/ Crikey, when I suggested yesterday that it might be a good idea if you've never seen Parliament TV, you could always tune in and see the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill.   Crikey, I expected fireworks but not quite to the level that was on display yesterday. The House was temporarily suspended as the legislation was being voted on, after members of the Te Pati Māori performed a haka in front of the bill's author David Seymour. Gerry Brownlee cleared the public gallery, suspended the House, and once order was restored about 20 minutes later, Te Pati Māori's Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was “named” for starting the haka with the speaker. Gerry Brownlee called her behaviour appalling, disrespectful, and grossly disorderly. Being “named” is one of the most serious punishments in Parliament. If you're named, you are suspended for 24 hours, and your pay is docked. Doesn't happen terribly often – former National Party MP Nick Smith was named three times in his parliamentary career, but apart from Smith, it really is a pretty rare punishment.   九一星空无限talk ZB's political commentator Barry Soper said the behaviour was the worst he's seen in 40 years of covering politics. Former Speaker of the House Sir Lockwood Smith said he too thought it was the worst he'd ever seen.   “That would have to be as bad as I've ever seen. I guess, you know my feeling after it was just one of real sadness, you know? Real sadness to see Parliament treated that way. You know, you can't blame the Speaker – I don't think you can blame Gerry at all. I think in the end he had no choice but to suspend the House and let things settle down, have the gallery cleared. I think, you know, some of the rot has started a way back – the whole standard of the place has been lowered in, you know, recent years. And I think you know, this is just when, once you start letting things slip, it just, you know, another inch happens or another centimetre and so it goes on.”  Well, the bill isn't going anywhere, but not until there's been six months of public submissions. ACT, National and NZ First agreed to support it to a first reading as part of the coalition negotiations – one of the dead rats they had to swallow to form a government. And look at the latest poll, the major parties have gained. Nationals up 3.9%, Labours up 1.2%, ACT and Te Pati Māori are both down. That says to me we don't like extremism, we don't like political opportunists making hay, we don't like people at the very extreme of politics. For the most part, we want a relatively quiet life. We just want to be able to send our kids to school and know they'll be educated. We want to be able to ensure that we can go shopping and not be mugged, that we can sleep safely in our own homes, that we can drive from point A to point B without falling down a pothole the size of a three-story skyscraper. We all want the opportunity to be able to work, look after ourselves and if the worst comes to the worst, fate deals this a cruel blow, there will be a safety net there. Oh, and it, you know, perhaps if we have an accident, there's a health system that can pick up the pieces there too.   The extremism doesn't, for the most part, win votes. I've had David Seymour on here before and put to him that this whole Treaty Principles Bill was a huge part of campaigning and yet on voting day, on Election Day, ACT didn't get nearly the votes they thought they were going to get. National made it very clear they were not going to support the bill. They had to, in the end, form a government to first reading. They didn't want a bar of it. And neither do, I would argue, most New Zealanders of whatever ethnicity you might be.   But come back to Lockwood Smith's point when it comes to Parliament, are MPs really role models and exemplars of behaviour we should all be seeking to emulate? Sir Lockwood Smith seemed to think so, that there's a standard within Parliament that needs to be set and maintained for the good of society. I don't think that's true. I think they are representatives of New Zealand and as such, they represent us. And we have become more tribal, less likely to debate an issue more entrenched in our beliefs, if you don't support me, you're against me. Less likely to listen and agree to disagree.   What we saw in Parliament is pretty much what you see on social media every day. People yelling at each other, not listening, not debating, just taking a stance and sticking to it, and that's fair enough. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Everybody is entitled to put forward a proposition. You can hear the other side out and you can maintain your own position if that's what you wish to do.  You can change your mind if you wish. But David Seymour knew exactly what he was doing. ‘Oh, hey, I'm just putting it up there for discussion’. Oh, come on, it was political opportunism. He got exactly what he knew would happen. He's not stupid, he's many things, but he is not stupid.   So all we saw in Parliament, I think, is a reflection of what we see just about every single day in social media, on the text machine. We've seen it over numerous different issues. I think this and if you don't think like me, there's no such thing as debate anymore.  Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:07:04 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-burden-of-parenthood-should-be-shared-equally/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-burden-of-parenthood-should-be-shared-equally/ You have woken up to the news that New Zealand businesses can now take meaningful action to drive down the gender pay gap. You need no longer wait for governments to legislate – the power is in your hands. The launch of an online calculator to help do so was announced yesterday by the Minister for Women, Nicola Gregg. The previous Labour government announced plans last year before the election to require public and private companies with more than 250 workers to publish a gender pay gap report. Earlier in the year, Acting Minister for Women Louise Upston said the Government was committed to addressing inequity in the workplace, but she said “we do not want to overburden businesses with unnecessary costs and regulations.    So the Gender Pay Gap Toolkit was set up by working with businesses and organisations like Spark, ANZ, Tonkin + Taylor, to make sure it's user friendly and has a common methodology. It was also shaped and road tested, apparently, by many other organisations across the country, including Transpower, the Port of Auckland, Champions for Change, and Global Women. Although the pay gap has reduced steadily from 16.3% in 1998, its stuck at around 9 to 10% for the past decade, except for 2015/2016 when it hit 12%. So, it's come down a bit and now it's stabilised.   My colleague Heather du Plessis-Allan had a hot take on why the gap remained stubbornly in place, which she shared with her audience last night. It's up to women, she says, not employers to fix the gender pay gap:  “Here's my tip if you are a woman and you don't want to have a gender pay. Don't take maternity leave. Make the baby's father take the paternity leave and don't always be the one to stay home with the kids when the kids are sick, make the father stay at home with the kids when the kids are sick, because I think that is now part of our problem. We are literally, as women, a more unreliable workforce than men, because think about this: I mean this is brutal, but it's true, right? If you've got an equally qualified man and woman standing in front of you, let's say early 30s, married, but haven't had babies, are you going to hire the lady? Because I don't know about that.   “I'd look at the lady and go oh, she hasn't had babies yet, so now she can have babies, now she's going to want take a year off for every single baby. Now, when the babies sick, got a bit of a cough, the woman's going stay at home. She's unreliable. The guy is more reliable. Guy gets the job. Right. I know that this is hard, and I know we want it all in the modern age, right. We want heaps of money, we want all the big jobs, and we also want to be the ones who stay at home and raise the babies when they come out. But life is tough, and choices are tough, and I suspect women are going to have to start helping themselves a little bit here by getting the dads to do the heavy lifting too, instead of just complaining that life ain't fair.”  So she has a point. If you are going to take a couple of years out of the workforce to be the primary caregiver and you’re female, then you're going to have missed work opportunities, missed promotion opportunities, and that's just the way it is. If you're not around for two years, your employer can't gauge just how effective you are, how good at working you are.   At the same time, we all know the first three years of a child's life are vitally important. Every single child psychologist will tell you that. If you're given $100,000 to put towards your child's education, stay at home for the first three years or employ a primary caregiver to do the same. It just has to be a person who can talk to the baby, speak to the baby, take it out, stimulate it, and it has to be a kind of one-on-one relationship. A best practice according to child psychologists. Not always able to do that, we all just muddle along the best we can. I was back at work when my daughter was six weeks old. I hired a nurse, a young trainee, a graduate nurse to look after her. Not ideal, but needs must. The money had to come in somehow. I tried to keep breastfeeding that first year and managed to do so pretty much, but it was a struggle.   If you want to have children and many couples do, I think it's a lot easier these days to share the load. I mean, we've had a child sick at home and their parents have divided the time. Dad stayed home three days because he can work from home. Mum has stayed home the last two days to give him the best possible chance of recovery and to allow everybody to get the most important parts of their job done on the days they really have to go into the office. They've had to juggle it between them. It's not expected that the mum has to give up five days of working in the office to stay at home. I just don't think there is that expectation among young parents.   I think there really should be a shared responsibility between men and women. Perhaps the mother has the first six months off, then the father has six months off, so that when you do have a man and a woman applying for a job, they're both 32, they both have the same level of qualifications for whatever job they're applying for, then an employer can look at them both and go. I know that at some point, if they want children, I'm going to lose that person for six months, be it the man, be it the woman. If there is an expectation that the man will take time off too, an expectation from within the family, from within the community, from within the workforce, that men are just as likely to take six months off as women are, that kind of evens the playing field. So I think Heather had a point: it's not always going to be possible for a woman to give birth and then skip back to work the next day, leaving the man literally to pick up the baby. But I think if there is an expectation that it will be equally shared between men and women, it will help level up the playing field.  Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:08:00 Z