Avsnitt
-
New Zealand police officers have overwhelmingly rejected the government's latest pay offer and have given the government one last chance to lift its game. The latest offer was put to the vote on April the 8th by the New Zealand Police Association. More than 75% voted against the offer. That is overwhelming. President Chris Cahill said the outcome sends a clear message to the government that the offer falls well short of addressing officers' concerns and very real needs. Police Minister Mark Mitchell was on with Mike Hosking this morning and says the rejection is an incredibly disappointing outcome.
“In terms of where we are at the moment as a country, which is, we're basically broke in terms of the massive borrowing that was implemented by the previous government. The fact that we're paying $8.5 billion in interest. I mean I could increase our police service three times over with that money. And so, we've put together a package that is a quarter of a billion dollars better than the offer that went forward in August.”
That was Mike Mitchell talking to Mike Hosking this morning.
Look, I have every sympathy for the government inheriting the books they did, the debt they did. I have every sympathy for the government for inheriting pay negotiations that should have been settled under the previous administration, but the police should not have to bear the brunt of an economy that's been mishandled. With all due respect to Mark Mitchell, that is neither here nor there.
The police shouldn't have to care about the economy. They're suffering the impact of a mishandled economy the same way we all are, but it's not their concern. They don't have to carry the can because the economy's down the toilet. The last pay rise police had was two years ago at 3.5%. Inflation that year was 7.2%. So, they've been sold a pup basically. They were let down by the previous administration, but there were many promises during the election campaign that they would be supported. Law and order was a huge issue in 2023 and was given even more prominence than it normally is during any old election campaign, and with good reason.
Mark Mitchell and National, Christopher Luxon promised to crack down on crime, neuter the gangs and support the police. Along with the economy, that was one of their biggest platforms, law and order. The fact that the police had been let down and that they would restore faith for the police and restore the kind of mana the police once eroded under years of, I would say not ‘neglected’ so much, certainly more police were added to the ranks, but you had police ministers that didn't particularly want to be there other than Stuart Nash, and it seemed to be on a high rotate. It didn't seem to be. a portfolio that was given much prominence by the previous administration and national capitalised on that in the election campaign. When Christopher Luxon was in studio with me a couple of weeks ago, I put it to him that he owed the police a decent pay off offer after all the tub thumping.
“We tried to put an enhanced offer in just after, you know, month or so ago, and then we put another new offer on the table just at the end of last week, which you know has been taken out there. I can't really go into the details of that because in fairness, the police are actually all going to digest that objectively themselves and make their own individual decisions as to whether that's something they do want to support or not. But I'm hopeful because the government has put in hundreds of millions of dollars more on the table in order to make sure that we can put our best foot forward in that negotiation. We back our police; we want them to do well.”
Well, pay them more then. Give them the respect that they're due. When you are using the men and women in blue as a marketing tool, as a call to action for all New Zealanders, then I think police can quite rightly expect to see that support come about in a tangible way. With a decent employment offer. The latest one, the one that Christopher Luxon was talking about, hundreds of millions of dollars, well, $250 million, so yes, technically it was hundreds of millions, was rejected by 75% of the police who are members of the Police Association. So no, not even close to good enough.
If it was Poto Williams in charge, sure you wouldn't have much in the way of expectations. But when you have a former cop in the form of Mike Mitchell, and you have a former cop and Police Association advocate, Casey Costello in charge of the portfolio, you would expect more than platitudes. I do not blame the police for being brassed off, and all. They were led to believe, they were told to believe, that under this government, things would be different. That hasn't happened.
Mark Mitchell saying that the economy is in a parlous state, so what? Yes, it is. So, make the savings somewhere else. I'm assuming that MPs won't be accepting their pay rise, that they will introduce legislation, which they can do, to turn it down. To say look, I'm sorry under these conditions we simply cannot accept a pay rise. Take that money, give it to the police.
Obviously, it's not as simple as that, but seriously, if I was a police officer, I would be brassed off. You've been led to expect much and this government hasn't delivered. Kind words and passionate rhetoric do not pay the mortgage or the grocery bill.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
Back in the day when I lived in Ponsonby and it was only just starting to evolve as a shopping and cafe destination, we didn't have beggars per say. More, they were people who were living in community houses who would walk up and down the street, and they were simply absorbed into the community.
They were given cigarettes from the smokers who were sitting at the outside tables of the cafes that had established themselves. There was always a meal for them at many of the cafes and the restaurants that were popping up. There was a brush and comb set set aside at Servilles for one of the ladies, who would come in every morning at 10am, and asked to be made beautiful. And they would comb her hair and brush it, and somebody would spritz her with hairspray and off she'd go. They weren't part of the mainstream; they were living in community houses because they had various forms of mental illness, but they were part of the community, you knew their names, you could greet them. You sometimes got a response, sometimes didn't. But everybody knew who they were, and they belonged there. It's just simply not like that now.
And I don't know whether it's a chicken and the egg, whether we've got more uncaring, or they've got more volatile. The square pegs who live amongst us appear to have got a whole lot more aggressive. There's a woman in Ponsonby now, who screams foul-mouth invective all day, every day, while dragging a heavy suitcase behind her, and either cannot or will not engage if you say hello to her. It just means she'll turn and scream the cuss words at you.
There's a bloke who's been there forever, who just about gives me a cardiac infarction when I'm sitting at the lights musing about the day ahead, and all of a sudden there's a bang, bang, bang on the back window, or the side window, or the front window demanding money with menaces. Even if I had actual money in the car, which I very seldom do, I wouldn't give it to him, because he terrifies the living bejesus out of me for a moment while I'm sitting there.
Some of those begging outside supermarkets seem genuine souls. As I say, don't carry cash very often, but when I say that and offer to buy the man or woman lunch instead, the offer is gratefully accepted and the food is eaten immediately, after a thank you. Clearly, there are some who are hungry and have run out of means to feed themselves. What do we do with those amongst us, who feel they have to take to the streets to beg for money or food to get by?
Rotorua is seriously considering a bylaw banning begging after ten Aussie tourists were physically accosted at a cafe last week, and in one suburb in Christchurch, also this week, aggressive begging is making people fear for their safety. Residents are having to change their routines and stop visiting public spaces to avoid confrontation and they're looking to make rules around begging there too.
What happened to being able to absorb those members of the community who are different? Did they change or did we? Is that there are so many people on the streets now? Is it that so many of them are on drugs, and boozed to the eyeballs, and volatile? You don't know what they're going to do, even if you offer something in kindness, you don't know how it's going to be received. Are beggars seen as dangerous now rather than just odd? Are they unnecessarily parading their poverty? Going out of their way to make us feel uncomfortable?
‘There’s a welfare system there man, for the love of all its holy use it, get yourself out of my sight. Stop hassling me. I've already given through my taxes. If that's not enough, get a job.’ Is that the attitude now? Because a lot of the people that I've seen, don't look to me, I'm no expert, but they do not appear to me to be people who could hold down full-time jobs. They appear unable, not unwilling, but unable to hold down a full-time job, in that case, living in a big city you're probably going to have to depend on the kindness of strangers to get by.
In Christchurch, they’ve said don't give to people who ask. They're waiting outside shop entrances following people to their cars, trying to convince them to cough up cash. And the only reason they're doing that is because people are giving them money. So basically, the Christchurch councillor appears to be saying don't give them anything. Treat them like pigeons. If you feed them, they'll keep coming, so don't. He said, if you've got a kind heart, donate money to the city mission or a social agency that's working in these spaces rather than give money direct. Which may well be the best way.
But I'd love to know in your area how big a problem is begging? It seems to be everywhere now, everywhere. And what changed? Is it the sheer weight of numbers of people wanting? Is it the attitude and the behaviour of those who are demanding money? Because there was a time, wasn't there, where they used to be part of the community.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
Inflation is continuing to ease, particularly for essentials.
Latest Stats NZ figures show the Consumer Price Index increased 4% in the year to March, down from 4.7% in the year to December.
Housing's been the biggest contributor to inflation and rents rose at the fastest rate since records began in 1999.
But the Herald's Liam Dann says the cost of most other day-to-day essentials are going up more slowly.
He says grocery prices are stabilising, and fruit and vegetables have actually got a lot cheaper.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
When I broke my arm just before the end of the year, I was very grateful to our health system for picking up the pieces, quite literally. They found a bit that was missing at the top of my arm that they weren't expecting, and put me back together again, and it's pretty much back to normal.
I'm very, very grateful for the skill, the ability and the kindness of North Shore Hospital, and I was grateful too for the part funding of the first few physio and acupuncture appointments. Those appointments have made a huge difference in getting back mobility, even though the taxpayer-funded part is now over, I will keep up the appointments because I can see the difference they're making. I'm grateful, too, to the taxpayer for the partial funding of those first physio appointments.
I never needed to use taxpayer funded taxes, though. While I couldn't drive, I found Uber’s far more convenient. I also had lots of friends in town who were lovely, and if I had to pay for Uber’s myself, well so be it - that is the price for convenience. Still, plenty of people are using taxis who are on ACC, or are they? Who would know?
ACC spends $35 million a year on taxis for injured clients, but in a Herald story today, the ACC can see they haven't conducted any audit of the companies that provide the taxi services. Because of course, no one would be rorting the system, would they? Never in the history of ACC has anyone rorted the system? Remember back in 2009? I remember all the hoo-hah about that.
The National government introduced a partial charge on physio visits that we're still paying today, because costs are blown out exponentially. The co-charging scheme was introduced in 2009 because Nick Smith, who was ACC minister at the time, said the free physiotherapy service introduced in 2004 had got out of control in just five years. Costs had gone from $58 million per year to $139 million in 2008. And since the service had become free, the number of clients in higher socioeconomic areas using physios had occurred disproportionately. Fix that golf swing, put it on ACC, go to the physio. Back giving you jip? Put it on ACC. Some of the physio costs were extraordinary, so Nick Smith said I smell a rort when I see one, visits will be limited, and you'll have to pay part charges after a certain time.
In 2008/2009 physiotherapy cost ACC Levy payers $144 million. That was back then. So, we've seen that any system without checks and balances can and will be rorted. Uber has the ability, the boss was showing us, to let them know all the details of staff travel by the month - where they went, what time, how much it cost, what the company business was, all that sort of thing. Basically, an audit on the spot.
I accept the taxi companies don't have that facility and not everyone needing transport through ACC has a smartphone or access to Uber, but surely the least we can expect is an audit of the taxi companies. You cannot tell me that all that money is spent, is being spent wisely and well and on people who need the service. I'd love to hear your experience of it. Numerous complaints have been made about the service. They don't turn up, they turn up late, if they turn up at all meaning some people are missing appointments because they're standing around waiting for their taxi. How many of you gave up on taxis as I did before I even started, and just used Ubers in the cities? It's easy enough.
Can we just have a little bit of accountability and responsibility when it comes to taxpayers' money, please? That's all I ask.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
Those suffering from Long Covid are afraid of what will happen to them under the Government’s benefit reset.
Social Development Minister Louise Upston announced that sanctions for those on the benefit will begin to ramp up from June.
Long Covid has left some suffering from symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, cognitive impairment, and severe pain, forcing them to leave work where they subsequently go on the Jobseeker Benefit.
Dr Jaimie Monk, Motu Research Fellow, suffers from Long Covid and told Kerre Woodham that when you have Long Covid you have a very limited budget of energy to spend on your life.
She said that it’s a different type of fatigue to simply being tired, and returning to work can be incredibly challenging as you have to be careful with the energy you’re spending.
Monk said that she knows people with Long Covid who are desperately trying to work part-time to support their families and never have space to recover, trapping them in a loop.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
As police in NSW work to establish the motives behind the knife attack at Sydney's Westfield Mall, that left six people dead, 12 in hospital, spare a thought for the families of the victims who were receiving texts up to minutes before all of a sudden, randomly, without any warning or notice their lives were gone. And spare thought too for the family of Joel Cauchi - because they have been left reeling too.
Cauchi was an itinerant with a history of mental illness. He wasn't always like that. His family released a statement over the weekend that spoke of their devastation. They said his actions were truly horrific. They are “devastated by the traumatic events that occurred”. Their thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims and those still undergoing treatment at the time.
“Joel's actions were truly horrific and we're still trying to comprehend what has happened. He has battled with mental health issues since he was a teenager. We have no issues with the police officer who shot our son, as she was only doing her job to protect others and we hope she is coping all right.”
A family in shock and in pain and their thoughts are with the victims and their families, the policewoman, but they too will be suffering. And I imagine there are many families in New Zealand who would have thought, but for the grace of God go our family.
Despite the billions of dollars that has been chucked at mental health care in recent times, there are so many people and so many families who struggle on a daily, hourly, minute by minute basis to get the care that they need or that their loved ones need. It needs to be stressed and reiterated and repeated that the vast majority of people with mental illness are more of a danger to themselves than they are to other people. It is something that they can manage, that they control, that they live with. But when things go wrong, things go wrong in a spectacular fashion, and when you look at the way the care of those who are mentally unwell has devolved, we as a community only have ourselves to blame. The decision to shut down psychiatric hospitals was based on ideological and financial imperatives. It wasn't based on best treatment. There is no doubt horrors occurred at some of these mental institutions the world over. Absolutely no doubt. But the decision to close them down wasn't based on medical reasons. It was done out of the prevailing ideology at the time, and because they are jolly expensive to run. And when they were sold off, the last of them in the 1990s, it wasn't a carefully managed withdrawal from the institutions, they were just shut down in a haphazard, piece by piece, hospital board by hospital board kind of a way. There was no overarching plan of how those who were unwell would be cared for in the community. It was complex (shock me). It was messy, because there was also health sector restructuring going on in the 80s and 90s. There were numerous agencies, public, private, voluntary, local, regional, national, then there were the culturally based ones as well, all needing money from all different sources, all funded under different contracts, all with different expectations, all with different promises about how they would deliver. All of them lacked coordination. There was no safety net to ensure that these organisations, (some were good, some were bad) did what it said on the tin. They just got the money, we'll deal with it. Some did and some did not. Patients, families of patients, carers were caught in the cracks and inevitably there were tragic tales of poor communication, missed opportunities, poor support, lack of continuity of care and unsuitable placements. The head of one of the psychiatric institutions said at the time if we do not put the same energy, the same resource, the same money into the care of these people in the community as we have done in the institutions, then we are to blame for whatever goes wrong. And that is quite, quite true.
When you realise that your much loved child has grown into a teenager with difficulties, they're emotionally fragile, you're worried about their state of mind, where do you go? If that's exacerbated by drug or alcohol use again, where do you go? So much is dumped on the shoulders of families. They have nobody to help them. And these are just poor young people with anxiety. The list of callers who have phoned in and said that they have done everything through the private sector, through the public sector, trying to get help for their child, who is suicidal, is enormous. Six month waiting lists in some cases. The vast majority of those with mental illness are no danger to the community. The vast majority of those with mental illness can easily get by in the community with support. But boy, we have failed the families of those who have been left to care for the wide spectrum of mental illness that exists out in the community.
Can you imagine what the Cauchi family had done before they, in effect, had to sever ties with their son? He wouldn't take help from them, the police had been called a number of times, he was estranged from them. And the next thing they see him on the television and the very worst, everything they feared has happened. Where do we go from here?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
New Zealand’s unions are up in arms over the major cuts to the public sector.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told reporters that if the PSA and Council of Trade Unions actually cared about low and middle income workers, they’d support the Government’s planned tax cuts.
PSA National Secretary Dunane Leo said they’re standing firm in defending their jobs, claiming services are being sacrificed for tax cuts.
E Tu Negotiator Michael Wood joined Kerre Woodham to dig into the situation and discuss the relevance unions have today.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
You don't really need to watch or read the news at the moment, at least not for the first couple of stories, because all we're really getting at the moment is a union campaign from the PSA and the CTU dressed up as news, with stories about how cuts to the civil service are going to bring the country to ruin.
#Newsalert, the country is already on the brink of ruin and the bloated civil service would have contributed towards some of the cost blowouts that this country has seen. Michael Woods has gone from Labour minister to Union representative. He's campaigning for TVNZ to stay exactly as it is, despite the fact that every single media organisation in this country and around the world has had to face facts and has to change the way it delivers news, it's had to change the way it operates, it's had to see that the way it delivers news is no longer relevant. But no, Michael Woods wants everything to stay exactly as it is.
He says, and I quote, ‘TVNZ isn't just some business, it's a vital part of our society. Kiwis need a strong TVNZ to tell Aotearoa's stories and hold power to account. We invite everybody who wants to build and protect a strong media landscape to support the campaign’. There was a petition to keep TVNZ, exactly as it is. And while I feel for my colleagues, they too know that the format in which news is delivered has to change.
And I could remind Michael Wood that his government, when he was a minister, wasn't so keen on power being held to account. And despite the promises of being an open and transparent regime, given how difficult it was to get information out of the government, given that journalists and news organisations had to resort to the Official Information Act every time they wanted a story, now that the poacher has turned gamekeeper, he's demanding that TVNZ stay exactly as it is, otherwise democracy will suffer. I simply do not buy that.
The unions are against any cuts to the public service and any cuts to the media, any cuts at all, for whatever reason. Even if it means that maintaining the status quo is going to ensure the demise of a particular organisation TVNZ stays exactly the way it is, it won't be around in 10 years. Nonetheless, they're against any cuts at all, for whatever reason. Michael Woods again, you could say as a minister, even when the civil service gave good advice it was ignored.
I mean the number of stories we have now that show bureaucrats whose job was to look at exactly the particular field that the government was making policy on advised against doing a course of action, that the government was intent on that say no, that's not a good idea, the cost overruns are horrendous, there isn't any kind of structure in place to deliver ... no, they just went ahead and ignored them. So even when the civil service was doing their job, the government ignored them. Why have them there?
There were all kinds of jobs and all kinds of workers who do need a union, I absolutely grant you that. There is no doubt that unions can do a good job negotiating pay and conditions for people who can't negotiate for themselves. Workers who experience low pay, who experience poor conditions, poor health and safety practices, there's absolutely no doubt that unions do a good job for them. But ask not what you can do for your union, what has your union done for you, if you are one of those who has belonged to a union over the years?
There's no doubt that those on low pay, who might be exploited through poor health and safety practices can probably get a union to do the negotiation for them. The union rep would be in a much stronger position than each individual worker trying to ensure they got fair pay and fair conditions. It would appear that not everybody, not every paid employee believes that unions work for them, because I assumed back in the day, 60s and 70s that you would have 90%, if I was asked, I would say probably 80 to 90% of New Zealand workers in paid employment were part of a union.
Not at all. It's never reached 50%. So historically, even though we've been one of the most heavily unionized countries in the world, at no point, according to Te Ara, the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, did we hit over 50% of union membership. So, what does that tell you about the unions? That they are there for those who cannot negotiate for themselves, perhaps, but the majority of us believe we're able to negotiate our own working conditions.
If you have belonged to a union in the past, why did you leave? Did you believe you could do a better job yourself of negotiating paying conditions? Did you believe you were getting value for money from your union dues? If you're still a member of the union, what has the union done for you? Even in the 70s, when you had the freezing workers going on strike at the drop of a hat, it seemed that they weren't quite getting the message that they weren't up with the play, that they weren't quite on top of the way workplace relations are taking place. Generally, it's a working arrangement between an employer and employee. The employer cannot do business without the goodwill and the support of employees. They simply cannot. So, this whole idea of a them and us, and that it's an antagonistic relationship, I don't think exists in the real workplace. What is it about unions that makes them still relevant in the workplace today?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
Yesterday saw the cancellation of New Zealand’s second longest running television shows: TVNZ’s Fair Go.
The consumer affairs show has been airing since 1977, featuring a roster of well-known hosts including Newstalk ZB’s Kerre Woodham and Kevin Milne.
Kevin Milne was the longest serving host on the show, appearing from 1983 until 2010.
He told Kerre that what disappoints him about TVNZ is that they could’ve cut back on the number of episodes instead of cancelling it altogether.
“It remains just as powerful if you’re putting out 16 programs a year or 16.”
Kevin said that he’s concerned that TVNZ hasn’t thought about just keeping the Fair Go flag flying for All New Zealanders by simply retaining a presence, however diminished.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
Love a target, love a list, and yesterday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon released a new list of to-dos, this time in the form of targets. And while some on the left have roundly criticized him for having the temerity to set targets, what on Earth have they got against realistic goals? I didn't hear them shouting and jeering when Jacinda Ardern announced that her government was going to build 100,000 houses in 10 years. If that's not a target, and that's not a goal, I don't know what is. But if ever there was a time for jeering and shouting, that would have been it. Because even as somebody who can't hammer a nail in straight, even Bob the Builder, a cartoon character, knew that building 100,000 houses in 10 years was an impossible and unachievable target. But there was no jeering and shouting then was there? When the target was set?
Anyway, Kiwibuild has come and gone, and a new government has announced its own targets. These ones infinitely more accessible, ambitious but accessible. Christopher Luxon was in full statesman mode yesterday, despite the hard work of frontline staff like police, nurses and teachers, he said New Zealand has gone backwards. Our government is bringing back public service targets to focus our public sector on driving better results for New Zealanders in health, education, law and order, work, housing and the environment. He reiterated the targets were not going to be easy to achieve, but he said we're not here to do what's easy, we're here to do what is needed to reduce crime, shorten healthcare wait times and improve educational achievement, no matter how difficult.
Now the targets were on very nicely set out graphs. You know, if I was marking his homework, it would definitely be an A-, perhaps I would have put it up to an A if under the ‘How will we keep track?’, the only thing I would have done would have been to say, now let's just see exactly how it's going to be delivered. How are you going to get that change? We understand why it's needed. How will we keep track? Well, that's just measuring the numbers. I wanted to know how it's going to be delivered. There's a little bit in there, but not nearly enough to satisfy my curiosity.
Nonetheless, the targets have been set 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker. 80% of students present for more than 90% of the term. 75% reduction of households and emergency housing, and so on. Other targets include those around greenhouse gas emissions. As the PM says, it is not going to be easy. What will it take to get BBQ man or Nature boy into paid employment? They were very happy, thank you very much, on the benefit and thought we were all schmucks for getting out of bed and going to work. When the borders were closed it became apparent that not only were there Kiwis who could not work, there were Kiwis who would not work. However, when you have a public service that's been instructed to go easy on those, drawing a benefit. Where on Earth is the impetus to go into paid employment?
Former WINZ boss Christine Rankin told Mike Hosking she absolutely sees value in setting targets.
“What the reality of this is, is a government that understands leadership and the fact that you have to tell people what you want them to do, and then you have to measure the hell out of it. And that's what they're doing. This can be done way under the time frame that they've put on it. The problem is with six years of a government that wanted people on a benefit, for what reason, I cannot work out, there are a lot of people who've been very comfortable for a long time and the benefit isn’t much, but there's also ways to supplement it, and that's never been looked at either for a long time.”
That was Christine Rankin talking to Mike Hosking, and that's quite true. I mean, I always think what a miserable existence it would be to be on a benefit, to have to try and scrape by. It would be soul destroying. That grinding poverty is soul-destroying. But many people not all, but for many people they supplement their income in other ways. The benefit is not the only income coming into a house. And I accept that targets aren't the be all and end all. There are ways and means to finesse targets, to massage figures, to make them work for you, so that when you report to your manager, to your chief executive, to your Minister, you can fudge the numbers a bit so that you look better. But what happens when you don't have them? The last six years happen, that's what. When all the important metrics by which we measure the national well-being fall. And I totally understand trying a different way.
We've tried going softly, softly, being nice, appealing to people's better natures by treating them with kindness and respect and hoping that we get the same in return. Hasn't worked. So, we tried, it didn't work. An unfortunate experiment, if you will.
So, let's try setting expectations, goals and targets, and let's see where we end up.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
Two researchers are arguing that the decision to cut longitudinal studies will worsen inequities and increase costs in the long term.
In the past two weeks, funding has ceased for two of New Zealand's foremost longitudinal studies.
The Ministry of Social Development did not renew the contract for the ‘Growing Up in New Zealand’ project at the end of February, the study that has tracked more than 6000 children since 2009.
Dr Polly Atatoa Carr, one of the researchers behind the Newsroom article, told Kerre Woodham that studies like ‘Growing Up in New Zealand’ provide rich data not only for academics, but for governments to make decisions around policy that impacts the population.
She said that the attendance data the government is after is an example of the kind of information that can be gathered longitudinally.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
First up, the changes to immigration.
Guess what? High-trust models don't work when it comes to work visas. A stunning revelation to start the week. Credit where it's due, Radio New Zealand have been on to the story. They applied for information around the new immigration visas under the Official Information Act and found out that even after Immigration New Zealand was told of concerns over lax checks and migrants buying jobs for up to $50K on the open market, it took Immigration New Zealand three months to take any kind of action. Some workers were arriving into New Zealand expecting to find the streets paved with gold. Instead, they found they had no job. Meanwhile, dodgy agents and immigration consultancies were making a fortune, millions is estimated, from selling accredited employer work visas to people who didn't have the skills, didn't have any English, didn't have a clue, just knew that they wanted out of where they were at and into New Zealand - and in they came. Our net migrations soared. The annual net migration gain in 2023 was about the size of Taranaki. An entire province. It was made-up of a net gain of 173,000 non-New Zealand citizens, and a net loss of 47,000 New Zealand citizens in 2023. Now, some of these new New Zealanders will bring skills and a positive attitude that New Zealand sorely needs. They've always done so. You know from the very first settlers all the way through. People who make the shift to a new country bring with them an attitude and a determination to succeed. But many of these new migrants have arrived with no English, minimal skills, and they will struggle. Minister of Immigration Erica Stanford says the changes to immigration visas are necessary because the high trust model wasn't working. (Which any fool could have told you I'd imagine.) And it brings New Zealand into line with the immigration policies of other countries. She told Mike Hosking she doesn't believe the government is acting too soon in restricting immigration, and it's not acting for the wrong reasons.
“We've taken a really close look at this and I think the reasonable responsible thing to do is to recalibrate our immigration settings to meet what the market is doing. We saw last year an extra 20,000 people went on the job seeker benefit while we brought in 52,000 very low skilled migrants. Now those numbers just don't add up and if you look at the work Louise Upson's doing in making sure that there are benefit sanctions for people to ensure that they are looking for work. It's my responsibility as Immigration Minister to make sure that that work is available for Kiwis first and foremost.”
Well, absolutely. That was Erica Stanford on with Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. He did make the point that Labour tried shutting the borders during Covid and relying on New Zealand labour to fill the gaps and that quickly became apparent that simply was not going to happen. Those who could work were working, and then there were those who simply could not or would not work. So, when it comes to the market at the moment - I mean remember the calls from desperate employers who were looking for somebody, anybody to take jobs around the country - can you now pick and choose when it comes to staff? Can you now pick and choose when it comes to people applying for jobs and filling the positions? I'm sure you'll remember the calls. There were people just screaming for anybody, anywhere to come to their particular town or city and do a job. They'd take anybody. Now, do employers have a bit more choice? They have a bit more wiggle room and a bit more leeway? When you put out a situations-vacant, have you got people applying and now you have the luxury of choice? You're not as desperate as you once were. For those who are or have faced redundancy, has it been relatively easy to get into work with the skills you have, or are you finding you're competing with more than you imagined? We need skilled migrants. The whole Western world needs skilled migrants and I can't see that ending any time soon, but the last thing we want is to have people arrive in this country who have no idea where they are, they have no idea how to fit in, they have no prospect of enjoying any kind of life. Steve Braunias wrote a very, very moving insight into what it is like for migrants arriving here with no support, no English, no family. They can get jobs but it's an existence, it's not a life. ‘Life and Death in the Auckland Shadows’ was the title of the piece he wrote for the New Zealand Herald. It's bloody tragic. And we do not want people arriving who are condemned to lives as basically subsistent slaves. That's not what we're about. So, two stories, really, when you arrive in this country, is it easy enough for you to get the job you were promised to, to be able to assimilate, to have the land of milk and honey you were promised? For employers, do you support the changes to the immigration visas? Do you have the luxury of choice now, but more leeway when it comes to employing staff? And for those looking for work, is it easy enough if you have skills to find jobs or are you struggling in the market at the moment?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
Police stats supplied to the Dairy and Business owners group showed that in 2023, 148,599 crimes were reported at retail locations.
Kotahi te Whakaaro brings together government, non-government, and iwi daily to review cases of young people involved with Police in the preceding 24 hours.
The approach is designed to prevent escalation into or through the youth justice system.
Senior Sergeant Craig Clark, New Zealand Police District Services Co-ordinator, told Kerre Woodham that they take a prevention first way of working, making sure they’re addressing the underlying issues to stop people from entering the system.
He said that sometimes government agencies need to step back and support community agencies to do the part they’re amazing at: engaging with people.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
The government is restoring the ability to hold referenda on Māori wards as part of its coalition agreement with ACT and NZ First. It's highly unlikely that National would have acted alone, but as part of the Coalition agreement, as part of the horse trading, they committed to holding referenda on the Māori wards.
Local government Minister Simeon Brown announced the move yesterday, saying a bill will soon be introduced to allow communities to petition their counsel to hold binding polls on Māori ward decisions including those wards already established.
“Most New Zealanders want to have their say and this is what this is all about. It's about saying, well, if a Council wishes to have a Māori ward, then ultimately the public get to decide whether that happens or not. That's the government's position. That's what we’re legislating. The last government took it away and we're restoring it.”
So that was Simeon Brown talking to the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. Naturally, Labour and Te Pati Māori have condemned the decision. Local Government New Zealand says it represents a complete overreach by central government, (you could also say the same for Three Waters really, couldn't you?), and has warned the coalition government against inflaming misinformation. Others have called the decision racist, a systemic attack on Māori.
But to my mind, there's a really, really easy way to get the result you want when it comes to retaining or ditching the Māori wards. Get out and vote. The 2022 local body elections it was reported that national voter turnout was a record low 36%. You know, there's a number of reasons for that. But 36% of people bothered to vote, and that's averaging it out over the country. Voter turnout in local body elections has declined in New Zealand over the past 25 years, so it was continuing a trend, this wasn't an anomaly. Fewer and fewer people are exercising their democratic right to vote.
So, you can use that. You can galvanise yourselves, you can get organised, and you can get the result you want. And don't give me this because I've had it before ... ‘Ohh, I'm not going to vote man, because the systems against us and it's just supporting an artificial patriarchal construct that goes against the natural rights of humans’, and all of that sort of tosh.
This is the system we have. And again, if you don't like it, the only way you're going to change it in a democratic society is by using the system to get what you want. Te Pati Māori has six seats in government, meaning they no longer need other parties to speak on their behalf in Parliament. They can stand up and speak for themselves because their supporters got out and voted, they threw out long standing Labour ministers from Māori seats.
And when it comes to the Māori wards, it's not just Māori who want them, there are Pākehā who want to see Māori represented through Māori wards. Some Maori don't want them. It's really reductionist to say that all Māori think the same way or Pākehā think the same way or Europeans think the same way, all New Zealanders think the same way. They don't. There is a diversity and breadth of views. There's a diversity and breadth of level of engagement with the political system.
So, if people, and that's all supporters, want to keep the Maori Wards, get out and vote. If you want them gone, get out and vote and you'll get the result you want.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the government had put “hundreds of millions [of dollars] more” onto the table for a “much more enhanced offer” to police last week.
That offer was going out for voting by police in the next few days.
Luxon took questions for an hour on Kerre Woodham’s Newstalk ZB show today.
He said he disagreed that National had used law and order issues as a marketing tool during the election, only to stint on the police pay offer, saying it had now put a “very good” proposition on the table.
That enhanced offer for police included a move back to paid overtime, as well as a lump sum payment to help compensate for back pay.
It was the second time it had put more money into the police offer since taking over as government. He said National was serious about giving police what they needed to tackle crime, saying it was one of the main issues voters had raised with them.
On public service cuts, Luxon said there had been a “massive increase” in staff numbers and costs in the core public sector.
“We haven’t had the outcomes,” he said.
His message to the public sector bosses was: “Go back through your back office, stop the dumb programmes that aren’t working, make sure we get the efficiencies in the back office and get rid of the wasteful spending.”
On the hiring spree in the public sector in the last half of last year, he said that was “very disappointing” given both National and Labour had made it clear they wanted cuts.
He said the increase in staff at the Ministry of Education to reform the curriculum was a “classic example”.
He said the New Zealand curriculum was made up of “airy-fairy statements” and teachers were expected to try to interpret them – and that had led to different teaching across the country.
He said the speed with which the cellphone ban had been implemented had shown things could be done quickly if wanted.
He believed that had led to a drop in cyberbullying as well as removing distractions.
Luxon also said he disagreed that the return of referendums on Māori wards was a return to a “bad past”, saying National had not agreed with the shift away from them.
He said he believed it should be a matter of local democracy for local communities to be able to decide whether the wards were set up.
Luxon said the issue of allowing a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi - as David Seymour wants - was a different matter to the Māori wards.
National has made it clear it will not support Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill beyond the first reading, and Luxon said that was because of the important place the Treaty had in New Zealand.
He said National agreed with localism, and so had taken its stand on the Māori wards.
Luxon spoke to Kerre Woodham in the Newstalk ZB studio. Photo / Jason Oxenham
On tax cuts and childcare rebates for households, Luxon said the so-called “squeezed middle” was still the government’s target for assistance. He pointed to the recent moves to introduce childcare rebates worth up to $75 a week for households and the plan to shift tax thresholds in the Budget.
He said despite “challenging economics” there was space to ensure workers could keep more of their wages.
”It’s a question of what can we afford to do. And what we can afford to do right now is help defray early childhood costs.”
He said tax cuts were also affordable.
”Rebuilding the economy is job number one, so we can reduce the cost of living.”
He said bringing down inflation would help ease interest rates, as well as “making life cheaper for people”.
One vaping, Luxon said it had been critical at getting smoking rates down among adults, but was a problem when it came to teenagers. He pointed to recent government moves to ban disposable vapes and boost penalties on those who sold vapes to under-18s, as well as introduce plain packaging rules.
He said the government was still committed to reducing smoking rates, and had simply reverted to the old smoke-free legislation that had worked well. It had scrapped Labour’s plans for a ban on smoking and restrictions on outlets, saying National was concerned they would result in a black market and more retail crime.
He didn’t believe such measures were needed, given the pre-existing rules had been effective.
”I think we could have communicated it a lot better, no doubt about it.”
He would not say whether the government was planning to tax charitable entities - but said it was being looked at.
“We’ve got a lot of appetite for it, Nicola [Willis] and I, and we’re getting advice.”
Luxon said his verdict on being PM was that he was “having fun” but it was hard work.
”I like getting into the work, and we are working hard ... We’ve got a lot to do, but that’s exciting.”
A farmer from central Hawke’s Bay asked about the end of funding for Taskforce Green, saying it had helped in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle.
Luxon said the Budget was looming, so it would be a question for the government department charged with deciding whether programmes were delivering “bang for their buck”.
On speed bumps and roadworks, Luxon said Transport Minister Simeon Brown was “very hot on road management and cone management” and trying to get a clear signal of whether such measures were worth it.
“We’ve got some very good roads,” Luxon said, pointing to the new roads north of Auckland, saying they should be safe enough to be 110km/h.
On the balance between convenience for motorists and safety, he said: “I’m not saying we don’t look after people and follow good health and safety practices, but we think we’ve gone a bit far the other way.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in the Newstalk ZB studio with Kerre Woodham. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Wrapping up, Luxon said he was pleased with the way the coalition government was operating.
He said the government was “moving with incredible pace.”
“And we have to move fast, I know it’s tough at the moment.” However, he said there were plans to grow the economy and get things moving.
He’s signed off by choosing Beyonce’s Texas Hold ‘Em. “She’s provoking the country music industry. It’s fantastic.”
The Newstalk ZB interview follows a week that Luxon kicked off by releasing the Government’s plan up until June 30 – a period that will include the Budget.
Yesterday, the Government also announced a move to restore the possibility of calling a binding referendum on the creation of Māori wards on local councils – and it will require councils to hold a referendum on any recently created Māori wards in the next local body elections.
In 2020, Labour had removed the ability for a local referendum to be conducted on Māori wards.
The Government also announced steps to try to boost competition and tackle a shortage in building supplies after soaring costs.
National has also started to more aggressively promote its upcoming Budget tax cuts promise, including a social media campaign by Finance Minister Nicola Willis to try to assure voters that tax cuts are still affordable, despite the deterioration in the economy.
That comes as government departments firm up their plans for staff layoffs to try to cut their spending before the Budget, as the Government has ordered. The Government has promised savings will be re-invested in the front-line services, which Willis has flagged will be another priority for the Budget.
Luxon has defended those public sector cuts, saying he wanted more “medical doctors, not spin doctors” and pointing to the sharp increase in public sector staff numbers over recent years.
Ministry of Health staff were called in this week to hear the final details of its restructuring.
WATCH ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
Didn't Erica Stanford sound impressive talking to Mike on the Mike Hosking breakfast this morning? This is a woman who has clearly been working on her passion portfolio while in opposition, who has come into government ready to go.
I remember Chris Hipkins when he was in a couple of weeks ago saying we weren't really ready to come into government. What the hell were you doing for the past nine years? Seriously, you're being paid, surely you should be looking at your passion portfolios, you can put up your hand when you're in a party that's been decimated and it's running around looking for a purpose and you can say look, this is why I came into politics, this is what I want to do, and you start work on it. That's what Erica Stanford has done when National was decimated.
She clearly cares very, very much about education, and about the education of New Zealand children, and about the teaching profession. And she wasn't out for petty point scoring. The only time she mentioned the last government, she gave them credit for putting secondary teachers on the two-year worked residency visas. But she does want to see New Zealand children be given the right to a world class education that previous generations enjoyed, and I would have to say took for granted. We assumed we could take our place in the world because we were well prepared to do so, and we assumed that would continue. It did not. And that's what happens when you let ideology get in the way of good practice.
The Education Review Office has found that the new history curriculum that was introduced into schools is being taught on an ad hoc, localised basis, that too many schools and teachers are spending time developing their course studies rather than actually teaching them, and many of them have been overwhelmed by the scale of the changes required.
ES: The important part here is, it’s really interesting in the history report, schools themselves were saying it’s incredibly time consuming to develop local curriculum. So, we have schools around the country with a very broad, high level curriculum that's done by the centre, they then have to create their own curriculum. So, inconsistent across the country, kids are being taught different things, there’s no consistency of what’s being taught.
ES: And you said earlier, I was listening to you, about our place in the world and how we started to trade and the first refrigerated ship that went out of, the SS Dunedin, I think, in 1882. That changed the way we traded with the world and changed our economy. We don’t teach that anymore because it’s not specified in the curriculum.
MH: Why not?
ES: Because we have shifted in the early 2000’s away from this idea of a centralized curriculum that lays out what kids need to know and when, to a devolved system where schools themselves end up having to create the content and thus saying themselves, “This is too much. We want to get on with the deep, with the magic of teaching, and bringing the content to life.” Because that's what teachers do so well. The, the curriculum is supposed to support them with the details, but since the early 2000’s, we have had this very vague waffly curriculum. Hence our decline amongst, you know, the world.
Erica Stanford explained it beautifully, and anybody involved in education knows that the changes that have occurred did not happen in the last five years, or even the last 10 years. It's been nearly 30 years of gradual decline.
But to come back to the point that, you know, teachers should be teaching, that is what they do. That's what they love. That's what they're good at. That's what ignites a passion for curiosity and knowing more among our children. How is it that they are the ones developing the curriculum within their schools when the number of full-time equivalents employed at the Ministry of Education ballooned by 55%?
The ministry employed 4,311 staff, 1,704 more than it did in June 2016. That was last year. So, 4,311 staff, 1,704 more than it did in June of 2016, and they used the explanation to say that the ministry had ballooned by 55%, as since 2017 it's taken on 550 extra education advisers and an additional 170 curriculum advisors and related staff. So that's a huge increase.
Nearly 1000 people involved in in writing the curriculum in advising on the curriculum. But wait, there's more. They also rely extensively on consultants for policy development. They tend to contract out for all the major curriculum development services, about 10 small education consultancy firms relied largely, if not entirely, on Ministry of Education contracts for their income.
So, you've got teachers saying, look, we would love to be teaching, but we're busy developing curriculum. You've got the Ministry of Education having staff ballooning by 55% with an extra 1,720 employed specifically on curriculum, plus ten small education consultancy firms hired to do the curriculum. The teachers should have been receiving guilt-edged curriculum papers by courier, able to add their own frills and flourishes to what was an established curriculum, given the number of people we were paying for to work on this. Utterly incredible.
Anyway, that was then, this is now. I could understand if the Ministry of Education had stripped its staff right back to a tiny core of brilliant people who were involved in policy development and analysis, and then the teachers were left to their own devices. But to have employed so many more staff members purely for curriculum. To contract out to consultancy firms on the curriculum and then say to teachers, hey, good luck. Good luck developing your own curriculum and then try and teach it, have time leftover to teach it. Unbelievable.
I loved learning about Aotearoa New Zealand. My history degree, I chose New Zealand history papers, but I was not in the majority and probably because by the time they get to uni most kids have chosen to learn about Tudor England. They have the option of learning about New Zealand history, or they did back then, but they chose to learn about Tudor England, which was like yeah great for fairy stories, but it doesn't tell you who you are or where you come from.
We really do need to know who we are as a society, as a country, how we came to be and there is rich, rich material in our past to make learning about Aotearoa New Zealand fascinating. But we have to know our place in the world. As the legendary Chuck D of the band Public Enemy once said, knowledge without context is confusion. If all we know is New Zealand and have no understanding of where we fit in, why we came to be, it's just a whole bunch of factoids. It doesn't mean anything.
So I'm all for learning. I'm all for learning about history. I'm all for learning about New Zealand's own rich, fabulous history. But tell me why the teacher should have to be writing the curriculum when nearly 1000 people and 10 consultancy firms were employed to do just that. Why should the teachers be doing it, taking them away from teaching, which is what they went into the profession to do, and I just wonder how many of them are going to be throwing up their hands, going “more change cool, that's just what we need right now.”
Learning about who we are and where we come from is vital. But it should not be done on an ad hoc localised basis and the sooner we get back to a curriculum that is nationwide, with room for a little bit of flexibility, for a few options here and there, the sooner we get back to giving our kids the world class education we had, the sooner New Zealand will be back on its feet.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
The Government is changing the Building Act to address a shortage of building supplies and long wait-times for new products to be approved.
That includes signing-off on products with a reputable overseas certification and recognising approval schemes used in countries like Australia.
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says it will ease building costs and make our building products better.
Julien Leys, CEO of the New Zealand Building Industry Federation, told Kerre Woodham that it’s going to make a big change in the construction industry.
He said that while it isn’t building 100,000 new homes, it is helping those homes get built faster and more cost effectively.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
The Government is bulldozing barriers for bringing in new building products to New Zealand.
Minister for Building and Construction, Chris Penk, has unveiled changes to the Building Act in a bid to increase the availability of products and cool down costs.
That includes approving products with a reputable overseas certification and recognising product standards from trusted overseas jurisdictions.
Penk told Kerre Woodham that it’s one of those things that has been talked about for years, so they decided to actually get on and do something about it.
With Covid and recent natural disasters he said it’s clear we need to have as many different options as possible for the sake of resilience, as well as the costs and time frames involved.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
The Education Review Office has found teachers are overwhelmed by the scale of change in teaching the new history curriculum.
Teaching New Zealand’s histories became a requirement for students in years one to ten at the start of last year.
The report found schools are finding it challenging and time consuming, often struggling to understand what's required.
Kay is a former head of Social Science with a specialty in commerce teaching, and although she hasn’t taught social studies since 2000, was shocked at the vagueness of the previous curriculum.
“When I came into being head of Social Science, it was a nine sentence curriculum,” she told Kerre Woodham.
“What it resulted in was such a huge range of knowledge and skills being taught across New Zealand.”
She said that she was glad when Labour said they were going to review it and add specifics for teaching New Zealand history, but what they did was “unbelievably a mess”.
“The new curriculum is so much New Zealand History that it lacks space within any given year for a teacher to teach anything except New Zealand History.”
“There’s so much missing it’s not funny.”
Kay told Kerre that teachers were giving feedback over and over as Labour made their changes, and they weren’t listened to.
“It’s just been an absolute shambles.”
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
-
A couple of weeks ago I took a call. I didn't recognise the number, but I took the call anyway and I very quickly regretted that I had done so.
The caller was a very nicely spoken man who, after pleasantries were exchanged, wanted to know why I had stopped giving to a charity I had previously supported. I agreed that yes, I had supported the charity for a very long time, and yes, I understood the good work it was doing, and yes, I absolutely knew that times were tough - in fact, that was the reason my monthly debit had stopped. My circumstances had changed, and times were tough.
That wasn't good enough for my caller. No. I would have picked up the cue, yes my circumstances have changed and yep, I'm sorry. No, they drilled down. Before I came to my senses and stopped responding to what were quite personal questions, I'd blurted out that the reason my home address was no longer the same was because I'd separated from my husband and we sold the house and I bought a house with the children and we had a big mortgage, blah de blah, and I suddenly found myself pouring out my life story because I was ashamed that I was no longer giving to the charity. And it was a kind of emotional blackmail that this charity worker was engaged in. I just about gave them an access code to my accounts so he could see. “There are still some charities you support, why those?” Honestly, I could have hung up, but all I had to give him was time, so I gave him that, and laying myself bare as a form of apology.
I was listening to Sue Barker this morning talking about the struggles StarJam is facing, and I wonder just how many of you have had these difficult conversations with the charity workers who are putting the acid on those who used to give and who are no longer giving or just cold calling. I love StarJam and the work it does. I've been there along to a number of StarJam gala events, and they are professional, and they are fun, and they are incredibly important for the young people who are performing.
One of the best interviews I've ever seen conducted was a young man who has Down Syndrome, who was impeccably dressed in black tie, who was well prepared, well researched and interviewed the entertainer, Michael Barrymore when it first come out to New Zealand. He was brilliant, asked really tough questions, the sort of questions no other interviewer would dare ask. He was brilliant. I've really enjoyed the nights I've spent at StarJam and the work they do is really, really important. But man, there are a lot of charities, all of whom are doing really worthwhile work but for many of us, circumstances have changed.
And while Sue Barker told Mike Hosking that look, there are 600,000 companies and up to 500,000 trusts, so 28,000 is not a surplus of charities. I disagree. 28,000 charities is a lot of charities and a lot of them are niche charities. So, there's a lot of cancer charities because not all cancer charities cover a particular family's need or a particular individual's need.
So, we have 28 thousand registered charities, up from 22,000 six years ago. Twice the number of Australia and three times the number of the United Kingdom per capita. And there are those within the charity sector who think that there should be a joining up of some of the smaller charities with a with a mutual interest, and that would cut costs and make them more efficient. Merging, or at least collaborating when you have a shared interest.
The charity sector has an annual total income of more than $21 billion, and it's supported by more than 217,000 volunteers and more than 145,000 full-time staff. That is a lot of people. And who is sustaining that? You and me? We're doing that because New Zealanders are not mean. It doesn't matter how small your income; you could be on a pension or a benefit or a lowly paid critical worker and you will give. And that's right up to the to the wealthy philanthropists who give a lot, but most New Zealanders give. Individual giving in 2019 was $2.4 billion.
But again, you know, these are unusual times. Families are cutting back on their own costs, their own families are going without. And charities have to accept that all the haranguing of people, forcing them to explain themselves, all the narration of sob stories, is not going to get blood out of a stone. If the money is not there, it is not there, and charities have to understand that too.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
- Visa fler
