For the love of all that is holy - can we just introduce a capital gains tax and be done with it?  I am so sick of it dominating the headlines. The issue is never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to go away, despite two Labour Prime Ministers ruling it out, despite Christopher Luxon ruling it out - it comes up. It's like a nagging child, “I want a capital gains tax. I want a capital gains tax, I want a capital gains tax, I want a capital gains tax”, and then in the end you give in. This time it's because ANZ's Chief Executive, Antonia Watson, said in an interview yesterday that “the time has arrived for a capital gains tax”. Well, the time actually arrived with the Tax Working Group's recommendation in recent times, but nonetheless. She says look, there might be compliance costs introducing a tax, she also made it very clear she was opposed to any tax on unrealised gains, but she says a capital gains tax should be introduced and it should be introduced now. And her intervention adds another voice in a growing group of New Zealanders, influential and otherwise, who are calling for a capital gains or wealth tax.   As I say, the issue really came to the fore when the tax working group, chaired by Sir Michael Cullen and convened by the Ardern government, recommended a CGT be introduced. But then NZ First dug in their toes and refused to budge, so Jacinda Ardern ruled it out and she didn't just rule it out, she said it would never happen on her watch as Prime Minister, and it didn't. Then Chris Hipkins became Prime Minister leading a Labour government, and he ruled it out too. But that was then, and this is now. Now he's singing a different song as he was to Ryan Bridge on Early Edition this morning”  “I think what we've got to acknowledge is at the moment the New Zealand tax system is loaded against working people. Working people end up paying more tax because we're not taxing other forms of income as our other comparable countries do. There’s capital gains tax here in the UK, there's capital gains tax in Australia, and so many other countries, that there isn't in New Zealand and what does that mean? It means that salary and wage earners, the people who work hard every day for a living, end up paying a disproportionate share of the tax because we're not taxing other forms of income.”  Oh, Chris Hipkins, champion of the working man. Where were you when you had a government that had a mandate to do anything at jolly well liked? Oh, that's right, you were there and you ruled it out. This is the same Chris Hipkins who had the best opportunity of any government since MMP was introduced to reform the tax system, he had a cabinet that was champing at the bit to reform the tax system. This is the Chris Hipkins who said no to a capital gains tax. David Parker resigned over the fact he said no to a capital gains tax, he resigned his portfolio - “untenable for me to continue”. Grant Robertson admitted he'd had to swallow a dead rat by standing by his Prime Minister when he wanted to introduce a capital gains tax. This is the Chris Hipkins who released a statement saying I am confirming today that under a government I lead, there will be no wealth or capital gains tax after the election, end of story.   So this is why you cannot have former Prime Ministers leading in opposition because they have absolutely no credibility when their statements from only a few months back come back to haunt them. His credibility on his capital gains tax is shot. Barbara Edmonds, get her up there talking about it, she's untainted. She doesn't have the ghost of Chris Hipkins from yesteryear, well, yestermonth, coming back to haunt her. Carmel Sepuloni. Hell, Jim, the guy who serves the drinks at 3.2, get him up there to say I think a capital gains tax would be fabulous.   You cannot have Chris Hipkins calling for a capital gains tax, he has absolutely no credibility. But the issue is simply not going to go away. And I think sooner rather than later, we need to adopt. I even think Sir Michael Cullen's recommendations were not unreasonable. There will come a time where it will be introduced, and we need to do it credibly and not in a knee jerk reaction, and with the best interests of the entire country at heart. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Whatever happened to a ‘morning driver’ and a ‘thank you driver’ as you hopped on and off the bus? The violence and racial abuse of bus drivers and indeed their commuters, their passengers using public transport, has got so bad in recent times that the Bus and Coach Association is calling for more security officers to ride along on bus routes, for safety screens to be installed on buses, and now the Government is making offences against public transport workers an aggravating factor in sentencing. Along with the tougher sentences, the Government’s investing $15 million specifically for practical improvements to driver safety, like retrofitting the aforementioned safety screens and real time CCTV monitoring.   Auckland Transport's general manager for safety said earlier this year that there's an ongoing trend of drivers being attacked that began in the last few years coming out of Covid. And it isn't just the drivers being attacked, there have been awful racially-motivated attacks on passengers as well, that have been well covered in the media. Bus and Coach Association CEO Delaney Myers spoke to the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning and agreed that the problems on public transport are definitely getting worse.   “It's not just violence, you know, we've got threats, aggression and, in particular racial slurs going on and it's just unacceptable. No one should be abused in their workplace. It is getting worse. And look, we know many of these incidents involve people who are on the fringes of society with mental health and drug and alcohol issues. You know, for us, we're not seeing this as just a public transport problem, it's a complex societal issue. But you know the ramifications on us at the end of it and, you know, delivering public transport services significant and we do need more help to keep people safe.   “It is unfortunate things have come to this because most of our passengers love engaging, you know, most of the drivers love engaging with the passengers, but we do need to keep them safe and a physical barrier is part of that, but it doesn't help stop the threats and the racial abuse or keep passengers safe. So really what we'd like to see in addition is increased personnel support on buses because we know that the presence of authority figures helps to moderate behaviour.”  Auckland Transport has about 40 transport officers who are on the worst routes to provide safety and security for drivers, as well as diffusing situations when they occur. Security personnel have been hired by Otago Regional Council since December of last year to monitor the bus hub, to discourage incidents of disorder and threatening conduct, and in March of this year, services were extended to cover a targeted security presence on buses.  Delaney Myers is right, though, it's a bigger issue than just disruptive commuters. It's a complex societal issue, but how on Earth did it get to this? We've always had drunks and aggressive bullies and people whose mental disorders take them down a violent path. Not everybody's does, some do, but they've always been in our communities. What made them able to become a huge problem rather than an aberrant individual that you saw perhaps once every couple of years? Is it letting them get away with it? If somebody is racially abusing or threatening a poor bus driver or fellow passenger, do other people step in? I can well understand why people might not given how vicious and unpredictable humans are today. Would you run the risk of stepping in to stop somebody racially abusing some poor young kid when it means you might not get home to your own? And is that is that how they've been able to take hold?   These bad eggs, there is so much money being spent on them. They've caused so much pain and so much fear. When one schoolboy is racially attacked, he’s attacked purely and simply because of his race, because of how he looks, that's going to have a ripple effect throughout the entire community. How has that come to this?   I know it's not on every bus route. I know that there are people who are perfectly able to get from point A to point B and have a very pleasant ride. It's not on every train route, but it's a big enough problem that it's increasingly difficult to get people wanting to be drivers. There's not only their long hours and the poor pay, but being spat at and abused and threatened by low lives, why would you? Well, you wouldn't, and that's why it's so difficult to get the drivers. How have we let it get to this? This isn't a brand-new phenomenon. As I say, drunks and people who behave badly have always been amongst us, but how have they been allowed to become such a problem? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The big corporations have already started ordering their staff back into the office, now the Government’s had enough too. Nicola Willis made the announcement yesterday. While carefully defined, working from home arrangements can benefit workers and employers, she said, if the pendulum swings too far in favour of working from home, there are downsides. And that's even before we consider the effects for the CBD retailers, restaurants and cafes. She said there are good reasons why employees have traditionally been physically brought together for work. It allows for face-to-face conversation, the sharing of skills and experience, and relationship building. It supports younger and newer employees to observe, learn from and form connections with their more experienced colleagues. She said many good employers have been taking active steps to ensure their working from home policies are fit for purpose. Nicola Willis said its time at the government did the same.   Damn straight. Conor Whitten from the Wellington Chamber of Commerce told the Mike Hosking Breakfast that the directive will indeed have a positive impact.   “We do think that this has the real potential to make a difference for Wellington and it's important to recognise that at a time when public finances are pretty tight, it's something that really doesn't cost the government a cent. We all know it's been a hard time for businesses in Wellington, but particularly for retail and hospitality, working from home trends are definitely a very big part of that. "And look, you're right, the numbers are a little bit hard to quantify but we will have those numbers because public sector CEOs will be required to report on it. But look it’s the ballpark figures, there are 28,000 public servants who still work in Wellington according to the Public Service Commission, if they're working from home and average of two days a week, that's more than 50,000 fewer potential customers for businesses in the CBD and in a city the size of Wellington, that makes a real impact. So if we get some of those people back in the city, not everyone's going to buy a coffee or go shopping or head out for a Friday drink, but tens of thousands more people in the city the size of Wellington, it’s going to make a real impact at a time when businesses are doing it tough.”  So sure benefits, but I cannot imagine that workers are being ordered back to work simply to save Wellington's cafes. From the release, it would appear that the Government is simply looking for the public service bosses to be a little bit more aware of who's working from home and whether they're earning their keep or not. I find it incredible that, according to the press release, data is not currently being centrally collected by the Public Service Commission regarding the prevalence of working from home arrangements. So if you asked the Public Service Commission how many public servants are working from home, reading that line, you'd expect them to say, oh, I don't know. A few I suppose.   If you're a boss, wouldn't you want to know how many of your team were actually working from home and how many were expected in the office? And if they were working from home, what are they doing there? Are they meeting KPI's? The people we talked to last week who either phoned in or texted in said that they had KPI's that they had to meet, that there was an expectation about what their role would be, that for some of them there was flexibility - they could look after a sick child or they could go for a long run if they're training for a marathon or something, and then the work would be done in the evening. There was no real need for them to work between 9 – 5 pm so long as the work got done. But reading between the lines here, it would appear that many public service bosses have absolutely no idea who's at home, who's not, who's expected to be. And it's that sort of sloppy record keeping that I think the government's going after, and I think the taxpayer was getting sick of. If you go into any Public Service department and said how many of your people are working from home and what are they doing there, as a minister, I'd expect them to know. But the line in this press release says data is not currently being centrally collected by the Public Service Commission regarding the prevalence of working from home arrangements. Does that sound like a breach of business management 101?   The bosses that we talked to last week said it can work. They were quite happy to have staff working from home. There were clear expectations of what they would do, they were regularly checked on – where there was a high level of trust, the arrangement worked. But when you've got somebody going “oh whatevs”, it's not going to work. People will extract the Michael if they think there are no controls on what they can do, or no checks and balances on what they do and how they do it. They also made the point that it doesn't mean there won't be any working from home arrangements, you can still negotiate to be able to have flexible working hours, hello Wellington civil service, but they are not an automatic entitlement.   But you can't really blame the workers, if nobody's checking up on you, nobody cares, nobody has an expectation that you'll turn up in the office, nobody is requiring you to account for yourself, when you haven't been in the office for a week or so, why wouldn't you? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last week, Kerre was fortunate to MC the New Zealand Citrus Growers conference in Gisborne/Tai Rawhiti.  There were many fantastic stories about how the region and growers have bounced back after Cyclone Gabrielle.   However, there was also a warning on the horizon about a real danger to the industry – one that we can all help keep a watch on and prevent from taking hold here.  CEO of First Fresh NZ and Citrus NZ board member, Ian Albers joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the challenges facing the industry here in NZ.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It looks like there's going to be a referendum after all.   Not the one that David Seymour wants, but a referendum on whether the four-year political term should be legislated. We've got three years at the moment.   For years, people have been saying it's too short and now in National's coalition agreement with both ACT and NZ First, there are provisions to introduce legislation extending the political term.   Yesterday, the Prime Minister said the issue could well be put to the electorate at the next election in a referendum. He said it's a commitment each party made to one another, and although work on legislation around a four-year term hadn't kicked off yet as there were other priorities right now, Christopher Luxon said it will come onto the radar fairly shortly.  They wouldn't have to do that much work.  I mean, it's been looked at time and time again by a number of parties of both hues. And I wouldn't have thought it would be that difficult to extend the term one year.   For the record, New Zealand has one of the world's shortest parliamentary terms and it is commonly said and understood that governments spend the first of their three years acclimatising, second is getting down to business, third year at campaigning. Another actual year of hard work would be a bonus.   I'm all for a four-year term.   And in effect, because we voters like to be fair players, we give party’s six years, even if they've been a bit rubbish after the first three years. Only once since 1960 has a government failed to win a second term and that was the third Labour government led by Bill Rowling.   Although you'd have to say it was touch and go whether the 6th Labour government would have got another term under Jacinda Ardern. Hard to know, but in October 2019, one year before the election, Labour was down 9.2% in the polls, National was up 6.5. At that poll, a year out from the election, the Greens could have kept Labour in power, but certainly Labour's false promises were coming home to roost, so we’ll never know along came Covid, the rest is history.   So, a four-year term to me makes sense.   One year to get used to it, two years of actually understanding the mechanics and the levers that need to be pushed and pulled to make stuff happen, fourth year campaigning.   I would actually like to see too, the opposition parties, given a yearly report card.   We can all measure what the Coalition Government has said, has promised. We're going to reduce the victims of crime by 30,000. We're going to make sure the potholes are fixed straight away, and these are our targets. So we can measure whatever government is in power, they've made promises, we can see that hasn't happened. What's going on here?   I would love to see that with opposition parties too, because it still sticks in my craw when Chris Hipkins said, we weren't really ready to govern.   Nine years in opposition and you're not ready to govern?    Nine years of being paid by the taxpayer to do what? To do what?   If you're not ready to govern, what in the name of all that is holy were you doing?    All very well and good to say that you're trying to find a new leader, but you've still got people who are in charge of portfolios, who should be passionate about those portfolios, who should have spent those nine years, provided they were reelected, saying here this is what needs to be done. These are the priorities right now. This is what we can do, this is what we can't and I would love to see the opposition parties given a report card after every year to show that they are there for a reason that they are opposing, that they are doing the work that's required to keep the government of the day on its toes, held to account, and so that when the time comes, they are actually ready to govern.   I don't think that's unreasonable.   I'd really like to see an account of the work that they have done throughout the year paid for by the taxpayer. I don't think it's unreasonable to say, well, what value have we got for our money while you have been in Opposition.   Not unreasonable.    LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A decision around extending political terms from three years to four may be put to voters in the next election.  Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the Government may put the matter to referendum in 2026.  Luxon expressed confidence there is support for a four-year term across the House.  University of Otago New Zealand Politics PhD candidate Michael Swanson tells Kerre Woodham a four-year term could change voter behaviour from keeping the current government in power to allow them time to implement their policies.  The state of the opposition’s readiness to govern should be constant, so that when new parties are voted in there is no warm-up period whilst in power.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied.   It's a legal maxim that means if legal redress to an injured party is available, but it's not forthcoming in a timely fashion, that's effectively the same as having no remedy at all. I don't think it's entirely true - a conviction and a prison term would bring some relief for victims of serious crime, but the stress of waiting years to see that justice delivered would be a heavy burden for the victim and their families.   The Government's looking for feedback on ways to speed up the court process. Currently, people can choose a jury trial if they're charged with an offence that has a maximum penalty of two years or more in prison. The discussion document from the Government is requesting feedback on whether that threshold should be extended to three years or more, five years or more, or seven years or more. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Heather du Plessis-Allan last night how the changes might work:  PG: There will be arguments around three years, five years or seven years. Seven years would be a big change, and it would certainly have a huge impact on the overall efficiency of the courts, but of course you’ve got to balance that against, you know, the ancient right. And so I think it would be an interesting discussion. I certainly think we should lift it, it's just a question of how far.   HDPA: What kind of a crime we're talking about that carries seven years in jail?   PG: Well, things like tax evasion and arson.   HDPA: Indecent assault?    PG: Yes, and so five years for thinking of things like aggravated assault and three years, it would be things like, you know, driving while disqualified or with excess breath alcohol.    HDPA: I don't think you should go for a jury if you've just been pinged boozing behind the wheel, do you?   PG: Well if you lift it to three years you'd exclude those and so yeah, I think that's a very reasonable starting point.   That was Heather talking to Paul Goldsmith last night. Law Association Vice President Julie-Anne Kincade told Mike Hosking this morning that right now in the Auckland District Court, you'll get a jury trial faster than a judge-alone trial. And we need to be careful about using a “blunt tool” to try to solve the problem of the backlog within the courts. And certainly, there are improvements to the court process she outlined that have come into play just this year. Category 1 and 2 offences are heard in the district court before a judge alone. You don't have the choice of a jury trial. Category 3 offences that carry a maximum penalty of two or more years in prison, you do get the choice right now. Category 3 offences could include aggravated assault, threatening to kill, dangerous driving, or a third or more drunk driving conviction - that boozed behind the wheel one that Heather was talking about. So that's Category 3 where you do get the choice of judge-alone or jury.   They are serious offences, but do we really need a jury of our peers to sit in judgment of those crimes? Shouldn't we save the jury trials for the most serious crimes, the ones that are heard in the High Court -the murder, the manslaughter, the rape, the aggravated robbery? Jury trials are vitally important, they date back to Athens. Chief Justice Sian Elias and her colleague in the Supreme Court, Justice McGrath, summed up the importance of the jury in the case of Siemer v Heron in 2012:  "In exercising that function, jurors bring a diverse range of perspectives, personal experience and knowledge to bear in individual cases, which judges may lack. As fact finders, jurors determine which of the admissible evidence presented at trial is to be believed and acted upon. Juries ultimately decide whether the facts fit within a particular legal definition, according to community standards. In this way, they reflect the attitude of the community and their determination of guilt or innocence. The right to trial by jury is also generally seen as providing a safeguard against the arbitrary or oppressive enforcement of the law by the government." They go on to say that in cases where they feel the government or the forces of government through the prosecutor and through the police are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, then juries will acquit. They'll go no, this is oppressive, this is unfair, you've been way too heavy-handed. We, the community think this is wrong and it's a way for the community to say to the state you've overstepped the mark. So vitally important.   But should juries be reserved for the big-ticket crimes? Intuitively, I think yes, you know it should be for the big-ticket ones. But we don't want judges clearing up the backlog in the courts by whipping through cases without due thought and process. I'm not saying they would, and they don't at the moment.  Judges seem to be a little bit too thoughtful, a little bit too considered for my liking from time to time. But if you're told right, judge-alone, get cracking, let's clear this backlog - wouldn't your subconscious say righto, bugger it, guilty, next case, please. That kind of pressure to clear the backlog may inform the decision you make.   And it may not sound like a big deal, two years or more in prison, but by the time you take into account discounts and troubled backgrounds and the like, you'd probably only get nine months. But nine months in prison, you say it like it's nothing but what would nine months in prison do to you and me? It would be absolutely devastating if you were innocent. So intuitively, yes, save the juries for the big-ticket crimes, the High Court offences. At the same time, you don't want to see people sent to prison, even if it is just for a six-month term for a crime they didn't commit. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am —and always have been— a huge believer in on-the-job training.  When I left school, I wanted to be a journalist. But I didn’t go to polytech or university, I went and did a newspaper cadetship at the Otago Daily Times, in Dunedin. 1986 this was.   And, even though day one was horrific, it was the best thing I could have done. Even though I turned up on day one thinking I was Christmas and went home that night feeling like Good Friday - despite that, I’m in no doubt that learning on-the-job was absolutely THE BEST way.  The best way for me then, and the best way for anyone now.  Which is why I’m loving the talk we’re hearing today from the Civil Contractors Association and the Motor Trade Association - who are both saying that we need more on-the-job training, more apprenticeships, and less theoretical stuff in the classrooms and lecture rooms.  Let’s start with the civil contractors. We’re hearing today that if the Government is going to have any hope in hell of delivering the big infrastructure projects it’s promising to deliver, then the number of extra civil engineering and construction workers that are going to be needed is the same as the number of people who live in Ashburton.  So, percentage-wise, we need about 50% more people working in roading and civil construction. And the timeframe is pretty tight, with government officials saying it needs to happen within the next two-to-three years.  So we’re in a bind. The Government —which is talking a big game on new roads and infrastructure— is in even more of a bind.  You might have heard the civil construction guy talking to Mike Hosking a couple of hours ago about this. He was saying that it’s probably going to mean they have to bring-in more workers from overseas.  But he also said that we need to be doing much more to train more of our own people.  And that was when he said the magic words - apprenticeships and on-the-job training.  Fraser May is his name - and he was saying to Mike that they want to see more money going into work-based training, because that’s the best way for people to learn the skills they need to build the roads and put water pipes under the ground.  He said companies do on-the-job training under their steam, but he reckons the Government needs to come to the party and put apprenticeships and work-based training on more of a pedestal.  And I couldn’t agree more. Call me old hat or old school, but there is no way someone who learns in a classroom can be as good as someone who learns on the job. So hallelujah for the civil constructors wanting to see more apprenticeships and less essay-writing.  The other outfit extolling the virtues of apprenticeships and work-based learning today is the Motor Trade Association. In fact, it’s one of about 20 organisations involved in the automotive sector that want to see a return to new mechanics being taught on-the-job.  Lee Marshall, who is the chief executive of the Motor Trade Association, was also on with Mike earlier. And he says that when it comes to training people to be mechanics and auto electricians, the education sector has done a hopeless job keeping up with the pace of changes in the likes of motor vehicle technologies.   Which is meaning people are coming out of these polytech programmes not as work ready as they would be if they had learnt on the job doing something like an old-school apprenticeship.  He says the technology we see in cars is changing at an exponential rate, and the education sector needs to keep up with that —or should have kept up with that— and it hasn’t.  So these motor industry organisations have written a big document and sent it through to the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission telling them they’ve dropped the ball.  Not only that, they’re also demanding that the Government takes training for the automotive industry away from the polytechs and put it back in the hands of the automotive industry itself.  And just like I do with the civil contractors, I couldn’t agree with the people in the automotive industry.  Because there is nothing better than learning on-the-job. Nothing better. I know from my experience - on-the-job training keeps it real; it knocks you down a peg or two if you need to be knocked-down a peg or too.  Like I said earlier, I thought I was the bees knees when I left school to become a cadet newspaper reporter. I’d been editor of the school newspaper, I’d been a debater, I thought I knew it all. And, chances are, if I’d gone and done a journalism course at a polytech or a university, they would’ve allowed me to keep thinking that I was Christmas.  But I didn’t go to university or polytech. I learned the hard way. Which, as it turned out, was the best way. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand's economy has barely escaped another technical recession.  New Stats NZ figures show our Gross Domestic Product contracted 0.2% in the three months to June.  Its revised figures downgrade the March quarter to show the economy grew just 0.1%, not the 0.2% initially estimated.  Herald Business Editor at Large Liam Dann told John McDonald that minimal growth kept us out of another technical recession but doesn't change reality.  He says with a lot of migration gains and population growth, on a per capita basis we're still in a recession.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Who'd be a teacher?  Not many of us, apparently - the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand says half as many Kiwis are signing up to become teachers than there were in 2010, and the number of students graduating as teachers has dropped by more than a third. The Deputy Chief Executive Clive Jones said if you look at the number of domestic students enrolling in teacher training programmes for the first time, that's dropped by 51% between 2010 and 2023. We're simply not producing enough teachers to replenish the teaching workforce. He said teaching was not the attractive career prospect it once was. Those who'd chosen it felt undermined, undervalued and underpaid.   But what about the holidays I hear you ask? Those teacher only days? The cushy 9-3 hours? Well, as anyone who has a teacher in the family knows, these are not long, lovely days of rest and relaxation, especially when the only constant in the education sector is change; changes to curriculum, changes to the way they teach, changes to the way children are evaluated and tested. Yes, it is annoying when schools close at the hint of a raindrop and yes, it causes eyebrows to raise when teacher only days happen on the last day before a public holiday, but anyone who has children or grandchildren in school, and anyone who has a teacher in the family knows that dedicated teachers are putting in the time and the nurturing and the professionalism that make our kids' lives better.   At the school that my little ones go to they've had school discos, and movie and pizza nights, and art exhibitions, and sports competitions, and Matariki festivals, and school productions (the production ran over a week), and that's just in the last couple of months. And that's on top of the hours spent in the classroom. And these are the teachers who are ensuring that they’re a success, putting in their late nights away from their families and their friends to ensure the kids get an incredible experience at school, which is why they want to go to school. They're out of bed, leaping into their uniform, and they cannot wait to go to school, and that's because of their teachers.   So what is it about teaching that used to be attractive and why is it no longer appealing? The kind of good news is that it's not a specifically New Zealand problem, in fact, very few of our problems are.  Secondary Principals Association President Vaughan Couillault says there is a global teaching shortage.  “If you go into teacher training and you go on your first practicum, you know in the first half a day whether this bag is for you, and so it is a calling but also it's a global situation. So we're, we're pretty harsh in New Zealand looking at ourselves and going ‘good grief what’re we doing wrong?’ Actually, there's a global teacher shortage. I was talking to my offsider in Australia who does the same thing as me over there, they've got exactly the same conditions that we've got. I was talking to a guy in the UK recently, the teacher shortage in the UK is extreme, so it's a global phenomenon where people aren't going into teaching. It is becoming more challenging with regard to the non-curriculum based demands that are being placed on the school sector across the globe. It's a fantastic job.”  Well, it is. It is a fantastic job. Any job is fantastic when you love it, when you love going to work, when you want to do the job, and you feel a calling to do it. And I would agree with Vaughan that it is in fact a calling. It's more than just turning up, going through the motions and getting a paycheck. It's a service job, and maybe that's the problem. Are young people no longer interested in service jobs like nursing, like teaching, like social work? Because they want to be the next big thing on TikTok? They want to do hair and makeup because that's much more glamorous than wiping snotty noses and taking children to the toilet who haven't yet been toilet trained or being dissed and disrespected by teenagers. There has to be something above and beyond the job to make you want to be a nurse, a social welfare worker, a police officer, a teacher, the traditional service jobs.   Perhaps too, in the olden days like 2010, as a teacher you earned enough to pay the bills. These days, perhaps you don't. If you're a young teacher trying to look after a family, there would need to be another income coming in, and you certainly couldn't do it on one income – although I'm struggling to think of a job at the moment where you could just go just beyond one wage, especially living in the city. It might be okay if you are out of the main centres.   Is it the pay that's putting people off? Is it the fact that teachers have to be all of the service jobs I mentioned? Not only do they have the duty of teaching, they also have to be police officers, social welfare workers and nurses, psychological counsellors. If they were just allowed to teach and do what they trained for, would that be sufficient to get people back into the job? Or those who've left the profession to encourage others into it? Generally teachers follow teachers, follow teachers. You know, if you have a mother or a father that was a teacher, somebody in the family tends to follow suit. Is that what is happening within your family? I would love to hear from those of you who do have some experience of teaching either with children at school or a teacher in the family.   What is it that the profession needs to do to market itself as an attractive one for young people? Or are service jobs just not doing it for the kids anymore? They want the bright lights, they want a bit of fun, they want a bit of pizzazz, and teaching is not that. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.