"It was the right thing for the UK": Boris Johnson 'unapologetic' about Brexit  Boris Johnson is unapologetic about taking his country out of the European Union.   He's in New Zealand for a speaking event and to promote his book 'Unleashed'.   The former British Prime Minister says while there was panic about Brexit at the time, in the long term it's been good for the UK.   He told Kerre Woodham that the split from the EU came in handy during the Covid pandemic.    He says it allowed the country to get early access to vaccines before other European countries.  Johnson says the massive Conservative loss in this year's UK General Election can't be blamed on him.   The Conservative Party's defeat by Keir Starmer's Labour was one of its worst-ever losses.   Johnson told Woodham had he and Rishi Sunak teamed up, it would have been a different result.   He says if they'd been able to put into action some things they'd planned, they would have wiped the floor with Starmer.  He's denied any responsibility for the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and says progress has been slow since he left office.  The former Prime Minister says it's "absolute bollocks" to suggest the UK could have a role in negotiating peace between Ukraine and Russia.  Johnson says the West has a pathetic paranoia about humiliating Vladimir Putin - and is too half-hearted in helping Ukraine. He says he's fed up with hearing the nonsense idea we'd risk a nuclear confrontation.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s how I would sum up the Government’s changes to the free speech rules for universities. It wants more Posie Parkers and less posey political statements. Which I’ve got no problem with - but I don’t think it should stop at universities. I think the Government also needs to look at other public entities, such as local councils, which actually seem to be making more posey political statements than universities. Because, if the Government doesn’t want universities taking positions on things like the war in Gaza because - whatever position they take - won’t reflect the views of all staff and students, then the same could apply to local councils, couldn’t it? If a council boycotts Israel, for example, there’s no way everyone who works for these councils or who pays rates to these councils will agree, is there? Let me come back to that. But the gist of all this is that the Government wants two changes to the way universities deal with free speech. For starters: It wants them to stop being so antsy about having guest speakers coming onto campus who might upset a few people with their views. Which has seen some universities pull the plug on certain events. Massey University, for example, stopped Don Brash from giving a speech there once because of what one person described as his "separatist and supremacist rhetoric". A more recent example is Victoria University cancelling a freedom of speech debate this year because of concerns it would turn into a cesspit of hate speech. So the Government wants no more of that. Because it thinks universities are places where all sorts of ideas and thoughts should be shared and debated. And I agree with that. So that’s what I mean when I say it wants more Posie Parker. The other change it’s making to the regulations that universities operate under, is to stop them taking positions on matters that don’tdirectly relate to their core business of research and teaching. Now this is not something that is going to impact academics who enjoy what’s known as academic freedom - which pretty much means they can think and say what they want. Although some academics have questioned that in recent years, saying that they don’t feel as free to think and say what they want as they used to. But, essentially, what the Government wants to stop is universities - as institutions - taking a view or a stance on international issues, for example. Some of our universities have been under pressure to condemn Israel for what’s going on in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. But, as far as I’m aware, none of them have given-in to that pressure. The closest example I could find here in New Zealand is an announcement three months ago by Victoria University's fundraising arm - the Victoria University Foundation - that it would be getting rid of its Israeli government bonds and its shares in companies listed in Israel. So maybe this is a pre-emptive move by the Government, as much as anything. And it says the reason it’s doing this, is that if a university takes a stand on something - it doesn’t reflect the views of all staff and students, and that is unfair. So, if that’s the motivation, then I reckon the Government needs to come down just as hard on other public entities. Public entities which, at the moment, seem to be going harder on this thing than any of our universities. And I’m thinking, specifically, about local councils around the country which have been more than happy to pile-in on Israel this year, with decisions to boycott companies which operate in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Christchurch City Council has done it. Environment Canterbury regional council has done it. And Nelson City Council’s done it. They’re the ones I’m aware of. There might be others. But, if we apply the argument the Government’s using to stop universities taking positions on global issues - because they won’t necessarily represent the views of all staff and students - then the same can be said of these local councils, can’t it? In Nelson, for example, after the council there voted to go with a boycott - there were some pretty fired-up locals. The mayor Nick Smith, who voted against it, got a whole lot of abuse too. And who says everyone working at these councils agrees with the position their employers have taken? They won’t. And who says everyone paying rates to these councils agrees with their anti-Israel positions? They don’t. Which is why I think the Government should be telling councils not to take political positions on issues outside their core business, just like it's telling the universities.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some people think the Government’s offer of a $150,000 rapid payment to Lake Alice torture survivors is an insult, but I think it’s a mistake.    Not because I don’t think compensation should be paid. It’s just that I don’t think the Government should be offering it right now for people who went to Lake Alice between 1972 and 1977 and went through electric shock treatment or had paraldehyde injections. And here’s why.   Remember last month when the Prime Minister formally apologised to the victims of abuse in state and religious care?   On the day that happened, some survivors of that terrible time in our country’s history weren’t happy that the Government didn’t say anything at the same time about redress or compensation.   As Christopher Luxon explained it, the Government needed to take the time to make sure it got the compensation scheme right and wouldn’t be making any announcement until early next year.    Which I thought was perfectly reasonable. I acknowledged at the time that it was probably easy for me to say that, given I hadn’t been through the living nightmare that those 200,000 people went through.   But I genuinely believed that the Government was taking the right approach. I still do for the simple reason that compensating people for horrific abuse isn’t something that can be rushed. Because, whatever the Government decides to do, it will be setting a precedent.   There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So, this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse ongoing.   Which is why I think it’s making a mistake offering money to the Lake Alice survivors right now. Even though some compensation has already been paid to some and that this money specifically relates to the torture that was done to them.    Because, just as some of them are saying the $150,000 is pitiful, there’ll be others who think it sounds alright, they’ll take the money and get on with their lives.    People like Robyn Dandy who is in the news today saying that she’s going to take the rapid payment of $150,000 because it will mean she can buy a house bus and travel around the South Island with her pets.    She’s saying today: "I'm happy. I'm glad it's going to come to an end now and we can just all relax and concentrate on the rest of our lives and a bit of happiness which I really believe we deserve now.   "I just think $150,000, why fight it? That's a lot of money for us now. We're all elderly. I can have my dream.”   So I imagine that she’ll be taking up the Government’s invitation to register for the payment this week. The money should be in her bank by March.   Whereas another survivor also in the news today, Malcolm Richards, feels very differently.   He says: “It’s pathetic. I’ve spent more than that fighting to this point.”   He says the compensation guidelines for wrongful imprisonment say someone could receive up to $150,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. And he thinks the Government should be offering Lake Alice survivors millions of dollars each.   Now, of course, different people will feel differently about whatever compensation offer is made - but, in this case, I think we need to see it as something of a canary in the mine.    The government Minister responsible, Erica Standford, says this is completely different and separate from the abuse in care compensation and most of the victims have received compensation but this is a new offer because the State has acknowledged that they were tortured.  Nevertheless, I still think the Government is jumping the gun making this offer to Lake Alice victims before it’s said anything about compensation or redress for abuse in care victims.   Because, while Robyn Dandy —who I mentioned earlier— might think that $150,000 is perfectly fine right now - what if the abuse in care survivors are offered more?   What if the likes of the guy who thinks $150,000 is pitiful manages to, eventually, get himself a better deal from the Government?   See what I mean? What’s being offered now might sound good, but she may feel differently down the track when she sees what other people start getting. And that’s why I think the Government is making a mistake doing what it’s doing.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If New Zealand was a company staring down the barrel of running at a loss for at least the next five years and finding itself needing to borrow $20 billion more than it thought it did just six months ago, it would be lights out, wouldn’t it?   And no amount of creative accounting could change that picture.   Essentially, that’s the state we find ourselves in after yesterday’s fiscal update from the Government. With pretty much the only good news coming out of it being in the housing market, and an expectation that it is going to come back to life the year after next.   Unfortunately, I think Dunedin can kiss goodbye to winning the fight over cutbacks to the new hospital. I think all the noise about the IT cutbacks at Health NZ will fall on deaf ears in the Beehive too.   But I also think that the Government is doing the right thing holding its nerve and I think doing a Ruth Richardson and going harder and faster on the spending cuts would be a disaster.   I was listening to independent tax expert Geoff Nightingale on Newstalk ZB this morning and one of the things he mentioned was how much of a role welfare costs are playing in the Government’s overall financial position.   Which is why I mention Ruth Richardson. It was 1991 and Ruth Richardson was Minister of Finance and delivered what is forever known as the “Mother of all Budgets”. Because it was brutal - especially for beneficiaries and families.   Unemployed people had their dole cut by $14 a week. Anyone on the sickness benefit ended up $25 worse off each week - in fact it was nearly halved, going from $52-a-week to $27-a-week.   Universal payments for family benefits were completely abolished. She also brought-in more user-pays in health and education. Remember that was something Labour’s Roger Douglas stated in the 80s but Ruth Richardson took it further.   And, 30 years later, Labour’s Grant Robertson delivered a budget that he said was increasing benefit payments to “right the wrongs” of Ruth Richardson’s 1991 budget.     Nevertheless, the Finance Minister is saying today that, despite the way things are, we’re not going to see the Government going harder and faster on the spending cuts because it has already made spending commitments to the public.   But she says re-prioritising spending will happen.   So it seems that Nicola Willis isn’t going to channel her inner Ruth Richardson and deliver the Mother of all Budgets Volume 2. Which I think is wise.   Not that I’m saying that the Government isn’t to blame for any of the shambles unveiled in yesterday’s update. As you’d expect, it’s pointing the finger at Labour - accusing it of economic vandalism, and how this just shows how much of a fix-it job it has on its hands.   And don’t get me started on the creative accounting we saw yesterday, which Treasury was against the Government doing in the first place, and which some economists think is a justifiable thing to do but still kind of cheeky.   I’m not going to get bogged down in numbers, but I can’t resist pointing out that part of the problem is the Government’s revenue from taxation being down.   Over four years it’s going to earn $13 billion less. The cost of this year’s income tax changes is going to be $14.5 billion over five years. Just saying. But the tax cuts horse has bolted and there’s no going back from there.    The other reason for the tax take being down is that businesses aren’t earning so much - which, of course, means they’re paying less tax too.   And that’s going to be a key thing for the Government —and Nicola Willis said so this morning— it needs to do what it can to stimulate economic growth. It will say that that’s what things like the fast track legislation will do, all of that stuff.   But it can't fix things with legislation alone, the Government needs to keep investing. Which is why it would be a terrible mistake for it to go all knee-jerk on it.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government thinks it’s getting all tough on it with local councils, but I think Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown are just tinkering around the edges and they need to go harder.   Instead of just telling the councils what they expect of them, they should be telling councils that, for some of them, their days are numbered.     But essentially what the Government’s doing is it’s waving the stick on behalf of ratepayers, saying that legislation changes are on the way that will force councils to focus on “the basics” as the Government likes to call them.   Which, on the face of it, most people who pay rates will love the sound of.   And I’m no different. I look at the ratepayer money that seems to go out the door from all these councils in all different directions and wonder what happened to all those promises about “zero rates increases if you vote for me”.   Not that I ever fall for that cheap talk.   And I think we know what the basics are that the Government wants these councils to focus on. It’s all the non-flashy things like making sure there’s safe water coming out of the taps, fixing the pipes, fixing the roads, building new ones, picking up the rubbish.    All the stuff that doesn't make council life all that exciting but is essential for every one of us, every day.   As for the flashy stuff —or the nice-to-haves— that’s what the Government wants councils to put the brakes on. One of the ways it’s going to make that happen is it’s going to make changes to the laws that councils operate under.   A big change is going to be removing the need for councils to think about these so-called social, economic, environmental and cultural “pillars” – because the Government thinks they’ve got councils involved in all sorts of non-essential stuff.    So, you know, “drop any big ideas about pouring ratepayer money into a big flash convention centre. Instead, stick in the ground, buy some new water pipes, get stuff done.”   That’s the message from Wellington.    Which the 2IC at the outfit that represents most councils in New Zealand —Local Government New Zealand— was sounding pretty diplomatic about it when he spoke to Newstalk ZB this morning.   Campbell Barry’s his name. It seems to me that any concerns he does have centres around this idea the Government has of bench-marking all the councils - comparing them against each other to see which ones are doing things the way the Government wants them to and which ones aren’t.   But all this is going to do is it’s going to create a truckload of dashboard reports, more admin and do you really think councils are going to be able to achieve what the Government wants?   Of course they’re not, because councils being councils, they get pulled in all sorts of directions by people demanding this and demanding that, and all your local councillors care about is not brassing people off so much that they stuff their chances of getting re-elected.   67 councils in a country the size of New Zealand is sometimes portrayed as a very good thing because it means you have people sitting around the council tables who really know their communities.   But I don’t see that as a virtue at all. In fact, I see that as an impediment. And the fact we have so many councils is something the Government should be doing something about.   Forget about your benchmarking and dashboard reports and big sticks - we are overdue in this country for some serious amalgamations of local councils.   Why do Napier and Hastings need their own councils? Answer: they don’t. Why does Christchurch need three councils? Answer: it doesn’t.   In Auckland, maybe the super city model hasn’t been everything it was cracked up to be, but it looks a much better option than a truckload of tinpot councils all being corralled by central government and told to get back to basics.   The Government needs to show some fortitude and it needs to reduce the number of local councils we have in New Zealand, because 67 is way too many.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christopher Luxon says he wants nothing to do with the Greens while he's Prime Minister.  Luxon's confirmed a National-Greens Coalition wasn't off the cards when James Shaw was co-leader of the Green Party.  But he says the party has changed significantly under new leadership.  The Prime Minister told Kerre Woodham he had great respect for Shaw and his commitment to the environment, and would have been prepared to work with him.  But he says the Greens have since moved to what he calls a more "socialist" position.  Luxon says the Government has not handled changes to Oranga Tamariki contracts well.   A children's charity is suing the Ministry for allegedly cancelling a $21 million contract which still has two-and-a-half years to run.   Stand Tū Māia says losing funding will end the service, which has a 100 year history of providing trauma care for children and whanau.  Luxon told Woodham the organisation has done some great work.   He says the matter is before the court so he can't comment much, but he has raised the issue with the Children's Minister this week.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Salvation Army is reiterating pleas for donations for Kiwis in need this Christmas and beyond, saying every cent adds up.  The charity says its appeal this year —which launched last month— is especially important, with one in five New Zealand children living in households struggling for food.  But it says they're in a Catch-22 this year – demand is rising, but donations are declining.  Captain Andrew Wilson, Director of Community Ministries for the Salvation Army, told Kerre Woodham that they’re grateful for every gift, whatever size it is.   He says that even if it’s just a dollar from every person coming through, that very quickly adds up into something they can very easily put together to support their families.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Watercare’s seven year Central Interceptor project is over halfway complete.   The aim of the project is to reduce water overflow in the central Auckland area with the construction of New Zealand’s largest wastewater tunnel.  The team is about to hit the penultimate breakthrough before arriving at Point Erin Reserve in Herne Bay in March/April of 2025.  Watercare Chief Programme Delivery Officer Shayne Cunis told Kerre Woodham that Auckland is going to get a lifetime of benefits from the project.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How did you learn about sex? Was it your parents? Your friends? A nice, dry, factual at school, or Heaven forfend, the internet? I was at a Catholic girls’ school in the 80s —that would be the 1980s, not the 1880s just for clarification— and we got pretty much nothing, as you'd expect. I received the bare basics about body functions when I was at intermediate. Girls went one night to the school hall where a projector played an ancient movie about girls and boys developing bodies, and then the boys went the next night for the same screening.   Until I discovered Judith Krantz and Jilly Cooper's bonk-busters I had absolutely no idea, I knew they were there, but I didn't know what they were there for. Those books were absolutely great. I smuggled them into the boarding school because they described not only the sex itself, but the emotions and the passions that are tied up with sex. It’s like the difference between knowing that West Coast beach is a risky and then getting caught in a rip. You know that it's dangerous, but until you're in the middle of it, into the middle of those seas and thinking oh my God, this is more than I can handle. Until you experience it, you can know something, but until you experience it, you don't really know it.   A report out today says too many young people are leaving school without the knowledge they need to navigate the sexual landscape. Issues like consent, managing feelings, and online safety, and as a result, the Education Review Office says schools should not be required to consult parents about the content of relationships and sexuality lessons. Misinformation, bigotry, threats of violence for heaven's sake have derailed some schools attempts at consultation and prompted some schools to reduce or avoid teaching the topic. Which is bad enough, but a lot of that interference is coming from people in groups who have absolutely no relationship with the school. They don't have kids there, they're just sticking their beaks in and demanding that sex be taught their way.   Chris Abercrombie, the PPTA President, said on Early Edition this morning, there needs to be one clear curriculum taught in all schools across the country.   “The problem at the moment is in the hands of these schools, and it's not meeting really anyone's needs. As report said, 3/4 of recent school leavers said they didn't learn enough, so the idea of a national curriculum is that everyone knows what's expected, everyone’s got a clear understanding of what's happening, so parents could withdraw their students if they chose to or supplement their students learning if they chose to. It's just giving everyone a clear baseline.”  Quite. Well, that seems fair enough, doesn't it? If you don't want your child to be taught the national curriculum, you take them out of class and you teach them. And good luck to your kids if you think the curriculum is too tame, you can add in what you see as the necessary bits at home.   Since when did parents consult about the English curriculum? Maths or science curriculum? The one thing you don't want is your child to discover sex through the Internet. Sex education, like English, like maths, like science, needs to be taught the same way right around the country, so that our children have the best possible chance of making the right choices in their lives. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to sex education. And believing that real life relationships are what you see on internet pornography is positively dangerous. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The hooha over the efficacy of the boot camps hasn't gone away anytime soon, although over the weekend we did hear supporters of the scheme, along with the critics. I frightened the horses on Friday morning when I suggested that this iteration of the boot camps - and there have been many, as you know, had got off to a very bad start with one young man dying in a car accident and then two young people fleeing from their community placements. Good news, the two youths have since been found. Bad news, the two were reportedly among four people taken into custody in Hamilton on Saturday night after a stolen Toyota Corolla was spotted on Cobham Drive in Hamilton. The driver allegedly fled after being signaled to stop until the car hit road spikes. Then wielding a machete, tried to carjack another vehicle which drove away. They were then arrested along with two others, the fourth being found about 5 minutes later by a dog unit. In a statement, Karen Chhour said the circumstances were disappointing, but she was relieved the pair had been found. She said the military style academy pilot programme is just that, a pilot programme. It consists of a three month in residence stay, then another nine months back out in the community with mentor support. Oranga Tamariki does not have the ability to restrict the movement of these young people or the choices they make once they're back in the community. The young people have been in either family or community placements where they're trusted to comply with their legal orders. End of statement. And as we all agreed on Friday, nobody is expecting there to be a 100% success rate. These kids are extremely troubled, that's why they're there. The key will be the successful execution of the support they've been promised out in the community. And over the weekend, as I say, we did hear from supporters of the scheme, along with the critics. Of those supporters was Phil O'Reilly, for Business NZ Chief Executive, but spoke to Heather du Plessis-Allan this morning as former welfare expert advisory group member. He says we should stick with the boot camps -they work.  I was on one not as a participant, but as a sponsor of one in the John Key government, that version of it. I was not necessarily an advocate turning up to see this thing work, but boy, at the end of it, these kids had their lives changed for the better and the only issue was afterwards they just went back to their old ways and then this new one I'm told attempts to solve that issue. But now these are troubled kids, and they've had tough upbringings, so who knew sometimes they might abscond and do bad things. I know that's a terrible thing that’s happened, but you can't blame the whole system just on that issue. And I think we need to see it through now because I can tell you from personal experience of seeing one of these things in action, these kids walk out better, sober, you know together more team building and so on and they just need support to reintegrate back into a better life ahead. The Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr. Claire Achmad, also came out in support of them and I must admit I was surprised. Which is my own stereotyping, my own prejudice about what the Chief Children's Commissioner might think or not think. I would have thought she’d be dead against them - not at all. She said, and I quote - “I don't think we could say that the programme is a failure. The key here is that we must not give up on these mokopuna. I've been to the military style academy pilot. I spent a few hours there while the rangatahi were there.  I saw how hard the staff there were working to put in place that multi-discipline support around these young people.  She says she saw how active and willing the boot camp participants from both sides were and hopes to see it continue with some finding employment and furthering their education. If somebody had said to you, do you believe the Chief Children's Commissioner is for or against the boot camps? I bet there are a few of you, like me, who would have said, oh, she'd be dead against them. Not all. Been there, seen it, likes what she’s seen. There's an amendment bill before Parliament that creates a framework. For the government's new attempt at military style academies and looking at extending them. But people who have worked on the boot camps, who I spoke to, who can't go on the record, say it's not the length of time that you spend on the boot camps. While you're on the boot camps you're safe, insulated from all these stresses, from all the temptations, from all the lure of your old. You're protected. People care about you. They give a damn about you. You're important while you're there. It's all about you and what you need. And the kids do respond to that. They want to be good; they want to be sober. They want to get off the drugs, they want to get away from the gangs. And then they go home. Now the difference between previous boot camps and this one is that there has been the promise of wrap around care, community support, that the young people will get what they need to make the right choices. And let's face it, sending them to prison is not going to help. There are only two young adult units in prison and none for young women, so I guess we’ve got to try everything because there's nowhere else for these young people to go. There has been the promise of support for these young people to help them make the right decisions.  Most of us made really stupid decisions when we were the age of these young ones. We just weren't involved in crime. So, making dumb decisions, multiplied by crime, equals trouble. I said on Friday that it got off to the worst possible start. That didn't mean I don't believe in them. I just said it wasn't a great look. The bad starts happened, but at least we've seen prominent supporters come out and say why they believe in it and what needs to happen for it to be a success. And that success does not mean a 100% strike rate and turning all of these young lives around. Hell, you'd take 20% and it would still be worth it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.