Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Do you know who’s to blame for the high school teacher shortage we’re hearing about today? You are. I am, as well. We’re both to blame. Because, whether you’re a parent or not, we have done an absolutely brilliant job of putting people off wanting to become a teacher. And it’s a weird mix of us doing too much of some stuff and too little of other stuff. And the outcome is 346 full-time vacancies unfilled just weeks out from the new school year. Now I know you might be thinking "oh yeah, we hear this every year from the unions. They take every opportunity to bang on about needing more pay, more resources blah blah blah.” But it’s not just the unions speaking out. There’s a principal in the news saying that in the 16 years he’s been in the job, there’s only been one where he’s started the year without enough teachers. Looks like this could be his second.   So why am I putting the blame on us? Because that’s not what the unions are saying. It’s certainly not what the government is saying, either. As if they would. So why am I saying it? I’m saying it because parents - and I’m one of them (our three are in their early 20s now) but, yep, I know I’ve been guilty over the years of poking my nose in - probably a bit too much. Not as badly as other parents - but I’m guilty. And what we’ve done in the process, is we have piled so many expectations and pressure on teachers that we are driving them nuts. We think that we deserve one-on-one time with them whenever we want it. So much so, that some schools have had to put a ban on parents barging into the classroom before or after school to “have a word”. We’ve been banging on the door, writing emails. The way some parents behave, you could describe it as harassment of teachers. This is the part of my argument where we have done “too much”, and it's part of the reason why I think we have to carry the blame for people not wanting to be teachers. Another part of my “too much” argument is the expectations we have placed on teachers and schools to provide not just an education but full-scale social services. As well as all the moaning about all the holidays they, supposedly, get - and let’s not forget all the tut-tutting over the keep cups about teacher-only days. Who would want to be a teacher with all that going on? Not me. As for the “too little” bit —this is where you and I have put people off wanting to be teachers by not doing enough— this is all about our lack of support and advocacy for teachers. And this is broad. At one end, you’ve got the way people are always far too busy to put their hand up to help out with anything at school. You’ll know as much as I do that the ones who do are always the same faces, and they get sick of it eventually. At the other end —on a broader level— we have done an absolutely hopeless job of standing up for our teachers. And there is an absolutely prime example. We have quietly sat-by and allowed to happen what I think is the most damaging thing that’s ever been done to our education system - the modern learning environment. The modern learning environment has been —in my opinion— an absolute disaster. And you and I - we’ve allowed it to happen. It gets moaned about, but no one ever takes it to the next level. The fact that teachers have been forced to teach kids in these barn-like settings with tents and bean bags and noise. Again, who would want to be a teacher in that kind of set-up? I wouldn’t!  But we have allowed the Ministry of Education to force these monstrosities on schools. Sure, we might have had a rant about it to our mates - but that’s all we’ve done. And by stopping there, we have let teachers down big-time. And by letting teachers down big time by not advocating for them as much as we should —and by placing such unrealistic expectations on them— by doing too much of some stuff and not enough of other stuff - we have done a first-class job of telling people to forget about being teachers.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s a belief we're still yet to reap the benefits of having inflation under control.  Latest Stats NZ figures show the inflation rate for the year to December was 2.2%, unchanged from September.  Inflation is well down on the once-in-a-generation high of 7.3% of just two and a half years ago.  The Herald's Liam Dann told John McDonald we're still yet to see many prices come down.  He says rents are still up for example, but they should be coming down with a struggling property market.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"We will be the envy of every nation and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer. I will, very simply, put America first."   And with that, Donald Trump —the 47th US president— probably sent a chill down the spines of truckloads of people around the world.   And a chill down the spines of some people within America too - because, some Americans, he won’t be putting first. Which I’ll get to.   But do you know what? There was no chill down my spine when I listened to him.   Well, that’s not quite correct. There was probably a draught, but there was certainly no chill.    Because just like last year when he won the election —when I said that it’s very easy to jump on the hysteria bandwagon over Trump— that’s how I’m feeling too now that it’s happened and he’s the president.    I still generally think that. Although there are a couple of things he’s been saying today that have me thinking. But let’s see what happens. That’s what I meant when I said there was a draught down my spine instead of a chill.   But generally, when it comes to how I’m feeling about the next four years with him in the White House, I’m more intrigued than anything.   Yes, it will be weird at times, but that’s as bad as it’s going to get. For me, anyway, living here in New Zealand.   That does come with a few provisos, though.    Number one: I’m not an exporter - so I’m not going to be directly affected by any trade tariffs that he might bring in.   I do know though that —if it happens— we will all be affected in some way, shape or form, because when exporters do well, we all do well.    And when exporters don’t do well - we all feel it.   But, as anyone who has exported anything knows, there are always challenges to overcome. So, let’s wait and see what comes of that.    But overall, you’ve got to give it to him - he’s not shy on ambition.   He’s talking already about getting an American flag on Mars. The weird bit about that is he says it’s possible because America split the atom.   Now, this might be a bit of parochial New Zealand coming through, but I’m pretty sure it was Ernest Rutherford who did that.   And he wasn’t American. He was born in Brightwater, near Nelson.    He went to school in Nelson, went to university in Christchurch and then headed off overseas and did the splitting of the atom thing at the University of Manchester, in Britain.   But Donald Trump is never one to let the facts get in the way of anything.   He’s been banging on about the US “taking back” the Panama Canal because, at the moment, China’s operating it and there can’t be any more of that nonsense.   I’m paraphrasing the president there but that’s the gist of it. He says: “It is time for us to act with courage and vigour”.   And no surprises, he’s announced that he’s going to re-name the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”. But he was talking about that last week, wasn’t he?   So a lot of bluster. But here’s the bit where things get a bit ugly.    President Trump says his government will only recognise two genders: male and female. He’s going to stop the “social engineering” of “race and gender into every part of life.”   And he’s promising to bring back free speech by stopping all censorship.    Which is all stuff from the “go woke - go broke” manual. And that’s the bit I’m not liking.   Because even though I’m not part of the LGBTQIA+ community, why on earth would you refuse to recognise the way someone identifies?   Of course, there’ll be no shortage of people cheering Trump on, on this one. There’ll be no shortage of people, either —like me— who see this sort of talk from the new president as something from an age long gone.   But —despite those things— even though there are a few things that President Trump said this morning that I don’t like, I’m still feeling pretty relaxed about it all. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you believed the Prime Minister when he said yesterday that he still has confidence in the now-former health minister Shane Reti, you will believe anything. Let’s face it, though, he couldn’t have said anything different. But whether you believe it or not - that’s another thing. And I don’t. Because he clearly doesn’t - or he clearly doesn’t have as much faith in Shane Reti as he used to. Otherwise, Simeon Brown wouldn’t be the new health minister. And who would want to be Simeon Brown? Being the minister of health, you’re on a hiding to nothing. And who would want to be working in the health system? I wouldn’t. Because, trust me, it’s about to get ugly. I know people working in health might say “it’s pretty ugly already mate”. In fact, one person I know who works pretty high up in the health system - and who is a big advocate of the public system - they’ve been telling anyone who will listen that they should be getting private health insurance. If they can afford it, of course. So here’s why I think things are about to get ugly - or uglier - with Simeon Brown in charge of health. Christopher Luxon says he’s given him the job because he “gets things done”. Which is a term that drives me nuts because this whole idea of “getting things done” says nothing about quality or improvement. It’s just ticking things off the to-do list. Or ticking things off the quarterly plan. And Simeon Brown has form. He’s got a track record from the other ministerial roles he’s had so far where he gets stuff done by telling people what they’re going to do. Local government. He’s made it very clear to local councils who is running the shop. And it’s not them. Transport .He’s flying in the face of what the experts say about speed and he’s going to increase speed limits. And, as of yesterday’s announcement, Dunedin can kiss goodbye to the hospital the people thought they were getting and the hospital they still want to get. Because the Prime Minister is going to be putting Simeon on a plane south to bang some heads together. Which is what the Prime Minister was really saying yesterday. It might’ve sounded like he was saying that the new health minister got the job because he gets stuff done. But what he really meant, was that Simeon’s got the gig because he’s good at banging heads together. Don’t get me wrong - he does get stuff done. But is that really the approach we should be taking when it comes to something as critical as our health system? I don’t think it is. Not that I think Shane Reti was up for the job, either. Last year I ended up in hospital for a night after some pretty bad complications from a flu bug I picked-up travelling back from the UK. And if you ask me how I felt about that experience - it was brilliant. Sure, I would have preferred not to be there in the first place. But I couldn’t have asked for more. And, a lot of the time, from what I hear people say - it seems that most are pretty happy - if not delighted - with the care they receive in hospital. Trick is, though, that’s once they get in the door. Get in the door of your local hospital and, generally, you’re fine. The only proviso I would put on that is that I live in New Zealand’s second-largest city and I know things - even once you’re through the door - can be a bit average at some of our smaller hospitals. Take Dargaville hospital. Last year there was that issue with no doctors on the wards overnight. That had been going on for a few months and the nurses weren’t happy about it. And poor old Shane Reti was in the firing line. Pouring cold water on rumours that the whole place was going to be shut down. But, of course, hospitals are only part of the health system. I heard Bryan Betty, who heads the organisation representing GPs, was saying that he thought Shane Reti had been doing a pretty good job. Which is another reason why I think Simeon Brown is on a collision course. Because even though the Prime Minister didn’t like the pace Shane Reti was working at - and even though I don’t think Shane Reti was all that good as a health minister - I don’t think Simeon Brown’s approach is going to do us any favours at all. Because Mr Get-Stuff-Done is also going to be Mr Get-Peoples-Backs-Up. And that’s not going to do anyone any favours. It’s not going to you any favours. It's not going to me any favours. And it’s certainly not going to do anyone working in the health system any favours. But if Simeon Brown proves me wrong - and if he does manage to get people on-side and does manage to make the health system better than it is now - then I’ll be the first to acknowledge it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"It was the right thing for the UK": Boris Johnson 'unapologetic' about Brexit  Boris Johnson is unapologetic about taking his country out of the European Union.   He's in New Zealand for a speaking event and to promote his book 'Unleashed'.   The former British Prime Minister says while there was panic about Brexit at the time, in the long term it's been good for the UK.   He told Kerre Woodham that the split from the EU came in handy during the Covid pandemic.    He says it allowed the country to get early access to vaccines before other European countries.  Johnson says the massive Conservative loss in this year's UK General Election can't be blamed on him.   The Conservative Party's defeat by Keir Starmer's Labour was one of its worst-ever losses.   Johnson told Woodham had he and Rishi Sunak teamed up, it would have been a different result.   He says if they'd been able to put into action some things they'd planned, they would have wiped the floor with Starmer.  He's denied any responsibility for the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and says progress has been slow since he left office.  The former Prime Minister says it's "absolute bollocks" to suggest the UK could have a role in negotiating peace between Ukraine and Russia.  Johnson says the West has a pathetic paranoia about humiliating Vladimir Putin - and is too half-hearted in helping Ukraine. He says he's fed up with hearing the nonsense idea we'd risk a nuclear confrontation.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s how I would sum up the Government’s changes to the free speech rules for universities. It wants more Posie Parkers and less posey political statements. Which I’ve got no problem with - but I don’t think it should stop at universities. I think the Government also needs to look at other public entities, such as local councils, which actually seem to be making more posey political statements than universities. Because, if the Government doesn’t want universities taking positions on things like the war in Gaza because - whatever position they take - won’t reflect the views of all staff and students, then the same could apply to local councils, couldn’t it? If a council boycotts Israel, for example, there’s no way everyone who works for these councils or who pays rates to these councils will agree, is there? Let me come back to that. But the gist of all this is that the Government wants two changes to the way universities deal with free speech. For starters: It wants them to stop being so antsy about having guest speakers coming onto campus who might upset a few people with their views. Which has seen some universities pull the plug on certain events. Massey University, for example, stopped Don Brash from giving a speech there once because of what one person described as his "separatist and supremacist rhetoric". A more recent example is Victoria University cancelling a freedom of speech debate this year because of concerns it would turn into a cesspit of hate speech. So the Government wants no more of that. Because it thinks universities are places where all sorts of ideas and thoughts should be shared and debated. And I agree with that. So that’s what I mean when I say it wants more Posie Parker. The other change it’s making to the regulations that universities operate under, is to stop them taking positions on matters that don’tdirectly relate to their core business of research and teaching. Now this is not something that is going to impact academics who enjoy what’s known as academic freedom - which pretty much means they can think and say what they want. Although some academics have questioned that in recent years, saying that they don’t feel as free to think and say what they want as they used to. But, essentially, what the Government wants to stop is universities - as institutions - taking a view or a stance on international issues, for example. Some of our universities have been under pressure to condemn Israel for what’s going on in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. But, as far as I’m aware, none of them have given-in to that pressure. The closest example I could find here in New Zealand is an announcement three months ago by Victoria University's fundraising arm - the Victoria University Foundation - that it would be getting rid of its Israeli government bonds and its shares in companies listed in Israel. So maybe this is a pre-emptive move by the Government, as much as anything. And it says the reason it’s doing this, is that if a university takes a stand on something - it doesn’t reflect the views of all staff and students, and that is unfair. So, if that’s the motivation, then I reckon the Government needs to come down just as hard on other public entities. Public entities which, at the moment, seem to be going harder on this thing than any of our universities. And I’m thinking, specifically, about local councils around the country which have been more than happy to pile-in on Israel this year, with decisions to boycott companies which operate in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Christchurch City Council has done it. Environment Canterbury regional council has done it. And Nelson City Council’s done it. They’re the ones I’m aware of. There might be others. But, if we apply the argument the Government’s using to stop universities taking positions on global issues - because they won’t necessarily represent the views of all staff and students - then the same can be said of these local councils, can’t it? In Nelson, for example, after the council there voted to go with a boycott - there were some pretty fired-up locals. The mayor Nick Smith, who voted against it, got a whole lot of abuse too. And who says everyone working at these councils agrees with the position their employers have taken? They won’t. And who says everyone paying rates to these councils agrees with their anti-Israel positions? They don’t. Which is why I think the Government should be telling councils not to take political positions on issues outside their core business, just like it's telling the universities.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some people think the Government’s offer of a $150,000 rapid payment to Lake Alice torture survivors is an insult, but I think it’s a mistake.    Not because I don’t think compensation should be paid. It’s just that I don’t think the Government should be offering it right now for people who went to Lake Alice between 1972 and 1977 and went through electric shock treatment or had paraldehyde injections. And here’s why.   Remember last month when the Prime Minister formally apologised to the victims of abuse in state and religious care?   On the day that happened, some survivors of that terrible time in our country’s history weren’t happy that the Government didn’t say anything at the same time about redress or compensation.   As Christopher Luxon explained it, the Government needed to take the time to make sure it got the compensation scheme right and wouldn’t be making any announcement until early next year.    Which I thought was perfectly reasonable. I acknowledged at the time that it was probably easy for me to say that, given I hadn’t been through the living nightmare that those 200,000 people went through.   But I genuinely believed that the Government was taking the right approach. I still do for the simple reason that compensating people for horrific abuse isn’t something that can be rushed. Because, whatever the Government decides to do, it will be setting a precedent.   There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So, this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse ongoing.   Which is why I think it’s making a mistake offering money to the Lake Alice survivors right now. Even though some compensation has already been paid to some and that this money specifically relates to the torture that was done to them.    Because, just as some of them are saying the $150,000 is pitiful, there’ll be others who think it sounds alright, they’ll take the money and get on with their lives.    People like Robyn Dandy who is in the news today saying that she’s going to take the rapid payment of $150,000 because it will mean she can buy a house bus and travel around the South Island with her pets.    She’s saying today: "I'm happy. I'm glad it's going to come to an end now and we can just all relax and concentrate on the rest of our lives and a bit of happiness which I really believe we deserve now.   "I just think $150,000, why fight it? That's a lot of money for us now. We're all elderly. I can have my dream.”   So I imagine that she’ll be taking up the Government’s invitation to register for the payment this week. The money should be in her bank by March.   Whereas another survivor also in the news today, Malcolm Richards, feels very differently.   He says: “It’s pathetic. I’ve spent more than that fighting to this point.”   He says the compensation guidelines for wrongful imprisonment say someone could receive up to $150,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. And he thinks the Government should be offering Lake Alice survivors millions of dollars each.   Now, of course, different people will feel differently about whatever compensation offer is made - but, in this case, I think we need to see it as something of a canary in the mine.    The government Minister responsible, Erica Standford, says this is completely different and separate from the abuse in care compensation and most of the victims have received compensation but this is a new offer because the State has acknowledged that they were tortured.  Nevertheless, I still think the Government is jumping the gun making this offer to Lake Alice victims before it’s said anything about compensation or redress for abuse in care victims.   Because, while Robyn Dandy —who I mentioned earlier— might think that $150,000 is perfectly fine right now - what if the abuse in care survivors are offered more?   What if the likes of the guy who thinks $150,000 is pitiful manages to, eventually, get himself a better deal from the Government?   See what I mean? What’s being offered now might sound good, but she may feel differently down the track when she sees what other people start getting. And that’s why I think the Government is making a mistake doing what it’s doing.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If New Zealand was a company staring down the barrel of running at a loss for at least the next five years and finding itself needing to borrow $20 billion more than it thought it did just six months ago, it would be lights out, wouldn’t it?   And no amount of creative accounting could change that picture.   Essentially, that’s the state we find ourselves in after yesterday’s fiscal update from the Government. With pretty much the only good news coming out of it being in the housing market, and an expectation that it is going to come back to life the year after next.   Unfortunately, I think Dunedin can kiss goodbye to winning the fight over cutbacks to the new hospital. I think all the noise about the IT cutbacks at Health NZ will fall on deaf ears in the Beehive too.   But I also think that the Government is doing the right thing holding its nerve and I think doing a Ruth Richardson and going harder and faster on the spending cuts would be a disaster.   I was listening to independent tax expert Geoff Nightingale on Newstalk ZB this morning and one of the things he mentioned was how much of a role welfare costs are playing in the Government’s overall financial position.   Which is why I mention Ruth Richardson. It was 1991 and Ruth Richardson was Minister of Finance and delivered what is forever known as the “Mother of all Budgets”. Because it was brutal - especially for beneficiaries and families.   Unemployed people had their dole cut by $14 a week. Anyone on the sickness benefit ended up $25 worse off each week - in fact it was nearly halved, going from $52-a-week to $27-a-week.   Universal payments for family benefits were completely abolished. She also brought-in more user-pays in health and education. Remember that was something Labour’s Roger Douglas stated in the 80s but Ruth Richardson took it further.   And, 30 years later, Labour’s Grant Robertson delivered a budget that he said was increasing benefit payments to “right the wrongs” of Ruth Richardson’s 1991 budget.     Nevertheless, the Finance Minister is saying today that, despite the way things are, we’re not going to see the Government going harder and faster on the spending cuts because it has already made spending commitments to the public.   But she says re-prioritising spending will happen.   So it seems that Nicola Willis isn’t going to channel her inner Ruth Richardson and deliver the Mother of all Budgets Volume 2. Which I think is wise.   Not that I’m saying that the Government isn’t to blame for any of the shambles unveiled in yesterday’s update. As you’d expect, it’s pointing the finger at Labour - accusing it of economic vandalism, and how this just shows how much of a fix-it job it has on its hands.   And don’t get me started on the creative accounting we saw yesterday, which Treasury was against the Government doing in the first place, and which some economists think is a justifiable thing to do but still kind of cheeky.   I’m not going to get bogged down in numbers, but I can’t resist pointing out that part of the problem is the Government’s revenue from taxation being down.   Over four years it’s going to earn $13 billion less. The cost of this year’s income tax changes is going to be $14.5 billion over five years. Just saying. But the tax cuts horse has bolted and there’s no going back from there.    The other reason for the tax take being down is that businesses aren’t earning so much - which, of course, means they’re paying less tax too.   And that’s going to be a key thing for the Government —and Nicola Willis said so this morning— it needs to do what it can to stimulate economic growth. It will say that that’s what things like the fast track legislation will do, all of that stuff.   But it can't fix things with legislation alone, the Government needs to keep investing. Which is why it would be a terrible mistake for it to go all knee-jerk on it.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government thinks it’s getting all tough on it with local councils, but I think Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown are just tinkering around the edges and they need to go harder.   Instead of just telling the councils what they expect of them, they should be telling councils that, for some of them, their days are numbered.     But essentially what the Government’s doing is it’s waving the stick on behalf of ratepayers, saying that legislation changes are on the way that will force councils to focus on “the basics” as the Government likes to call them.   Which, on the face of it, most people who pay rates will love the sound of.   And I’m no different. I look at the ratepayer money that seems to go out the door from all these councils in all different directions and wonder what happened to all those promises about “zero rates increases if you vote for me”.   Not that I ever fall for that cheap talk.   And I think we know what the basics are that the Government wants these councils to focus on. It’s all the non-flashy things like making sure there’s safe water coming out of the taps, fixing the pipes, fixing the roads, building new ones, picking up the rubbish.    All the stuff that doesn't make council life all that exciting but is essential for every one of us, every day.   As for the flashy stuff —or the nice-to-haves— that’s what the Government wants councils to put the brakes on. One of the ways it’s going to make that happen is it’s going to make changes to the laws that councils operate under.   A big change is going to be removing the need for councils to think about these so-called social, economic, environmental and cultural “pillars” – because the Government thinks they’ve got councils involved in all sorts of non-essential stuff.    So, you know, “drop any big ideas about pouring ratepayer money into a big flash convention centre. Instead, stick in the ground, buy some new water pipes, get stuff done.”   That’s the message from Wellington.    Which the 2IC at the outfit that represents most councils in New Zealand —Local Government New Zealand— was sounding pretty diplomatic about it when he spoke to Newstalk ZB this morning.   Campbell Barry’s his name. It seems to me that any concerns he does have centres around this idea the Government has of bench-marking all the councils - comparing them against each other to see which ones are doing things the way the Government wants them to and which ones aren’t.   But all this is going to do is it’s going to create a truckload of dashboard reports, more admin and do you really think councils are going to be able to achieve what the Government wants?   Of course they’re not, because councils being councils, they get pulled in all sorts of directions by people demanding this and demanding that, and all your local councillors care about is not brassing people off so much that they stuff their chances of getting re-elected.   67 councils in a country the size of New Zealand is sometimes portrayed as a very good thing because it means you have people sitting around the council tables who really know their communities.   But I don’t see that as a virtue at all. In fact, I see that as an impediment. And the fact we have so many councils is something the Government should be doing something about.   Forget about your benchmarking and dashboard reports and big sticks - we are overdue in this country for some serious amalgamations of local councils.   Why do Napier and Hastings need their own councils? Answer: they don’t. Why does Christchurch need three councils? Answer: it doesn’t.   In Auckland, maybe the super city model hasn’t been everything it was cracked up to be, but it looks a much better option than a truckload of tinpot councils all being corralled by central government and told to get back to basics.   The Government needs to show some fortitude and it needs to reduce the number of local councils we have in New Zealand, because 67 is way too many.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christopher Luxon says he wants nothing to do with the Greens while he's Prime Minister.  Luxon's confirmed a National-Greens Coalition wasn't off the cards when James Shaw was co-leader of the Green Party.  But he says the party has changed significantly under new leadership.  The Prime Minister told Kerre Woodham he had great respect for Shaw and his commitment to the environment, and would have been prepared to work with him.  But he says the Greens have since moved to what he calls a more "socialist" position.  Luxon says the Government has not handled changes to Oranga Tamariki contracts well.   A children's charity is suing the Ministry for allegedly cancelling a $21 million contract which still has two-and-a-half years to run.   Stand Tū Māia says losing funding will end the service, which has a 100 year history of providing trauma care for children and whanau.  Luxon told Woodham the organisation has done some great work.   He says the matter is before the court so he can't comment much, but he has raised the issue with the Children's Minister this week.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.