Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

I heard Mike Hosking this morning talking about the significant pay rise expected to be given to professional firefighters later this year.   Firefighters will get a 24 per cent wage increase under a $145 million settlement agreed upon by Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) and the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU) today. It signals the end of a gruelling 18 months of negotiations that could be coming to a close. The draft collective has yet to be ratified by the union members, a process expected to be completed by the end of the year. Firefighters have walked off the job twice this year amid six-month-long industrial action as they attempted to gain guaranteed mental health and wellbeing programmes as well as ongoing access to psychological professionals.  It wasn't just about the money - NZPFU and FENZ have agreed to provide life-saving blood screening for the early detection of firefighters’ occupational cancer and other illness, as well as medical response recognition for firefighters and dispatchers.   They have also agreed to provide psychological support and a supervision programme for firefighters and dispatchers.   FENZ chief executive Kerry Gregory said the now acceptable proposal was only made possible due to Government funding.   Minister of Internal Affairs Jan Tinetti revealed today the Government has agreed to provide funding support of a $75.4 million repayable capital injection to FENZ.  Hosking was critical of the pay rise not because he doesn't believe firefighters aren't worth it, but because at a time of high inflation, a 24 per cent pay rise funded by the Government, sends the wrong signal.  Adrian Orr has said to stop spending - the Government is giving a significant sum of money to firefighters which inflames the wage price cycle.  But why on earth should ordinary Kiwis pay the price for the significant stuff ups of others?  It is going to be a tough year ahead for your ordinary, average, mortgage-paying New Zealander.  Some will lose their jobs.  Some will lose their homes. Through absolutely no fault of their own.  They haven't been slack or spendthrift.  They will just fall victim to a recession that is being deliberately engineered by people earning $500,000 - $700,000 a year.  And their wages are paid by the very people who will be the real life collateral damage of their decision making.  Where is the accountability for well-paid public servants who cock things up and then expect other people to pay the price?  Sure, we can vote governments out if we think they have made terrible decisions that will impact the country for generations, but that hardly seems punishment enough.  But what about the Treasury, the Reserve Bank, the Health Department - all of those people in high-paying jobs who will never know the sick dread of seeing mortgage payments rise beyond their ability to pay, the fear of wondering whether they'll be able to find another job at 50.  Why on earth should the ordinary average Kiwi who never had a say about these decisions have to pay the price. Where will the 24 per cent come from to pay the firefighters?  Let the decision makers take a 25 per cent pay cut for getting it wrong. They should pay for their mistakes, not us.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You may have seen this documentary on television last night, Patrick Gower's latest offering is "On All The Drugs".   The doco attempts to answer a very broad and complex question: should we decriminalise drugs in New Zealand? Gower presented a variety of perspectives, from that of Australian MP Karen Andrews who’s firmly in the “war on drugs” camp, to University of London’s Professor David Nutt, who argues that taking MDMA is less dangerous than riding a horse. Paddy Gower joined Kerre Woodham in studio. LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

First up, the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Finally, finally, the Government has acceded to requests from a number of different agencies and parties to launch a royal inquiry into the Government's handling of the Covid pandemic. Do not hold your breath waiting for the findings. Given the scope and breadth of the inquiry, it'll be mid-2024 before we can see any kind of official report.   It is being led by Australian-based epidemiologist Professor Tony Blakely, former cabinet Minister Hekia Parata and former Treasury Secretary John Whitehead. So they've got the chops. They know their stuff. They know the way government departments work. They know their particular specialties and there aren't too many of them, so they'll be able to cut through. All the B.S. hopefully.   But at least there will be a playbook. At least there will be an official record of a when the world went crazy, when there wasn't any institutional knowledge of how to deal with a global pandemic. Everybody was doing it based on theory, based on historical precedent, when the world was vastly different to the way it is today. I mean, hopefully by the time the next global pandemic arrives this will be slightly old fashioned. It will be out if date, it will be an historic record. But we can't take that for granted. We have to be prepared. We have to be forward-looking as tempting as it is to find a scapegoat.  I think, to have a panel of this caliber who appear to be impartial, who have the chops to be able to take on a huge job … I mean, Professor Blakely said he didn't think twice about it because he knew just how big it was going to be. I think to have a playbook for how to deal with future pandemics with a record of what worked, what didn't and suggestions on what could be done better, will be invaluable for the country. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I hope you had a great weekend if you were at Billy Joel, wasn't it fabulous?! What a showman. What an amazing performer. I mean, Eden Park is not ideal acoustically, I guess for somebody like Billy, but he made it work. The crowd made it work. It was a wonderful, wonderful experience.  So if you were lucky enough to go as I was, then I hope you had a great night. We looked at getting a bus. My daughter and I attended the concert and we looked at getting a bus from the North Shore because we thought that would be easy.  But then when Kate looked up the timetable, it was going to be an hour and a half to get there. Which you know, it's a long time to be spending on a bus. Long time to be spent on any form of transportation when it's only a few kilometres away, so we got an Uber and were there in 20.   When Michael Wood is trumpeting the $350 million transport choices package, which he claims people are just gagging for, desperate to see 397 new or upgraded bus stops.  Clamouring for 242 kilometres of cycleways to encourage the uptake of cycling. Begging for more walkable neighbourhoods. I'm like: are they? Are they really Michael?  So 46 councils across New Zealand, from large cities to small provincial towns, will receive funding so that the communities have more transport options. He said the Government is upgrading NZ transport infrastructure system to make it safer, greener and more efficient for now, and future generations to come. And you know, good to be able to future-proof. Cities and towns. But it's got to be efficient. It's got to be efficient.  This whole alternate universe that's out there where you've got New Zealanders screaming for public transport -  I just don't see it. But maybe that's just me. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's backed down on a highly controversial element of its Three Waters reforms. It's dumping the entrenchment clause against water privatisation, which was voted through under urgency. Leader of the House Chris Hipkins says entrenchment was a mistake, and had wider implications that Government isn't comfortable with. It'll be ditched as soon as the House resumes tomorrow. Hipkins has written to both National and ACT seeking confirmation they'll also protect water assets from privatisation. ACT leader David Seymour joined Kerre Woodham. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Not much of a feel-good Friday I'm afraid, given the report from Dame Karen Poutasi on the glaring errors and failings made by multiple Government agencies that resulted in the death of Malachi Subecz.  Most of us I think have a dead child that's ours. The one whose story we remember. Whose name we will never forget. Mine is Delcelia Witika.  She's would have been the same age as my daughter had she not died alone in her filthy cot in agony, from internal injuries inflicted upon her by her mother's boyfriend while her mother was out partying up.   I have talked about this for more than 30 years. I gave up writing columns about child abuse for the Herald on Sunday because I just felt sick … nothing, nothing I was doing made a difference. All it did was assuage my pain. Nothing I did was making any sort of difference. All the talking, all the hand wringing, all the tears and gorgeous wee kids are still dying. Brutal horrifying deaths literally at the hands of the people who are supposed to protect them.    Ultimately, it is the families who are responsible for these children. Don't try and palm it off onto an agency onto an underpaid, overworked caseworker. Your baby, your responsibility. But there is something wrong when six agencies are involved and all of them fail. When multiple concerns are raised and nothing happens, other than the child dies, which is inevitable. People could see that it was going to happen and it did. But again, this has been happening time and time and time again.   I don't know the answer, I don't know what to do because if I knew of a child being abused, I would step in. You and I are wired differently. We cannot understand how anyone can hurt a vulnerable, defenceless child Our instincts are to protect that child at all costs. I can't even imagine the strength that would take to hurt a 5 year old when I look at the bruiser that's in our family. This robust, healthy, strong little guy who lives everyday as if it's a gift.  That's how all our children should be.   I really didn't want to talk about this today because I have talked about it for years and nothing has changed. Honestly, if you were a caseworker for Oranga Tamariki you would have to wonder why you get out of bed in the morning. All the reports, all the talk, all the hand wringing, all the money donated for what? Nothing has changed. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A damning report into the murder of five-year-old Malachi Subecz by his carer has found five critical gaps in the system. It makes 14 recommendations aimed at ensuring there are interlocking safety nets in place, so another child doesn't endure the same thing. A key recommendation is mandatory reporting from people in the field of suspected child abuse, which Cabinet will consider next year.   Child Matters CEO Jane Searle joined Kerre Woodham. LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I was listening to Agriculture Minister Damien O'Connor this morning on the Mike Hosking breakfast as he big-upped our primary industry exports. About how they do reach a new record high of $55 billion in 2023, that they’re tracking strongly towards a 4 percent increase in the year ending June 2023, despite the global downturn. Damien O'Connor says there's some comfort knowing that demand for food and fiber should remain strong throughout any economic downturn. So New Zealand’s economy remains better positioned when compared to others. Dairy remains our largest export. Our sheep and beef sector remains strong. Horticulture export revenue is expected to grow. Strong demand continues for our processed food, and we expect parable export revenue to grow 5 percent. This is all just wonderful news!  Seafood export revenue is forecast to increase 4 percent, despite taking a substantial hit at the start of the pandemic. According to the Minister, hard work combined with strong demand is seeing a swift and continued recovery and export revenue. Forestry export revenue is set to increase and the result is to be commended. And the relevant minister said the forestry sector should be acknowledged, especially over a tough year and in the face of a global slowdown in construction and corresponding lower demand for our logs. It shows remarkable resilience. So it was just in those final two to three paragraphs, that you had Stuart Nash commend the sector for its resilience. You had David Parker talk about the seafood exporters taking a substantial hit, but their hard work combined with strong demand, is seeing a swift and continued recovery, and then finally, finally, finally you get Damian O'Connor saying “as we head into the festive season, I'd like to acknowledge the more than 360,000 people working in our food and fiber sector and what they've achieved for New Zealand over the past year. Their efforts brighten our future.”   Now call me a churlish old tart, but seriously, where's the thank you? To me, an acknowledgement is simply not enough. If I was running a Miss Manners school for cabinet ministers, I would say in light of the fact that we've got record growth in an industry that has been absolutely slammed by this very Government, acknowledgement wouldn't quite cut it. No minister, see your speech. I see you've acknowledged the 360,000 people. At the Miss Manners School of etiquette for cabinet ministers, I'd say no, we can do better than that. We can say to the 360,000 people working in the food and fiber sector, thank you so very much. We know that you are working in an incredibly difficult environment. We have made it difficult. And we have made enormous demands of you while you go about your business. It has been challenging. It's been tough; at times it's been bloody lonely. And we, the Government, in part have been responsible for that. We have not made things easy for you. Despite this, the quality and reputation of your product, your own hard work, your incredible resilience, has resulted in record export sales and will likely go a very long way to save our sorry behinds this year and next. Thank you all very much.   See, that's what I’d have written as the Agriculture Minister. And I don't think it's over the top. When you have listened to what these people have been through, these men and women, who have basically propped up this country while others squander the money that they earn. I don't think it's unreasonable to say thank you. Acknowledge? You acknowledge something has occurred, that happened, huh? Well you look at that record growth. I thank you. I think is at the very least what our primary producers deserve across the board.  So you know, I've read the speech. There's a little bit of a hard work and resilience from Nash, from Parker. And acknowledgement from Damien O'Connor. What everybody involved in those sectors deserves is a standing ovation and a round of applause. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well wouldn't you know it, over the last few days, all of a sudden, the Government has become concerned about the victims of crime. Not just trying to love the ones who commit it into submission.   The focus seems to have switched. The police too are saying they're focused on catching criminals and what's more, they prepared to do tough things to catch them. Quite the seismic shift.   Police top brass have announced they'll be reviewing their fleeing driver policy after officers reported feeling frustrated and powerless to stop suspects, once those aforementioned suspects were behind the wheel of a car, stolen or otherwise.   In a shocking narrative twist I bet you didn't see coming, police data shows there's been an increase in fleeing drivers and a decrease and identifying those drivers! Shock me to my very core! In the four months after the policy was introduced, police laid charges in 42 percent of cases. In the four years before the policy was changed, police caught about 70 percent of drivers. Colour me shocked. The failure to pursue fleeing drivers, though, has meant a reduction in crashes.   I mean, basically, we have to decide, don't we? There were a group of people who felt that too many car chases were resulting in deaths on the road. To be honest, I'm only really concerned about the innocents. If you're the perp behind the wheel and you're thinking you're having the biggest thrill in the whole wide world, there are consequences. If you are driving a vehicle too fast, you have absolutely no control over it because you're giving one to the pigs and you crash. You know, I'm sure your family will morn you. It's the innocents on the road that I'm really concerned about.   I would hate to be a police officer watching kids who know the system, who know how to play the system, who know it better than your average lawyer giving it to me. Swaggering out to their stolen car and taking off. That would be soul-destroying. So sure, change the policy.   You tell people they can get away with it and they'll keep pushing. You tell people that oh, there are some consequences, but there aren’t that many, they’ll keep pushing it. It is just common nature. That's what they do. And that's what they've seen. That they can get away with it, and so they will keep getting away with it until you draw a line in the sand and as a community you say no more, no more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The controversial Three Waters Bill, which the Government hopes to pass through Parliament in time for Christmas it throw up another interesting and unusual issue last week - the question of entrenchment.  Entrenchment is a tool that is normally reserved for constitutional matters, governing how our elections run, for example: things like the voting age or the length of a parliamentary term or the method of voting and how electorates are drawn up.  So, issues that require more than a bare majority of MPs to change. Therefore, it was quite a surprise to see a last-minute clause in the Three Waters Bill last week, meaning any future law change allowing public water assets to be sold would require a vote of 60% of Parliament or a successful public referendum - entrenchment in other words.  It means a super majority of 72 MPs, more than the usual majority of 61 MP’s would be needed by Government to change the prospective law in the future.  One of the major concerns of Three Waters is the privatisation of water assets and the loss of control in revenue. So surely this might sound like a step in the right direction to some of you. You may think so, and I'd like to know whether it gives you more faith in this bill, because this is a major concern. We don't want to lose control of our water assets and the revenue. But actually, in a way, this is not about the Three Waters Bill. This is a major overreach by the Government to use entrenchment in this situation. When laws are created in New Zealand by the Government of the day, they had done so in the knowledge that the Government of tomorrow are free to come along and undo them. That is part of our constitutional setup and the concern here is, of course, that it could open the door for more laws to be similarly entrenched in the future.  The future of our water ownership is really important, but it is still a matter of policy. Should we be using this tool of entrenchment in a situation like this? No other law requires such a majority for it to be overturned. It's no light issue. It does actually require serious debate. And the Government's determination to get the Three Waters bill rushed through Parliament at this stage with urgency has a sense of desperation to it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.