Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

We thought we'd start this morning looking at the Justice Select Committee’s review of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. Exciting stuff, it's all in the way you say it!  This is something that is part of a suite of reforms that the government is bringing in to help crack down on gangs. It's the job of the Justice Select Committee, which is made-up of all parties, to take into account the views of citizens who make submissions to consider them, to consider the legislation, to make sure it's good legislation that it's intended to do what it says it's going to do, that there are no unintended consequences as a result of the legislation. And as you can imagine, there's a bit of toing and froing on it.   But it made me think too about one of the great mysteries and conundrums in my life, and that is why police and licensed firearms users in this country aren't besties, because you're both on the same side. You're law abiding, guarantee the vast majority of both groups enjoy the outdoors. Many police would enjoy going hunting. You're not into thugs and bullies and law breakers, that's not what you're about. You're on the side of the angels, you know how to handle a weapon, unlike most other groups in the country. You enjoy the outdoors, you understand the need for firearms where other groups might not, and yet so many times when the issue of how best to manage the firearms inventory in this country and how to manage access to firearms comes up, police and firearms users end up metaphorically yelling at each other across a divide while the bad guys continue the drive by shootings. In a way, it's a colossal diversion for the unlawful, who just sit back, grab the popcorn, watch the licensed firearms users in the different lobby groups and the police yell at each other. And then once they scoff down the popcorn, a little light drive by shooting before a drive through at Macca’s and home, and that's a good day done if you're a gangster. And none of the words, and none of the legislation, and none of the argy bargy and the lobbying has affected them one little bit.   So we've got the firearms prohibition orders legislation Amendment Bill being discussed and the Justice Select Committee has recommended softening it, restricting what can be the subject of a warrantless search. They used as an example if somebody who owned a hotel and was under a firearms prohibitions order, you couldn't search all the rooms in the hotel. They’d have to be due reason to search the rooms, you couldn't just have a blanket policy of searching every single room in the hotel.   The bill is part of the Government’s crackdown on gangs, the FPO's are meant to place restrictions on high-risk individuals by reducing the likelihood of them accessing firearms. Now, I have a problem with the basic premise of that. If introducing a piece of legislation did indeed reduce the likelihood of a gangster getting a gun, go for it. But given what we know about how gangsters access their firearms, given what we know about the illegal importation and trade of all sorts of firearms that come into this country down through the South Pacific, you can get anything you like – birds, guns, drugs, probably ancient relics, you name it, it can be smuggled into the country and there's just no way of keeping tabs on it. So sure, bring in your arms prohibition order. I see you your firearms prohibition order and raise you six containers coming in from South America or China.    FPO's are already possible under legislation that was introduced from the previous government. And they thought, oh, voters are quite serious about this law and order thing, aren't they? Best we do something about it. Now 30 FPO's had been issued in the first 15 months of the law taking effect, eight of which were to gang members. The government's new bill would give police new warrantless search powers and pivot FPO's more towards gang members and their associates. They'd also be applicable to a much wider range of people, up to 3 1/2 times as many under the current law, because lower-level offences would be included. But the Justice Select Committee wants to see some of those provisions scaled back, fearing it will give the police too many powers. Nicole McKee, who's the Associate Justice Minister, says she understands the concerns of the committee but ultimately the government wants guns out of the hands of those who are doing the most harm.  “Some of the things that they have talked about is they're looking at who's captured by firearms prohibition orders. They want to decrease the number of eligible offenses, and they've got some concerns around the warrantless searches. And I take on board what they say. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don't, but at the end of the day, we need to stop the drive by shootings of innocent families that are being held to ransom by gangs and their illegal use of these weapons.”  And again, this is my sticking point. If legislation could do that, fill your boots, draft as many laws as you like. But until you can stop basically importation at will of anything anybody in the criminal underworld wants, it's utterly, utterly pointless. I mean, sure, give them the powers of search so they can have a look, that's great. But a Firearms Prohibition Order won't be worth the paper it's printed on. I suppose it sets up a process so that if you've got a Firearms Prohibitions Order against you, it means that the police can then trigger the search, but it's not going to stop you having a firearm.  Does anybody seriously think it's going to stop the shootings that are taking place? And you've now got innocent collateral who are being used in the drive by shootings, the parents of gangsters, the siblings of gangsters, the children of gangsters, they're all getting caught up in it as well.   So sure, bring in your firearms prohibition order, will that keep guns out of the hands of gangsters? Absolutely not. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Although Federated Farmers has found farmer confidence to be slipping, not every farmer feels that way.  The latest Farm Confidence survey shows that 66% of farmers consider the current economic climate to be bad, which is up 11% since January.  However, there are farmers who are keeping a more proactive, positive outlook, knowing that farming is a longterm game.  Mark Guscott of Glen Eden Farm in South Wairarapa told Kerre Woodham that he tries to associate himself with clever and on to it people, because otherwise it just drags you down.   He said that if you associate yourself with negative people, it just becomes a spiral.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Officials have tried multiple times to build a life-saving disaster coordination system, similar to those other countries have invested in.  But, New Zealand has shied away from its latest attempt, a Common Operation Platform.  Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery Mark Mitchell tells Kerre Woodham many people are working to figure out a way to bring information together quickly during times of disaster – but it is a complex solution to find.  Mitchell praises the work of Civil Defence controllers, first responders and local leadership during national emergencies and says collectively the system will be a heavy investment for the country.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ten young men will enter boot camp 2.0, more officially known as the Military Style Academy pilot. Not much is expected of these ten.   Critics argue that boot camps are cruel and unusual punishment that don't work and have never worked, so they won't work for this lot. Supporters of the boot camps really just want to see a few of the worst oiks punished with no real expectation that they'll be able to make anything of themselves, so really not much is expected of these ten young men.   It is true that previous boot camps haven't resulted in miraculous life transformations.   Reoffending rates were in the 80 and 90 percents - but then very few programs that try to address serious youth offending result in miraculous life transformations however you go about it, life just doesn't work like that.   If you look at the evaluation from the agencies, there's a program called Pae Whakatupuranga - low completion rate for programme, majority of those completed reporting making progress. Yeah. What is that? Most of the programmes didn't have strenuous evaluation (shock me) under the previous administration, so it was very hard, though a lot of it was self-reporting.   They're expensive - anything to do with serious youth offending is expensive. When it came to Youth Services, participants were slightly more likely to be on a benefit and more likely to be serving a community sentence one to two years after the programme.   So, you have to say that's not working, scrap that one. What does seem to be working is the LSV’s. You know, similar to the boot camp style. Participants have increased income, employment, educational participation, less time in prison, but also less educational qualifications and more time on a benefit.   So, anything to do with young people is expensive, there is no guarantee that these young people will be able to suddenly have a road to Damascus experience and think yes, a life of being a worthwhile member of the community appeals to me. The key to the success of this new iteration of boot camps will be in the transitioning back into the community. If these young people go straight back to the environment that shape them into young criminals, then there's really not much hope for them. But this is where boot Camp 2.0 differs. There will be nine months where they will receive wrap-around care and that will be absolutely vital. So too though is having someone believe in them believe that they have inherent worth, that their lives are worthwhile.   Karen Chhour is the Children's Minister and the minister in charge of implementing the boot camps and as a former child of the state, she says every young person is worth trying to save.   “All kids can be helped, Mike. I could have been one of those kids. I could have gone down the wrong path, but I had that one person in my life that told me I was worth something and helped me to steer myself down the right pathway. So hopefully we can put that right person in front of this young person and show them that that actually somebody does care about them.”  That was Karen Chhour talking to Mike Hosking this morning. I'd love to know for those of you who have had some experience with kids who have gone off the straight and narrow or were never on it in the first place, is it possible to turn your life around? If you have had no role models in your family, upon which you can model a life? Where going to school is an expectation. Where succeeding as an expectation. Where fulfilling your potential as an expectation. And you have the sort of environment that proactively encourages you to be the best you can be, that that thinks you're amazing.   If you don't have that when you start where on Earth do you get it from? Is that the teachers? It always used to be. Education and good teachers used to be able to save kids who were on a fast track to nowhere.   Is it having somebody, an authority, look you in the eye and say you are worth more than the life you are living, we can help you change. Everybody wants the miraculous life transformation. Everybody wants the young people to believe in themselves, to believe they have something worthwhile to offer, to be able to participate in the community and take the best that the community can offer, while at the same time giving back. But it just doesn't work like that.   These kids have got mountains to climb. There are people willing to help them. There are also, I think, people who are making a good dollar who are setting up programmes without any kind of stringent evaluation.   So, I want to make sure that any kind of programme, including these boot camps works. And if the dollars aren't working, then put them somewhere else.    LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rotorua's Mayor says the city is turning around its problems with emergency housing motels.  Resource consent applications are being sent to the Rotorua Lakes Council for seven motels for up to 549 people in 186 units.   The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development says it intends to stop referring people to emergency housing by July next year.   Mayor Tania Tapsell told Kerre Woodham there's been a definite change during her time in office.   She says there's been a 60% reduction in emergency housing motels .  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For those older survivors of abuse in state and church care, I wonder if you ever, ever thought this day would come?   When you could tell your story without fear of being further beaten and abused and called a liar. When you would be listened to and believed and told that the fault for what has happened to you, the grievous hurt that you have suffered, is not your fault.   It's the fault of sadistic, depraved adults who should never have been put in the position of looking after vulnerable children. It's the fault of organisations that were so hell bent on protecting their holy reputations, that rather than punishing the abuser, they just sent him away, giving them new opportunities to hurt and destroy the lives of more young children.  When you look at your own children or grandchildren, 7-year-old boys and girls – look at them - they are beautiful humans. Half baby, half child but you can see the full adult they're starting to become.   So full of potential, so full of promise and they love life and they love you, and they trust you, and you wonder how on Earth any adult could betray that trust and brutally hurt the bodies and souls of those children?   Well wonder no more. 2944 pages of evidence will tell you exactly how adults did that.   It's the largest and most complex inquiry ever held in New Zealand, and thank you to all of those who took part. The Commission members, which must have been a grueling job and the witnesses.   The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State and Faith-Based Care was six years in the making. And every page is a page of families. Families in the first instance, who either neglected their children, couldn't be bothered with their children, abused their children sufficiently, that the state intervened, and then in came the institutions and the churches.   And they all failed these beautiful, vulnerable young people they were supposed to be protecting. The report was released to the public yesterday afternoon. It contains 138 recommendations and Parliament acknowledged receipt of the report, with speakers from across the House:    “We like to think that abuse like this doesn't happen here in Aotearoa, New Zealand but it did, and it is a shameful chapter of our history that we must confront. And Mr. Speaker, this is a dark and sorrowful day in New Zealand's history. And it's important that as a country, we bring to the surface and we understand the hard truths of what happened so we can try and move forward together. And I say to the survivors, the burden is no longer yours to carry alone. The state is now standing here beside you, accountable and ready to take action.”  That was Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. This is leader of the opposition Chris Hipkins:   “Mr. Speaker, I want to address the Prime Minister and thank him for his words. Our government set up this inquiry and we made some changes. We changed the redress rules on an interim basis and we did set up the Survivor Experiences Board, but Prime Minister, we didn't do enough. And the ball now falls to you and your Government. This must be bigger than politics. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the survivors and to future generations to finally deliver justice, and to finally end the ongoing abuse that happens in state care. This work will extend beyond the life of any one government, so we should work together to make sure that happens.”   Which is quite true. And finally, Minister in Charge of the Crown Response to the Abuse in Care Inquiry, Erica Stanford:    “These are our most vulnerable and damaged tamariki, and this report tells us today that we must do better. And as a government, we are committed to delivering our response to the report with the respect and dignity it deserves. But today is about the survivors. Today we hear your stories. Today we acknowledge your bravery. And your bravery will not only correct the historic record, but it will determine our future. You are brave, we acknowledge you and we thank you.”   The report is really, really important and it has to be a lesson of what not to do in the future. In the first instance, it is families who are failing these children. If families were doing a good job, if families could protect their own children, they wouldn't need to be taken away from them.   And as we have seen, there are woeful families committing grievous harm on their children every single day. Oranga Tamariki is worked off its feet and failing miserably as an organisation, despite the best will of the social welfare workers, so the lessons from the past must be taken into the future because we haven't fixed anything.   The only good thing that's happened in the past 50 or 60 years is that people can speak up now. When I was growing up it was just starting to change, but when I was growing up the doctor, the policeman, the principal, the priest, they were believed. They were respected members of the community and if you had said that the local policeman had hurt you or tried to interfere with you, I'm not entirely sure you'd have been believed. You'd have probably been told off by your parents for telling terrible wicked lies.   We had a paedophile priest roaming around St. John's, when my brother was at St. John's. The kids all knew he was a paedo. He'd come from somewhere else where he'd been a paedo. But rather than the church defrock him and expose him, they sent him along to another school to commit more damage.   And my brother said he wasn't going to be an altar boy anymore and mum wept because every Catholic mother wants the child to be an altar boy. Won't you change your mind? No. He wasn't going to change his mind any time soon.   And Mum said later, many years later when it all came out that this man was a filthy depraved, opportunistic, intelligent, sadistic, paedophile, that even if my brother had said anything, she's not entirely sure she'd have believed him because she wouldn't have thought it was possible. A priest? A priest did what?   Such was the power of the church and of authority figures in the 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s. They were almost omnipotent. Nobody could stop them if they decided to do what they wanted and like finds like.   Paedos find other paedos. They like sharing their filthy little secrets. The only thing that's changed I think from back then is that the covers of darkness have been stripped away and those ghastly sluggish paedos have been exposed to the full light of day.   There is still the most appalling abuse happening in homes. There is still abuse happening in institutions, as we've seen with the reviews of Oranga Tamariki, but it's being exposed far more quickly and hopefully we are learning better ways of doing things.    But it will be the kids themselves, who had to go through hell on Earth who will be the ones who'll be able to inform us on how to do things better. But in the first instance, love your kids, don't let them end up in care, don't hand over their souls and their bodies to other people who are going to damage them. It’s utterly appalling reading.   But thank heavens for the courage and the bravery of those children because it's the children in adults, bodies who spoke at the inquiry. It's those children, thank heavens, who had the courage to speak up, who might just make things better for future generations. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So there she was yesterday, 2pm House of Parliament, one Darleen Tana. Bold as brass as Sister Mary Claire would have said, sitting up the back in the naughty girl's seat lonely as Herb Alpert’s bull. Well, until the leader of Te Pati Maori came by and dropped a hongi on her, or them sorry, she's now a they/them, because she never walks alone. So the leader of Te Pati Maori came by, dropped the hongi on the lonely bull, but after that they were on their own. Alone. Powerless. Party-less. And as useless as the tits on the aforementioned Herb Alpert's lonely bull. To recap, Darleen Tana was elected as a list MP for the Greens, she was stood down while an investigation was conducted and to what they knew of migrant exploitation in their husband's business and what she had divulged to the Green Party. They spent longer on leave than they did on the job, and when the review was finally completed, they resigned before they could be sacked by the Green Party. Their party urged them to shove off out of Parliament completely, as did Labour leader Chris Hipkins, but no. Darleen Tana played fast and loose, refused to say whether they would resign from Parliament, and the will they/won’t they question was finally settled, it appears, when they plonked themselves in the back row of the parliamentary chamber as an independent MP. “They have work to do,” they said. “I'm here now and doing the mahi as long as this place allows me,” were the exact words. “It's been a long time out and I've been very keen to do the mahi. I'm pleased to be back and I'm determined to continue serving the people,” which is all very noble. But exactly what kind of work will they do? Sam, Mike Hosking’s producer, said they replied by text to that question with “I'm honestly just keen to knuckle down and get on with the work. I'm determined to do oceans' protection justice. Thx again for reaching out.” So, oceans' protection justice. Well, heavens knows the oceans need protecting. There also might be a wee bit of self-interest at play here. Now that Tana’s husband, Christian Hoff Nielsen can no longer bring home the Danish pastries given his business has gone into liquidation, someone has to be earning a crust. I would have thought, given Ms Tana’s impressive resume, and despite the hoo-hah over their ignominious, albeit brief time in Parliament, she'd be able to find a good paying job somewhere, but it appears not. Might be hard work finding a job when you've already got one. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and if you've planted your buttocks to the back of a leather seat in the parliamentary chamber, good as gold, you’ve got the job. They are staying put. And do you know what for the next 2 1/2 years, we will get the benefit of Ms Tana’s mahi on oceans' protection justice. Lucky, lucky oceans, lucky, lucky Kiwis. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I heard a shocking story about someone who went out on Saturday night and, over the course of about five hours, polished off a bottle of wine.  They didn’t share it with someone else or with other people. A bottle of wine is what this person, themselves, drunk over about five hours while they were at some do, some party.  Then guess what this person did? They got in their car to drive home. And this is one reason why I think we need to stop messing around when it comes to drink-driving, and why I think we need to have a zero-alcohol limit.   Because talk about a lottery. Taking a chance. This person obviously thought ‘oh, I’m fine. Yeah, I’ve drunk a bit but, you know, it was over the space of five hours, all good’, and away they went.  So, what happened on their way home? Yep - they got pulled over by the cops and breath tested, which came back with a zero-alcohol reading and this person said ‘thank you officer, good night’, and drove the rest of the way home.  The same weekend, another driver thought they could do exactly the same, except they weren’t quite so “lucky”.  This other person got behind the wheel, was stopped by the cops, they did a breath test on him, and he had a breath-alcohol reading that was nearly 10-times the legal limit.  He was in Cromwell and blew more than 2,000 milligrams of alcohol per litre of breath. The legal limit in New Zealand is 250. If you’re under 20, it’s zero. And I’m in no doubt it should be zero for everybody.  As the police are saying today, it is “absurd and dangerous” what these people are doing —driving after drinking so much alcohol— and who could argue with that?  I remember when John Key’s government reduced the alcohol limit for driving and how, pretty much overnight, everyone I knew was so much more cautious. In fact, I remember people deciding then that they just wouldn’t drive even if they’d had just one drink. They didn’t think it was worth the risk of getting caught.   But I don’t think that level of vigilance has stuck.   The other thing too is when you have a legal alcohol limit —whatever it is— it’s still pretty hard for people to decide whether they should be stepping-in and stopping someone from driving.  Sure, if someone’s slurring their words or staggering around the place, it’s pretty obvious. A lot of the time, though, who would know whether or not someone’s ok to drive? Unless you or they have kept a written record of the intake, again - it’s just a guessing game.   But if we had a zero-alcohol limit, it would be easy. “You’ve had at least one drink mate, you’re not driving”. No arguments. Easy.  Now I love a beer or a glass of wine. I also like to think that I know when I should or shouldn’t be driving after I’ve had a drink. Even so, it’s still a bit of a guessing game, isn’t it? Because no one ever really knows.   And it is possible to go out and not drink. A mate of mine was having a party out of town and I had to drive out there myself.  So I didn’t drink. I had some no alcohol beers —which were pretty sweet and nowhere near as enjoyable as what I might normally drink— but I made a plan and stuck to it.  Which is what we would do if it was illegal for anyone to drive with any alcohol at all in their system. And what harm would there be in that? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kamala Harris could make history if the Democratic Party follows through in giving her the reigns.   Joe Biden's publicly endorsed his Vice President for the presidential nomination after deciding to end his campaign.   She could be the first Black woman and Asian-American to lead the ticket of a major political party.   Uncertainty had been circling since last month's debate about whether Biden would stay in the race.  US correspondent Dan Mitchinson told John MacDonald many donors had taken a step back - unconvinced Biden would be able to beat Donald Trump.  “They don’t want to back a losing horse, so I think they were waiting to get their chequebooks out to see what he’s going to do, and now we’ll see if they’re willing to back Kamala Harris.”  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's no surprise really, given that National campaigned on getting tough on work-shy beneficiaries, that benefit sanctions have increased more than 50% since the same time last year. Last year Louise Upston said should National become the government, they would make it crystal clear to those who were receiving the job seeker benefit, what their obligations were and what the consequences would be if they refuse to do their bit. So there were 10,389 sanctions issued in the June quarter, up 3,630 or 53.7% compared to June last year, mainly for not attending appointments and failing to prepare for work.   The National Party has a traffic light system for those on Jobseeker Benefit to make clear the consequences of not fulfilling their obligations. Green light - you're good to go. You're compliant with finding and preparing for work. You receive your benefit as normal. The government doesn't interfere in your life. Anyone on an orange light is at some risk. These are clients who have received one or two warnings, that they aren't fulfilling their obligations, so they might have to do more frequent check-ins with WINZ, not necessarily in person - you can have phone check ins, or computer check ins, or do mandatory training. If you're high risk, you've had three chances and a number of sanctions can be applied to these people, including either cutting or suspending the benefit, subjecting them to money management, or making them do community work.   Money management is a new sanction. WINZ would pay the person's rent, bills and debt directly, puts some of the benefit into the bank account and then add the rest to a special card that could only be used for food and groceries at approved stores. People might not like that level of interference, but that will only happen after you have had three or more warnings.    Green Party spokesperson for Social Development and Employment Ricardo Menendez March spoke to Jack Tame last night and said the benefits sanctions will hurt people already struggling to make ends meet and it will limit their chances of getting out of poverty.   “Benefit sanctions have not been shown to work, so I think just peddling with the same failed approach won't actually help anyone, and it's also quite rich for the government to be kicking people off work, cutting jobs, and pushing people onto a benefit, while at the same time doubling down on punishment and yet not being able to substantiate the millions of dollars that go into these works seminars that have not shown to help people into good work. We've got plenty of reports that show that people get just pushed into casual jobs that end up costing more in childcare, that are insecure as well.”  That was the Greens Ricardo Menendez March talking to Jack Tame on the drive show last night. I would like to know if he's right? Are the work seminars a complete and utter waste of time? Because if they are, then let's not keep doing that. We've learned that that if something doesn't work, if something isn't getting the desired result and you can measure that, then we stop it. We don't go throwing good money after bad. So, if the work seminars are not worthwhile and they're not meaningful, what is the point? And perhaps you have been on a work seminar in the immediate aftermath of Covid, when people suddenly found themselves without a job, you might have had to go to a work seminar or have some counselling over the phone. Does it help you find another job, look at another career?    Also, in politics it's all about timing and I totally support getting tough on people who choose not to work, who are able to work and choose not to, when employers are screaming for staff. People like BBQ man and Nature Boy who think we're the idiots for getting up and going to work and paying our taxes while they refuse to take work because they are better than the jobs being offered them, they are superior humans, they're worth more than the money being offered and the job being offered. I mean, nobody else thinks that apart from them, but they will continue to take their BBQ to the beach and have a lovely time on a glorious day while we're at work, or whistle through the wheat fields in and the forests, communing with nature and hugging trees and listening to the birds and pitying us for going to work and providing the taxes that pay for their benefits. They grind my gears and I'd love to see them go under the oak and go to a bloody, pointless seminar.   But like I say, it's all about timing to come out swinging about sanctions, when people are suffering through job losses and a recession when there are people who would love to be working and paying the mortgage and putting the food on the table but they can't because they've lost their jobs through an engineered recession... seems a bit cruel. You lose a bit of the impact with your talk of sanctions and your talk of getting people back into work when people at the moment can't, precisely because this government, and the previous government, and the Reserve Bank have engineered a recession. They need people out of work so we can get inflation down. So it's all about the timing.   I have no problem with getting tough on people who choose not to work when the jobs are going, begging, and they just can't be assed. Going to a nine to five is going to interfere with the drug dealing. How am I supposed to meet all my customers, when I'm expected to be at work? It's not going to do it. Benefit’s a nice little supplement to my black-market dealings, I have no intention of getting a job. Sure, get tough on them. I would have liked to have seen this come out when we were at a time of high employment, not at a time when there are people who are desperate for work, and because a recession has it been engineered, they cannot get one. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.