Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

I did laugh when I saw the Retirement Commissioner’s report out yesterday, because I thought here we go again, round it comes the first of the twice-yearly discussions on whether we should lift the age of eligibility for the New Zealand Super- which we have been discussing for as long as I have been a journalist, I think, and that is a very, very long time. You do get occasionally a political party with an attack of the braveries, an attack of the cajones, and it's usually National. They wanted to raise the age of eligibility to 67 in the past two elections, but in the horse trading required to form the coalition government this time round, they've agreed to leave the age at 65. And in a report released yesterday, the Retirement Commissioner says cool your jets, calm the farm, young people don't need to worry - not only is national Super sustainable, raising the age of eligibility would be unfair for certain population groups. The manual workers, those who are in poor health, those who are just hanging on by their fingertips to the age of 65. Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson says New Zealand Super is a taonga that protects New Zealanders from poverty in old age. Claims that New Zealand Super is unaffordable are not supported by independent, publicly accessible analysis, she says. Now, leaving aside that by stunning coincidence, independent analysis always seems to support the views of the commissioning body, there is provision within New Zealand's economy for paying Super in future years. Those in support of raising the age say well look at New Zealand's aging population. In 1996, there were 5.7 people aged 16 to 64, supporting every retiree. At the moment there are 4.4 working age people and the 2060s, we’ll be looking at 2.2 supporting every retiree. So we're going to have a lot of older retirees who are getting Super for longer, and fewer young people, fewer working people who are able to support that. So I take that point. But that is why we set up the Super Fund in 2003, the Cullen Fund, as it was known. In just over 20 years, we've amassed close to $70 billion. And we haven't really tapped into it yet. Withdrawals from the fund will begin in the 2030s. Substantial drawdowns will not begin until the 2050s. So we should have a bit more in the coffers then. So paying for the Super isn't going to be the massive problem it appears if you're looking at it through the binoculars of 20 year old vision. It's more a matter of what's fair and what's not. If you're earning more than $100,000 a year and there are about 50,000 retirees who are, if you're earning more than $100,000 a year through your job or through your investments, do you really need the Super? Wouldn't it be better spent on a young person who was born in less than ideal circumstances? More investment in the first 1000 days of a child's life that's born behind the 8-ball. The Super is to keep people out of poverty, not to use as gin money. You know, a lot of older people laugh about the fact they get the Super and just use it to buy a nicer bottle of gin or put it in a savings account for their grandchildren. Some donate it, which is jolly decent of them- but you know, there's a lot of clipping of the ticket that goes along the way. However, those older New Zealanders who are earning good coin can say, well look, we contributed to the Super Fund while we were working, that money was put aside and not spent on things we could have enjoyed, so we can use that money later. We've paid our taxes. We're just like everybody else. We except we earn more money. We deserve to get it. It's ours. It's an entitlement. It's not a benefit, and there's a big, big difference. What do you say? What do you think is fair? Are there any people in their 20s and 30s who believe that the Super will be there for them? Well, you should, because the Super Fund is there to look after people just like you. As the New Zealand Initiative pointed out as well, by the time you take into account taxes and GST, it's not 8 percent of GDP, which is what they factored New Zealand Super to be. It's around about 6 percent of GDP. If we become more productive, then it'll be less of a cost. And the report I read from the New Zealand Initiative- it was written in 2018, they also talked about the fact that successive New Zealand governments were very aware about incurring debt and running up huge debt so that they didn't get into trouble, so that the Super was affordable. That was before the Labour government. That was before the most recent administration came in and racked up enormous debt. Still, with a bit of pain and a bit of hard work and a bit of courage, we can get through that. If you're in your 20s and 30s, do you believe the pension will be there for you? You should. Are you depending on it? You shouldn't. You should make provision as much as you can for yourself and see the Super as an extra.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today is Valentines Day, but not everyone is coupled up.   Over 40’s are calling time on dating apps, finding it harder and harder to find a partner.  They’re fatigued by the endless swiping, cautious of scams and catfish, and looking for a safer and more bespoke way of finding love.  Theresa Gattung, former Telecom CEO and co-founder of My Food Bag, is the founder of Compatico, a premium matchmaking service designed to help people find their life partners.  Gattung told Kerre Woodham that their service is an entree to possibility.  She said that while it is a matchmaking service, what it also offers is the opportunity to be a part of a community.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Further to the story yesterday regarding the police’s planned withdrawal from social services call outs, there's been a damning indictment of our 111 system.   According to papers released after an OIA put in by RNZ, the government was warned a year ago that the 111-emergency call system is so old, so slow, and so fragmented, that it is causing deaths and injuries.   So, the emergency services put together a business case asking for money to upgrade it and integrate it. Labour, however, dropped the project last August when they were in government, to replace the system. It's shared between police and FENZ. In the papers, both police and FENZ made the plea that there was an urgent and pressing need to replace it.   Now I don't know about you, but there are only a few agencies I'll believe when they say it's urgent and pressing. If police and FENZ say it's urgent and pressing, they're two of the few agencies I'll believe. You tell me you've got an urgent need, officer, I'll believe you.   However, I guess the Labour government had bigger fish to fry, or more things to worry about last August, so they passed the buck on that one. According to the emergency services, a major flaw in the system is that it can only take phone calls. Why is that a problem? Well, these days you need text, and you need video. It's also unable to liaise with social media platforms and has poor integration between apps. And it's a problem because the papers cite an example of a woman who was stabbed to death by a partner who overheard her making the 111 call.   It must have been harrowing for the call taker, harrowing for the woman's family. A modern solution, argue the emergency services, could have enabled the woman to notify police by a method other than a voice call, which the man would not have detected. So, there have got to be silent ways of making your danger known and I totally accept.   Other examples offered in the business case to Parliament when the request for an upgraded system was made include a man drowned at a beach and the time it took an ambulance and a paramedic to get there after a 111 call to them, when police and surf rescue at the same beach were not alerted by the fragmented system, so there's not one that joins up the dots. That says, is there anybody in this area? Anybody on this beach? Yep, we are ...  cool, off you go.   Firefighters were called out by 111 to help a woman tend a man who had collapsed when confronted by a shooter. But the system didn't let police who were hunting the shooter know that they were there. So, the frontline responders and the woman are unaware of the danger that they're in.   They take a lot of calls. FENZ takes 350,000 calls a year and uses the old system, ‘Card’, to dispatch crews to 85,000 emergencies. Police handle 1.4 million 111 calls a year and 1.8 million 105 calls. A quarter of which are upgraded to an emergency.   You'd have to wonder, given the discussion we had with Chris Cahill yesterday, how many of those 111 calls are necessary. I mean, we have to do our bit too. If you leave accident and emergency departments for accidents and emergencies, and if you leave 111 for genuine emergencies, that would help out a lot.   But at the same time, there is just no excuse for not having a fully integrated system across all our first responders, surely. The idea that surf lifesavers and police didn't know that there was an emergency happening on the beach they were at, it's just ludicrous.   Now there's a suggestion that the 111 system —this comes from Matt Doocey, who's the Minister for Mental Health— that the 111 system add a fourth option alongside fire, police, and ambulance, and that would be mental health crisis. That is a great idea in theory. Absolutely. You know, you don't want a police response when you're having a mental health crisis. You need mental health professionals. Dial, 111 in crisis, you get one. Or do you?   First, we have to ensure we have sufficient mental health professionals who would be able to respond to the crisis. And then we have to ensure that a system that is less than optimal right now, could actually handle a fourth function. I'd love to hear of your experience of needing urgent help, 111.   I do like the idea of mental health crisis being added to fire police ambulance. I think that's a great idea. But we have to have enough mental health professionals and we have to surely upgrade the system and upgrade it now.    I really feel for this government. I mean just about every interview I've heard on the Mike Hosking Breakfast since Mike came back, maybe 6-7 interviews a morning are from people, organisations, groups, industry bodies asking for money. Because their systems are so poorly run, they're failing they're not functional, people are leaving because they're not getting paid enough or because resourcing is so bad.   This poor government is having to find so much money for genuine things, not for made-up things. I don't know where they're going to get it from, but surely a 111 system that works that protects the community and that has mental health professionals added to it, makes sense, doesn't it?   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Funny old thing, last Thursday, Matt rang in - a serving police officer. He was calling in response to comments that the police simply don't have the time to turn up to burglaries and assaults at supermarkets. We were talking about Foodstuffs looking at introducing facial recognition cameras and other forms of security, because the thefts and the assaults on staff have got completely out of hand. Matt said, oh well, the police will rock up and they will deal with that. You don't need to do citizens arrests or this sort of security. The police don't rock up. That's the very point. They don't rock up unless it is really, really serious, and then you might see them He said the reason police couldn't respond to criminal matters was because they were dealing with so many social services call outs and that there needed to be a change. I think you'll find once the police go down the path of reducing the call outs for mental health matters, as they have in one of the particular organizations over in the UK, you'll see that frontline police will have a lot more time on their hands. So that's what you do. Then you move on to family violence, of which very few matters end up in court, or I would have to say lead to any meaningful outcomes. And if you do that, we'll have a lot of police with a lot more time on their hands to attend things like this. I mean, we've got a progressive government now that's going to make a big change, but it will take time. But these are things you got to do in order to advance our society, I think. Well I agreed with him. Police are dealing with so many family harm situations. They're dealing with mental health callouts. I've seen them with, you know, two officers dealing with one woman at North Shore Hospital. They were there for hours. Multiply that by 1000 times across the country and they're kind and they're gentle and they're patient, but is that their job? Psychiatric patients and their families were too, back in the mists of time, that when all the institutions were closed, there would be help and there would be care, and there would be assistance for them within the community. Many, many, many of these people can live in the community perfectly well. Provided they have the sort of care that was promised. Was it delivered? No, it wasn't. And who is left to pick up the pieces? It's our police. So I said to Matt, well, it would be great if we did see that sort of shift, if we did see social problems becoming the issue of social agencies. They were the ones that dealt with them, but I would probably see that in my grandchildren's time. You know, they would see that, I wouldn't. Then what do you know, a briefing to Police Minister Mark Mitchell, the police proposed a managed withdrawal from non-crime social problems. So the family harm call outs, the mental health and the child protection calls, gradually, the police would say no, that's not for us. Here's the number you call. Police attendance to family home call outs have increased 80 per cent in 10 years. Yet more than half of the family harm investigations don't involve an offence being recorded, so there's all these police dealing with sad people, not bad people. They're dealing with a family under stress, under pressure. They, and usually other agencies, they call in deal with that. The time it takes is immense. So the police have suggested that over time they'll withdraw from these call outs, they'll allow their roles to be filled by other agencies and they'll get on with policing. You know who reports a burglary these days- unless it's an aggravated robbery? If you've just had stuff nicked, do you even bother? You only do it for the case number to give to the insurance company. They say they will go back to policing, to doing what they were trained to do. However, organisations that advocate for victims, women's refuge and the like, are really concerned and really alarmed. Women's Refuge chief executive Ang Jury said she simply can't see any agency that can step in and take the role of police. And family lawyer Vicki Currie says there's no other agency that has the necessary tools to deal with mental health crises and child protection. She believes it's the responsibility of the New Zealand police to be at the front line and dealing with those issues. I guess it comes back to, what do you believe our police should be doing? Where there has been a crime committed or about to be committed, or where life is in danger, then police should be involved. Sometimes that will be our family harm situation. But for a lot of the mental health call outs, these are sad people, not bad people. And while the police and the main do a fantastic job of looking after them (it's the same with family harm situations), that's not what they're trained for. That's not what they thought they would be doing. And in the meantime, crime occurs, petty crime occurs, petty crime gets bigger because crims know they can get away with it. There simply aren't enough police to deal with the criminals. So the crims keep crimmy, while the police are trying to do the job of about four or five different agencies. It's simply not fair on them, and it's not fair on the community.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Police are looking to re-focus on what it calls core business, by pulling back from family harm and mental health call-outs. A briefing to new Police Minister Mark Mitchell, the organisation says it's planning a "managed withdrawal" from certain Policing operations whilst also calling mental health a crisis. Police said it had been forced to step in when it came to family harm, mental health, and child protection calls due to a lack of other social services. It's a proposal that has caused concern amongst victim advocates such as Women's Refuge. Chris Cahill Joined Kerry Woodham to discuss the new strategy    LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now, last year, National promised that, should it become the government, it would among other things scrap the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax, and yesterday they did just that.    Since the 1st of July 2018, Aucklanders have paid an additional 11.5 cents per litre tax on fuel, over and above what the rest of the country pays. Of course, the rest of the country may well feel the effects of that when it comes to the cost of petrol that will be passed on by freight carriers and the like.   Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown didn't like it when National made the promise then, and he certainly doesn't like it now. Simeon Brown though says Labour said that Auckland needed the fuel tax to deliver light rail. That was back in 2017. They haven't delivered on their major infrastructure projects, while Aucklanders continue to pay more at the pump. That's according to Simon Simeon Brown, the Transport Minister.    Mayor Brown says, well, hang on a minute. Yes light rail is a complete and utter fiasco (he didn't say that - I did), but the revenue from the Regional Fuel Tax, half of which is sitting in the bank, is committed to a $1.4 billion Auckland Infrastructure project, the Eastern Busway, which will carry 30,000 people a day between Auckland's South East and Panmure station. So that money is going to be used even though it's sitting in the bank. It is earmarked for a project. There are going to be buses and cycleways and without that money those projects look to be in doubt.   Northern Infrastructure Forum coordinator Barney Irvine told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, the Auckland regional fuel tax may be gone, but there are other ways to fund roading projects.    IRVINE: “Transport projects often generate a whole lot of increase in property value and the and the surrounding areas.”  HOSKING: “You want to go down that track, do you?  See I don't know about that. Because I live near a bus stop, you’re going to tax me?”   IRVINE: “Oh, look, there's more to it than that, but the issue is that, yeah, there is a lot of value to be generated there, that gets generated there, whether it's the process of moving from farmland to suddenly land that that's designated for higher use, massive increase in property value and we’re just not tapping into it.”    So, a novel way of introducing a tax.   So all of those people who are now living around the Northern motorway extension —recently opened to great fanfare, and everybody enjoys driving on it; I love driving on it when I'm heading north— all of those people who live around there should suddenly pay more in rates because they've got a better roadway right next to them.   All the people on the poor, benighted Meola Road project who are suffering now, all those people living in Point Chev who are suffering now, should pay more in rates because all of a sudden a busways opened up, and cycle ways have opened up, and it becomes a more attractive and desirable area to live, because there are many accessible ways to transport yourself from point A to point B.   That was just one of the options mentioned by Barney, but interestingly, an Infrastructure Commission survey conducted recently looked at different ways of funding infrastructure and asked the respondents what they thought was fair. No means of paying for roads was considered fair by the majority of respondents. So, they thought it was fair enough that user pays when it comes to electricity, user pays when it comes to water, but the majority said there was no fair way to pay for roads. I always thought user pays was about the fairest way you could get. When you've got somebody who was living in a house who doesn't have a vehicle, who very seldom (and this is probably those who are retired), very seldom makes long trips, doesn't need it for business, doesn't have a car, why should they pay for roading infrastructure?   Those who do use the roads often, those who do need the roads to conduct their business, shouldn't they pay? What is fair?   I mean the road to fairy isn't going to provide them. We're not going to suddenly, magically have a big hairy chested muscular being in a high viz vest, and tight shorts, and work boots appear and deliver roads overnight, at no expense to anyone. And they all work perfectly, you don't have to rip them up again.   That is not going to happen. That is pie in the sky.   So I'd love to know what you think is a fair way of paying for infrastructure, in this case specifically, roads. And not just roads. Roads have now come to mean more than that. Roads mean bus lanes. Roads mean pedestrian crossings, roads mean cycleways, in the modern parlance. We're more talking about projects rather than roads.   So, transport infrastructure, how do you want to see that paid? I would love to see too, greater scrutiny on how that money is spent. The Herald found that Auckland Transport is spending on average $470,000 to install a pedestrian crossing. And when you're looking at the latest fiasco in Auckland —the Meola Road Project— 29 raised crossings. 29. How long is that strip of road?    I used to live in the area for 20 odd years. Used the Meola Dog Park every day, and incredibly, for someone as distracted as I can be, I managed to cross that road, and back again, four times a week for 20 years without getting hurt. Without getting hit. without even coming close. Maybe it's an old-fashioned skill to be able to cross a road safely. There have been, as far as I can see, no major incidents on Meola Road, but people fear there might be, hence 29 raised crossings at $470K a pop! Come on!   As the Herald found, GJ Gardner can deliver a new home for $365 - doesn't include the land but come on. So yeah, raise money for roading infrastructure, and by that I don't just mean the roads, I do mean the buses, I do mean the cycleways but let's have a look at how you spend the money too.   You know, we really don't mind paying for infrastructure and we've had this discussion before. It's the wastage that really rips our shorts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As promised, the coalition government has followed through on its promise to scrap Labour's target of reducing the prison population by 30%, although it looks like Chris Hipkins got in before the government could in the lead up to last year's election.   Then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, in a desperate scramble for votes, said the prison population reduction target is already gone. Gone. It was part of the big dump pile that Chris Hipkins created when he became Prime Minister, anything he deemed to be unpopular with the public got scrapped in a bid for re-election.   So, the prison population reduction target of 30%, he said, was gone. The coalition government has confirmed that. No prison reduction target.   They've also scrapped government funding for cultural reports, or S27 reports. Now these reports have been around since 2002. Initially, they were funded by the Justice Ministry and there were roughly 250 odd reports written between 2002 and 2017. Again, initially they were seen as a way of members of an offender's whanau or family to stand up and address the court and give the judge insight into why this person was appearing before them.   They weren't terribly successful because the judges weren't that jazzed on having somebody appear and address them when they might not be able to understand the intent of what was behind it or what the meaning was behind the address, and a lot of people didn't feel comfortable about standing up in court and addressing a judge. And another reason was that a lot of offenders appeared in court because they didn't have any whanau or family behind them. That was part of the reason why they'd gone rogue.    Anyone can or could ask for a cultural report, but they are predominantly written for Māori who are appearing before a judge. Somebody cottoned on to the fact that this is a jolly good thing.   Defence lawyers, especially those appearing under legal aid, simply don't have the time to do a thorough investigation into an offender's background. They say there aren't the billable hours to do that, so you farm that out to somebody who will. And figures show the number of invoices for written reports approved by the Ministry of Justice rose from 74 in 2018 to two 2333 in 2021. Costs have increased from around 865,000 in 2019 to more than $6 million in 2021, so everybody cottoned on that this was a great idea.   And when you look at the number of businesses that have been set up to write these reports and you look at the testimonials from anonymous offenders and anonymous defence lawyers who say, oh, amazing, got home detention when I wasn't expecting it. Incredible, got 30% off what I was expecting to get. You can see why offenders and would think, ‘Well, bloody hell, I'm going to get that?’, especially when you don't have to pay for it.  You can still get a cultural report if you choose to pay for it. What has happened is that this government has said the taxpayer is not going to fund it anymore. Corrections Minister Mark Mitchell says cultural reports have moved away from being a way for Whanau and family to support an infant, into a cottage industry costing the taxpayer millions.    “It's important to remember that the cultural reports are important, and they can give very good information and put good information in front of the judge. However, the intent of it was always to be a family member or whanau member that actually knows the person and could get up and present either an oral submission or a written submission. It has turned into this to perverse sort of twisted cottage industry where people that didn't even know the person going in front of the court were writing cultural reports, in a way to try and, quite simply, reduce their sentence. And so of course we ended up with an over 200% increase in people out on it to electronic bail, and all it did was transfer the risk back into the community.”    Absolutely.   So again, there are a number of problems with continuing with the idea of saying, well, we're not going to pay for it, but if you've got a whanau member who can stand up and address the judge who fill your boots, go for it and let them have their say, for the very reasons I outlined earlier: they might be estranged, and you might have whanau members who are not comfortable at all at standing up in court and addressing a judge.   There's no doubt, as Mark Mitchell said, the insight into a criminal's background can give a judge context with sentencing. And they can ask for a cultural report if they believe that's going to help them with a complex case or where they feel they need more insight into the offender before they can give a fair and just sentence.    I noticed that ACT, in their press release, used the same example because that still sticks in my craw. Remember the teen mongrel Mob member who indecently assaulted a pregnant woman in her own bed. He was given 12 months home detention.   19-year-old Stevie Taunoa thanked Judge Gordon Matenga after receiving his sentence, I think it was last year, wasn't it? He walked from the dock, into the police cells and yelled “cracked it!”   Now one of the main reasons for a cultural report, according to the report writers, according to the businesses that write cultural reports, is that they will help with rehabilitation. That the cost to the taxpayer will be more than offset by keeping a person out of prison and in the community contributing. That by giving a judge insight, that by an offender receiving a home detention sentence or a much lighter sentence, it will give them a second chance. Make them think somebody's finally listened to me. Heard my truth. Yay, now I can go and be a contributing member of society.   The trouble is that in not one of these eloquent pleas to keep the reports, that are the very reason for these businesses existing, has the author shown there has been a reduction in offending as a result. I mean, there might be, I just haven't read it.  There are a number of editorials that have appeared in the media when it looked likely that these were to be axed and they're well written, but the cultural reports are as well written as the editorials. No wonder the offenders are getting off. They're well written. They're eloquent. They're all written by people who make coin out of taxpayer funded cultural reports, but not one of them has shown as a result of cultural reports and fair and just sentencing, this person has never offended again. Or recidivism has dropped by 22%. Not once.   And if you can show me these figures, if you can show me the stats and show me the data that the cultural reports that give judges insight into offenders will result in these offenders not offending again, then it might be easier to agree that there is a place for cultural reports and the taxpayer funding them. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Foodstuff's introduction of facial recognition technology —with the hope of reducing repeat criminal offenders— has the Privacy Commissioner concerned.  The grocery chain is trialling facial scanning in its North Island stores across the next six months.  Commissioner Michael Webster told Kerre Woodham that facial recognition isn't a proven tool to reduce harmful behaviour in supermarkets.  He says it could be even riskier, as the technology could provide people with a false sense of security.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have there ever been school holidays that have gone on quite so long?   I mean, I know that when I was a school kid back in the antediluvian times, school holidays did seem to go on forever and ever and ever. Did they ever go on this long? I hope that you had a fabulous time with your family and that you're looking forward to them being settled into some sort of routine.   How glorious was Waitangi Day? Utterly, utterly. Splendid. Thank you to all of you who were working so those parents who were getting ready to finally start the school year could do the last-minute bits and pieces. And thank you too, to the lifesavers and the other first responders and all those who were out and about looking out for all of us who were flocking to the beaches, and the parks, and the festivals, and making the most of a day off in the sun.    Such a perfect day. I went looking for a beach to lie on in a sea to swim in and I didn't have to go very far, which is another glory of this country. So many families of every ethnicity, so many young peoples out in big groups, so many kiwis having just a joyous time celebrating all that is good about living in this country.   The tents were set up, and the barbecues were out, and the kids were in the playgrounds or in the water, and there were generations of families. It's just lovely, really. Absolutely lovely.   Waitangi itself seemed to be a success according to those who were there from all sides. And the debate, and the pageantry, and the history that speaks to our future is another thing that is wonderful about this country as the Prime Minister said this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast: “I mean, I came away last night reflecting on it going well actually. Which other country on Earth do you get everyone coming along with their strongly held views and differences of opinion, actually showing up in one place on one day, having an aeration of it all and because they're actually all committed to advancing New Zealand. We disagree strongly about actually how to go about delivering those outcomes, but man, that wouldn't happen in any other country. So, look, I think by and large it was pretty respectful and I think Ngāpuhi did a pretty good job managing it all.”  Yeah, absolutely, and that's what everybody else has said as well. It's a shame that good news doesn't make the news. A piece of social media was picked up by news outlets, as is their want these days, and turned into real news. ‘PM repeats himself’. Well, he kind of needs to because it's obvious the message is not getting through.   ACT, a coalition partner in the government, wants a debate on the principles of the Treaty. They don't want to rip up the Treaty. They don't want to change the Treaty’s wording, they don't want to deem the Treaty null and void. They want a debate on the principles on what that means going forward.   National says the Treaty Principles Bill isn't terribly helpful. It’s divisive and unhelpful, precisely for these reasons, that people will seize on an argument and create one if they need to. They will be fearful.   There are some within Māori who see it as a direct attack on the Treaty, despite the fact that National has said there is no intention or commitment to support the bill beyond the first reading. It was part of the coalition agreement that it would get a first reading. After that, National has said there is no intentional commitment to support the first reading.   You need three readings. It's not going to pass if National are true to their word. Christopher Luxon has said, I don't know how we can be any clearer than that - no intention or commitment to support beyond the first reading.  Seymour's already said they're not going to throw out the Treaty anyway, and there are a lot at Waitangi who believed that was the intent. It is not.   Again, how much clearer can you be? They've said it time and time again.   So clearly, there has to be more clarity. You have to repeat yourself because there are still people who insist that this government wants to rewrite the Treaty or tear it up, and usually when people say this government, they mean Luxon, as in the pakeha guy. As in the pakeha guy who's Prime Minister.  He's not supporting it beyond the first reading.   The Treaty has been put in the spotlight in its intent question by the two co leaders, who are Māori. So enough with this government, this pakeha guy, this Christopher Luxon. It’s Seymour and Peters, strongly supported by his best supporting actress Shane Jones, who are the ones who are bringing the Treaty into the spotlight.   Seriously though, if people want to find offence, if they want to find outrage from both sides, from those who say, Oh my God, our whole future is under threat because it's called Waka Kotahi. No, it's not. You can call it whatever you like. Potato, potato. Transport agency. Waka Kotahi - fill your boots don't care.   Those who say, oh, they're going to throw out the treaty and you know Māori are under attack, no they’re not. Nobody's going to throw the treaty. But if you want to take umbrage, fulminate, despair about the future of New Zealand/Aotearoa, depending on which flag you're waving, you do you.   Whereas those of us who know how lucky we are will head for the beach or the lake, or the park or the forest, we'll enjoy a BBQ or a meal at home alongside our fellow New Zealanders of every hue and give thanks that all our ancestors, near or far, ended up in this beautiful country. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stats NZ figures out today show unemployment has crept to its highest level since June 2021.   The unemployment rate in the three months to December was 4%.  Herald Business Editor at Large, Liam Dann, says it's still lower than many economists were picking.   He says there will be winners and losers out of this.  Dann says people hoping for an OCR cut may have to wait longer, but more people will have kept their jobs.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.