/on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/rss 九一星空无限 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 12:02:15 Z en /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-good-would-repealing-the-gang-patch-ban-do/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-good-would-repealing-the-gang-patch-ban-do/ Labour's Tāmaki Makaurau candidate Peeni Heare is standing by a comment that he’d repeal the gang patch ban. He agreed with the notion at an event on Wednesday night. Now, this is despite Chris Hipkins saying no, no, that's not true, we're not going to repeal the gang patch law. Peeni Henare told RNZ he was asked his personal view on the issue, which is informed by whanau experience. He understands that differs from the Party's view, but when an audience member at the Waatea-hosted debate at Favona asked the Tāmaki Makaurau candidates, will you repeal the gang patch law if you come into government, yes or no? The Te Pati Maori candidate said yes. Henare could also be heard saying aye.   No wonder Labour is staying schtum and not releasing any policy yet. They don't have any. Individual Labour MPs have reckons, but they all seem to have different divergent reckons. For the record, Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins told me they would not be repealing the gang patch ban when he was in studio a couple of months ago.    KW: Are you going to bring back gang patches?   CH: No. And y'know, I think it's one of those things where it hasn't ultimately y'know, changed the nature of gang activity. Gang business is still booming. They're still selling more methamphetamine than ever. But what it has done is people feel a bit safer with not seeing patched gang members walking down the street. So no, absolutely not.   But Peeni Heare says he personally wants to see the law repealed. Presumably he wants to see the gang patches back out on the streets and the roads and in our neighbourhoods. And that would surely, surely be a backward step. Remember what the Police Commissioner, Richard Chambers, had to say about the banning of gang patches when he was in having a chat last week:  "I'm very, very proud of my staff across the country who have embraced the new legislation, the wearing of gang insignia, and I'm not sure how many it is now, but I think it may be over 700 prosecutions for the wearing of insignia that has helped us to address the gang issues. And in fact, whilst the gang insignia is one aspect, the reality is that gangs are responsible for a very high and disproportionate number of other serious criminal offending. So we're addressing that too, and we have thousands of additional charges that have been presented to the court because as we go about our police work, and we may well be policing things like patches, then we inevitably are dealing with other things as well. And I look at that.   “So I know that there's been a lot of commentary about gang numbers and stuff like that, but the reality is my teams across the country are focused on holding gang members to account. And I'm very, very proud of their hard work. And I think we would all agree that that legislation has definitely gone extremely well, and the compliance level is something that I'm very, very pleased with.”  Chambers says the gang patch ban has actually helped police to do their job, and I simply do not see how wearing patches enhances the lives of the gang members. Anecdotally, we've heard from people who say that without the patches, they feel safer. You don't have to staunch up, live up to the branding on your back. You don't, quite literally, have a target on your back. Rival gang members kill each other. Not all of them, but you are at risk. If you're wearing a colour or a gang patch that a rival gang member does not like, then you're at risk. Without that target on your back, you can just be you. A father, a son, a footy player, a worker.   What possible good can come of repealing the gang patch ban? How is it going to help anybody? If this is an example of where Labour's at policy wise, then you'd have to say that the coalition government, with all its faults and missteps and imperfections, definitely deserves another three years.  Fri, 22 Aug 2025 01:14:11 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-will-it-take-to-bring-nz-out-of-its-funk/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-will-it-take-to-bring-nz-out-of-its-funk/ Finance Minister Nicola Willis all but invoked the old adage ‘the beatings will continue until morale improves’, when commenting on the state of the economy yesterday. In a stand up with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon after the Reserve Bank cut the OCR by 25 basis points to 3%, she blamed the sluggish economy on doomsayers from the opposition benches who were talking the economy down, and all but instructed Kiwi households to be more jolly.   “I'm always conscious that households listen to merchants of misery everyday, most of whom sit on the opposition benches, who like to be doomsayers and talk down the New Zealand economy. I think it's been a really tough time for Kiwi families, there's absolutely no denying that, but we kind of have a choice – do we talk ourselves into an ongoing funk? Or do we look ahead and recognise that things will get better?”  “People need to feel it, and I fully appreciate that. You know, some parts of New Zealand are feeling it, and other parts are not.”   So that was Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon. All well and good, but on the same day she told us to pull up our socks and perk up, Fletcher Building announced a $419 million loss. Kitchen Things, a premium appliance store that goes back to 1986, announced it was closing 12 stores (there is a Kitchen Things in Hamilton that's trading by itself and doing very well and would appreciate the support) and they asked ASB to appoint receivers. And Carter Holt Harvey is proposing to close its Nelson sawmill with the loss of 142 jobs.   Willis and the rest of her government are exasperated and frustrated that things have not got better faster. When you're elected on your promise to turn things around, voters, not unreasonably, expect to see results. And yes, it was always going to be a big job, but they said they were up to the task, that they could do it. I don't think it is the opposition benches being doomsayers. They've done their damage. They're not saying much of anything at all. Labour knows all it has to do is stay schtum – the moment it opens its mouth and gets into trouble. So all they're doing is watching the Government trying to put its shoulder behind the big, sluggish beast that is the economy, and they're shoving it, and they're pushing it, and you've got the Finance Minister out the front dangling her carrots saying come on, up you get New Zealand economy, let's get cracking. And it's hibernating. It's in hibernation and it's not moving. And that must be very frustrating.   There's a very good piece by Danyl McLauchlan in the New Zealand Listener, where he says at the moment the Coalition Government really only has itself to blame. I put that same question to Christopher Luxon when he was in. You're just waiting for the economic cycle. You're not doing anything magical or brilliant or wonderful. Yes, I like what you're doing with education very much. I like what you're doing with law and order very much. But when it comes to the economy, so far all I can see is that you're waiting for the natural cycle. There's not a lot going on. The Reserve Bank is confident lower interest rates will eventually help that inert, sluggish economy get off the front porch and start moving. It's identified numerous reasons why the cuts it's delivered in a year haven't spurred as much growth as some expected. That said, the Chief Economist Paul Conway said yesterday it's not our job to grow the economy. We're here for price stability. He said if you want to get growth going in the long run, it's about improving productivity in the economy. Monetary policy is not the instrument for that. We're about controlling demand to keep inflation low and stable. Don't look at us, he was basically saying, there is only so much that we can do. And sure, by lowering interest rates, by lowering the cash rate, thereby allowing banks to lower mortgage interest rates, that will leave some people who are coming up to setting mortgages with a bit more money in their pockets. It will allow some people to borrow money a bit more easily.   But what is it going to take? I think people are a bit shell shocked after the past four years. And it is an economy of two halves – some people are doing really, really, really well, and good on them. But others, their pay packet arrives in their account and whoosh out it goes. You think you're getting ahead and then in comes the rates bill, or the insurance bill, or school fees, or what have you, and there is no extra for households to be jolly on. Others who might have got their noses ahead and have seen business start to pick up don't want to go through that again, so they're stockpiling like sensible squirrels. There was a lovely woman who rang in a couple of days ago and she was in painting and decorating. She said, I love people having money. I love people who've earned a lot of money, and have worked hard, and been lucky, or however they've got their money, because they spend it with us. And without them spending, we don't have a company. I don't have a business.   That's right. You've got to have that extra money so that the money-go-round can continue. And right now, people either don't have that money, or if they do, they're a bit nervous about spending it. I would love to hear from you if you are in business, if you are a member of a Kiwi household, where are you at? Are you in a funk? I don't think I'm being talked down by the opposition. That's not how I feel. They're not ruining my buzz, they're not dragging me down. I just need to get ahead of the rates and the insurance. The mortgage rates have come down a bit, so that's good. I think 2026 will be okay, but that won't be any thanks to the Government or what it's done to be perfectly honest.  Thu, 21 Aug 2025 01:05:49 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-how-can-teachers-justify-the-continued-disruption/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-how-can-teachers-justify-the-continued-disruption/ The secondary teachers are out again.   They're appalled and insulted by the Government's latest pay offer. For the record, the Governments offered a 1% pay rise every year for three years in collective agreement negotiations. PPTA President Chris Abercrombie says the offer is the lowest increase in a generation and 18-19,000 teachers will be out protesting today. Chris Abercrombie said the Government's offer was appalling, and argued that it failed to help efforts to recruit and retain teachers within the workforce. The Government's also failing, he says, to address other PPTA claims – more pastoral care staffing, professional development for curriculum and assessment, more support for curriculum leaders who will be working on upcoming NCEA changes. If no progress is made, we have been warned, the PPTA says they will roster students home and not teach certain year levels on specific days from September 15th.  If this all sounds familiar, it is. Here's a press release from Jan Tinetti in 2023, basically two years ago, when she was Minister for Education. The Government has agreed to support the independent arbitration panel's recommendation to increase secondary teachers' base salaries by 14.5% by December 2024. The increase will see beginner teachers receive an annual increase of almost $10,000 in addition to their $7,210 lump sum payment. The offer provides an increase of 36% for teachers at the top of the pay scale. She acknowledges the disruption to students, young people, and their parents who were kept out of the classroom. The panel's recommendation adds an extra cost of approximately $680 million to the $3.76 billion already set aside in the budget to settle teachers’ and principals’ agreements. That money includes an increase to other education collective agreements which will flow on from the decision.  So where are we at? Surely the PPTA doesn't expect 14% increases every bloody year. I mean, that's farcical. And if the strike and the promise of more strikes and rostering students home and not teaching certain year levels sounds familiar it’s because in 2023, that's what happened from March, all through the school yea —never the holidays— there were strikes. Year levels were rostered home. There were national strikes. As the teacher said, we haven't received enough from past governments and this Labour government, so it went to independent arbitration and the panel recommended that the base salaries be increased by 14.5%. Which came in in December 2024. Eight months later, they're striking again?   Does this happen every year? Every year we get this. Surely if you're striking and the deal is set that you get pay increases and they come in in December 2024, wouldn't you be factoring in that this will last you for a bit? That that this will do you for the next couple of years? Or parents and teachers going to be seeing kids locked out every year over months and months and months. This kind of disruption is completely, I would have thought, utterly unacceptable. If there hadn't been a pay settlement in 2023, which came into effect in December 24, fill your boots. I'd be out there with a bloody placard with you. But how can you justify going out again and closing the classrooms again after the enormous disruption of Covid? And then the enormous disruption of 2023 with national strikes and rolling strikes. How can it be in the best interests of young people and the profession to disrupt the schools in this way? You know, for $3.76 billion for teachers’ and principals’ salary and package agreements, maybe we could spend that a different way. You know, with AI here now, the PPTA has to be very, very careful that they don't strike themselves out of existence.    Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:29:47 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-can-you-have-confidence-in-buying-a-new-build-with-partial-liability/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-can-you-have-confidence-in-buying-a-new-build-with-partial-liability/ Two stories in the Herald today - one about the announcement from Christopher Luxon and Chris Penk yesterday, changing the building liability settings so ratepayers aren't burdened with picking up the tab that shonky developers, builders, or architects are responsible for. In the Herald story, they cite a case in Queenstown: the Oaks Shores body corporate filed a $160 million claim for weather type defects. The developer had been placed into voluntary liquidation and was not sued, so that meant every ratepayer in the Queenstown District was liable for the bill. If the case hadn't been settled privately, ratepayers could have faced rates increases of $300 a year for 30 years. I hate to think of what it's cost the Auckland Council when it comes to remediation of weather type defects, and it's still going on.   Under the new rules, described as the biggest change to the building consent regime since it came into force in 2004, there'll be partial liability amongst the various parties involved in the development. At the moment, not only is it the cost, but councils have become increasingly risk averse because they don't want to sign off building consents and inspections if it means that they are liable if anything goes wrong and then ratepayers will have to pay.   There's a real blockage in the system, Chris Penk says, and by having everybody share in the liability then that will help (they hope) clear blockages in the current system. Currently building owners can claim full compensation from any responsible party if there's something wrong with the home. If one of the parties can't pay because they've gone into voluntary liquidation, you can go to the other two, and usually that's the Council – deepest pockets, no option to walk away. The government's going to scrap the current framework and replace it with proportionate liability. Under this new model each party will only be responsible for the share of the work they carried out, which is great for ratepayers, great for councils, great for builders. Is it great for the homeowner? I wouldn't have thought so – you can only get the money back if the company is still there to sue. And if they've gone bust and if the Council's only liable for its bit, then you're not going to ever get anywhere near what you paid for a shonky building.   This comes into the spotlight because we're looking at intensification and higher density of houses, which means throwing up more houses quickly. Chris Bishop, the RMA Reform Minister, has already told councils in our larger cities that they can opt out of the medium density residential standards that were introduced by the last government, that allowed for three storey developments on almost every residential property. But you can only abandon that if you adopt new planning rules to allow for an equivalent number of homes.   In Auckland, that will mean the Council has to come up with two million homes over the coming decades. And how are they going to do that? Well, they've decided that they will build them along the transport lines, which makes sense. The suburb of Kingsland, for example, will see the removal of around 70 to 80% of the special character designation that preserves the cottages and villas, and 15 story apartment buildings will be thrown up in their instead because the suburb is close to the station on the Western line. Ten storey and 15 storey developments will be allowed within a 10 minute walk of some train stations, rapid bus stations, the edge of town centres. In Auckland, there's 44 walkable catchments. Height limits will be raised to six stories along more major transport corridors. And 12,000 properties will be down zoned, meaning it'll be harder to put new developments on them, or they won't be permitted at all because of natural hazards like flooding. If adopted, the plan will be open for public submission —this is specifically for Auckland— before the Council makes a final decision later this year.   Auckland councillor Christine Fletcher is one who is vocal in her opposition to the density requirements, concerned that if it's not done well, it will give intensification a bad name. And when you look at some of the horrors that have been constructed around Auckland, you can understand why there would be concern. Bad enough to have a 15 story apartment building next to your bungalow bathed in all day sun, but if it's just in a constant state of remediation and fixing and disrepair and people having to abandon their apartments because it hasn't been done right and can't be fixed, it'll be even worse.   It does have to be done right. There are areas of extreme ugliness, hideous apartments, townhouses jammed together with very little in the way of green spaces, no public transport nearby, few amenities. But then you have developments like Stonefields and Hobsonville Point in Auckland, which I would argue have been done very well. You might be able to point to parts of Hamilton and Napier where there has been intensification of housing. Outside of Christchurch, farmland has become residential in its nature, with developments there.   Those that are done well are done very well. Those that are done poorly are just a blight on the landscape and a burden around the neck of anyone who buys them. How on earth are you going to have any confidence in buying a new build when partial liability is being introduced? When you can't get back what you spend because each party is only responsible for their little bit and so many of them will be able to do a flit?  Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:36:35 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-can-kiwis-be-swayed-to-support-nuclear-power/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-can-kiwis-be-swayed-to-support-nuclear-power/ It seems hard to believe, but the Maxim Institute reckons New Zealand can lead the world in sustainable AI infrastructure. They warn, however, that the window of opportunity is closing quickly because everybody wants to be in on it.   Every other country wants the rewards that come from hooking their carriages to the AI machine, the choices we make now will determine whether New Zealand becomes a leader in the AI economy or is stuck in competing for the rats and mice that are left.   Much hinges on being able to generate the electricity needed to power the massive warehouse sized computers driving the AI economy. Right now, those data centres use 2% of global electricity - more than 10 times New Zealand's annual generation capacity and demand is only going to get greater.  The institute argues that New Zealand has nearly 90% renewable electricity, a temperate climate that reduces cooling costs and strict privacy laws, and thus that makes us an attractive destination for global tech firms. ‘But we haven't got any electricity’ I hear you cry. We're having to burn coal to keep the lights on. Nanas going to bed at 6pm because her power bill is so high. And here is where the Maxim Institute makes its recommendations.    We need to double geothermal generation, explore emerging energy sources such as supercritical geothermal. Small modular reactors, which are next generation nuclear technology that offer safe, scalable zero carbon power. We need to streamline, consent and incentivise investment.    Speaking to the Mike Hosking Breakfast, Thomas Scrimgeour, researcher at the Maxim Institute, is all for exploring the nuclear energy option.   ‘Small nuclear reactors are an excellent source of energy that we should be exploring. The International Energy Agency's report earlier this year was titled A New Era for Nuclear Energy. The world is heavily, heavily investing in nuclear power.   Over 30 countries have signed a pledge to triple nuclear power production by 2050. The world is returning to nuclear power because it is clean, because it is reliable, because it is always there for you.  Nuclear power is something we should be looking at. New Zealand's opposition to nuclear power is quite recent. In the 1970s, so not that long ago, we had a Royal Commission on Nuclear Power, and it released a report in 1978 that was expecting a significant nuclear power programmes in New Zealand by the early 21st century.   It's only since the 1980s that we became a country that reacted against nuclear power because of its associations with weapons testing in the Pacific. But nuclear energy is not the same thing as a nuclear bomb, and New Zealand hasn't always been opposed to nuclear energy. Once upon a time, we were expecting to get nuclear power, and we can talk people back into that.’   Can we though? That was Thomas Scrimgeour, one of the researchers at the Maxim Institute, talking to Mike Hosking this morning.   He says, basically, that the David Lange ‘no nukes’ identity around which we wrap ourselves, it's an anachronism, a thing of the past, it was a blip in history. One moment we were all for nuclear power, next thing we decided it was absolutely abhorrent.   We were never going to have anything to do with nuclear power ever again, even though we have X-rays, and even though our hospitals leak more radiation than the most efficient nuclear-powered vessels, he thinks that we can forget about those Lange years.   He thinks that we can forget about the fact that much of how New Zealand sees itself – pragmatic, humble, innovators, #8 wire mentality, no nukes, no nonsense, give everyone a fair go - he thinks that we can differentiate between no nuclear weapons and the need for nuclear power.   On the surface, it would solve all of our problems. If we can make ourselves an attractive market to global tech firms and being able to store all this massive amount of data in our country, it would solve our problems around electricity too. Is it worth having the discussion or are you not prepared to even talk about it? S  Surely the younger generation, those who weren't around when we got this frisson of excitement when David Lange took us to the world. We took a stand, and we were noble, and we were principled and the whole world knew who we were. Surely the younger generation don't have their identity as a Kiwi tied up in that. Or do they?  LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:55:57 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-dog-owners-have-a-duty-to-ensure-the-communitys-safety/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-dog-owners-have-a-duty-to-ensure-the-communitys-safety/ It was our gorgeous night last night, absolutely beautiful. The kids were training for football up at the local park, and while I waited to pick up my daughter and grandson, I went for a lovely walk along the estuary – there were Tui and Kereru, families and joggers were out, and it was just glorious.   But at the same time, as I was thoroughly appreciating just how lucky we are to have such a gorgeous amenity close by, I was keeping a wary eye out for any off leash dogs, because in our neighbourhood community group there had been a warning about a dangerous dog owner at the local park. And it only takes that one bad apple, doesn't it? To just put a slight tinge on the enjoyment. People who have no business owning dogs, taking them to the local park, completely letting them run wild with no control over them. A woman's dog was attacked and she was bitten badly when she tried to intervene to save the dog.   There are far, far more good dog owners. At our local there are dogs of all breeds of all sizes, they all socialise together quite happily and although money might be a little bit tight for some families in our neighbourhood, we are not what you'd call a high socio economic area, we all rub along together. The dogs that I see at the park are always beautifully looked after, glossy coats, great condition, whatever breed they might be.   Auckland Council’s cracking down on dog owners in a bid to lower a surge in attacks. They prosecuted the owner of a Rottweiler whose teenage son was walking the dog when it mauled a passer-by. The dog owner was very apologetic and the dog was euthanised at the owner's request. Four days later, she offered assistance to the victim immediately, but nonetheless the courts still gave her a 70 hours community service and fined her $500 – which is almost more than you get for taking a life, but there you go. Auckland is taking a tough stance because on the 24/25 financial year alone, nearly 3000 dog attacks and more than 15,000 cases of roaming dogs were reported, and that's an increase from 2020, when there were just under 2000 attacks logged. It's attributed to a surge in dog ownership after the lockdowns, a decline in desexing, and a growing number of unregistered and untrained animals.   And it's not just Auckland. I mean, basically pick any area of the country. Last year, locals staged a protest in Kaikohe outside the local council headquarters, demanding tougher action against roaming and dangerous dogs. They wanted to see better conditions in the Council's pounds and a reduced euthanasia. And the demonstration followed a surge in dog attacks across the region, with double the rate of attacks recorded nationwide. Two people were killed by dogs in the space of a year. The message from local authorities is clear.   Yet again, it's the dog owners, it generally always is – too many dog owners failing to take responsibility. The Auckland compliance manager said we're seeing a rise in serious attacks and it's clear that many owners do not care and don't believe they should be held responsible. Let us be clear, they will be held responsible. Owning a dog comes with a duty to ensure the safety of the community. If you can't meet that duty, you should not own a dog. There won't be any dog lovers, surely, who would disagree with that? Fri, 15 Aug 2025 01:42:49 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-fronting-publicly-is-the-least-ardern-hipkins-and-robertson-could-do/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-fronting-publicly-is-the-least-ardern-hipkins-and-robertson-could-do/ There's an old saying, one generally used by mothers: I’m not angry, I'm just disappointed.   Yesterday, hearing that the unholy Triumvirate of Ardern, Robertson, and Hipkins —Ayesha Verrall doesn't count— were choosing not to appear publicly at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 Response, I was both angry and disappointed. The second set of public hearings for the Royal Commission has been axed after key witnesses, including the aforementioned, refused to appear. Chairman Grant Illingworth has the power to summon people to appear before the Inquiry, those living in New Zealand, but said he would not use it. On balance, he said “we are of the view that a summons is undesirable given that the former ministers continue to cooperate with the evidence gathering of the Inquiry”. The writing was on the wall back in early July that Hipkins would not be showing his face publicly, when I asked him about attending to give his evidence in person. You could hear on the 8th of July that there was no way he was going to show his face.  It may be true that government ministers have in the past given their evidence privately to Royal Commissioners. The Covid-19 response, I would argue, is different. The “most honest and transparent government ever” relied hugely on the trust and faith of the public to implement the nationwide wholesale measures that they did. We all sacrificed to varying degrees, and with varying degrees of willingness, personal freedoms, livelihoods, children's schooling, mental wellbeing, because the government engaged with us, talked at us, cajoled us, threatened us, reassured us it was a relationship. Every single day those people were up in our grills, in public, telling us what we needed to do, how we had to do it, and giving their reasons for why we had to do it. Enormous sacrifices were made by many, many people, and many of them are still counting the emotional toll.   Ardern, Hipkins, and Robertson used their public profiles to ensure compliance with the decisions they were making, which grew ever more ridiculous and unworkable as time went on. I believe they have a moral obligation to front the public and answer the Commissioners questions publicly. Without manipulating the public trust, for better and worse, they couldn't have got away with what they did. Their objections to appearing appear to be Dentons’, the law firm’s, objections to appearing, but their objections include the convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries in private, and departing from that convention would undermine confidence. In what exactly?   I hope I've put up a case that they do have an obligation to answer publicly because the Covid-19 response was unlike any other event where there's been a Commission of Inquiry.  They were also concerned that the live streaming and publication of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those recordings being tampered with, manipulated, or otherwise misused. For heavens sake, any time you open your mouth in public your words and image can be manipulated and misused. Look at Neil Finn's erections for heavens sake. Anytime you appear talking about anything, AI can use your image, your words – it's not exclusive to the Commission of Inquiry.   They have form, these people, as spineless decision makers, so it should be no real surprise they haven't showed publicly. They never once ventured to Auckland during the pointless, unreasonable lockdowns of 2021. So no huge surprise that they're not willing to stand by the decisions they made then, now. Ardern and Robertson have moved on. They don't need the New Zealand public. They don't need the New Zealand public to have confidence in them, Hipkins does. He wants to be Prime Minister again. He wants another bash at it. He'll point to the polls and say he's a third of the way there, that most New Zealanders have got over Covid, moved on. Some of us haven't. We are living with the decisions the economic, medical, and social decisions that this unholy triumvirate made every single day. And our children will live with those decisions, and our grandchildren. The very least they could do is appear before the same public, whose faith and trust they exploited and explain how and why they made the decisions that they did.  Thu, 14 Aug 2025 01:11:51 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-is-spineless-really-unparliamentary-language/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-is-spineless-really-unparliamentary-language/ So as you will have heard, Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has been barred from Parliament's debating chamber for the rest of the week, unless she apologises for a comment made during a debate over Palestine and the granting of statehood to it. During her speech, Swarbrick called on government MPs to back a Green Party bill that would allow New Zealand to sanction Israel for its war crimes.   CS: If we find 6 of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history.   GB: No, that is completely unacceptable to make that statement, withdraw it and apologise.   CS: No.   GB: Then leave the house for the rest of the week.   CS: Happily.   Gerry Brownlee, the Speaker of the House, said the spine comment was completely unacceptable, ordered her to withdraw it, and told her to leave the House when she refused. Parliamentary debates can be heated, but there are rules about what members can and cannot say. Unbecoming language, insults and accusations of dishonesty are banned.   Now obviously unparliamentary language is constantly evolving and changing over time. Going into Parliaments records, you'll find that in 1933 an MP calling another member a shrewd old bird was considered unparliamentary language. In 1936, fungus farmer and pipsqueak were considered unacceptable. In 1946 things got a bit heated ... “I would cut the honourable gentleman's throat if I had the chance”, understandably, the Speaker ruled on that one unparliamentary language. But skite was also considered unparliamentary in 1946. I mean, nobody likes a skite, but unbecoming language and having to apologise to the House?   In 1966 the insults flew and the Speaker was kept very busy. Shut up yourself, you great ape – withdraw and apologise. Snotty nosed little boy, cheap little twerp, and ridiculous mouse were all considered unacceptable. In 1977 John Boy was considered unacceptable. Silly old moo, racist, and sober up, which could have applied to any one of a number of MPs in 1977 I imagine, and so on and so forth. We probably don't think many of those insults were unparliamentary or unacceptable. I would say spineless fits in alongside twerp or stupid as Chris Bishop is supposed to have called members of the Opposition. I think stupid is worse than spineless. There are many things I have criticised and would criticise Chlöe Swarbrick for – calling her colleagues across the House spineless is not one of them.  Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:33:01 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-can-we-do-about-rate-rises/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-what-can-we-do-about-rate-rises/ Commentators are telling us that the tide is turning, that we've reached the bottom of the cycle. ANZ has lowered its mortgage interest rates, so other banks will surely follow suit, bringing relief to many households. Spring is almost here. And then the rates bill arrives in the mail. Any financial gains are immediately lost, any lift of the spirits plummets.   The Government is well aware that rising rates are adding to the economic doom and gloom. They put councils on notice last year to deliver value for money and promised to name and shame councils who were profligate spenders. They called it a table of spending, we call it naming and shaming. The report is designed to hold councils accountable on six metrics:   Rates – the change in rates since the previous year and the forecast change in rates over the next 10 years.  Council debt   Capital expenditure, including a breakdown by activity class such as roading and water services.    Balanced budget – to show whether the Council is actually coping with the rates that come in with the money it has or having to borrow to sustain itself.    Road conditions – so ratepayers can compare the state of their local roads with councils across the country. Local Government Minister Simon Watts says communities can now compare how much their council spends on core essentials like infrastructure and see whether their rates are going up more than average. We have been clear, says Simon Watts, that we want to see councils get back to basics, focusing on delivering essential services and infrastructure, improving local decision making, and supporting their communities through the cost of living, not adding to it.   He's also introducing a bill to remove four well-being provisions: social, economic, environmental, and cultural. They were reintroduced by Labour in 2019 after being removed by the previous National government in 2012, who removed them after Labour introduced them in 2002. So there's been a bit of political ping pong going on there. It will also impose a requirement on councils to prioritise core services when managing finances and setting rates. The threat of a rates cap too is ever present. If you don't stop increasing rates, then we will put a cap on you, the central government has said to local, so that you can't just hoick up the rates to pay your bills. Simon Watts points to rates caps in NSW and Victoria and says the same could happen here. I’m not sure that is the answer, not without accepting a massive loss in services, but how on Earth do you manage to budget when your rates rise well beyond inflation? What options do you have?   There's a story in today's New Zealand Herald of a rates rise of 72% for one family in Orewa. That's because they're living on land that's ripe for development, except, of course it's not, because WaterCare is not issuing any resource consents, because there simply isn't the infrastructure to sustain any more development. So they're facing a huge hike in their rates because of the value of the land, but the value of the land can't be realised. So how on Earth do you cope with the 72% rise in rates? How do you manage? Do you sell the property because you simply can't afford the rates? Do you apply for rates relief? Do you just not pay it?   For a long time, those who have bothered to vote in local body elections have voted for councillors who promise there'll be no rates rises, which means that a lot of the work that councils are doing has been delayed. They haven't had the money because homeowners, ratepayers, have elected councillors that have promised there will be no rates rises. But all that's doing is delaying the inevitable. In part, we have brought this on ourselves. You vote for people who aren't going to increase rates, you don't bother to vote. You don't bother to stand for council. When I say you, I mean we. So in part, we've brought this on ourselves. And because there haven't been the cheques and balances to monitor the spending, irresponsible councils have been able to do exactly as they wish - vanity projects wasteful spending. And those within the infrastructure of Council too have spent like drunken sailors. I would very much like to hear from those of you who have received your rates bill. Around the country, we've seen massive increases. Are you getting value for money from your Council? And what on Earth can you do about it?  Tue, 12 Aug 2025 01:08:43 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-will-we-soon-see-the-greens-leading-the-government/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-will-we-soon-see-the-greens-leading-the-government/ I asked on Friday how anyone could vote for Labour given the latest Treasury report into their irresponsible spending of taxpayer money that came out last week. That irresponsible spending that contributed greatly to the recession, the high mortgage interest rates to unemployment - when so many of the same people, those people who made so many stupid decisions are still there, how could anyone, I asked, think that Labour should get another crack at government?   The answer is quite a few of you think they should. The latest Taxpayers Union Curia poll that came out yesterday shows that if an election were held on Sunday, the result would be a hung parliament with the centre right bloc gaining 61 seats and the centre left block getting exactly the same - 61 for National, for ACT, for NZ First, 61 for Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Maori.   Labour’s up two points, National’s down 2 points. It's only a poll - and we all know the Winston Peters dictum, the only poll that counts is the one that counts on election day. But it is a clear indication that when you campaign on fixing the economy, ‘hang on, help is on the way, we're here now, the grown-ups are in charge,’ then you have to actually fix it.  Things have to change. Cost of living remains voters’ most important issue. Closely followed by the economy, then health and employment. All of those hang around the economy, hang around pulling the right levers to get things cracking again. Your average hard-working Kiwi is exhausted and tired of being told that things are coming right, that the ship is slowly turning around and heading in the right direction.   So, this latest poll may be an expression of exhaustion and dissatisfaction. It may just be an indication that more people are starting to agree with Greens Co-leader Chloe Swarbrick that capitalism’s cooked. The Greens held their AGM over the weekend and Swarbrick urged the party faithful to build the parties fan base. She wants them to be talking to miners and factory workers and farmers to people who are fed up with politics and the two main parties and who are looking for alternatives, alternatives to the main parties and alternatives to capitalism. She also says she wants to have more say in the next government, she and Marama Davidson want to be the ones calling the shots, forming the government and deciding the policies.   Chloe's put herself up as finance minister in the next coalition government. And if you want to see what that looks like the Greens, unlike Labour, have put up their economic policies to be scrutinised. They have put up an alternate budget. What this latest poll says is that Green supporters should take heart.   People are tired, they are fed up, they can't see the status quo helping them. National, Labour, whatever, they're interchangeable. They're hard workers, they're good citizens, and they're still not getting ahead. The only way they can see a future for themselves and their families is by leaving the country. Does that mean they're ready to put the Greens in the driver's seat? Well, according to this latest poll, they're willing to put Labour there, so surely it's not such a great stretch of the imagination to see the Greens getting the votes they need to call the shots in 2026.    Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:36:30 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-how-can-anyone-not-be-critical-of-labour/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-how-can-anyone-not-be-critical-of-labour/ I get texts on the daily from people saying “you're so negative about Labour”.  “You never have anything good to say about the last government. You're so critical of Labour.” And I say to them, how can anyone with a brain not be critical of Labour?! The gut feeling I had at the time that the previous administration was out of their depth and hopelessly incompetent has been proved with hard data, time and time and time again. The failure to deliver any kind of transformational reform, the failure to deliver on the absolute basics, the arrogance around co-governance, the breathtaking and utterly tragic waste of taxpayer money, more on that later, Treasury's report that came out yesterday slamming the governments spending during the pandemic just confirms everything we knew – but now this.   Labour's absolute refusal to even acknowledge changes taking place within NCEA. The Herald has the story and its a good one. The Government offered Labour multiple opportunities to be briefed on the NCEA change process, but the party’s education spokeswoman Willow-Jean Prime initially didn’t respond to these invitations and then flat-out declined them. This after Hipkins said to the Herald last month that the Labour Government consulted with the then-Opposition to ensure changes were “going to be enduring” and expressed a desire for the current Government to do the same. A text message appears to show Stanford reached out to Prime about NCEA after the Labour MP took over the education portfolio from Jan Tinetti in March.  “Hey Willow-Jean, congrats on the new role! Will need to get you up to speed with the NCEA change process. Jan and I had started working cross-party on this given the importance of our national qualification,” Stanford wrote, according to a screenshot provided.  “Would be good if we could meet first and I can run you through where we are at and what the process is. There is a policy advisory group of principals who are working on the details and you can have access to them when they meet as well as my officials and also NZQA.”  The Minister said her office would get in touch with Prime’s “if that’s ok?”. Nothing.  Tumbleweeds. Now I get that she doesn't have to like the changes. She doesn't have to agree with the change. But a letter along the lines of 'Thanks Minister, but I am philosophically and intellectually opposed to the changes you intend to make and I will be rolling them back once I am Minister. Nga mihi, Willow Jean' would have let everybody know where they stood. Nothing? No response at all?!   Stanford's office reached out again in May. Again, nothing. In mid June, Stanford reached out personally and then when again, there was no response, Stanford emailed Chris Hipkins office on July 1. “I’ve sought on multiple occasions to get input from your education spokesperson on NCEA curriculum reform, with no response,” Stanford wrote to Hipkins on July 1.  “It is important to have cross-party collaboration regarding a national qualification, and the offer remains open to arrange a briefing from officials or from the Professional Advisory Group.”  The next day, an adviser for Prime emailed Stanford: “I acknowledge your email regarding NCEA curriculum reform." “Willow-Jean has considered your email and declines the invitation."  That is Labour's education spokesperson. Some one who is so rude, so out of touch, so out of her depth she refused to be part of transformational change. But no, this is not just Labour's education spokesperson, this is Labour. Out of touch, out of their depth, and while Chris Hipkins remains as leader, they should never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power ever again.  Thu, 07 Aug 2025 21:35:43 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-on-the-face-of-it-the-ruc-announcement-makes-sense/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-on-the-face-of-it-the-ruc-announcement-makes-sense/ On the face of it, the announcement from Transport Minister Chris Bishop yesterday makes good sense. It's been signalled; it was National Party election policy to move away from a fuel excise duty to road user charges (RUC). Simeon Brown, who was the transport spokesman at the time, said it would be a fairer way to charge for the distance people drive rather than the amount of fuel they use, given the different nature of the way we drive these days and the vehicles we drive.   So the current fuel excise duty is expected to be abolished in the coming years, all vehicles moving to road user charges. These are currently paid by owners of diesel, electric, and heavy vehicles. Last year the Government said the transition away from the so-called petrol tax could happen as soon as 2027. Yesterday, Chris Bishop said no date had been set, in order to make sure the changes aren't rushed. Which put this rather in the category of an announcement of an announcement.    What was announced yesterday is:    Removing the requirement to carry or display RUC licences, allowing for digital records instead.   Enable the use of a broader range of electronic RUC devices, including those already built into many modern vehicles.   Supporting flexible payment models, such as post-pay and monthly billing.   Separating NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi’s (NZTA) roles as both RUC regulator and retailer to foster fairer competition.   Allowing bundling of other road charges such as tolls and time-of-use-based pricing into a single, easy payment. Currently, the system is mostly paper-based and drivers have to monitor their odometers to check what distance they have driven. It also requires owners to buy RUCs in 1000km chunks.   The Automobile Association is broadly supportive of the changes. AA Transport policy director Martin Glynn spoke to the Mike Hosking Breakfast and believes moving to an electronic system is a good idea.   MG: “I think absolutely long term, as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people start, you know, there's different ways of powering vehicles, as we all know it's just not sustainable. So yeah we actually do need to make the shift.  MH: "The electronics behind it, is the transfer easy? If you get an app or you get a sensor in your car or whatever that turns out to be, is that easy?   MG: "The announcements been a little bit vague. Certainly for new cars the Minister’s been clear that a lot of that data and the systems are already available in the car itself, so that should be fairly straightforward. But I think that what he seems to be signalling is that we're moving to electronic devices to measure distance, and base, and weight. So that would be actually something in vehicles like we have the heavy vehicles now.    And the National Road Carrier Association CEO Justin Tighe-Umbers spoke to Early Edition this morning, and they also think it's a good move.  “It’s a once in 50 year change. Every country around the world is actually facing this problem where you've got EVs and far more efficient petrol engines just reducing how roading’s paid for. New Zealand's actually in, we're in quite a good position because we're world pioneers in road user charges. We were the first to bring it out in the late 70s and we're still a world leader on it with electronic RUCs for how trucks pay for it, so we're actually in quite a strong position compared to other countries.”  Who knew? I did not realise that we were world leaders in road user charges. At first glance, it makes sense. The Minister said that as our vehicle fleet has changed, so too must the way we fund our roads. It isn't fair, Chris Bishop said, to have Kiwis who drive less and can't afford the fuel-efficient cars paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often. He said the intent is to make paying RUC user friendly and similar to paying a power bill online or a Netflix subscription.   The thing is though, if you don't pay your power bill or your Netflix subscription, the service is cut. You don't get it anymore. You don't pay, you don't get it. You can't do that with roads. It's not as though all of a sudden a barrier is going to appear at your driveway, and you're not allowed to go onto the road because you haven't paid your RUC. And according to number of mechanics, the number of vehicles that turn up where the RUC have not been paid is extraordinary. So the system will only be as good as the technology that can isolate the people who are not paying. I'm sure you'll be able to fiddle the electronics if you can fiddle odometers, and people have been doing that ever since there's been the buying and trading of vehicles. The technology has to be as tamper proof as we can make it. It's the right move, but we just have to ensure we have the technology to ensure that users do indeed pay.  Thu, 07 Aug 2025 01:20:16 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-should-ai-be-utilised-more-in-schools/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-should-ai-be-utilised-more-in-schools/ You might remember a month or so ago we had Justin Flitter, an AI expert, in the studio for an hour talking about the fact that AI is here, it's already being used by numerous early adopters, it's not going away, and you'll have to get on board or you'll be left behind. And as you can imagine, the calls were a mix of oh no, it's a disaster, stop it now and King Canute trying to turn back the tide, and others who were saying it's brilliant, already using it, been using it for over a year. A woman in her 70s who was working with disadvantaged kids found AI enormously helpful in terms of teaching tools.  So some people are ready, willing, and able to embrace change, technology, advancements. Others don't see it as an advancement, they see it as taking jobs, as concerning, as worrying and I get that. But it is here, and it would be pointless to bury your head in the sand and say I don't want it to come. It's already here. It's already being used. Job seekers are using AI to write their CVs and cover letters. AI’s being used by employers to screen job applications. It's being used in job training. It's being used in research and now, Education Minister Erica Stanford says the use of AI as a marking tool will be expanded over the next few years. It's already been used for the literacy and numeracy corequisite exams. Now, she says, it will be used as the education system moves away from NCEA Level 1. She says AI is as good if not better than human marking. It will undoubtedly be as good, if not better, at setting exams.   Remember 2016? Late changes in a top-level school exam math's paper led to a mistake so bad that students could not answer the question. It was unanswerable because of a mistake made by a human, leading to students walking out of the exam doubting themselves and beside themselves. That same year, it was revealed for other external NECA maths and stats exam papers were affected by mistakes, but they weren't considered as severe. Now if you can iron out those kind of glitches, all well and good. And if AI can free up teachers to teach, not doing the boring admin tasks, again, so much the better.   It's not perfect. It's only as good as the human input it receives, but like automation it is brilliant at doing the basic repetitive jobs. So for those of you who are on board, love to hear from you, those of you who have had bad experiences too love to hear from you on that as well. And is it suitable to be used for setting exams, marking papers? The sort of admin that takes up so much of a teacher's time in school. I would say absolutely get on board.  Wed, 06 Aug 2025 01:21:13 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-is-the-knowledge-economy-the-biggest-political-bust-of-recent-times/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-is-the-knowledge-economy-the-biggest-political-bust-of-recent-times/ In the wake of the changes to NCEA, you would have to ask whether the Knowledge Economy is the biggest political bust of recent times?   Back in 2001, then Prime Minister Helen Clark launched the Knowledge Wave project. Like many ideas, it came from a good place. Helen Clark had a vision for a nation which was confident, progressive, more prosperous, tolerant and which cared for its people. She said New Zealanders would ride to the Knowledge Wave because they too sought a society capable of sustaining its first world status with well educated, innovative citizens who choose to stay in New Zealand because it's the best possible place to be.   Do you remember back to those times? They were hopeful, and she was a great Prime Minister, and it sounded fantastic. Educated, prosperous, tolerant, reasonable people. It hasn't worked out so well. In a nutshell, the government believed that New Zealand's economy and its society would be driven far more by knowledge, skill, technology, and innovation. They looked across government to see how all policies could contribute to that end. Obviously, she said at the time, education was critical. She said by addressing the worst features of the student loan scheme and stabilising tertiary fees, we aim to improve access to education for all. We will have to invest more as fast as we have the capacity to do so.   So, educate the people, they'll become more prosperous, they'll become more tolerant. We'll have a better place to be. We'll be living in Utopia. Twenty-four years on, how are we looking? Have we ridden that Knowledge Wave to the shores of prosperity and tolerance? Hardly. Young people were steered into degrees they weren't particularly interested in. They were saddled with student loans and some of them now feel they were sold a pup. Universities went from centres for critical thinking and academic excellence to factories that churned out degrees for people who were barely literate. And far from tolerance and critical thinking, they became bastions of intolerance and Orwellian thinkspeak.    I think the Government's decision to reform NCEA is a step in the right direction. Instead of steering people into degrees they're not particularly interested in and they don't really want to do, there will be more options, more choices about what sort of future they can have. Not everybody wants to sit in a classroom, regurgitating a lecturer's opinion. Some people actually like to get out there and do stuff. The MTA, the Motor Trades Association, James McDowell, was talking to Mike Hosking this morning, and he reckons the changes to NCEA will be an overdue step towards a more relevant practical and future focused education system for young Kiwis.   JM: What we would very much like to see now, and it's part of the consultation process, is saying look okay, we're going to do these big core subjects, let's say in our case, an automotive subject, and we all work with the polytechs and providers like MITO that do the on job training and start them early.   MH: So I want to be an engineer in F1. Is that how it's going to work for me? I'll do my maths, I'll do my English, and I'll do something that channels me towards that?   JM: Yes, it's a lot like the old days. It's a lot like the old system. Or perhaps more contemporarily, more like Cambridge at the moment, where you have your core subjects. There'll be much less choice for sure. I mean that's the problem with NCEA – there's just far too much flexibility. You've got something like over 11,000 unit standards you can choose from that make up these qualifications. That's just a complete mess. You know, you might get a few credits for learning how to put oil on a car – that does not make you an automotive engineer, unfortunately.   Absolutely. Skills Group, New Zealand's largest private vocational training provider, concurs, saying the major overhaul of NCEA will hopefully create more robust and coherent vocational pathway options, ensuring that young people can pursue valued industry related learning and develop the real-world skills demanded by industry.    I just wonder how many bright young things we have lost to the trades because they've been stared into doing a meaningless degree where they get a B- pass, which means absolutely nothing. There are some occupations, some professions, some vocations where you will need a degree and you will enjoy it. You'll love doing the research. You'll love doing the reading. You'll love the learning. It'll be great. But not everybody is meant for that, and I think we saw back in 2001 this utopian vision that Helen Clark had, that everybody would be able to sit around and having Socratic debates with one another and intellectual discourse about theories and ideologies, that's not for everybody.   Now I think we're seeing a recognition that not every young person is cut from the same cloth. We need all sorts of minds, all sorts of abilities, all sorts of passions and all sorts of interests. And I think by giving the trades a greater focus, the idea of vocational education a greater focus, we will have a more tolerant society. I'm all for it.   How many of you have degrees that you think is absolutely worth every cent you paid for it? How many of you think “if only I hadn't done that degree”? How many employers are thinking “yes, we're finally going to get the right people motivated, inspired, capable people coming into our trades and adding value”?  Tue, 05 Aug 2025 01:31:46 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-ward-for-people-with-nowhere-to-go-shouldnt-exist-but-i-can-see-why-it-does/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-the-ward-for-people-with-nowhere-to-go-shouldnt-exist-but-i-can-see-why-it-does/ I was struck by a story from Radio New Zealand.   North Shore Hospital, it has revealed, has an entire ward of people who are stuck in hospital, but they have no medical reason to be there. The 20-bed ward was created in May for patients who were effectively medically discharged but didn't have anywhere to go, such as an aged care facility.   This shouldn't be happening. The chain of healthcare should include post hospital stay. But, as we know, there's been a hold up. There's been a clogging in the system when it comes to releasing people from hospital. Good on North Shore Hospital for setting up this ward where they’re not in the direct care of doctors but are looked after by nurses and allied health staff, such as physiotherapists and social workers and some of them are there for weeks.    And this is the chain of care that I remember Dr Shane Reti talking about when he was health minister. He said we needed to ensure that GPs are properly funded so people don't end up in emergency departments because they can't access a GP - or they can't afford a GP.   Then you need to receive operations in a timely manner, you need to receive the hospital care you need as expeditiously as possible, then you need to be discharged. If you no longer require hospital care, then out you go and the health workers along the chain will look after you there. The physiotherapists, the at home nurses, that sort of thing.   If any one of these stages along the health care journey becomes congested, then that impacts the whole healthcare system. All parts of the healthcare system become affected.   So I think, in the absence of anywhere for these people to go, this ward makes sense. Deborah Powell, who represents allied health care workers, says it's not ideal. But, it is a good, practical decision to have them in one place rather than dotted around the hospital.   She said it would be better to have them in the community, but we don't have that capacity right now. And the reason it's better to be out in the community was explained by the head of the senior doctors union, Sarah Dalton. She said you are much better off to be in the community where you can get dressed, you're out of the hospital gown, you're walking around, you're doing your daily things, you're doing exercise, you're getting fresh air. You're getting rehab.   All of these are good and all of these will help for a faster healing, which is quite true. So, what do you do if you have a parent who's in a retirement village and they've bought one of the villas or the apartments where they're independent living, they're perfectly fine when they buy it. Absolutely dandy. Love their new life, living their best life, and then all of a sudden, they get ill and they have to have hospital care. Where do they go when they come out?   It's exactly that kind of congestion that Shane Reti, and I'm sure other health ministers, have talked about before.  It's all interoperable, we need to take responsibility for our health. When things happen or if we're going through a bad patch or need health care we need to be able to see a GP. If we can't afford to or we can't get access to one in a timely fashion you went to the hospital system.   Everything needs to flow smoothly from there. You're in that hospital bed. You get the treatment you need. You're out of that hospital bed and into community care. You can see what happens at any point if that gets congested. The whole system is under strain. How do we fix it?    Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:55:48 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-what-can-we-do-to-ease-debt-and-the-cost-of-living/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-what-can-we-do-to-ease-debt-and-the-cost-of-living/ Household budgets remain under pressure from rising costs, a credit expert says.  Centrix’s latest credit indicator shows consumer arrears fell by 7,000 in June to 478,000, representing 12.36% of the credit-active population.  But Centrix managing director Keith McLaughlin said there has been an increase in pressure on household budgets: “The slight year-on-year improvement in arrears we’ve observed so far this year has plateaued … and that just seems to be sticky."  “Consumers have cut back on discretionary spending … and were managing their non-discretionary [spending] quite nicely."  But he says there's a flow through of the increase in things like insurance and rates. 79% of mortgages due to be repriced over the next 12 months, many borrowers may benefit from lower rates.  Increases in rates, insurance, and power does make it very hard to get the benefit out of those reductions in interest rates.  Looking for the positive, the number of accounts reported in financial hardship in June was 14,450, down 550 from the prior month, Centrix said.  But year on year, financial hardships increased 7.1%.  We've plateaued in an uncomfortable place, so the question is what could we do to make things better?  Insurance is off the table and councils have had the hard word to decrease rates, but what else is there?  My family rarely buys takeaway coffees these days, but I fear all I'm doing is hurting small businesses. We've had an audit of streaming and subscription services, but that means we have less news sources in the house and less entertainment.  I bought an EV 18 months ago and that has radically lessened my petrol bill, even with the road user charges. There's any number of household hacks to stretch the household budget, but what can we do as a country?  Australia has just written off $16 billion in student loans. Albanese says getting an education shouldn't mean a lifetime of debt. Paying off student loans does curtail the young, which is why they're buying houses and starting families later and later.  Is that something we could do here? If not a full amnesty, then perhaps some partial easement that makes things easier.  My 29 year old son is just two pay packets away from wiping off his student debt from two degrees in environmental management, which is what he does for a job. He's counting down to liberation day and to finally have money to invest in his future rather than his past.  Now we're poor compared to Australia, and governments are dependent on the repaying of that debt to fund the country, and the liability is viewed as a positive on our balance sheet.  But it's mythical money – could this help the young trying to start the sort of lives that previous generations who had no debt enjoyed?  Fri, 01 Aug 2025 01:43:45 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-will-overusing-emergency-alerts-create-complacency/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-will-overusing-emergency-alerts-create-complacency/ Let's face it, civil defence coordinators are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Fail to give people sufficient warning of a natural disaster and they're accused of having blood on their hands. Too many warnings of something that doesn't happen, they're accused of alarmist scaremongering, and they become the boy who cries wolf.   The reason for all of this, a magnitude 8.8 earthquake struck off the eastern coast of Russia yesterday morning. Why would an earthquake in Russia yesterday trigger four, three or two, if you're lucky, emergency alerts for New Zealanders 18 hours later? It's the long delay between the earthquake and its ripple effect here. It will arrive here, but it's got a long way to come. Apparently, tsunamis travel at speeds equivalent to an Air New Zealand Boeing plane, but it that still gives you plenty of time when you're in New Zealand. Your Boeing still takes a fair while to get to the eastern coast of Russia. Different story if it was a magnitude 8.8 earthquake off the coast of New Zealand - then you'd need an emergency alert. But in this particular case, we have the benefit of being a very long way away, and a Victoria University geophysicist quoted in a Stuff story, John Townend says that distance gives our experts time to do the calculations, do the assessments and work out what's likely to come before it arrives.   So what are we being told? Well, the NEMA director John Price was on with Ryan Bridge on Herald Now this morning and despite the fact that nothing has happened in any of the countries that have been in the tsunami's path as it makes its way here, he repeated that it's still very much an alive threat, a hazard for New Zealanders and the last thing we want, he says, is anyone to be harmed, injured, or killed as a result of going near the coastline. He said the rationale behind the alert at 6:30am this morning was that the commuters going to work and people preparing for school and the like, it would give them time, it would give them knowledge, don't go to the coastline. If normally you would go for a morning walk or you'd go for a morning surf, you might be intending to set out to go and catch some fish and have them for breakfast - don't do that today. The activity, he said, is seen as surges in the water rather than a typical wave formation, so you might think you know the tides. You might think you know the waves, but you don't know the way a tsunami works. He said in the Chatham Islands there's been up to a 40cm wave. To people who say that a 40cm wave is nothing to be worried about, NEMA Director Price said that's just an indicator of what could come, it could be a lot worse. I hope it's only going to be that high, he said.   You've also heard internationally that there have been other sizable waves that have occurred in other parts of the world. The last thing we want is to be complacent. We know complacency, he says, puts people at risk and may kill people. But nothing happened. And I think that's what the geophysicist John Townend was saying, is that is vastly different to having an 8.8 earthquake off the coast of New Zealand. This happened in Russia, and it gives us time to assess what the possible threat might be. If Hawaii was wiped out. You'd think, crikey, this is serious, and you take all possible precautions. When nothing has happened in Japan or Hawaii? When the danger has passed, you would assume we don't need that same level of urgency when it comes to warnings. If there are too many warnings of things that don't happen, then that makes people complacent, too.   There are a heck of a lot of texts to ZB this morning, not from grateful consumers of NEMA's emergency texts, but this is sort of representative: "Mike, for the love of God, make the emergency alerts for a non-existent emergency stop. I've just received my 4th in 12 hours. It really is the boy who cried wolf and does nothing but stress out my young children. If anyone knows how to disable them, please let me know," said Matt.    Well, you know I got one at 4pm yesterday. As I looked over the mud flats, across the water to a narrow channel, I thought crikey, I don't think we need to put the life jackets on just yet or evacuate the house. But you know, good to know. But 6.30am this morning, by then, surely we would know if this was building in strength? That is the advantage of distance. I get it, you know, damned if they do, damned if they don't. Complacency is dangerous, I agree. But I would argue when you have too many emergency alerts of things that do not happen, that is going to inculcate complacency and that will be dangerous.  Thu, 31 Jul 2025 01:15:57 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-rising-gang-numbers-arent-good-but-the-charges-are/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-rising-gang-numbers-arent-good-but-the-charges-are/ Gang membership is on the rise, but if you believe Assistant Police Commissioner Paul Basham, an increase in numbers is not necessarily a bad thing. Gang numbers have climbed past 10,000, up from 9,200 in 2023, but that might be, he says, because they're keeping a closer eye on gangs, their intelligence is better, they know who's in and who's out, the record keeping and the data is better. He told Mike Hosking they have a laser focus on gangs and since the Gang Act was passed, they've launched more than 9000 charges against gang members.   “Our staff are awesome, and I don't think we've ever been better. You know, there's been lots of reporting about the work we're undertaken against gangs like the Comancheros, last month, we were operating against the Greazy Dogs in Tauranga, two weeks ago we took out a chapter of the Hell's Angels in Whanganui. And that's pretty significant in policing terms because they don't make that easy for us, and to take out the Hell's Angels from a law enforcement point of view is significant and reflects the fact that our staff are doing awesome work.   “You know, we're operating in a way that the government and the community would want us to be in the way that we're tackling organised crime and gang criminal behaviour. You know, we have the ambition for our communities to be safe and feel safe and I think the gang legislation that dropped last year has had a significant impact out there in terms of community feelings of safety and the feedback that we're getting is very positive in that regard.”  Absolutely. You could also look at the rise in unemployment too and see correlation and rise in gang numbers. Smart people know that gangs are nothing but evil pyramid schemes. The only ones who make any money are the ones at the top and the favoured area managers. A bit like Nutrimetics on speed. Those at the bottom, the ones doing the door to door selling and the deliveries are dumb grunts who do the dirty work and pay the price.   There were ten Mongrel Mob members, defendants in a murder trial in Tauranga earlier this year. They are prime examples of dumb grunts. Google them. I don't think I've ever seen a more hopeless, hapless, pathetic group in my life – they are just collectively woeful. Smart people don't join gangs, they start them. So if you're someone in a small town with few options for employment, you have few options in life, then you might find the idea of gang life attractive. You've got very little else going on in your world and your brain and your life. Being a grunt in a gang when there is very, very high unemployment and few options in your town, might seem attractive.   But the good news is that police are acting – 9000 charges against the gang members since the new gang legislation was brought in. And I don't know about you, but I am not seeing the swaggering, posturing arrogance that I used to see on the streets, on the roads in my neighbourhood. I know the gangs are still operating as business as usual. That hasn't stopped. But what has changed is that the police are really inconveniencing them. They're making it difficult for them to do business. The legislation means that police can target gangs, they can target gang members, they can ginger them up, annoy them, make it difficult to go about their day-to-day business. I don't have to watch the gang members in my neighbourhood patched up strutting around the neighbourhood like they own it. And that that suits me. I know that they're still out there. I know that they're still doing what they can because they think they're untouchable.   It's going to take a wee while – it has only been 18 months since they were given the keys to cities, the keys to towns, and the keys to the open roads. So it's going to take a bit of a moment to shift that. Rising gang numbers, sure. I guess if you want to see it as a bad thing, you will, it’s certainly not good that 10,000 people feel they have little option other than to join a gang. That life is better for them in a gang than it is within the community. That's sad. That's a damning indictment. But police bringing 9000 charges against gang members. It's a very good start.  Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:44:04 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-yesterday-was-a-day-to-forget-for-the-government/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-yesterday-was-a-day-to-forget-for-the-government/ There is much that this coalition government is dealing with that is not of their own making – they are mopping up, cleaning up the mess. Then there are the own goals that should not be happening 18 months into office – and I would argue that the announcement trumpeted yesterday afternoon is an example of an own goal.   The Government is planning to ban merchants from adding surcharges to in-store card payments, a change they say that will save shoppers from the unwelcome surprise they get at the till. Go the Government for protecting the consumer!   Well, no, hang on a minute. My first thought was well, surely the retailers will simply pass on the cost that they have to pay to the banks for the privilege of having debit cards, contactless payments, and credit cards. The bank charges them because the credit card companies charge them, the banks certainly aren't going to absorb it. The retailers say, well, if you want the privilege of contactless payment if you want the convenience of that, then you can pay the charge. But now they're going to have to absorb it.   My second thought was now I'm going to be paying more. I don't Tap and Go. I very seldom Tap and Go. I've got a business account and a personal account, and when I pay for something, I'll insert my card, select the account, and pay that way. It’s supposed to make things easier for the accountant, and I avoid the surcharge. So when the retailers pass on the cost of the surcharge, anyone else who inserts and pins or swipes and pins will be paying too.   Heather du Plessis-Allan covered most of my objections when I was listening to her interview with Scott Simpson last night. How can this possibly be trumpeted as a boon to consumers when all that happens is the price of goods will go up to cover the surcharge? Why not go after the credit card companies? And the banks?   I could certainly understand charging a surcharge in the olden days when we had the zip zap credit card machines. There would undoubtedly have been a cost involved in processing all that paper. But now? Come on. Sure, there are costs in terms of fraud protection and there'd be other costs involved if you want to use your credit card and have that added protection, then you pay the surcharge. I don't see why the retailer should pay it, and I don't see why I should pay it when I'm not using that facility.   Why didn't the Government go after the Ticketmasters, and the Air New Zealands, and the hotels of this world that charge processing fees and service fees, and “you've looked at our website so now we're going to charge you” fees. The Coalition Government did not cover themselves in glory yesterday with this announcement.   And then there was the announcement of the announcement from Brooke van Velden around scaffolding safety requirements. That was another unwelcome reminder of Labour's modus operandi too. No, she was a day to forget for the Government yesterday.    Tue, 29 Jul 2025 01:06:12 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-mmp-does-it-need-tweaking/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-mmp-does-it-need-tweaking/ Politicians rely on voters having short memories. They all do it.   Politicians and governments get swept out of power, they fester away on the opposition benches, and then a year before the next election, they make sweeping statements and promises about what they'll do if voters have the good sense to put them in.  Chris Hipkins is no different from every other party.  A lot of people might nod along with his comments and look at the price of butter or the whopping amount on their power bill and think ‘well this lot haven't fixed things the way they said they would, maybe I should vote Labour in 2026.’  In the Herald's Front Page podcast, the Labour leader said he wants us to have a look at how MP works, so smaller parties don't call the shots.   There should be some concessions and some trade-offs with the other parties to form a government, he says. That doesn't mean you should be doing things you specifically told the electorate before the election that you weren't going to do, Chris Hipkins said.    The Treaty Principles Bill, he says, is a good example. The Regulatory Standards Bill. Some of these things no one knew they were voting for at the last election. And now they're being inflicted on them. I don't think that's the spirit of MMP or democracy.   And amazingly, a bolt of lightning didn't strike him. Because can I remind the Labour leader, that Labour lost the last election - and absolutely tanked it.  After their landslide win in 2020, ministers felt they could implement un-signaled projects and projects that arose because of agitation within their caucus - from Three Waters to a social insurance scheme - and didn't bother taking the public along with them.   That was one of the main reasons that Labour tanked it. After their historic win, it was a historic defeat. ‘Bugger it’, they thought to themselves. ‘We've got a mandate, we'll do what we like’, which is not so very different from allowing minor parties to implement un-signaled projects, is it?   A lot of people who voted Labour last time did so because in 2020 National was a complete disaster as a party. A lot of people were very grateful to Labour for getting them through Covid. There were still some people who believed the rhetoric, despite clear evidence that they had no idea how to implement a lot of the more progressive and visionary policies.   There was no evidence they could actually implement them, but some people still believed it. But then they came and there were policies that nobody knew existed, even those who had done their homework.   Where did this come from? Well, it came from an antsy Māori block within Labours caucus who said,’ Well, if you don't do this, we'll go to Te Pati Māori!’ and Labour caved.   So, I am all for some reform around our electoral system. I think the party that wins the most votes on the night should be obliged to enter into negotiations with the minor parties.  And, perhaps more pertinently, the minor parties (looking at you Winston) should be obliged to begin negotiations with the party that wins the most votes on the night.   Forget about your petty power politics and your hurt feelings and your personal grievances. That's not what you should be there for. You should be there for the good of the people.   So, the party that wins the most votes on the night should have the minor parties knocking on their door, by law.  And if they cannot reach any kind of consensus, if they cannot agree on the principles that could help them form a government then by all means, shuffle the deck. Let’s see what kind of government you can come up with.   I would love to hear before the election from party leaders on who they will work with, which parties they will rule out, and which policies are non-negotiable. And again stressing, I would love to see petty power politics taken out of the equation too.    New Zealand voters have said have reaffirmed MMP as the system by which they want to be governed. Incomprehensibly to me, but there we go, we live in a democracy. They've said yes, MMP is the way to go, that's the form of proportional representation we will have.   But that doesn't mean that we can't tinker with it, make it better, or reform it. We don't agree on much Chris Hipkins and I, but on that, I do agree. Let's have a look at MMP and see how we can improve it.  LISTEN ABOVE   Mon, 28 Jul 2025 01:46:56 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-isnt-enrolling-on-election-day-better-than-not-voting-at-all/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-isnt-enrolling-on-election-day-better-than-not-voting-at-all/ Election Day is like Christmas Day, with some of us not getting ourselves organised until the very last minute - even though we’ve known for ages that it’s happening.   Christmas day is never sprung on us. We know it happens every 12 months, but there’s a lot of last-minute panicking, isn’t there?   We get even more warning with Election Day. We know it happens every three years, but there's the same last-minute rush.   Especially for the 110,000 people who were in the last-minute camp at the last election, enrolling to vote on the same day they voted.   But the Government’s not having any more of that and, as part of its changes to the way elections are run, it’s doing away with same-day enrolment. Which I think is a mistake.   But ACT MP Todd Stephenson is loving it, saying: “It’s outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.”   But he’s missing the point completely, because isn’t it brilliant that more than 100,000 people got to vote in the last election because they could enrol on the day?   Isn’t it the ones who didn’t vote at all who are the lazy ones?   The Government’s missing the point too. Because instead of penalising voters because it’s system can’t cope with last minute enrolments, it should be coming up with a system that can cope.   It should be building a system that enables same day enrolment instead of getting rid of it.   What it’s doing is effectively reversing something that was brought in for the 2020 election by the previous government. But it's going even further than just reversing what Labour did, and people are going to have to be enrolled and have their details up to date before the 12 days of advance voting begins.   The Government says it’s making the changes so the votes can be counted quicker. So that we get a result quicker, and so the politicians can get on with doing coalition deals.    But that’s just an excuse for not putting in the effort to come up with a better system to count the votes. And I’m not the only one saying that today either.   Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler is pouring cold water on it as well, saying there’s nothing stopping the politicians who look like they've been elected from beginning coalition negotiations before the final special votes are counted.   He says the final results can change by one or two seats, but nothing dramatic, and he says, “the time delay just doesn't seem like a particularly good reason for this."   As for one of the other changes it’s making —delivering on its promise to bring-in a total ban on prisoners voting— that gets a thumbs down from me too.   Again, it’s getting rid of something brought in by the previous government: voting rights for prisoners serving sentences of less than three years. Which is a mistake because I see a prisoner being able to vote as a way of keeping them engaged with the outside world.   You might recall a few months back, Sir Ron Young was finishing up as head of the Parole Board and he was saying that the reoffending rate for prisoners who serve short prison terms of two to three years is higher than those inside for longer.    That’s because they have way less opportunities to get themselves rehabilitated and they end up spending a lot of their time behind bars hanging out with serious crims.   So he was advocating for keeping these prisoners more engaged with the outside world, and I see voting rights as a way of doing that.   What’s more, how does a prisoner serving two years being allowed to vote affect you? Answer: it doesn’t. It has no impact on you and no impact on me.  Fri, 25 Jul 2025 01:04:50 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-homelessness-is-a-tough-problem-with-no-quick-fix/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-homelessness-is-a-tough-problem-with-no-quick-fix/ Homelessness has increased, but by how much is unclear, according to a government report.  This is the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development's latest Homelessness Insights Report drawn from data in Census 2023, and observations collected from government agencies, councils, and the general good sorts in the sector.  The report defines homelessness as living situations where people are forced to live; without shelter, in temporary accommodation, shared accommodation with a household, or living in uninhabitable housing.  The Opposition was hoping that the report would show the government's ditching of emergency housing was to blame. It doesn't say it's not to blame, but nor does it say it is.  What it found was that 60 days after leaving emergency housing 37% were housed in social housing, 29% went into transitional housing, 19% received the accommodation supplement.  That leaves 14% who may be living without shelter, but there's no way of confirming this.  Housing Minister Chris Bishop says it's an issue he takes very seriously.  He says it's a better outcome than the last government who spent $1.4 billion on sticking people in motels with all the consequent problems that entailed.  Homelessness is not a new problem, but there is no doubt the problem is getting worse – blame the economy, and the pandemic hangover, and any number of factors.  And there's no quick fix.   But good souls are trying their best. In Rotorua there's an initiative just starting up called Adopt a Streetie. It's designed to help rough sleepers off city centre street.  It would involve rough sleepers being matched with volunteer local hosts willing to offer free rent in exchange for their guests completing odd jobs.  There is no knowing whether there will be enough good folk prepared to Adopt a Streetie, because it's not an easy job. The homeless are not easy people. They've not had an easy life. They have big hard personal problems. It takes a very good Good Samaritan to run the gauntlet of adopting a streetie. I commend you if you're helping and I thank you but it's gotta be tough.  The idea is the brainchild of Love Soup, the organisation behind Rotorua’s Village of Hope. That village shelters homeless people in sleeping pods set up in secret locations, but it's struck problems with compliance issues.  And that's just one of the problems that affect solutions – a lot of our rules don't suit people who have chosen to live outside society and its rules.  Once upon a time I helped a friend help a bloke. She befriended him, I met him a few times. She organised some emergency housing for him in Papakura, a warm little brick and tile and one weekend she helped him move in. Bought some furniture from an op shop.  But two weeks later he was back living rough downtown, because in Papakura he was lonely. His people were fellow rough sleepers, and he valued their company more than a warm house.  Now this is not a tale to say that housing the homeless is useless because they want to live this way, but it does acknowledge that while they don't like living rough, it's what they know and safer than the solution.  So the Minister and everybody says it's not good enough, and it isn't, but finding a solution is very hard indeed.   But while the problem is hard, at least we should be able to understand it. Because that is the first step in learning how to solve it.  Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:02:25 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-familyboost-and-heated-outbursts/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-familyboost-and-heated-outbursts/ It appears we're living in an age where it's okay for politicians to swear to the press. Donald Trump is leading the way, dropping the F bomb over Russia and using the word bullshit more often than anyone ever had.  It's a sign of the times, and you could argue it makes politicians more relatable because heaven knows we're all a lot more potty mouth in private. But you could also say that leaders of countries should be held to higher standards, and it's not hard to not swear – ask broadcasters.   So the PM almost dropped an F bomb yesterday because Chris Hipkins was calling the FamilyBoost programme a failure.   Are you okay with politicians having a swear in public, or is it something they should have the maturity to control?  Now what is the FamilyBoost programme that got Chris Luxon so fired up that he called the Leader of the Opposition “fricken” Chris Hipkins after he criticised it.  The FamilyBoost programme is a New Zealand government initiative designed to help families with the cost of early childhood education by giving you a refund on what you've paid.  Families can claim 25% of their weekly cost of childcare, up to a maximum of $75. There's a cap, if you earn over 180,000 dollars you can't claim it.  The government initially estimated that up to 100,000 families could benefit from FamilyBoost, with 21,000 potentially eligible for the full payment. Chris Hipkins claims that rather than 21,000, the number claiming the full benefit was 153.  60,000 families have received some form of payment – so it has kind of worked.  The low uptake is likely due to a combination of factors, including a lack of awareness of the scheme and complex eligibility requirements.  It's not the first time the policy has been criticised. Back in May it was revealed that nearly a quarter of the money spent on National's flagship FamilyBoost policy has gone towards running the scheme, instead of helping families – $14 million out of $62 million.  Are you sick of these virtue signalling schemes where if you have the ability to run the scheme, you have the ability to run a multi-national corporation, because applying is so complex, but all you’re doing is applying for a benefit?  The Government has since announced changes to the scheme to increase eligibility and encourage greater participation. These changes include expanding eligibility to more families and increasing the income threshold for the full rebate. It's also looking at ways to simplify the scheme and make it easier for families to access the benefits. Blah blah blah blah.    We’re living full lives running a family here. Is this worth the time to interpret all the rules and fill out all the paperwork, because when you look at this whole thing, it seems to be written in something other than English?  So the question is this: in an age of fast track this and too much bureaucracy that, is applying to get a benefit just too hard? Is the fear of being taken advantage of by a small minority of an already small minority too great?  Or is the bureaucratic minefield that is the benefit application process a good thing? Because it limits the number of people taking taxpayers money to make ends meet so we can spend that revenue on more doctors and transport options?  And can politicians fricken swear?  Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:16:09 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-we-need-more-doctors-but-is-a-third-school-the-solution/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-we-need-more-doctors-but-is-a-third-school-the-solution/ We all know we need more doctors. A lot more. Considering how long it takes to train a doctor, this is something that someone should have probably thought about 20 or 30 years ago. New Zealand's population has doubled since the last med school was opened, so you can see how far behind we are.  But now we have a proposed new medical school in the Waikato.  This was dreamed up last electoral cycle by the University with the help of a report and analysis by Stephen Joyce with his consultation hat on. Shane Reti was heavily involved with the university. The University called the school a present for National's second term.  Low and behold, it became National’s policy at the last election, and it seemed a vote winner. After all, we know we need more doctors  But then it all got sticky with bureaucrats and coalition partners suggesting the idea might not fly.  Now it’s back with a miraculous cut in budgeted costs and a substantial expectation that generous benefactors would make up any underfunding from the government. And if they didn't, the University had the means to cover any shortfall.  The two universities that already have medical schools don’t support it. They say just give us more money and we’ll make more doctors. A PWC report last year said a school was duplicative and expensive.  And with the need for doctors so urgent there’s the time factor – to get a school up and running takes a while. You need all sorts of specialised spaces. The Waikato Graduate School of Medicine is scheduled to open in 2028 —three years from now— versus two schools who claim they could grow intake from next year.  The whole thing seems a bit rife of political necessity.  They promised it, so it has to happen whether it's a good idea or not. It reeks of wasteful government spending as a payback to loyal supporters. It preys on the largesse of the wealthy. Is it a good idea?  If it was a good idea why has not been part of our long-term planning for longer? Training to become a doctor in New Zealand typically takes 12 to 17 years, depending on the chosen specialty.  But a third school has suddenly landed in our lap. I'm not against Waikato having a medical school in the future – health experts have said rural-origin students who train in rural areas and are trained by rural health professionals are six times more likely to work in those rural areas post-graduation. Now Hamilton is quite rural, but frankly so is Otago so I'm not sure that's a reason to have a school there. But right now, it seems a bit rushed and political.   So do you support the establishment of a school in Hamilton?  And then there's all the other issues around medical staff.  The proposal to date aims to produce proportionately more rural and primary care doctors via a four-year graduate programme, largely based in the community and the wider region’s general practices, yet drawing also on the many excellent clinicians at Waikato and other regional hospitals, so that graduates (as at Otago and Auckland) are equipped to go into any area of medicine.  Many in the medical sphere say the real problem in banging out doctors is not in the number of places at a school, but where they go to get on-the-job training – placements  So to train more doctors we need more doctors to train more doctors.  And this school does nothing to solve that problem.  Once they're trained in theory, how do we train them practically? Once they are trained, how do we pay them properly, and then how do we keep them from disappearing overseas?  And then there's the question of where we find people with the ability and desire to go through the arduous process of training to be a doctor.  Because doctors don't grow on trees.   Tue, 22 Jul 2025 01:07:15 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-what-should-we-do-with-ncea/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/andrew-dickens-what-should-we-do-with-ncea/ So here we go again. A national conversation about whether NCEA is C.R.A.P A damning Government briefing presented in June has raised significant concerns about the credibility of New Zealand’s main secondary school qualification. It’s worried about the flexibility built into NCEA, including regarding what assessments students sit, means courses can be structured around those perceived to be “easier” to accumulate credits. The briefing says the system encourages students to stockpile credits across often disconnected subjects at the expense of engaging in a “coherent” course that supports a clear pathway for their future. The kids are also passing courses based on internal assessments. Many are avoiding external examinations. More than 250,000 kids students skipped exams last year. The briefing says that the qualification is hard to assess if you’re an employer and it’s hard to compare it with anything internationally. So Erica Stanford is working on proposals, and I’d like to know what you think she should do with the system. This morning Mike Hosking asked Auckland Grammar's Headmaster Tim O'Connor what he would do:  "I think you change it to an examination based system. We make it pretty simple. Here's a thought, we assess at against the national curriculum because currently in NCEA doesn't do that. So the primary mode of the system is examinations that would give benchmarking across the country. Every student whether you're in Invercargill through to Auckland. you'd know where you stood. And you can have some internal assessment in it because not all types of content, you know, are best under exam conditions, but these should be marked by NZQA. Teachers wouldn't mark their students own work, no, and they shouldn't receive their marks back before they get their externals back."  Now, both my boys did NCEA and they’re literate and numerically great. It did not fail them In fact my oldest had the choice of doing NCEA  or International Baccalaureate. So, why did we go NCEA? It’s because that boy was dyslexic and dyspraxia.  He cannot write well and his spelling is atrocious. So a system that had a large quotient of internal assessment catered for his learning difficulty. But the difference between his school and others is that the school made sure that the standards of IB were replicated in their teaching of NCEA The concentrated on the basics, which is not just reading writing and arithmetic. They also included science and social studies. Social science, including history and not just New Zealand history, but the history of the world over the past 200 years in particular. They didn’t include the so-called cheat courses like barista studies reasoning if you want to learn how to be a café worker you can enrol in extramural courses He got a great education and has gone on to have double degrees and a thriving professional life My point here is that one of the main problems of NCEA is not the system, but the way the schools teach it and the abdication of parental input into the student’s choices. You can’t just sit back and complain that you don’t understand how it works as a parent. You have to educate yourself if you want your children to be adequately educated for their future and the chance to do even better than you did. LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 21 Jul 2025 01:45:47 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-the-overqualified-jobseekers-behind-the-dole-numbers/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/john-macdonald-the-overqualified-jobseekers-behind-the-dole-numbers/ There’s no doubt the news that the number of people on a benefit in New Zealand is up to the 400,000 mark will have some people tut-tutting.    But before we start ripping into the so-called “benefit bludgers”, we need to be very careful.   Because at the same time that we’re finding out that benefit numbers are up —and the number of people on the dole in particular— 10% compared to last year, we’re also hearing about people over-50 being knocked back time-and-time again when all they’re doing is just trying to find work.   So the number of people on the Jobseeker benefit is up right around the country.    The biggest increase has been in Northland but overall, there are 216,000 people on the dole. Which is just over half the overall number of beneficiaries.   That’s with 81,000 people off a benefit and into work thanks to moves made by the Government, which had former WINZ boss Christine Rankin all excited when she was on 九一星空无限talk ZB this morning.    Social Development Minister Louise Upston also said this morning that thousands of jobs are on the way with the big infrastructure projects in the pipeline.    Which is all very well, but not everyone works in construction. And the prospect of these big projects coming online won’t provide any reassurance to the over-50s who are over the hill in the eyes of many employers.    Which is why we shouldn't make assumptions that everyone on the Jobseeker benefit is not in the least bit interested in working.   Because there are plenty of people —thousands of people we’re being told today— who desperately want to work but can’t because of their age.   Or, more to the point, they desperately want to work but can’t because some employers are only interested in hiring younger people.   The founder of a website for people over-50 seeking work has been saying this week that thousands of people have contacted them with stories of being sidelined just because of their age.   Ian Fraser is the founder of the Seniors at Work website, and he says employers need to change their thinking about these so-called older workers.   For example, he says not everyone over-50 struggles with technology. He says that excuse comes up all the time. Not that that’s what comes through in the rejection letter – if you do get a rejection letter.   Then there’s the old line about being over-qualified. But we’re not talking here about people all that long in the tooth, we’re talking about people my age.    I’m in quite a privileged position of having a job for the next two years. All going well, that is. Providing I don’t completely blow it.   I’ve got a contract that says, “we want you for the next two years”.   But I’m as aware as the next person that, when contracts expire, that can be it.   Which means in two years time I could very well be joining these thousands of people in their 50’s who are finding it impossible to get work because employers aren’t interested in them because of their age.  Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:50:21 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-prioritising-flexible-classrooms-is-the-way-to-go/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-prioritising-flexible-classrooms-is-the-way-to-go/ Around about 30 years from now the AI bot, who will be presenting the 9am to midday show, will announce breathlessly that single-cell classes are to be done away with and open plan classrooms are planned for future school builds to allow greater collaboration between students and teachers. A more relaxed style of learning, yadda yadda yadda – what do you think? 0800 80 10 80, the AI bot will say, because as sure as God made little apples, this is going to come around again.   Anybody who's been around since the 70s, perhaps earlier, will know that the great open plan versus single-cell classes debate has been going on, and on, and on for decades. Honestly, for people who preach collaboration and open minds, academics within education are awfully territorial and guard their own patch. Whole word learning versus phonics is another cracker, but we'll save that for the AI bot of the future.   While open plan designs were originally designed to foster collaboration, they have often created challenges for schools. So it was stop the presses yesterday when the Minister of Education announced that open plan classrooms aren't meeting the needs of students and teachers. Colour me pink and call me shocked! Whoever would have thunk it? We did. We all knew it.   They were originally intended to foster collaboration, and you can imagine a bunch of pointy heads sitting around a table saying: it'll be amazing – teachers will be able to draw support from one another, and those that perhaps aren't getting results from one student can look to another. Teachers will be able to foster the kind of energy and creativity that we need to see, and the children will be able to mingle. But no, it's been an abject disaster. It was an abject disaster in the 70s. It was an abject disaster in the 80s and it's been an epic disaster since John Key and Hekia Parata introduced them in 2011.   Erica Stanford says in many cases, open plan classrooms reduce flexibility rather than enhance it. She says we've listened to the sector; new classrooms will no longer be open plan. But this is the good thing: they're not going back to the future again. They’re going to create classes that prioritise flexibility over open plan layouts, so the use of glass sliding doors means spaces can be open when you want to have a wider collaboration, but then they can be closed for focused learning.    This idea doesn't mean we're going back to the prefab – the cold, uninsulated prefabs for every class that possibly you went to school in. If teachers want to open up space, they can, when they want to shut themselves off, they can. There is no one-size-fits-all for every class and that is the way it should be. The thing I really liked about Erica Stanford's announcement was the flexibility. This is a good thing. This is a very good thing. And I want to hear positive, joyous, fabulous response to this announcement from the Minister of Education, as one Minister who really understands her portfolio.  Thu, 17 Jul 2025 01:12:29 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-unforgiving-roads-lead-to-devastating-consequences/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-unforgiving-roads-lead-to-devastating-consequences/ Just how well served or poorly served are we by the engineering and the design of our roads? Residents of Waiuku are reeling after a crash yesterday that has left an adult and two children dead. Some locals say they've been calling for safety measures to be introduced on Masters Rd, known as ‘roller coaster road’, for years.   One poor man who was first on the scene yesterday lost his best mate on the same road two years ago and says he fears for his life every time he turns out of his driveway. He said if they could start focusing those speed cameras on actual known death trap sites, like Masters Rd, instead of on random corners or at the bottom of pretty safe downhills where they're just revenue gathering —please could they put those cameras where it would save people's lives instead of just collecting the tax?— “that would be a great start”. We need them on this road. He described the area where the crash occurred as being akin to an old school BMX jump.    I received an email a couple of days ago from a woman whose friend had his house destroyed in May by a speeding driver in a stolen car. She said she'd spoken at a Whangarei Council meeting to plead for barriers to stop this happening again, but they've refused to fund it, despite the fact that 10 years ago the same house was totalled and had to be rebuilt because the same thing had happened. And pleas from that owner to put barriers were ignored then too.   Franklin’s Whitford-Maraetai Rd has seen crashes every month. Locals say it's a regular traumatic experience to drive the roads, despite efforts from Auckland Council to improve it. There's been road widening along parts of the stretch, resurfacing of some of the bends in asphalt, and it's reduced the number of accidents there, but locals say they still expect to hear that awful sound of metal crunching every time there's rain.   What is a dangerous road? It's very subjective, but one indicator is a high number of fatal or serious crashes over an extended period of time. If you look at Old North Road in Waimauku, from 2014-2019 there were 13 deaths and serious injuries in five years. State Highway 2 from Katikati to Tauranga, one of the highest risk roads in the Bay of Plenty: between 2009-2018, 27 people were killed and 77 seriously injured. In response to that, speed limits were lowered in a number of places, and then flexible wire rope median barriers were put in on sections of State Highway 2 South of Katikati. But you'll remember we've had people phoning in about those because they say it's impossible to turn into side streets – it makes residents lives a misery having to drive for kilometres before they can turn around. So yes, it might stop cars from crashing into one another on a dangerous stretch of road, but it also means risky behaviour from those who are looking to avoid travelling many kilometres just to turn around and come back again. State Highway 1 from Kawakawa to Springs Flat, Northland: 14 deaths, 41 serious injuries from 2012-2016.   There is the factor of people not wearing a seat belt, that causes deaths, where they've been drinking or drug impaired, of course that comes into play, but at the same time, there are stretches of road that New Zealanders drive that are completely and utterly unforgiving. You make one small mistake, and humans do, a moment of distraction, one small mistake, and the consequences are absolutely devastating because the roads are unforgiving. Many of them are still the goat tracks that they once were. Just had a bit of metal put on them and call them a highway.   At what point do you get a road engineered? And again, it probably comes back to the resource management and the RMA and the problems we have with getting permission to reconfigure roads around the country. You would think though, in the case of the woman who emailed me, that putting a barrier up on the corner to stop a car leaving the road and barrelling into a house for the third time - surely a barrier fence wouldn't be a huge cost to ratepayers of Whangarei?  Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:51:22 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-times-have-changed-does-our-tax-system-need-to-as-well/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-times-have-changed-does-our-tax-system-need-to-as-well/ Yesterday we were talking about Chlöe Swarbrick's grand plans for economic reform, and today brings another interesting suggestion for economic reform, this time from Sir Roger Douglas and Professor Robert MacCulloch. I wonder if now is the time to be seriously looking at reforming our taxation system. Over the years, we've experimented with, we’ve dabbled in various taxes on wealth: estate duties, gift duties, stamp duties on property sales, the sort of things that other countries have and have adapted, but most were eventually abolished.   The absence of a general wealth tax, capital gains tax, or inheritance tax has been a recurring topic of debate. No New Zealand government has been able to introduce a wealth tax and maintain it, but it's a staple of the Green Party's proposed Green Budget. Chlöe Swarbrick says we've done really big things in the past and there is no reason why we shouldn't again. She says in the 1930s and 40s, after world wars and the Great Depression, we came together as a country and decided to build a nation which looked at the foundations of public health care, public education, and public housing.   Now, Sir Roger Douglas, former finance minister and the architect of the most sweeping economic reforms since the establishment of cradle to grave social Security and the one who did away with the high taxes, and Professor Robert MacCulloch, who you will have heard from time to time on the show, have released their plan for an economic reform. They first developed the plan for economic reform in 2016 but have updated it for 2025. They point out that by 2060, 26% of New Zealanders will be over 65, up from 16% in 2021. Professor MacCulloch and Sir Roger said that income tax on earnings up to $60,000 a year should be redirected into individual savings accounts to fund each person's health care, pension, and risk cover, and that would replace much of the current public system with private provision. This needs to be done, they say, because Treasury and Inland Revenue have both raised questions in the past year about how the government will be able to collect enough tax to fund the increasing cost of NZ Super and healthcare, the Superfund notwithstanding. People who didn't have enough in their individual accounts could still be helped by the public system, which would be funded on taxes collected on income over $60,000 a year.   So under $60,000, you pay tax of a sort, but it's for you and it goes into a savings account to fund what you'll need in the future. So this would mean larger numbers of middle and higher income people paying for themselves while the system helped lower income people. MacCulloch said that would mean government costs were reduced, the quality of outcomes would be increased, and the plight of low-income earners would be improved. He says too many low-income people have no savings in KiwiSaver because they're going from paycheck to paycheck, this model would help to address that. And if you look at his model, it shows that an individual could save around $21,000 annually. You'd put $9,450 into a health account, $7,350 for superannuation, and $4,200 for risk cover. And they'd drop the corporate tax rate to help fund employer contributions.  Robert MacCulloch argues that savings, not taxation reform, offers the ability to gain efficiencies in healthcare. A drop in corporate taxes would help fund employer contributions and rather than the government dictating where to go, people could choose their preferred public or private supplier.   So bold suggestions. Douglas and MacCulloch’s more bold than Swarbrick. But does Chlöe Swarbrick have a point that we can initiate institutional reform if we want to? It's been done before. It's bold and it's visionary and it's scary. The bigger question though, is: should we? Is the tax system that we have right now working? Chlöe Swarbrick, Sir Roger, and Professor MacCulloch argue it's not. Unlikely bedfellows, but bedfellows they are in terms of saying what we have right now is not fit for purpose and certainly will not be fit for purpose at all in the future. Do we need to make institutional change around our tax system and the way we pay for health care, the way we pay for superannuation as we get older? The cradle to grave Social Security plan, devised in the 1930s is still pretty much around in the year 2025, nearly 100 years later. Times have changed, does our tax system need to change with it?    Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:10:09 Z /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-can-there-ever-be-enough-nurses/ /on-air/kerre-woodham-mornings/opinion/kerre-woodham-can-there-ever-be-enough-nurses/ Starting with some good news on a good news Monday, Health NZ added 2100 nurses and more than 600 doctors to its ranks since the election in March 2025, according to new figures published. The most recent health workforce data showed that as of March 2025, there were 35,341 nurses, 5188 resident medical officers, and 6419 senior medical officers -  both the categories of doctors. Not all of these people are working full time, but they're all on the books. And yet, despite the fact that since the election there's been a major recruitment drive, more than 36,000 Te Whatu Ora nurses, midwives, healthcare assistants have voted to strike for 24 hours later this month - because they say they have safe staffing concerns.  They say patients are at risk because of the short staffing, the nurses, midwives and healthcare assistants are stretched too thin and cannot give patients the care they need. And I totally accept this, this is heartbreaking for our exhausted members who became healthcare workers because they want to help people.   So what's the story? We've had 2100 more nurses added to the ranks. Can there ever be enough nurses? Was there ever a time when you worked for Health New Zealand, that there were enough staff? That there were enough healthcare assistants and midwives and nurses? Was there a time you can go back to and say, in 1998, - we had so many staff, it was fantastic. You could sit and chat with patients, spend some quality time with them you didn't have to do the administrative work, you didn't have to do the clean up work because there were people who were capable, who were employed, who did that work. If 2100 nurses have been hired and you’re still stretched so thin, how on earth did you get through the previous 6-7 years? It is a really tough job and there is so much more to the job than what the average patient sees. In the press release from the union, they say that burnt out nurses have left to go to Australia, where the pay and the working conditions are so much better, and they are. The pay and the working conditions have always been better in Australia.   But then in part,  our New Zealand nurses going to to Australia are part of a global migration route of health staff. English, Irish, Filipino nurses come here looking to better their pay and their working conditions, looking for a better work life balance. So it's all part of that global migration route of health staff which seems to be particularly mobile. But I'd really love to hear from health staff. You don't strike lightly, I know that.   What is it that you need to feel that you can do your job well? How many more staff do you need to feel that you can look after your patient safely?  LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 14 Jul 2025 03:42:54 Z