Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

On average, there are 73 work-related deaths in New Zealand every single year. Relative to the number of people in employment, the New Zealand workplace fatality rate is double that of Australia, and it hasn't shifted in many, many years. More road cones have not made a difference. The New Zealand rate is similar to the rate the UK experienced back in the 1980s. The gap between New Zealand and Australia is consistent across most industries and occupations. It's not like we've got one that is more dangerous than any other, which is why it's throwing these figures out. It's consistent across industries and occupations.   Looking at the construction industry, the New Zealand fatality rate is 4.41 workers every 100,000 compared to 2.93 workers in every 100,000. The workplace injury rates tell a similar story. New Zealand injury rates, as reported by ACC have improved over time, however the Australian rate is 25% lower, the UK 45% lower. Why? Why are we so much worse than other countries we should be able to compare ourselves with? Brooke van Velden, the Minister for Workplace Safety, says we're overregulated. That there are too many rules and the fear of prosecution is making workplaces less safe.   “We're changing the focus of worker health and safety to focusing on the critical risks, those things that can cause deaths and serious injury, and at the same time, I'm changing the focus of WorkSafe to care about deaths and serious injury as well and not sweating the small stuff because we've had a culture of too much over compliance, ticking all the boxes, trying to get all of the paperwork done, rather than focusing on, do I actually do anything in my workplace that could cause death or serious injury? And are we doing that correctly?   “So I'm saying to everybody out there, let's not sweat the small stuff. Let's focus on those deaths and serious injury activities and let's have WorkSafe going on site providing more upfront guidance so that they're here to help rather than having too much of the stick.”  Who was it that said there are no more chilling words than “hi, we're from the government. We're here to help”? It was an American, I'm sure. Is there going to be able to be a change of emphasis? If all of a sudden, Workplace Safety says, ‘hey, we're here to help. We're here to help you, as the employer, make the workplace safer’. Are we able to pivot away from thinking ‘if Health and Safety come in here, they're going to find all sorts of nitpicky things and make my life misery’, to ‘might ring Workplace Health and Safety and see how they can help me’. It's going to take a big mind shift.   Mike said this morning he thought there were too many rules and there probably are for people who are educated, who have choices about what they do, who have choices about where they work. For people who don't have the luxury of telling a boss to stick it if they're asked to do something they think is really dangerous, or to do something with equipment they think is dangerous, rules are required. But they need to be clear, they need to be effective and if they're not working, do away with them. And I think most importantly, employees need to be on board with them. The number of times I've had employers ring in and tell me that as required by law, they bring in the safety gear, they instruct the workers to wear it, they do spot cheques to ensure the workers are wearing it, and the workers are not wearing it. They say that the goggles mist up. That the harnesses mean that they can't rely on their own wits to go about the building, and they'd rather risk death than rely on their own sense of balance. The employees don't seem to value their lives in some cases. You've got to get employees on board as well.   There has to be a culture of safety, that workers have to value themselves and employers have to value their workers. And you can't regulate for that. You can't red cone that. I tend to agree that too many rules just mean the important ones get lost in the noise. Too many road cones and you don't know when it's dangerous and when it's not. But our work-related deaths are appalling. And they've been appalling for a very, very long time. How do we fix it? It's only those workers in dangerous occupations, mainly men, and the bosses in those dangerous occupations that can tell us. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The rise of generative AI could be putting children at risk.  Gloria Masters, founder of 'Handing The Shame Back', believes the current digital environment has enabled “much more sexualised content” of children to be available to predators.  AI tools allow people to remove clothing from people in photos, such as children, creating fake nude images they can then trade.  She told Kerre Woodham that share your photos with trusted friends and family members by all means, but the days of posting them on Facebook, Instagram, and other such platforms are gone.  According to Masters, research shows that 85% of online offenders become contact offenders, going on to abuse real children.  She says it’s important to stop giving predators a free pass and remove content so they can’t access it.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You might have heard ACT leader David Seymour on the Breakfast show this morning. He says there will almost certainly be prosecutions against parents of absent students this year as the Government intensifies its crackdown on school truancy. And it's not even truancy, in my mind truancy are kids doing a bunk, wagging, taking a day off. What this is, is parental neglect. Parents who are failing to ensure that their kids get to school and get to school on time. According to Ministry of Education figures, around 11.3% of students were chronically absent from school and term 4 last year, equating to around 93,000 young people. Chronically absent means a student attends 70% of school or less. The Associate Minister for Education spelled out what's going to happen next to parents who will not send their kids to school.   “Basically, a school will go to the Ministry of Education, say look, we've got someone who they're not a can’t, they’re a won't. We've tried. We've gone out. We've engaged with them. They're basically giving us the middle finger and saying education is not important and you've got no right to demand that my kid enrols and attends a school. And in that case I've been told by the youth aid, police, by the attendance officers, by the deputy principal, we need another sanction, another step we can take. At that point they will go to the Ministry of Education and say, look, this is a potential prosecution case. Ministry of Education will weigh it up and if it stacks up, they'll take the prosecution, ultimately go before the courts. Now you can be fined $30 bucks a day up to $300 initially. For repeat offending the fine on parents can be $3000.”  Which of course many parents won't be able to pay in that category. They're not going to be able to pay it, but the message is clear from the Government. They are quite happy to be the bad guy in getting your kids to school. And principals have said they've already noticed a difference. The expectation is that young people will attend school. Schools have to deliver statistics on the numbers of children who are turning up and they have to deliver those to the Ministry of Education – if their figures are slipping, or if there's no improvement, then action is taken by branches and agencies of the ministry to encourage children to attend school.   So is it going to help the parents who've rung in and told me they cannot get their children to school? These are the older students who cannot and will not get out of bed. That makes it a bit tricky. We have had, on the face of it, perfectly “normal parents”  who are trying to do the right thing by their children and by the community who want their kids to get ahead in life, who want their kids to go to school, tell us that they cannot get their teenagers out of bed and into the classroom.   If you can say, well, if I have to pay that fine, then that's going to come out of the money for your wardrobe or the money for your school trip, or the money for your phone plan, will that help? I mean, 11% of kids who are chronically absent, that's quite a lot of children, 93,000 young people, as a lot of young Kiwis who are missing out. And they're not just missing out on learning they're missing out on the structure and the discipline of getting up and going to work.    And what if the parents and grandparents like me, who take the kids out of school for a jolly? I guess there are exceptions to every rule, but should we be fined as well? If you're willingly, wilfully disobeying the edict from the government to get your kids to school should parents and grandparents like me be fined for basically sticking the middle finger, as David Seymour said, to the attendance expectations? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Construction of New Zealand's first large scale grid battery storage system has finished in Ruakākā, just south of Whangārei.   The Meridian Energy project has storage capacity of 200 megawatt-hours, which is enough to power 60 thousand homes for two hours.   It will provide greater resilience and reduce strain to the Northland power and reduce strain on the wider power supply.   Guy Waipara, Meridian Energy General Manager Development, told Kerre Woodham the batteries are designed to be available at peak periods for the network.  He says it’s only part of the system, but it will play a really important part at the times where energy security is challenged.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What on Earth do we do with young people who were born in New Zealand, who have lived in New Zealand all of their lives, but who aren't New Zealanders? They've never known any other home, but they can't get healthcare, they can't get a driver's licence, they can't get a job, they can't pay taxes.   In 2006, a law change under the Helen Clark Government removed the right to citizenship by birth for children born in New Zealand. The justification was that it stopped people from country shopping by going from country to country, having a baby in the one they liked and therefore being granted citizenship through their child. That's a fight Donald Trump's having right now with the US Supreme Court, the US being one of 33 countries that grants jus soli – the right of the soil, or the right of citizenship to anyone born within a territory.   We did away with jus soli in 2006, and now young people, it's not known how many, because of course they live in the shadows, are leaving the education system and are locked in limbo. The education system will educate anyone here, even if they're here unlawfully, until the age of 18. After that, all services of the state are denied to them, and they are on their own. Stuff has an excellent story highlighting the plight of New Zealand born overstayers this morning. At the moment, it appears there is no pathway for children born to overstayers after 2006. It's even more cruel to think that siblings born to those same overstaying parents before 2006 have New Zealand citizenship but their brothers and sisters born after don't.   At the moment the only option is to go to the Minister of Immigration and plead individual cases, which is time consuming, lengthy, costly, and takes up a lot of bureaucrats' time.   So what do we do with these 18 and 19 year olds? An immigration lawyer quoted in the Stuff story wants a repeal of the 2006 law change, which removed the right the birthright citizenship. Or, he suggests, we do what the Aussies and the Brits do and that is grant citizenship if you're born here and have lived here for 10 years or more. Surely that seems the most humane way of dealing with these young adults. They're here, they've been here all their lives, they likely have siblings who have New Zealand citizenship – those siblings are working or at university. Should the same rights be granted to those kids who, through no fault of their own were born in this country and now find themselves in effect stateless, without a country, without a place to call home, despite the fact that New Zealand is the only home they've known?   I would do what the Aussies and the Brits do. If you have been born here, if you have lived here for 10 years or more, you're a Kiwi.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You cannot go into an election promising to get tough on crime, win the election and vow to draw a line in the sand, declare war on the crims, and then issue a directive that police won't turn up to minor crime. To paraphrase supermodel Linda Evangelista, who famously said she wouldn't get out of bed for less than $10,000, it appears our coppers won't get out of their Skodas for less than $500.   A memo has surfaced directing police staff not to investigate crimes under a certain value, such as shoplifting goods under $500. As you can imagine, there have been howls of outrage from retailers and dairy owners, and police are now scrambling to explain themselves. Ann-Marie Johnson, Retail NZ manager, was on Early Edition this morning. She says that retailers do have a realistic expectation of police.   “Retailers know that police aren't going to show up to every small, very minor case of shoplifting, but we certainly want to know that they're taking these crimes seriously and that where they can, they will be following up and arresting. Often they're repeat offenders, so we know who they are, and police know who they are, so we want to particularly focus on those people.”  Well, exactly. I remember ages ago I left my window open. I used to live in a villa that was on the street, and I left the window open in summer and some opportunistic heffer managed to heave herself through the window and scoop up what she could see in my bedroom and disappear. And I rang the police, not because I expected them to turn up, but because I needed the case number for my insurance claim, but somebody turned up about 3 or 4 days later and dusted for fingerprints on the windowsill. And because of that, they were able to match it to a nest of Vipers in West Auckland, a group of women who had committed all sorts of petty thefts and burglaries and crimes, and so it was worth holding off on the house cleaning and not doing the window sill so the police could dust for fingerprints.  Of course they can't turn up to every crime. I know that, but it's not a good look. Police Minister Mark Mitchell says he is happy to talk, but he doesn't want to get ahead “of the police executive who are going to clarify their position”. I can only imagine the “please explain” face on the Minister when he made a call to the newish-Commissioner.   It's one thing for us all to know that if our wallet is nicked because we stupidly left it on a bus stop seat, we know the police aren't going to converge on the scene of the crime, all blues and two in their numbers. It is quite another thing to know that a directive has been sent applying nationally standardised threshold values when assessing theft and fraud. Losing $500 worth of groceries and goods can have a huge impact on a small business' weekly turnover, and I sure as hell do not want to see losers walking out of supermarkets with $500 worth of groceries, getting a free pass.   You don't elect a centre right government for that sort of carry on. That was the very thing that galvanised a significant number of voters to vote centre right. You may not be able to get to every petty thief in the country, you know that. I know that the retailers know that, and the crims sure as hell know that, but the messaging from police has to be that they're going to jolly well try. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Police Minister is reassuring retailers officers will still turn up to reports of shoplifting.  RNZ reports staff have been directed to not investigate retail crime below $500 and online fraud below $1000.   Police may not take further action if the reports don't have enough evidence, such as CCTV.  However, Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham every crime deserves a response.  He says he wants to be clear that people can’t go out and shoplift anything under the value of $500 – there will be a police response, especially if the offender is able to be identified.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two new ‘non-financial’ sanctions have come into force today for beneficiaries, who, in the words of the MSD, do not meet their obligations or, as other people might put it, who do not get off their arses and go and look for a job. Some people may have half their weekly benefits put onto a payment card for four weeks, that can only be spent on essential items at approved shops. Others may also have to find volunteer work for at least five hours each week, again for four weeks. Remember though, as the Minister for Social Development confirmed, it's only a tiny proportion of job seekers who are having a laugh – 98% are complying with their obligations and are doing what they can to get off the benefit, so it's only really going to apply to 2% of those on the benefit. But as former Welfare Expert Advisory Group member Phil O'Reilly told Ryan Bridge on Early Edition this morning, sanctions can and do work.  Sanctions do work. Exactly how well they work is always open to debate. They work for two reasons. One is they encourage people to get off the benefit. But secondly, very importantly for people like you and me who are paying tax in order to give persons a benefit, they keep our faith in the system too. That if you're not going to play by the rules, there's going to be a bit of a sanction on you, so they do actually work in those two contexts. And I think that's important to remember too, it's not just about those who are on the benefit, it's about those people who are paying, in effect, the benefit. There has to be faith in the system to keep the system going. People won't suffer a financial loss per say, and since they'll be restricted as to what they can spend their benefit on if they are failing to meet their obligations. I'm less enthusiastic about the volunteering requirements. The poor old charity sector is doing it tough enough as it is without some hapless souls turning up reluctantly, looking for things to do because they have to. I don't see why voluntary organisations should be charged with the task of straightening out recalcitrant beneficiaries on top of everything else they do. Compulsory training courses or upskilling by MSD should be the way to go as far as I'm concerned. If there are people who want to volunteer, who have something to offer, fine -  fill your boots. But I imagine they'd be doing that already if they felt they had something to offer. What on Earth are you going to do with a couple of individuals who don't want to go and get a job? We're talking the tiny proportion of beneficiaries there who don't want to go and get a job, who don't know how to go and get a job, who don't believe they have anything to offer anyone - they'll have had the stuffing knocked out of them after being on a benefit for years - turning up at your local Hospice shop or your SPCA or whatever, what on Earth are you supposed to do with them? David Seymour, whose party campaigned on the policies, said sanctions should go further. He said no country can succeed with one in six working age people on a benefit and ACT wants to see money in kind given as a benefit instead of cash. If you want the freedom, he says, to spend cash as your own, then earn it yourself. Which is all very well and good when the jobs are there but it's widely acknowledged that we're seeing unemployment rise. Hopefully it will peak very shortly, but we are at a time of high unemployment relative to the circumstances of this country.  I'm all for getting the sanctions out for the 2% putting restrictions on what they can spend the money on so that taxpayers will have faith in the system, but the volunteering, no.   Also, some of you may have a different view now about being on a benefit. Prior to the Covid years, many people had never experienced the shock of losing a job. During the Covid years, people lost work almost overnight. And they were extraordinary times trying to find something to do in a in an industry that had disappeared for a time or in the recession that followed.  You might have suddenly found yourself surplus to requirements because the company you had worked for years was in really straightened circumstances and had to ditch people overboard to survive, so you might have a different view about what it means to be unemployed and looking for work. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's been revealed how outdoor education can help build teenagers up.  The Boyle River Outdoor Education Centre is 20 minutes east of the Lewis Pass.  They're a not-for-profit organisation offering outdoor education programmes to secondary school groups and are in the business of fostering leadership, growth and confidence in young people.  Boyle River Outdoor Education Centre Manager Sharon Nicholas talks to Kerre Woodham about the importance of outdoor education for young people.  LISTEN ABOVE. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prime Minister's keen to raise the retirement age -- but it's not possible in coalition with New Zealand First. The Government is halving its KiwiSaver contribution rate -- and canning if people earning more than 180-thousand dollars. The default rate of worker and business contributions to KiwiSaver will rise over time. Chris Luxon told Kerre Woodham pushing out the retirement age to 67 makes sense. He says Labour doesn't think it’s a good idea, and New Zealand First does not want to move that forward. Luxon also spoke about the cuts the government made to make funding available elsewhere.  Budget 2025 includes 21 billion dollars of cost-savings - 13 billion of that from the controversial change to pay equity law - raising claim thresholds. Prime Minister Chris Luxon told Kerre Woodham these are difficult choices, but there's no way they could afford that. LISTEN ABOVE OR WATCH HERE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.