Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Remember the Tau Henare-Trevor Mallard stauch back in 2007?   Senior Cabinet Minister Trevor Mallard said the punch he threw at National MP Tau Henare is “one of the most stupid things I've ever done in my life” and in a life full of them, that's saying something. The scuffle broke out in the parliamentary lobbies. Allegedly, Henare had made some snide remarks about Trevor Mallard's personal life, which is pretty nasty, but Mallard lost the plot and then promptly lost his Sports Minister portfolio and was demoted by then PM Helen Clark.   He was allowed to stay in cabinet, though, which some thought was very lenient on Helen Clarke's behalf, but she was always incredibly loyal to those who showed devotion to her, so I guess that's how he stayed and then went on to have a fabulous career and is now living on the pig's back in Ireland. Oh me, oh my. If only you'd been sacked then and there, it could have spared us a lot. But there we go.   That was a particularly unsavoury moment in parliamentary history. More recently, Nationals Tim Van de Molen was judged to be in contempt of Parliament after he was found to have threatened and intimidated Labour MP Shanan Halbert in a Transport committee hearing. He accepts he stood over him, Van de Molan stood over Halbert and generally behaved like an oak. He was censured effectively, a public telling off in the House of Parliament, and stripped of his portfolios by Christopher Luxon.   Now we have Green MP Julie Anne Genter committing a sin at least as egregious as Mallard’s, certainly, far more egregious than Van de Molen. By marching across the house and standing over National MP Matt Doocey, getting right up in his grills and behaving in a totally intimidating manner. She apologized and says she was trying to impart information.   What, by shoving it down his throat? It was completely unacceptable and over the top and I cannot believe that there are texters who are defending the behaviour, why? How, how can you defend that? It doesn't matter if she's a Green or if she's a woman, God, imagine if it was a man had done that. We all, we all know how bad that would have looked, even if Matt Doocey had stood up. He was probably just gob smacked because she was behaving completely irrationally. And when you're confronted like that, it's really quite shocking and you turn into a flight and fight response and the adrenaline surges cause you're thinking, what is the mad tart going to do next.   I cannot believe already there have been texts this morning saying, oh, come on, it’s fake news, you know. Bigger things to worry about. I don't think so. What is it about Transport Committee hearings that excites so much passion? Because that's what happened with Van de Molen and Halbert. And the last one, it was a transport committee. And here we had Simeon Brown answering questions from the floor.   I don't know how much the Debbie Francis review into bullying in Parliament cost, but it doesn't seem to have improved matters much, does it? Julie Anne Genter deserves all the censure Parliament can throw at her, as would any MP of any hue who behaved in that fashion?   And as an aside, she has taken the gloss of James Shaw's valedictory speech. He should be the ones getting the headlines. He should be the Green MP that everybody's talking about. He has shown dignity and professionalism throughout his career, and to have been upstaged by one of his own MPs, one of his own party members with her appalling lack of professionalism is extremely disappointing.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Happy International Workers Day to all the labourers and workers out there. All right, brother. All right, sister. Dedicated to recognizing the contributions and achievements of workers worldwide and taking the opportunity to promote workers rights and opportunities so. Go us, all of us paid grunts.   MPs, would you consider them paid grunts? Not really public servants, sure, and reasonably well-paid public servants. Too much? Well, who decides that? The remuneration authority, that's who. A very good idea to leave the setting of certain public servants pay to an independent authority. And let's face it, it is never a right time for MPs to be accepting pay rises, they're on a hiding to nothing. Particularly tough, though, when the government has been calling for financial restraint when it's been calling for cost cutting in every government department. At a time when hundreds, if not thousands, of workers are being made redundant, you get the remuneration authority saying ‘look time for a pay rise for MPs.’ On a sliding scale, depending on what job you do. It doesn't matter that many of those who were sucking off the public tit shouldn't have been there anyway. That hiring spree in the last six months of ‘23 was an outrage. Redundancies are punishing and create uncertain times for those on the receiving end of a ‘don't come Monday’.   The Remuneration Authority has announced pay rises backdated to October 2023 and coming in tranches through to 2026. It will be the first increase to MPs salaries since 2017 and the first major overview of the remuneration package since in about 20 years. The Prime Minister's salary will rise by almost $50,000 over six years, from $471k to $520k. Which you know, if you're the CEO of a big company, as he likes to see it, or if you're the Prime Minister, you probably wouldn't begrudge.  I don't think people begrudge the big money for the big job. It's when you look at some of the backbenchers from numerous parties that you start to get a little sniffy and a little bit, what about me-ism starts to creep in. The Prime Minister has said he'll donate the extra to charity, as has become almost customary.   So, what to do? What to do?   Now we can all say they don't deserve it, but that's not true. Some of them do deserve the money they get, be they a backbencher from any party, be they a minister, be they a leader of an opposition party, some of them work hard for the money. They understand the concept of public servant. They are there to do their best for their constituents, for their party, for the country. Some of them are underpaid. Others would be overpaid if they were on the dole.    So, what do you do? Would you do the job for the money? I heard the man from the Remunerations Authority saying, look, it's a matter of looking at what similar jobs pay in the private sector. It's a matter of attracting people to do the job and it's a matter of retention. Now, I know you've got to look for comparisons, but when it's attracting people to the job, you wouldn't do it for the money, would you? When you look at the hours they work, the scrutiny they're under, the pressure they're under, the meetings they have to sit through, the numpties they have to listen to. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't be in a backbench MP. Not for the money. I might do it if I thought I could add something and help create a New Zealand that's fair and just in the way I want to see it, but I certainly wouldn't do it for the money.   As for retention, quite frankly that's not up to a wage band, that's up to a voter. If you're doing a good job, you'll be retained. The voters will vote you back in. It's got nothing to do with the money.  So, when it comes to the backbenches, some of them are overpaid, massively, given what they do, others are underpaid. If you look at the work of the ministers, I think it's too soon to tell from the current government as to whether they’re value for money.   The last lot? Well. You know my views on that. Very few of them I think could have commanded a ministerial salary in the private sector, and I'd be really interested to find out from those who have left Parliament, got bundled out of Parliament, what they're doing now and whether they're earning anywhere near as much as they were earning as a minister. Somehow, I doubt it. Other than Grant Robertson, who managed to land himself, get his trotters inpossibly the biggest trough in the country, 600 odd thousand at the Otago University.   They're on a hiding to nothing. Well, how else do we set their pay? An independent authority does it? They haven't had a pay rise since 2017. It's the wrong time to do it. Absolutely the wrong time to do it. When is the right time? We get value for money for some, not for the others. And still again, the question: would you do it for any money? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A former Labour Minister says a proposed pay rise for politicians gives them a real dilemma.  The Remuneration Authority's set to increase most MP salaries 10.5% over three years.  If implemented, it would be the first pay rise for MPs since 2017 and the first rise of 2.8% will be backdated to the election.   Stuart Nash told Kerre Woodham that the public tends to hear about poorly performing MPs, which can shift perceptions of MPs in general.   He says about 90% of MPs work incredibly hard and put the hours in, but it's often unseen.  LISTEN ABOVE   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Unemployment has risen again but economists don't think it's peaked yet.  Stats NZ figures out today show the rate reached 4.3% for the March quarter, up 0.3 percentage points from the December quarter's 4%.  It reflects the impacts of higher interest rates as the Reserve Bank keeps trying to rein in inflation.  Herald Business Editor at Large Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham that it's a slow and steady rise.  He says 134 thousand people are now unemployed, up from 122 thousand at the end of 2023, meaning 12 thousand jobs have gone.  LISTEN ABOVE   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, the 1News Verian poll released last night shows that support for the coalition government, after seeing an operation for a few months, has dropped since election night. Hardly surprising. Well, to my mind. Anyway, clearly there were others who were simply gob smacked and amazed, but on to them in a moment.    National, ACT, and New Zealand First have collectively dropped 5 percentage points. According to the numbers from that poll, and based on that poll, the left block would be able to form a government and New Zealand First would be out of Parliament. How many times have New Zealand first voters heard that? So many times, you'll be out of government dead and buried.    The poll had National at 36%, down two points from the last poll in February, Labour jumped to 30%, up two. And the Green Party also increased by two to 14%. Te Pati Māori was on 4%, the same as the last poll. This is pretty much par for the political course. Labour showed a dip after it formed a coalition government in 2017 after three years of heading their coalition government. The first Colmar Brunton poll of 2020 saw National scraping into power and again New Zealand First out of Parliament in their polls.  These snapshots are an indication of how people are feeling, both in themselves and around politics. Christopher Luxon was questioned about it this morning when he was on with Mike Hosking. He said, he didn't say it in so many words, but this is me. He said, it was hardly surprising that people were feeling grumpy. These are his words, he told Mike Hosking, we've got high inflation and high interest rates. People are sick of it. We're making some pretty tough decisions. We need to do that in order to fix the mess. We've been left New Zealand, as he said, would make a call into and a half years' time. And he went on with the usual spiel. Everyone in the coalition government is very focused on fixing the mess that they inherited, which is quite true. They've got a big job. They knew that going in. But people are going to need to see some results and they're going to need to see them soon.   The shocking daylight robbery of a jewellery store over the weekend, all very 2020. The price of everything is still rising, uncertainty in the job market, there's a lot going on and not a lot of it is good for most people. It is not the government's fault, but it is their responsibility. And they are going to need to see some wins within the next three months and they are also going to have to watch their messaging. The accommodation entitlement, the snide tweets from ACT on Twitter over job losses in the public service, the weeks of fumbling and obfuscation from Melissa Lee handling the broadcasting portfolio, none of that has been helpful at all. Sacking Melissa Lee? Very helpful.   I noticed that, I thought that was a really good move. I was up in Hokianga trying to avoid the news and I saw this and thought, damn it, what a great talk back day that would have been because I think that is really decisive, really good. She's clearly not up for the job. She can't handle it. Get. Go.   Brutal, but a good sign to Ministers, perform, or you're out. A good sign to backbenchers that if you perform, you're in. I thought I thought that was a really good move, so the poll was taken over a week and ended on the day of Melissa Lee's sacking, so I'd be interested to know whether that will have an impact the next time around.   But it's polls. You know, as every they're great to have a bit of a yarn about, great to give different media outlets their lead for the day or the night. People can have a yarn about them. Take the pulse, see where everybody's at, they count for nothing until Election Day. You can take some learnings out of them. You can think. OK, well, yes. No, we need to be careful here. We need to be more positive here.   It will give Labour a bit of heart because they have been in the doldrums, and they need to reinvigorate themselves to bring themselves up to a decent opposition. But it's a poll. There's two and a half years to go. A lot can happen in that time.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you're a teenager addicted to your phone and the world that lies within and beyond your apps, it's the end of the world as you know it today.    The Government's ban on phones in schools kicks in as kids return to school for Term two, meaning students won't be able to use their cell phones during the day - including at lunch time and during breaks. Some schools have gone early and introduced it in Term one. They saw the writing on the wall, thought they'd bedded in before they were required to by law. Others have gone even earlier. They decided it was the right thing for their school to ban cell phones, and they didn't need a government imperative to do so.   In a shocking departure from the norm, there seemed to be wholesale support for the ban, despite it being an initiative of the wicked, evil National government. And it appears that the headlines are in the main, supportive that the media have found people who are supportive of the ban, like New Zealand Secondary Principals Council Chair Kate Gainsford. She says schools across the country already have measures in place, but the changes will make it easier to stop distractions. She says parents have appreciated the support because they're having the same sorts of conversations in their own homes about the harmful effects of too much time online, about limiting screen time.   So, now you've got rules around cell phone use at home that are being replicated in the school grounds, so the adults are working together. It seems that parents, educators, even some of the kids agree that 24/7 access to cell phones is a bad idea, but for years nobody wanted to be the one with the stick - you wanted to be down with the kids on their level, you didn't want to impinge on their freedoms. And then along came Erica Stanford. When she entered government as part of the National team in the coalition government. She was big on banning cell phones and she says she has no problem waving a big stick if it means the kids will benefit.  Erica Stanford - “I've had a lot of principals say to me, look, it was really hard, there was lots of pushback from kids, but now you've done it, you're the bad guy. I'm quite happy to be the bad guy, Mike. It means improved mental health and academic outcomes for our kids. I mean, there was a Norwegian study that's just come out saying that this has got incredibly good outcomes for especially low socioeconomic girls for their mental health, but also GPA grades and bullying is reduced as well, so look - I'm happy to be the bad guy.”  That was bad guy, Erica Stanford, Education Minister, talking to Mike Hosking this morning. It's not just Norwegian studies. Studies by researchers at the University of Texas and Louisiana State University found that where students were banned from bringing their smartphones into the classroom, their grades quickly improved. Around an average of 6 percent. That's without the distractions. That's amazing. The results were most pronounced for high school students over 16. It's even better for at risk students, as Erica Stanford referred to. Students who live in poverty or attend special education classes benefited approximately twice as much as their peers, after ditching the technological distraction.   By removing phones from the classroom, apparently it's the equivalent of adding an extra hour of class per week. Students lose almost a full week of school interacting with their phones rather than engaging in class time. The only counter study I can find, with arguments against is that children feel infantilised. Well, your children, it’s kind of a point. And if you can't stay off your phones then it shows that your childlike behaviour needs to be modified.   I just cannot believe that teachers, principals feel so disempowered that they can't make the rules in their own schools. Some don't, some have, and some did - and good on them. But a lot of principals didn't want to have a battle with parents who said I need to get in touch with my child in case there's an emergency. Well, you know, there is still the school, P.A. Let's go analog and use your copper phone to dial up Mrs Grimes, the school secretary, and she will be able to pass on a message. She will also be able to vet whether it is indeed an emergency. I forgot to pack your lunch, darling, mummy will bring it in in two hours is not an emergency. And Mrs Grimes knows that so she won't pass that message on.  I just cannot see any downside to this.   There's a lot of cyber bullying that goes on, and while the internet has been an extraordinary invention and cell phones have been amazing and we can't go back and nor would we want to, the dark side, the downside, is severe and cruel and the cyber bullying is vicious. Kids should be safe at school. They shouldn't have to be checking their phones under their desks, desperately making sure that nobody's started for no reason at all, a campaign against them that's going to ruin their lives for the next five years.   School should be a safe place. Home should be a safe place. Surely there is nobody, nobody who would speak against a ban on cell phones in schools? It's a good move. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From today, new government regulations require students not to use or access a phone while they're attending school, including break times.  The legislated phone ban won't change much for Opunake High School as they have had a "Phones Off, Brains On" policy in place for a few years.  Principal Andrea Hooper Carr tells Kerre Woodham her school noticed a significant change in behaviours as the wave of cellphones in schools began around nine years ago, including less socialisation in classes and less interaction with teachers.  Since banning phones at Opunake High School, Hooper Carr has seen grades improve.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is one thing I’ve never heard one of the old soldiers you always see or hear on the news on Anzac Day saying. There are less of them now, of course, as time passes, but, over the years, I have never heard one of them say they had a great time and that going to war was the time of their life. I’ve never heard it. And I bet you haven’t, either.  And that’s why you’re not going to hear me ripping into those involved in the anti-war protests around the country yesterday. On Anzac Day.  For two reasons: I reckon in their heart of hearts, anyone who has been to war would agree that it’s a futile waste of time, energy, and lives.  The other reason is that of all days of the year, ANZAC Day is the perfect day to point out the futility of war. And, while the protest action yesterday was largely about what’s going on right now in the Middle East, war is war - whenever it happens.  Now I’m not saying that it’s a day to be disrespectful of those who served and those who are serving in our military today. I’m not saying that at all, because the first World War is part of our family’s history.  My grandfather went to Gallipoli. And survived, obviously - because I wouldn’t be here otherwise. He was decorated for his efforts and our wider family; we are very proud of that.  But, like pretty much every other returned soldier, he never spoke about it. Lord knows what personal trauma he was dealing with. But that’s how it was in those days, wasn’t it? No counselling or anything like that.  But if he had spoken about it, I’m sure he would have told us kids that war is a dead-end street. And it would be pretty hard to think otherwise if you’d been through it, I reckon.  Apparently, he put his age up to get himself into the army for the first World War and put it down to get back in for the second. But they might have seen through that, and he ended up in the Home Guard on the Otago Peninsula.  By that time, he was well on his way to having 11 kids and we’ve always joked that he would have been perfectly happy being down at Taiaroa Heads, if it meant just getting out of the house.  I’m telling you this, so you know that I’m not coming at this from a position of ignorance or disrespect. I have huge respect. Not just for my grandfather and other family members who served in other wars, but I’ve got huge respect for anyone who serves.    But that doesn’t mean that I have to be a war-freak. It doesn’t mean that, just because war has been an important part of our family history, that I have to be a flag waiver for war, full stop.  And I’m not. Which is why I’m not upset about what happened yesterday. Which largely involved red dye of some sort being poured into public water fountains around the country.  The bucket fountain in Wellington was red. The fountain at Mission Bay, in Auckland, was red. Victoria Park, in Christchurch. Nelson and Hamilton were other places where protesters chucked whatever it was, they used into fountains.  Protesters also turned-up at the National Anzac Service in Wellington. But you probably know that that was called-off because of high winds. Which is saying something for Wellington. But I gather it was about the safety of the veterans, as much as anything.  Signs went up at the fountains, as well. A couple of examples: “Do not normalise Anzac violence”. “Honour the fallen by swearing ‘never again’”. “No glory in war”.  The same sorts of things we hear veterans say every ANZAC Day.  And I think one of the people involved said it perfectly when they said that ANZAC Day is “a time for reflecting on what is meant by ‘lest we forget;”. Which made me think.   So too did Peter Fitzsimons in an article he wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday. He said that, on ANZAC Day, we get a lot of emotions: reverence, respect, and remembrance. But he said there’s one missing - which is rage.  Rage that so many soldiers were needlessly slaughtered on what he described as “inane battle plans that never had any chance of succeeding”.  Rage at the complete lack of remorse from those who sent them to their deaths. Rage at the refusal to learn from previous catastrophes to prevent the next one.  He was talking on behalf of Australian soldiers there, of course. But the same can be said on behalf of the New Zealand soldiers who went through exactly the same thing.  And I reckon any soldier - past and present - would agree with Peter Fitzsimons and those involved in yesterday’s protest action, that war is something to be avoided at all cost.  And I reckon any soldier —past and present— would agree that ANZAC Day is the perfect day to get that message across. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to another war of words between the greenies and the government over changes to the Resource Management Act.   With the poor old farmers stuck in the middle, just wanting the chance to be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to protecting the environment. And that’s what I think we should be doing.   You know how people have this concept of Mother Nature and how it’s all peace and love and milk and honey and bees buzzing and gentle rivers and all of that? It’s amazing, isn’t it, how quickly all that goes out the window if the milk and honey brigade don’t like something?       Here’s an example in relation to the Government making five changes to the RMA: “The Government is hellbent on pushing our natural environment to the brink, exploiting everything it can for any profit that can be squeezed out of it".  Who’s saying that do you think?  It’s not Federated Farmers, they’re saying pretty much the complete opposite. They’re saying that the changes announced yesterday are “an end to the war on farming”.  It’s the Green Party which is talking about pushing the natural environment to the brink. In particular, its environment spokesperson Lan Pham. Who comes from the same part of the country I'm in: Canterbury.   Which is a hotspot for dairy farming, especially. Where truckloads of farms have been converted to dairy over the last 20 or 30 years.   One stat I saw today said that the number of cows in Canterbury went from 113,000 in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2019. I’d always thought that we have the most number of dairy cows than anywhere else in the country, But I’ve been looking around online and it might be Waikato. But Canterbury still has a lot.   And the thing that people often talk about when it comes to dairy farming, is the impact that level of expansion and intensity of farming has had and will continue to have on the environment. Because when a cow takes a pee out in the paddock today, it takes 20 years for the nitrates in that urine to work through the soils.  Which means that dairy farmers get a bad rap, but they’re not on their own, all farmers have been feeling the heat.   And, according to Federated Farmers anyway, that’s about to ease with these changes to the RMA that the Government announced yesterday, which are about doing away with things like limits on how much land farmers can use for winter grazing and water quality considerations in consent applications.  If you were to ask me which of the viewpoints I noted earlier align most closely with my view of the world when it comes to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, if I was honest and I had to choose one of them, I’d go with what the Greens are saying.  But, unlike climate activists and politicians, I’m willing to accept that things aren’t black and white. Which is why I think it’s time we just trusted farmers to do the right thing and let them get on with it.  And I say that for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, I’ve got friends who are farmers and every time I go and see them, I can see that they just want to do the right thing. But, instead, they’ve had governments and government departments behaving like helicopter parents and watching their every move just in case they do something wrong. And that’s nuts.  And secondly, show me a farmer who wants to poo in their own nest.  They don’t. And this is where the greenies lose it. Because if they think farmers want to destroy the natural environment on their properties for short-term financial gain, then they know nothing about how it all works.  Farms are businesses, yes. But they’re also assets. And why would anyone want to do anything to damage their asset? They wouldn’t.  And that’s why I think that, instead of pulling farmers to bits, we should be trusting them to do the right thing.   Yes, I know, there are muppet farmers - just like there are muppet townies. But we can’t do anything about that. And if you think the Resource Management Act is how you sort out muppets, then you might want to think again. So, we can’t do anything about the muppets.   What we can do, though, is say to the farmers who aren’t muppets, that we trust them to do the right thing - and leave them to it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have you ever heard of a placebo policy? That’s what this Three Strikes law is, and I don’t think bringing it back is going to make one bit of difference.  You’ll know what a placebo is when it comes to things like clinical trials where they give someone a sugar pill but tell them it’s medicine, and the person says ‘oh I feel much better, thanks’.   The person thinks they’re using a real pill, or a real drug and their mind tells them that, because they're doing something, it’s working. It’s making a difference. But it’s actually not doing anything.  And placebo policies are exactly the same. They’re policies that people think will work —will make a difference— just because they exist.   Or more to the point, they are policies that politicians latch onto because they think it makes them look like they’re doing something. Even though, at the end of the day, it doesn’t change a thing.    And that’s exactly what the Government is doing with its plan to bring back the Three Strikes legislation. You commit crimes with punishments longer than two years and, the third time, the judge has to give out the maximum sentence. None of this discount business.  That two-year bit is key, because the new version of Three Strikes Version isn’t going to apply to low-level offending.  The idea behind that is to make sure there isn't a repeat of situations that even Labour thought were nutbar. Example: a mentally ill man serving nearly five years in prison for kissing a woman in the street.   Nevertheless, some people love the idea of it. But there is no clear proof that it reduced the amount of serious crime the last time we had it. But the Government is bringing it back anyway because it can and because it will look like it’s doing something.  Criminal defence lawyer John Munro said on Newstalk ZB today that, even though we’ve had this law here before, the Government is pretty much flying blind on this one because there hasn't been any long-term research on its effectiveness the last time we had it.  And some people are saying that it’s likely some criminals, once they’ve been done twice already for serious crimes, will think even less about consequences because they have nothing to lose.  Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not in the least bit sympathetic to criminals. Not in the least bit.   All criminals, but especially the lowlifes who commit the likes of the 41 different violent and sexual crimes we’re talking about with this Three Strikes law. You can imagine what they are, I don’t need to go through a list. Although, this time around, there’ll be a new strangulation and suffocation offence included.        But, in your heart of hearts, do you really think bringing this law back is going to make any difference? I don’t think it is. If the aim is to reduce violent crime, then the Government is barking up the wrong tree with this one. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.