Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Demand for counselling services in schools continues to soar as mental health issues become more complex.  New research from OfficeMax and Barnardos highlights the growing need for counselling in school-aged children, and the importance of free services in plugging the access gap.  60% of school staff surveyed say they’ve seen an increase in students requesting counselling services in 2023, and 38% said the on-site services they have do not adequately meet the needs of students  Barnardos General Manager, Jo Harrison, told Kerre Woodham that there’s a range of different pressures and stresses affecting children and young people.  She said that the impact covid has had on families, employment, and their sense of security has contributed, as has the recent extreme weather events.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

According to Act, drug addicts will face the prospect of losing their benefit if they refuse treatment or don't make more effort to find work. Act also wants to reduce the current number of 4000 people who receive the supported living payment because of stress.   70 percent of them have been receiving that payment for more than five years. ACT argues stress is a condition that can be treated over time, not a permanent incapacity.   Act also says 4100 people receive a benefit because they're addicted to drugs, and that's costing taxpayers $76 million a year.   About 2700 of them are on the job seeker benefit, almost 30 percent of them have received that for more than six years.   David Seymour says someone who demonstrates no intention of, or motivation to, address their incapacity and become independent may find themselves ineligible for a benefit.   So when I heard that, I thought that's the kind of hardline stuff many of us want. In fact, I may have railed about that in the past - just how frustrating it is that you've got so many jobs are begging, you have job seeker expos where people can turn up, but most of the people who turn up wouldn't be able to get the job because they have drugs in their system.   They would fail any kind of drug testing and it’s infuriating and it's frustrating. And now finally, we've got someone who's got a realistic chance of getting into a role of decision making and now my trembling, wobbly lefty self is starting to manifest itself going but these people are not well, you know, they're addicts.   It's unfair. You know, I don't think once you're in the grip of that kind of addiction, you're capable of making rational choices.   We heard from a couple of former drug addicts on Friday when we were talking about shoplifting and they said they were shoplifters because they spend all their benefit on drugs. That was the priority.   One of the women said there was plenty in the benefit, absolutely you could live on the benefit if you live a relatively frugal life, but they spent the benefit on the drugs and then they stole the necessities they required food, personal toiletries and the like. Everything they had went on drugs.   So if they're not getting money legitimately, they will do what they have to do to get drugs. And that will probably mean stealing more.   And where are these mythical drug and alcohol dependency counsellors? So many people we've heard from who are trying to get their children or their loved one's psychological counselling. Just can't get it.  Counsellors themselves are frustrated that they can't offer counselling this and you happen to be Maori, Pacifica or young.   I don't know much about stress and how that might incapacitate you or anxiety. But the one thing I know is do people really want to move on a benefit? I don't think so.   I don't think there are many people who would choose that as a lifestyle. Sme sure, augmented by a but little light criminal activity on the side, but I think for many people it's an existence. It's not a living. You exist and barely.   If there are huge drug and alcohol rehabilitation clinics that are just begging for people to come in and be treated successfully, and drug addicts aren't making the most of it? Well, fine. But I don't think there are.   You can go private and that costs an absolute fortune. For anyone who has somebody who they love who's been in the thrall of addiction, is it going to work cutting off the benefit?   And just say get treated, get well, or you're on your own. I'm not entirely sure. I am no expert at all, but I would love to hear from people who are and people who have been there, done that.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour claims his welfare policy will help people help themselves.   Under Act's proposal, drug addicts could lose their benefit if they refuse treatment or don't make efforts to find a job.   It would also apply to people with mental health issues like stress who don't seek help.    Seymour told Kerre Woodham we need to ask tough questions about our system.  “Should Government policy assume that people are forever victims or should it be based on the idea that people can make a difference in their own lives?”  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Remember the Christchurch business owner and the tradies who performed a citizens arrest back in June? They tackled a thief to the ground. I'm going to remove all the 'allegeds' and the 'supposedlys' and the 'before the courts.' They tackled a thief. He had motorbike parts in his pocket that he hadn't paid for. That's a thief. They tackled a thief to the ground after he stole motorcycle parts.   When they rang the police the police asked if the thief had any weapons and when they said no, the police said look, you're going have to let him go. Understandably, they were disappointed in the response but the police said later that they simply had no spare personnel to attend the robbery at that particular time.   Now we have another man who tackled his supermarket thief to the ground, a drunk, aggressive, foul mouthed, oik abusing supermarket staff and stealing boxes of booze. Todd Scott took matters into his own hands, literally, by tackling the thief and holding him on the ground while the supermarket store owner or the manager called the police. Next minute the store manager was telling him that the police had advised that he should let the thief go.   The officers couldn't come to the store and he couldn't make a citizen's arrest. Understandably, he's disappointed. It's happening all the time. Is there anyone who has not been to a supermarket and seen somebody steal whatever it is they wish? And unfortunately, most of the reports I have read, I have heard, and I have witnessed, have not been of desperate families stealing sausages and cheese. It's the booze that they're going for. It's happening every day. And when brave people try and do something about it there aren't the police there to back them up.    In our editorial meeting this morning, which is a rather grand name for when we sit in and chew the fat about the stories of the day, one of our group was remonstrating that at the same time as thieves are taking what they will from where they wish, we have police going into schools around the country on charm offensives.   Our team members argument was that police should be out and about arresting buggars, and if they want to do community policing, do it in the community. Principals should be controlling their schools. They shouldn't need the police.   I don't know about that, Helen and I thought it was a good thing crime prevention is part of policing. And the police simply cannot be everywhere all at once, all the time, whenever they're needed. Mental health and domestic violence callouts, which take up so much of police time, are so time-consuming and yet it's really important.   Crime prevention surely is just as important as picking up shoplifters. Stopping young people from committing crime because they've built up a relationship with police is surely worth doing, isn't it? I mean the police cannot be everywhere despite the Minister of Police crowing that there's 300 extra police and you know there's never been more police, the streets are heaving with the weight of bobbies marching up and down the streets preventing crime. It's just simply not true.   There are more people taking advantage of a complete lapse. Crime is not your fault if you happen to pick up a box of booze, it's because you've been oppressed, that kind of BS that's pervaded the community over the last six years. Crime has been excused. Forgiven. It's been explained away. The courts aren't giving any kind of decent sentences when it comes to people who actually do appear before judges. Of course, people are going to take what they want, where they want, and the police can't fix the community on their own.   I think crime prevention is as important as picking up these abusive, foul mouthed thieves. It would be lovely if the police could be everywhere all at once, all the time, but they can't. There's going to have to be a little bit of self responsibility coming into this community, into this country. And an understanding that just because you might not have as much as the next person, it doesn't mean you have a right to steal. That you should be ashamed of yourself if you're a thief. And we've tried to expunge shame from the community, saying it's a harmful thing. A little bit of shame doesn't hurt anybody. To be branded as a thief in public, I would find that incredibly shameful. I wish more people felt the same way.   So what should the police principal role be in your mind? Should crime prevention be part of it when crime is so pervasive in our community? Should they be responding to every citizen's arrest as a sign that they are backing up a community who's had a gutsfull of people taking what is not theirs and what do the police themselves want? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now the National Party announced some weeks ago that should it become Government, a new medical school will be established at Waikato University. They've also said they'd add another 50 placements in Otago and Auckland from 2025.   Now Labour, in the midst of an unprecedented senior specialist strike, has woken up to the fact that we're short of doctors. Who knew? And has announced an extra 95 doctors will be accepted for training at Otago and Auckland in 2025 should they become Government.  Cool, say the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, any boost to student numbers is great, but it would be 10 to 15 years before any of them qualified as consultants. They say they need 1700 specialist doctors and dentists right now.   So why over the past six years was this government faffing around with bike bridges to the North Shore, lowering speed limits around the city, renaming Government departments, trying to get RNZ and TVNZ merged —all the frilly stuff— without addressing a very real concern, a very real need, something that impacts on all of us to augment our health services? Why have they waited till their second election campaign, (really third), to say hey, you know what? We don't have enough doctors.    At any time during our lockdown when the borders were closed, when the Government was banging on about the need to train up our own professionals and tradies, about the fact that New Zealanders needed to do the jobs, we couldn't afford to rely on importing the people we needed to do essential jobs, at any time they could have ticked the box and said train more doctors.   And they didn't. And they haven't, until yesterday.   Chris Hipkins said an extra 335 more doctors per year by 2027 would cost $1 billion over 10 years. The Labour Government has thrown away $29.2 billion on light rail in Auckland. How many doctors would $29.2 billion give us? Doctors, dentists and nurses? It incenses me.  Along comes a pre-election whiz bang press release announcing an extra 95 doctors will be accepted for training from 2025. Speaking at Otago University yesterday, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said New Zealand really needs to ramp up its efforts if we're going to train the workforce we need here in New Zealand.   Well, yes, yes, it does! And with a stroke of a pen you could have done that. And we needed to do that five years ago, not right now. We needed to do that when you closed the borders, not right now when you're desperate to win an election. We could have had the first tranche of new doctors coming out now if you'd decided the healthcare sector was worth investing in.   So a new med school and increased placements under National or keep just the two training universities and up the placements. What would be best for the country as far as you're concerned? The acting Dean of Otago, Tim Wilkinson, says there is no shortage of people who would make excellent doctors, they just haven't had enough places for all of them. So now there are will you reapply? What do you do if you don't make it into Med school? It's a very niche area of study. You're obviously a high performance machine. What do you do next? Many wannabe doctors go to Australia and they are very, very hard to get back. It would be great to keep more of our own people here.   How the hell has Labour just woken up to the fact that we need to train more doctors. Would they not have looked at that when the borders were closed? No, just when their polls are plummeting. Unbelievable. The money that has been spent on nonsense when it could have been spent on New Zealanders working within the New Zealand health system. Staggering. Every day, every day, I'm freshly staggered. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Polls are coming in thick and fast as we head towards October 14th.  The latest is the New Zealand Herald's Poll of Polls, which combines results from a range of pollsters, specifically Curia, Kantar Public, Talbot Mills, and Reid Research.  According to the Poll of Polls, National and ACT’s chances continue to soar.  They have a 95.1% chance of forming a government if the election were held this weekend, and an 87% chance of forming a government for the actual election date.  Research Association's Polling spokesperson Murray Campbell told Kerre Woodham that the accuracy of polls, when measured against the election results, is still in pretty good stead.  He said that discrepancies in the last election can be attributed to polling companies not factoring in early voting.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Treasury's Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update forecasts no recession but shows the Government will be in deficit longer than predicted in May and take on billions more debt.  It’s predicted that the government won’t return to surplus until 2027, a year later than previously forecast.   Robert MacCulloch, Auckland University Professor of Macroeconomics, told Kerre Woodham that in his opinion, how Grant Robertson described the update didn’t add up.  He said that Robertson argued that the GDP was growing, and wages were going up faster than inflation and as a result kiwis should be feeling cost of living pressures less, which doesn’t feel right.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, good news last night for National.   Labour must be left wondering how many more election bribes they'll have to offer before voters begin to nibble. The latest Newshub Reid Research Poll that came out last night has seen National shoot up 4.3 points to 40.9%, and Labour suffered a 5.5% fall from the last Newshub poll, they're on just 26.8%.   But before gleeful right and centre right voters pull the cork on the St Emilion premier cru that you have cellared for the day those bloody socialists are booted out of office, just remember it is only a poll. And as Jim Bolger once famously said, buggar the polls.   As we've seen around the world, the pollsters were way off when it came to predicting the results of Brexit, the Trump Clinton presidential campaign, and the 2019 Australian election. And as an article in The Conversation shows, in this country in 2020, the polls immediately prior to the election overestimated the National vote and underestimated Labour’s.   They took the average of the results of all six polls published during the month before Election Day in 2020. National came out on 30.9%, Labour on 47.2%. But predictions based on the opinion polls were wrong. Labour's election result was 50%, National was not 30.9% they were only 25.6%. So the polls in the final fortnight were overestimating National by an average of 5.8 percentage points and underestimating Labour by 3.7. Lots of numbers, but basically, beware the polls.    Apparently we, as in Kiwis, used to be relatively forthright when it came to answering questions delivered by pollsters. We'd happily pin our colours to the mast and let complete strangers know our political preference. Not anymore.   Social media has fragmented opinion and challenged what truth is like nothing else, according to Murray Campbell, the New Zealand Research Associations Polling Spokesman. People are also careful about protecting their privacy. They're less willing to share their political viewpoints when contacted by total.   Add to that the difficulties of reaching people when landlines have all but disappeared. And door knocking isn't really an option because of the growing number of people living in apartment buildings or when homes are heavily protected by security.   So do the polls count for anything?   Well, they must do, and they must re-energize the party faithful if you're National or dampen and quash the spirits of those who are working for Labour. Certainly, in my electorate in Northcote, the party faithful for National have been out in full force. All blue jacketed, waving their signs, waving gleefully at the Onewa turnoff onto the motorway, happy as clams. Haven't seen a single person in a red shirt.   So it certainly gives a fillip to exhausted campaigners when you see a boost in the polls. But does it mean that Christopher Luxon will be thinking well, that's that then. Time to ease back, jobs done? He will not. The show is not over until the votes are counted. Election Day is the only poll that matters. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We've also got an election coming up in five weeks, haven't we? So it was another weekend and another presentation of party policies coming thick and fast, wasn't it?   Health targets from National, the scrapping of building consents from ACT, our ocean policy from the Greens, disagreements between National and ACT and Labour when it comes to the impending shake-up of our scientific research sector, and the proposal to introduce road user charges on all cars from National.  Let's start with the road user charges. National will make electric vehicles subject to road user charges after March and funding for roads will eventually be obtained through pay per kilometre charges.   At present, light EVs are exempt from road user charges until the 31st of March 2024, although there are murmurings from this Government that they may extend that exemption again. No hard and fast rules.   Under National, there would be no extension to the exemption, and EVs would have to pay similarly to diesel vehicles, which have to purchase road user charges based on the number of kilometres they travel.   As things stand, this would see owners begin to be charged $76 per 1000 kilometres, to add to the $2 billion in road user charges raised from other motorists, mostly truckers and diesel car owners.   The suggestion to that all vehicles will eventually roll out to road user charges and will get rid of the fuel excise tax.    However, recent stories in the media say officials have been investigating what to do next as they struggled to modernise the regulatory system and how they deal with problems like compliance. A May 2023 Waka Kotahi document said ‘I see trouble’.    What are we going to do when people just say I'm not going to pay? They said there'll be an increase of non-compliance and debt for customers entering the road user charge system.   Current resources they say are set up to manage the existing RUC system. There will not be enough resources to cope with the increase in education, engagement and enforcement needed. Basically, it's enforcement.   Surely every idiot knows that when they say right you have to buy kilometres to drive your car, that's what you have to do. It's not rocket science.   They're not asking you to explain how an electric engine works. They're simply saying if you want to drive on the road, you have to buy kilometres. So it's the enforcement really that will be the issue.  Another document said a work program to look at the entire RUC system had been set up to bring together strategy and improvements.   Key strategic choices about road user charges are inherently linked to long-term revenue challenges including non-compliance and debt management. Basically what they're saying is that they're worried that the road user charges won't bring in as much dosh as the fuel tax does. Change would have to involve the Ministry of Transport, Treasury and police, it said.  So those are their concerns. We move to road user charges, people won't buy them. They'll stick two fingers up. They'll say okay, you find me?   You find me and charge me. The Nat’s say moving away from fuel excise and road user charges is a fairer way to charge for road use.   As New Zealand has more and more electric vehicles and hybrids on the road, there's less of a contribution being made through the form of excise, despite those cars using the very same roads. So, what is fair and what is not?   I know we get a lot of people who are grumpy, that EVs are not paying their way. They're heavy. Wear and tear on the roads is caused just as much by electric vehicles as it is by your normal combustion engine.   More and more of them are on the roads, which means less fuel tax going into the coffers to help pay for the roads.   Are the Nat’s right? Should we all be moving to road user charges? Is that the fairest way to ensure that those who use, pay? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's road user charges expansion won't be accomplished right away.   It's proposing adding them to every vehicle including electric ones.   Transport spokesperson Simeon Brown says they want it as a switch away from fuel excise taxes, so people don't have to pay both at once.   He told Kerre Woodham it will take a bit of time to get it exactly right.  “There’s obviously a lot of work that will need to be done around the details to ensure that can be done in an efficient manner.”  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.