Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

At least 16 people are dead and 38 others injured in a terrorist attack at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Hundreds of people had gathered at Bondi for an event to celebrate the first day of Hanukkah, when gunmen opened fire. Massey University Centre for Defence and Security Studies Senior Fellow John Battersby told Kerre Woodham that police responded as quick as they could, but it can be difficult to predict these attacks.  "Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies are pretty good at what they do, but they do not have a crystal ball." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A New Plymouth lake is being drained in an effort to stop invasive clams.  Lake Rotomanu's been closed to motorised watercraft since the gold clams were found there last month, marking the first discovery of the species outside of the Waikato River.  The lake's outlet was opened yesterday, and it will take about four days to drain completely.  Dave Cade told Kerre Woodham it’s the worst biosecurity threat to New Zealand’s freshwater that the country’s ever faced.  He says the clams reproduce asexually, and they’ll smother the bottom of lakes, smothering native organisms and clogging hydro stations.   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nicola Willis is defending her economic track record in the face of a lobby-group's satirical campaign.  The Taxpayers' Union has sent MPs Nicola Willis-branded fudge, claiming she favours treats today and taxes tomorrow.  It suggests Willis should cut spending more.  Willis says the Government has reduced taxes and delivered significant cost savings while keeping frontline services.  Kiwiblog author and co-founder of the Taxpayers' Union, David Farrar told Kerre Woodham that putting aside personalities, it’s not a bad thing for people to realise we still have a real fiscal challenge in New Zealand.   He says that while the Government has cut spending in a number of areas, we’re still spending more than we’re bringing in in taxes.   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you see any advantage or benefit to the country in having a former Finance Minister and the current one debating fiscal policy?  The current Finance Minister, Nicola Willis, has challenged the former Finance Minister, Ruth Richardson, to a debate. Now, that is misguided in my view, but to be fair, she was grievously provoked. Ruth Richardson is the chair of the Taxpayers' Union. The Taxpayers' Union is a pressure group, a ginger group, founded in 2013 to scrutinise government spending, publicise government waste, and promote an efficient tax system.  Its basis is its membership is mainly conservative, centre-right, right-wing figures, and it's regarded as a right-wing pressure group. Normally you would think they'd be scrutinising Labour and Labour's spending. Last week, the Taxpayers' Union sent out a provocative pamphlet and an accompanying box of fudge, accusing Nicola Willis of not delivering on her election promises to rein in reckless spending, unsustainable borrowing, and the hiring of endless bureaucrats. The Union accused Willis of failing to deliver the goods and fudging it, hence the fudge that arrived with the press release.  Provoked and incensed beyond reason, Nicola Willis swiped back. She said, "My message for Ruth Richardson is a very clear one: come and debate me face-to-face, come out of the shadows. I will argue toe-to-toe on the prescription that our government is following. I reject your approach, and instead of lurking in the shadows with secretly funded ads in the paper, come and debate me right here in Parliament. 'm ready anytime, anywhere, I will debate her." So you can see she was a little bit brassed off.  Willis said she stood by her decisions in government and wanted Richardson to defend her legacy, having introduced the infamous Mother of All Budgets in 1991, when her government under Bolger came in and were left with, I would argue, an even worse fiscal mess than this government inherited.   It's all got very personal. I don't think there's anything wrong in critiquing decisions made by government ministers, looking at how they're going, giving updates, having a reckon, especially when the ministers came in on a campaign of fixing the economy and reining in irresponsible spending, it's fair enough to say, "Okay, have you?" The Coalition Government possibly hasn't done enough, been innovative enough to suit the Taxpayers' Union agenda. They wanted more. They wanted cuts in spending, they wanted slashing of and wholesale firing of bureaucrats. That's what they wanted, but the Government's in the tricky position of having to be responsible stewards of the public purse and get re-elected.  And that's a tricky one. The Taxpayers' Union doesn't have to worry about getting elected. It's a stand-alone lobby group. The Taxpayers' Union has criticised Nicola Willis for a measly 1% reduction in public servants, but as David Farrar from Kiwiblog points out, this may well be the first government in history to actually reduce the number of public servants. They're the first ones to have done it.  It was never going to be easy inheriting the situation left by the previous government, and it never is. The Labour governments spend, that's what they do. But there's also nothing wrong with critiquing the performance of the government. The Taxpayers' Union shouldn't have made it so personal. Nicola Willis should have showed superhuman restraint and not lashed back.  The debate is a pointless waste of time in my view. I know that we're all political tragics here and we take far more interest than the average person does and if I thought there was any merit whatsoever, and if lessons could be learned or if as a country we would benefit from having these two Finance Ministers thrashing out points of economic order, fine. I just don't see it. I think it's egos have been wounded and it is the equivalent of challenging somebody to 50 press-ups – a pointless exercise. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Whenever I hear or read news headlines these days, I know that the headlines will be just that for so many people. Headlines. People won't hear or they won't read beyond the headline, and then they'll form their own opinions based on nothing more than 20 words or fewer. I've got numerous examples of that. Even people that I would have thought would understand the media, like journalists, they'll look at a headline and think, "Oh, you know, subscriber only, I'm not going to pay. I'm just going to draw my own conclusions from the headline," which they know is flawed and ridiculous.  You have to read the body of the story. If you just go on the headline, then you are going to be misinformed. It's a bit like the cancer diagnosis headline that's in the news today. "Cancer diagnosis numbers set to skyrocket by 50% over the next two decades". As soon as I read that, I could write the text to this show myself.  Example: Yeah, have a look at how many of them were vaxed. Join the dots, and variations on that theme. Or I could imagine people thinking, "Oh my god, cancer diagnoses are up. I'm going to die." Or putting my young activist cap on, Māori are around 1.6 times more likely to die from cancer than Pākehā or other ethnicities. So the young activists are like, "Yeah, that's right, man, institutional racism inherent in the system. Yeah. It's colonialism. That's what's causing that."  In fact, when you look beyond the headlines, when you read beyond the headlines, there's actually a lot of good news in the story, if you are willing to take the time to read it or listen to the interviews. Since the first state of cancer report five years ago, there has been encouraging progress in key areas of prevention, early detection, and treatment. Cancer diagnoses might be skyrocketing, but that's because they've got better diagnostic tools. We can find it before it does the damage. The chance of surviving cancer has improved over the last 20 years. The five-year net survival for all cancers has improved by 15% in the last 20 years, probably due to the screening and the advances in treatment.  And even better is the news that many, many of the cancers that afflict us can be prevented by us. We have the power to reduce our risk of some cancers, as Dr. Chris Jackson, Professor of Oncology at University of Otago and practising medical oncologist, explained to Heather du Plessis-Allan this morning.  CJ: 20% of all cancers are related to smoking, 20%. So if you get rid of smoking, you would cut the number of cancers by 20%. So that is undisputed.  HDPA: Even though the numbers are so small nowadays?  CJ: Yeah, well, it's probably going to, certainly it is going down, but those people who've been smoking are still going to be going through the system for that amount of time. The number the number two cause is obesity. So New Zealand's what, the third most obese country in the world now, I think? And we're seeing a rise in some obesity-related cancers now also, and I think if we could fix that, that would be the other big thing in terms of prevention. The other key thing, which is a very New Zealand thing, is our love affair with the sun. And as we come into summer months, I think we have to reflect on the old slip, slop, slap thing. Australia has done the sun prevention thing better than we have, and our skin cancer rates are now higher than theirs.  Absolutely. There are still many, many mysteries around cancers.  There are cancer clusters within families, there are rising rates of healthy young people being diagnosed with bowel cancer. There is much work for cancer researchers to do. But they've also done a lot of work in the field of many cancers and have found the cause and effect. Smoking increases your risk of cancer, obesity increases your risk of cancer, ignoring sun warnings increases your risk of cancer.  So we need to pay heed, if we want to. Make the changes you need to your lifestyle, you improve your chances of a healthy active life. Don't, get sick. Take advantage of the free buses that will take you to the free screening because early detection is the best prevention, or don't. And you'll pay the ultimate price. I mean, the headline, if you just simply looked at it, you could form your own conclusion.  You could absolutely go off onto an interpretive dance of your own misinformation, your own prejudice, your own beliefs. Cancer diagnosis numbers set to skyrocket by 50% over the next two decades. In fact, beyond the headlines, there is so much good news in there. And one of the key messages I think that we need to take from it is the fact that we have a little bit of control and agency over our own lives, that it is not inevitable that we get cancer, we get sick and we die.  There is much we can do to prevent it. Early detection is the best prevention. The treatments are good, provided you go along and you get the screenings, and you keep up to date with your health, you pay attention to your body, and you think that you're worth it. When we look at the numbers who are disproportionately affected by cancer, you have to ask how many are helping themselves. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Efforts to stamp out yellow-legged hornets in New Zealand are widening.  Biodiversity New Zealand is expanding the 5-kilometre surveillance zone in Glenfield and Birkdale on Auckland's North Shore further out to 11-kilometres, to ensure only one population is at large.  Victoria University Ecology and Entomology Professor Phil Lester told Kerre Woodham hornets target worker bees one by one and will hurt more than our honey sector.   He says bees support our dairy, kiwifruit, and avocado industries, and if they get established it will be a real problem.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Street Smart programme is a hands-on, one-day driver training course for young drivers, teaching crucial real-world skills beyond basic testing, helping reduce road deaths across New Zealand.  The course focuses on decision-making, hazard perception (like "rabbits" on the road), distraction management, peer pressure, and emergency manoeuvres in a controlled environment with professional coaches.  Highlands Motorsport CEO Josie Spillane told Kerre Woodham they’re deeply committed to making generational and legislational change around driver training in New Zealand, but until they get to that point, they’re doing what they can to ensure young drivers have the tools to make key split-second decisions.   The Trust has launched their first lottery to fund the programme, giving Kiwis the chance to win one of three 2025 Subaru WRXs, and go into the draw for three once-in-a-lifetime motorsport experiences.  With only 10,000 tickets at $100 each, Spillane says the odds are better than Lotto, and help make a life-saving difference for youth on the roads.   LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An urban planner says the Government’s RMA reforms are well overdue.   It's unveiled plans to replace current Resource Management Act laws with two new pieces of legislation, one for the environment and one for planning.   It sets clear limits on council regulations and is expected to save $13 billion in consenting costs.  Mt Hobson Group Director Hamish Firth told Kerre Woodham we’ve been bungling along with a system that results in us all having horror stories.   He says there’s continuous subjectivity in the Resource Management Act, and the Government’s doing the right thing in replacing it.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two parents who care for their severely disabled adult children have been recognised as homeworkers and are now entitled to receive the minimum wage, along with other associated employment conditions, after a landmark ruling yesterday from the country's highest court. They're now deemed to be employees of disability support services. And the families who battled to be recognised for the work that they do are hopeful the Supreme Court decision paves the way for other carers who are in a similar situation.  The case was brought by two parents, Christine Fleming and Peter Humphreys, who each care for their severely disabled adult children. Their physical and intellectual disabilities require constant supervision and around the clock care. Were it not for the care provided by their families, the two adult children would be needing 24/7 care somewhere, and some substandard accommodation, and that would be funded by the taxpayer.  The decision to deem the parents to be employees was unanimously reached by the five judges of the Supreme Court, and it comes seven years and seven months after the case was first filed in the Employment Court, and more than two decades after family carers first went to court, complaining they had the right to be paid for the care they provided that the taxpayer would otherwise have to provide.  From what I recall of the story over those two decades, it's complicated because there are some family members who believe it is their sacred duty to care for their children, and that by becoming employees it diminishes that bond. So not everybody thinks the same way. You know, you might share similar circumstances, but you look at it in different ways.  But it just makes sense, doesn't it? That if you have a child, be they seven months, seven years, 17, 27, however old they are, and it has been deemed that they need 24/7 care, and you are providing that care, you should be reimbursed for it, whether you've got a sacred bond between parent and child or not. Otherwise, we, the taxpayer, would have to fund it some other way.  It's similar to a story I covered on Fair Go a trillion years ago. A young man had been left tetraplegic in a car accident. He was legally entitled to 24/7 care, but he only received limited funding to cover that care. So unless his caregivers gave their time voluntarily, and many chose not to, and fear it, they weren't being paid, but he would be left alone and abandoned. He nearly died a couple of times because there was nobody there, despite the fact he was entitled to it, but the money didn't cover 24/7 care.  It seems that some government departments rely on the bonds between parents and their children and the kindness of strangers to provide the care that legally, by right, should be afforded our most severely disabled New Zealanders.  I can't imagine what it would be like as a parent of a disabled child, knowing that time is ticking by. You try to set your children up so that they will be looked after when you're gone. But it would be terrifying having to try and care for the child in the here and now, while making provision for them in the future. Quite often it falls to other siblings to provide that care.  There's a need to try and work to afford the sort of care that the adult child is going to need now and in the future. Like the love you would get from knowing your child, fabulous. But there's also the basic needs you have to provide for. You know, you get a lot out of being with your child, no matter what age. You know, it's a relationship that you have. It is one that is special, unique, but it's also a job, and if you weren't doing it, somebody would have to.  So I would love to hear from those families who are in that situation and what that means for you from here on in. Not all family members will want to be workers of disability support services, and I get that, but at least the pay it paves the way for there to be the option for them to be recognised as such. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

2024 was an epic annus horribilis for the Greens - you remember Golriz Ghahraman, Darleen Tana, Julie Anne Genter, et al. It went on and on. It was arguably the worst year on record for any political party in this country ever. But wait, hold my beer – we have a new champion.  2025 is shaping up to be an even more horribilis of an annus for Te Pāti Māori, who may well factionalise themselves into extinction. It all started so well. And by started, I'm going back to 2004 when Labour MP Tariana Turia's protest against her own government's Foreshore and Seabed Bill led to her establishing Te Pāti Māori. Despite it being pretty much a single issue party at genesis, it lasted the distance thanks to the political pragmatism and mana of Dame Tariana and Sir Pita Sharples, the other co-leader.  They were able to walk in both the Pākehā world and Te Ao Māori, and they kept the party together. Te Pāti Māori winning six out of the seven electorate seats in the 2023 election was a triumph. As was its opposition to the coalition government's Treaty Principles Bill and galvanising everybody together. But since then, Te Pāti Māori has turned upon itself and the ugly mudslinging being played out in the public arena has seen support for the party plummet.  This time last year, Te Pāti Māori got 7% in the 1News Verian poll. Last night in that same poll, they recorded just 1%. Bang, crash, pow, brace for impact, as Maiki Sherman might have said, but didn't, when reporting the results last night.  Te Pāti Māori threw out two of its MPs amid accusations of a dictatorial style by its leadership. The dispute took a new twist in court last week though, when a judge ruled MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi should be reinstated as a party member. John Tamihere emerged from the party's AGM in Rotorua over the weekend absolutely triumphant and grinning like a Cheshire cat, the cat that's got the cream. Those opposed to his presidency simply didn't have the numbers to get rid of him.  According to the party's constitution, it appears the only way Tamihere can be removed from the role of president is if there is consensus among the electorate council representatives. So he has a stranglehold on Tāmaki Makaurau, Waiariki, and Te Tai Hauāuru – Waikato seems to be neutral. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti said they weren't happy about the expulsion of Whaitiri and another MP, Ferris. Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Tonga, they want John Tamihere gone.  But it looks like he'll be clinging on. May well be a Pyrrhic victory. If Te Pāti Māori can't find a way to work through their differences, and I don't see how they possibly can. Tamihere will be the head of a political party that isn't in Parliament, that is completely and utterly irrelevant. He'll have his toys, but no one to play with.  While all of this infighting is occurring, as Christopher Luxon said, not one single piece of legislation has been crafted by Te Pāti Māori MPs to further the betterment of their constituency, of their people. As he said, not one of them has turned up with ideas, with a plan, with a way to make the world a better place for the people who voted them in, to use the machinery of Parliament to advance the cause of their people. They are simply not doing their job while they're involved in this sort of infighting.   I would very much like to hear from those who have supported Te Pāti Māori in the past, who as recently as 2023 might have installed a Te Pāti Māori MP in Parliament by voting in the electorate – where to now? Is there still a place for Te Pāti Māori in Parliament? They look like they're doing their level best to disembowel themselves and eat their own entrails in front of us all.  It's unedifying, but worse than that, it is letting down the very people who voted them into Parliament. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.