Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Labour released some policies yesterday. Very late in the piece, and you can kind of see why. Just like that, we're back to 2017 with a cut and paste of lofty rhetoric, promises to spend lots of money, and little to no detail. It's a dud, I think it's fair to say. And it's not just me saying that. Oh, we'd expect you to say that, you hate Labour. No, I don't hate Labour. I just hate really, really dumb ideas. I hate the fact that they think that we're all idiots. I hate the fact that they're relying on the fact we have short memories. I hate the fact that apparently, they have been working on this idea since 2017, and this is all they can come up with. When you have Radio New Zealand's political analysts calling it a flop, it’s a flop. You know, they are about as sympathetic as you can possibly get. Basically, if you missed it yesterday, it was the announcement of a Future Fund. The Future Fund will sit alongside and be operated by the New Zealand Super Fund, with the Minister of Finance acting as the sole shareholder. Chris Hipkins (and this terrifies me), Chris Hipkins said the policy would be one of the cornerstones of the next Labour government. We want to back New Zealand businesses and invest in New Zealand. We need to see more of our wealth being invested back here in New Zealand rather than flowing overseas. So by using some of our existing public assets, our existing state assets, putting them into a Future Fund, using the returns from them to reinvest in growing New Zealand businesses, we can create jobs and keep more wealth here at home. You're putting in $200 million in cash. Are you also putting in assets? That's right. So we're not being specific right now on which companies, which, you know, existing companies would go in because there are market disclosure issues and so on. Some of those are pub, you know, partially publicly listed companies. But we'll set all of that out in government.  Set all of that out in government. Just trust us. We're not going to give you any detail. We'll just trust us to fix it in government. There is so much wrong with this thought bubble policy, I don't know where to start, so I'll let Chris Bishop do it. I thought it was a bit of a brain fart put to paper. I mean, honestly, like I had a read of it. Like my like there's more detail on my Uber Eats order than there is in what they've put in their document. I mean, honestly, it's just it's 11 pages - three of them are photos. One of them is like something that you take out of a clip art manual and chuck on the front page. I mean, honestly, it's there's nothing there. No, there's not. As Nat Rad said, Labour is most vulnerable to the criticism around the thin details, as it feeds National's well-established attack line that Labour is all slogans, no substance.  The policy documents came with no figures and no list of assets. And that glib Chris Hipkins, ‘I will fix that in government’, really? How did that work out last time? Not so well. To think that Grant Robertson began work on the Future Fund in 2017. Even allowing for the COVID years, that is the best they can do. Another concern is, as the PM pointed out, those crown assets provide profits that fund health and education. If the money is being diverted to the fund, where will the shortfall in funding come from? Probably increased taxation.  And that's fine, but give us the details so that we can then make an assessment on it. If you're going to get the extra funding through a capital gains tax or through raising income tax or whatever - tell us, and then we can decide whether that's where we want the money to go. Is there even a need for this fund to back New Zealand businesses? What is this trope that, plucky little New Zealanders have to have a stake in amazingly successful New Zealand businesses? The CEO of Icehouse was on with Mike this morning, and he pointed out that capital investors are always available for good ideas. There is no shortage of professional investors awash with money who know a good idea when they see one and will pay for it. Is it the government's business to be picking winners when it comes to SMEs? Didn't work with the DFC, which was created in the 60s, the Development Finance Corporation, to support industrial development in New Zealand through loans and equity. It failed spectacularly in the late 80s, costing the country billions.   Pattrick Smellie from BusinessDesk says Labour's claim that their future fund is comparable to Singapore's state investment house Temasek is completely and utterly unsustainable. Temasek has a mandate to trade in its assets and to invest offshore. Labour's proposal doesn't contemplate, he says, either of those things. He writes, the party remains wedded to an approach to public ownership that traps New Zealand in restricted choices about capital deployment, constrained returns, and a strategic straitjacket that says if the state already owns something, it should automatically continue to do so. The real concern here is that Labour is not worried about what informed commentators, like Pattrick Smellie, have to say about its policies. They don't care. Because they know that the vast majority of the voting public don't care. They're backing on people having short memories of its complete and utter ineptitude and failure to deliver on almost every metric the last time it was in government. All people know right now is that they're hurting. They're still hurting. This coalition government isn't setting them a fire. This coalition government promised a lot and really has yet to deliver. And I, you know, I know it's going to take time. But Labour is quite right to back on the fact that the vast majority of people just don't care. They won't read the detail. They won't even know that there is detail to look for. They won't even know that there is no detail. I think Pattrick Smellie put it brilliantly too. “The Labour proposal of the Future Fund suggests either that the party is economically illiterate or that its target audience is presumed to be”. Which is so true. The Future Fund criticises New Zealand Super Fund for only investing 11% of its assets in New Zealand. As Pattrick Smellie points out, the reason for that, and you know and I know, but the vast majority don't, is that the Super Fund's job is to fund pensions and get the best possible results from its investable capital, which means not overexposing itself to a small, vulnerable economy like New Zealand's. It is basic risk management. But no, this cornerstone of the next Labour government criticises the Super Fund for not investing all of the funds in New Zealand.   It is really concerning if this is the best they can do. They know that everybody who cares has been waiting to hear what its policy is going to be so we can compare and contrast. The coalition government has not set us on fire -okay, let's see what Labour can do. Wow. That's it. That is simply not good enough, and it is quite frankly, for those of us who care, terrifying.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Annual inflation has risen to a 15-month high of 3%.  Economists had been expecting inflation to reach or surpass the 3% upper limit of the Reserve Bank's target band.  The central bank's expected to look past this current spike when it reviews the OCR next month.  New Zealand Herald Business Editor-at-large Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham that, “this this drip feeding of the rate cuts means that everybody just waits.”   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Beneficiaries who break the Government's job hunt rules face more intensive sanctions to prove they are hunting for employment.  From today, they will be required to report on at least three job search activities a week and participate in four weeks of training courses.  Minister for social development and employment Louise Upston told Kerre Woodham that the rules are for people, “who aren't doing their best, who aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, and this is a non-financial consequence of their inaction.”  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand's first sports school will open next year, in a partnership with Wellington Phoenix.  The New Zealand Performance Academy in Upper Hutt will operate as a charter school for serious aspiring sportspeople.  The academy will initially offer elite football training alongside the Wellington Phoenix Academy, as well as rugby training.  New Zealand Performance Academy Aotearoa Board Member Brett O’Riely told Kerre Woodham that, “a lot of the momentum came from the students and parents.”  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New rules come into force for job seekers today, as the government continues efforts to get more young people off a benefit and into work. It's a very worthwhile enterprise. Do not let young people drift onto a benefit because there they will stay for around about 18 years, which is a hell of a life to condemn any young person to. Hang on a minute though, weren't there sanctions announced in May? You're right, there were. They targeted beneficiaries with money management and community work sanctions if they failed to meet one of their obligations, which involved preparing for or looking for work.  But wait, there's more. Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston has announced that from today, beneficiaries failing an obligation for the first time will face two new rules. They are to undertake and report on a minimum of three job search activities every week for four weeks.  There is now a requirement to attend and participate in one or more employment-related training courses or programs for a minimum of five hours per week over four weeks. Lot of numbers, lot of stats, but it's basically saying you've got to show that you're looking for work, you've got to show that you're willing to train yourself up to be ready for work.  The two non-financial sanctions will operate under the traffic light system. If you're at green, you're on track and meeting your obligations. Orange, you move to orange if you don't meet your obligations and you don't have a good reason. And if you don't contact Social Development agencies and get back on track within five working days when you're on orange, you move to red, and once you're at red, your benefit will reduce or stop.  Upston was at pains to point out that fewer than 2% of beneficiaries are on orange or red light settings. That's a tiny proportion of people who are on benefits, and the overwhelming majority of job seekers are meeting their obligations.  So that's the info around the new standards, the new expectations of people who are receiving a benefit and looking for work.  And I have no problem with people being expected to look for work when they are able to, and when they're receiving the dole. My only gripe is that these sanctions would have been really good when our borders were closed and employers were screaming for workers to do anything and everything.  Remember the number of employers from all over the country that were phoning and saying, "Please, for the love of all that's holy, if you can stagger out the door and to our front gate, we'll offer you a job. We'll offer you all kinds of incentives and bonuses to come and work for us." They were being crippled because they could not find workers. That would have been the time for the sanctions. In '21 and '22, you could have had your choice of jobs.  But now our unemployment rate is the highest it's been since the Covid shutdowns, 5.2% in three months ending June. Unemployment has been rising due to the weak economy and the lack of business confidence.  Employers are nervous about expanding their operations, growing their business. The uncertainty over a consistent affordable power supply has seen manufacturers shutter their businesses or scale them down, meaning more people looking for work.  And some regions of the country have been absolutely savaged. Looking at you, the Central North Island, Tokoroa, Nelson.  Let me be perfectly clear, to channel the Prime Minister. These sanctions are only going to affect the very worst of the malingerers, and precious few of those.  People who have been in work want to be in work again. They know the value of earning their keep. But getting back into work right now is not entirely the responsibility of the job seeker, I would argue.  The government has to give employers sufficient confidence to grow their businesses and to therefore grow their workforce. To paraphrase, build the economy and the workers will come.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rod Duke has been selling things since he was 16. First shoes, then appliances, and eventually homewares and sportswear.   Born in Adelaide, Duke came to New Zealand in 1988 to spruce up a flailing Briscoes for sale. Two years later he scored the best Briscoes deal ever, he bought the whole company himself for $2.   He ended up with 12 shabby stores, where dusty wine glasses were sitting on the shelf for $2.71 each.   But it didn’t take long for Duke to turn the business around. Today, there are almost 100 Briscoes and Rebel Sports stores around the country, and Briscoes is a listed company that’s been defying the odds of the economic downturn.  The Briscoes boss unpacks it all with Kerre Woodham on the latest episode of Bosses Unfiltered.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can't think of much worse than being labelled a child abuser, a child pornographer. It's such an abhorrent, vile, aberrant perversion of a crime. All crime is evil. But when it involves children, there's something particularly sickening about it.  Those who collect images of babies and children being sexually abused, in my opinion, are as culpable for the torture of these children as the men and women who actually inflict the damage. They deserve a special place in hell. And let's face it, the next world may be the only place where true justice will be delivered, because justice doesn't often get delivered in this world.  Last month, a member of an affluent New Zealand family convicted of having extreme child abuse material gave $50,000 and a bit of change to charities days before he was due to be sentenced.  The judge worked out his sentence this way: a starting point of five and a half years imprisonment with no mitigating features to his offending. So five and a half years, I think that's a bit light, given that without sick creeps like him, there wouldn't be an industry in child abuse, but there we go.  So five and a half years is the starting point. Then we get a 25% discount for the early guilty plea, 5% for remorse, 10% for rehabilitation attempts. He's had 50 one-on-one counselling sessions, and isn't he lucky he comes from an affluent family, so he can afford them, there was a further 3% reduction to represent the donations he made, for previous good character, there was another 5% discount. And the judge also outlined his long history of mental unwellness. ADHD and referred to a traumatic incident the man had suffered. For these factors, his sentence was reduced by a further 8%. An overall discount of 56%. He ended up with two years and five months imprisonment. He'll be out in no time. The man was automatically placed on the child sex offenders register. So that's good, isn't it? Because then you'll be able to find out who he is and if he's going to be working around children again, or if you decide to take up with him because he seems like a well-presented educated man and you're single and he's single, and oh, then you find out he's on the child sex offenders register.  But no, the man's name, his family's name and their high-profile company were permanently suppressed.  As we all know, nature abhors a vacuum, and human nature abhors a vacuum when it comes to information on offenders from prominent families. So, if the court won't name him, the internet will. And it doesn't matter if they get the wrong person because the internet's the wild west and no one's accountable. If the court's not going to give us the right person, well, bugger it. We'll just go out and we'll name everybody. Anybody and everybody, even if they're not 46. Even if they're not in prison. We'll just name them anyway. I simply do not believe anything I read or see on the socials. Mainstream media gets it wrong all the time, but at least we are accountable. If we go out and name Wayne Wright Jr or Matt Mowbray as the prominent New Zealander with child abuse material, we have to retract, we have to expunge the content off the internet, we have to apologise, we have to pay enormous fines.  Spreaders of disinformation on the net don't have to do a thing. And so anyone and everyone can be named and shamed, and if you come from a prominent or an affluent family, and a member of your ilk, your social cohort has received name suppression, well, you're in the firing line.  Same if you're a prominent sportsperson. They use the term prominent sportsman or prominent sportsperson, if you've once played pickleball for a masters age group tournament in Noosa. They use it for just about everybody and everything. So anybody who's ever played sport at any level, could be included as a prominent sportsperson.  In the case of this child abuser, Wayne Wright Jr and Matt Mowbray have already had to come out and declare they are not and have never been in any way linked to anything to do with child harm. They've got nothing to do with it.  Both of them have been named through social media, despite the fact that neither of them is in fact 46 and neither of them is in fact in custody. You think that might be a stumbling block for those on the net, but no.  Both of them have also come out and said people convicted of sexual offenses against children should never ever have name suppression, and they should not. They are quite right on that. I think name suppression is used far too often. I can understand it being used in the early days of a trial when somebody has been charged. It gives people time to tell the family or do whatever it is they have to do, but then once they're sentenced, no.  I think the bar is very low for permanent name suppression right now. And if you are convicted of sex offenses against children, why? Why should you have name suppression?  There are far fewer affluent families than there used to be, given the cost of living crisis that, you know, brings it down to a very small pool of people, so the wild speculation will continue.  So the courts have got it wrong when it comes to suppression, but people should also have a really healthy scepticism of anything that is said about anyone on social media, I simply do not believe anything until I've tested about three or four different sources, or until I'm stepping over the people who are supposed to be involved in the illicit act or you see the court papers. It's getting harder and harder to trust anyone or anything. And while we have the name suppression being applied willy-nilly, way too liberally, this kind of rank disinformation is going to be spread. You know, and it's fine when it's somebody else, but what about when you, you're the subject of the TikTok rumours, how do you defend your name when you haven't done a thing? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A businessman from a prominent family, Wayne Wright Jr was falsely identified on social media of being a name suppressed individual from a wealthy family who was charged and sentenced for knowingly possessing thousands of objectionable material files and knowingly importing the content. Mat Mowbray was also incorrectly as the person, but the Herald and a document from the Ministry of Justice have confirmed it's not him. The men believe that people convicted of sexual offences against children should never have name suppression.  Wright says he is lucky to have a platform to defend himself but less prominent individuals could have their lives ruined by these type of rumours. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fewer state houses, more private rentals. The New Zealand Initiative believes that giving tenants vouchers to spend on rent could help more vulnerable people and save taxpayers money. And Sir Bill English agrees. In a rare interview on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, the former Prime Minister says providing state housing is not just about putting a roof over the head of a vulnerable family.  You know, the point of social housing is to change lives. And that means focusing on the people more than the houses. And it means who owns the houses is less important than what you're doing to support the tenants. All housing solutions are local, and all housing solutions are about individuals and families. So, you know, how many houses should someone own who is supporting and understanding the needs of tenants and taking part in a community?  Well, you need a bit of scale, you know, probably a few thousand houses. I think Tāmaki Redevelopment Company has got about 5,000. That looks about a good scale. What we found though, was impressive energy and innovation with everyone from Autism New Zealand to Iwi and NGOs, private developers who can do a better job of this than Kāinga Ora.  Well, yes, this is not new, but it's been spelt out fairly explicitly in the New Zealand Initiative report, “Owning Less to Achieve More”. In the report, the authors said the large-scale government housing ownership was problematic, wasteful, and not the most effective way to help people into homes.  On the evidence, it is plausible that both taxpayers and tenants could be better off if the government were less dominant as a landlord, and if its subsidies empowered tenants by giving them a greater choice of landlord. That's according to the report author, New Zealand Initiative senior fellow Dr. Bryce Wilkinson.  The report went on that state housing agency Kāinga Ora's maintenance costs were nearly twice that of a private landlord, and it had not been good at managing rent debt or dealing with troublesome tenants.  We know that. We've heard from contractors during the Labour years of the absolute rorting that went on when it came to invoicing for work done. As soon as the job came in and you knew it was a job for KO, you simply inflated the invoice. Nobody was going to be checking. They told us that was going on all the time across every division of Labour. Matt Crocket, who's running KO right now, is doing a good job of getting back to basics, but the point remains that there will be people and agencies who can and do a much better job, not just of housing people, but as Bill English said, of getting people into a position where they can get into their own home, or when that's not possible, of helping them live truly meaningful lives.  I remember Bernie Smith too, the former Monte Cecilia Housing Trust CEO, saying that the reason they didn't have as many problematic tenants in their social housing was because they had case managers who knew the tenants. Their case managers weren't overwhelmed with tenants and problematic tenants. They knew the tenants' trigger points, they could head off trouble before it started.  The report says government issued vouchers for people to spend on rent would give people more choice and empower them.  And according to the report, that way the government could help people without having to own the houses and give money where it was most needed.  The report author says the person uses it to find the best trade-off for themselves. If they've got extra expenses for children with disabilities, they might choose a cheaper house at less rental and use the cash to help pay for their education or medical services or vice versa.   Empowerment. Now, there's a thing. Choice. There's a thing. But it will come down to an absolute clash of ideology. The idea of giving vulnerable people choice and empowerment is completely alien to the previous ethos, which was, we will look after you, don't think for yourself, we'll make sure that everything is done for you.  Which has got to be the most patronizing, expensive in terms of money and in terms of human potential, way of dealing with people. And I cannot see the current Labour government agreeing in any way, shape or form to going down that ideological path of actually empowering people and giving them choice, saying to agencies, okay, you do a great job.  Here's the money, you house these people, you know them, you know what they need. You're passionate about seeing them live full and meaningful lives. Go for it.  Personally, I think that's the way to go. I have not lived in a state house. My dad came from a state house, his siblings grew up in a state house. Nobody from that family ever needed a state house again. It was a launch pad for all of them, and for all of us, for the kids and the cousins. Nobody's ever needed it since, and that's the way it should be.  Empowerment, choice, you're not a victim, you do not need to be looked after for the rest of your life. Yes, you might have had problems, yes, you might be going through problems, yes, you might have disabilities, it does not mean you're worthless.  It does not mean that the state has to look after you for the rest of your life. You have choice. I love the message in this, but I can only see it lasting as long as a centre-right government in power.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A report by The New Zealand Initiative finds the Government's ownership of 77,000 state houses has maintenance costs nearly twice that of a private landlord. It finds it also doesn't respond quickly enough to issues like rent arrears, and troublesome tenants. CEO of community housing Paul Gilberd told Kerre Woodham that the top priority for government housing is to support society's most vulnerable people.  'We're seeing huge surge in, youth and older adult and women's homelessness, which is very much hidden because women in particular are not safe on the streets.' LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jim Bolger has died at the age of 90. He was New Zealand's 35th prime minister, in power from 1990 to 1997. After leaving Parliament in 1998, Bolger became New Zealand's ambassador to the United States and later Chancellor of the University of Waikato. Clare de Lore is a journalist who was Chair of the Press Gallery at the time Jim Bolger was Prime Minister, and a close friend of the family. She told Kerre Woodham that, 'it was a really happy environment in which he was until very recently when he had to go to hospital.' LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you want another example of Labour's ideology over pragmatism? I really, really hope that the previous Labour ministers have learned from their previous terms in government that thought bubbles and bright ideas do not sound policy make.   Remember Fees Free? The policy was introduced in 2018 and was a key part of Labour's election campaign. The first year of tertiary study would be free for students. It would progressively roll out to cover three years, which never eventuated. We, the taxpayer, provided up to $12,000 in tuition fee payments for the first year of provider-based study or the first two years of work-based learning. The idea behind the objective was sound and worthy.   The Labour Government, Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, et al, billed it as improving equity and opening the doors to higher learning for disadvantaged people for whom the doors would otherwise be closed. Labour expected to see a first-in-family effect. There would be students who would be the first in their families to attend higher education, now a significant cost barrier would be removed.    Did that happen? Thank you for asking, no, it didn't.   Over the years 2017 to 2022, European, Māori, Pacific, and Asian participation rates stayed relatively steady. The failure to shift the dial, the New Zealand Herald reports, was so evident that in 2020, Labour shifted the policy's purpose to reducing student debt levels. All right, well we can't get disadvantaged kids to university, we can't get first in family. Oh, I know, we'll use the taxpayer money to reduce student debt level.   The failed objectives were to increase participation in tertiary study, expand access by reducing financial barriers, and support lifelong learning. Nope. First year fees-free was limited to learners with little to no prior study, limiting lifelong learning support, the analysis said from the Ministry of Education. It described the scheme as a lot of money for little behavioural change, or as they put it, a high deadweight cost.   From this year, the Coalition Government has changed the scheme so it applies to the final year of study, with payment following the completion of studies. The policy has three objectives: to incentivize learners, particularly disadvantaged learners, to finish their studies, to reward learners who complete their program of study, to reduce the overall cost of study.   The Ministry of Education officials say this is going to fail too. Particularly for degree level study, once a learner reaches their final year, they are already far more likely to complete than those first entering study. So basically, they said it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.   By the time you reach your third year, you're going to finish whether the taxpayer is paying for your final year of fees or not. You're motivated enough to stay. They say the second goal is essentially meaningless. Of course there's going to be a completion of qualifications. And the third objective, will most likely succeed, to reduce the overall cost of study. And it will at least help the government's books, the trade-off being an estimated $230 million a year in student debt or more debt repayments than would otherwise occur.   So thought bubbles don't make sound policy. The thing that really concerned me in the early years of Labour was that they were ideas I'd think of – ‘Oh, I know, let's do this’. Which is great, but you have to think it through, and you have to listen to your advisors, and you have to listen when people say, "Mm, I'm not entirely sure that we're going to be able to build 100,000 houses." "Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about if we do this?" And we just throw as much money as we possibly can at it.    And on the face of it, taking away that first year of paying your fees – "Hey, gang, I've got an idea. Let's take away that first year of fees so that disadvantaged kids will see university as a great option." I mean, it doesn't take much scratching beyond the surface to see that's not going to work. And we all said that at the time, didn't we? We discussed it.   And now it looks like according to the analysis that fees-free final year won't work either. At least not for getting disadvantaged kids through degrees. For those who are highly motivated and have families that go to university, it's like, "Hooray!" Excellent. We'll take the $12,000 off our student debt, thanks very much, and good. If it helps motivated kids get through their study with less of a financial burden around their neck, it makes it easier for them to move onto the next phase of their life, buying a home, starting a family, this is all good.   You know, but in terms of the objectives, it's going to fail. But they have to keep it because of the coalition agreement with both NZ First and ACT. So they might have to do what Labour did and just rewrite the objectives.    Our objective is that we reward kids who were going to go to university anyway, who are motivated, who are successful, who we want to keep in New Zealand. We'll take $12,000 off their overall student debt, so they'll stay here, buy a house, and have a family. And on the face of it, that's not a bad objective. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What do you do if you want to leave a gang?  A coroner has found that Napier Mongrel Mob leader Neil Angus Benson, otherwise known as Heil Dogg, felt trapped in his position in the gang in the months leading up to his suicide in December 2024.  In his report, Coroner Wilton said Benson appeared to be under "psychological strain of his leadership position in the Mongrel Mob gang".  “He also described an internal dilemma: wanting to exit the gang lifestyle, but recognising he was too deeply involved for a straightforward exit.”  So if you want out, what can you do?  Police Minister Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham that from a government perspective, there is a significant amount of support they can provide.  He says if someone makes the decision to leave and has the fortitude to follow through, the Government will get alongside them and help them.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Another option to go alongside fees free study.  The Labour Government introduced First Year Fees Free in 2018, providing tertiary students with up to $12,000 in tuition cover for the first year of provider-based study, or the first two years of work-based learning.    The Coalition Government has changed the scheme from this year, applying it to the final year of study instead.   The policy had three objectives, to incentivise learners, particularly disadvantaged learners, to finish their studies; to reward learners who complete their programme of study; to reduce the overall cost of study.  However, officials say, like its predecessor, this policy is likely to fail too.   First Foundation is a wraparound programme that picks up academically talented but low-income students in year 12, giving them support, mentorship, and financial assistance for university.    First Foundation CEO Kirk Sargent told Kerre Woodham they’d welcome the chance to grab that $12,000, invest it into young people and get more people coming through the tertiary environment.  He says New Zealand has a productivity issue, and programmes like this could be a solution that would benefit the economy in the long run.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I love the fact that New Zealand Education Minister Erica Stanford and the Prime Minister presented improved reading stats to the nation yesterday. Erica Stanford was very quick to praise teachers for the much-improved results in phonics reading. She said this is an incredible improvement in reading scores in less than half a year and reflects the brilliant work teachers are doing, and it does.  Teachers have had a difficult time with changes in curriculum and dealing with increasingly disruptive children and school closures during Covid – it has been a difficult time. But when given a challenge, and when given a mandate, and given the tools to help do it, they rose to the challenge and the results have been, in these very early stages, remarkable.   There needed to be a turnaround. New Zealand's reading results have been declining since 2006 in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, which is done every five years, and just about every international test where we mark ourselves against other countries we have been on a downward spiral. Interestingly, educators, teachers, principals insisted that it's just tests. Our kids don't like tests, they don't like being compared, it's a very crude way to measure achievement. No, not really, it's not. It's an accurate assessment of where we were at. And where we were at was dismal.   The results from this year look extremely promising. Data showed 58% of students were at or above expectations at their 20-week phonics check in Term 3. That's up from 36% in Term 1. So they were measured after Term 1 – the little five-year-olds were at or above expectations, 36% of them in Term 1, and that has moved to 58% in Term 3.  In Term 3, 43% of students were classed as exceeding expectations, more than double the Term 1 rate. For Māori students in mainstream education, 47% of them required further support with phonics in Term 3. That is down from 62% of them needing support in Term 1. So to put it in another slightly more positive way, in Term 1 a quarter of Māori students were at or above expectations, by Term 3, that was 43%. So that's a significant difference. Education Minister Erica Stanford says this is only the beginning.    “From next year, twice a year, every year in reading, writing and maths, there'll be a progress monitoring check-in. I do not call it a test. But we will be essentially assessing every child from year three to make sure that they're on track with their reading, writing and maths. And that includes higher level literacy like comprehension.”  I have absolute faith that we'll see a lift in children's educational achievements under the new curriculum. Structured literacy, which involves explicitly teaching word identification, including through phonics, became mandatory in schools at the start of this year. Certainly it was used in many schools before this, but not necessarily by every teacher at every year level. It was very much hit and miss, and that was one of the things they talked about in the election campaign. They didn't want educational success to be by postcode because one principal did things one way and another principal did things another way. They wanted a standardized education for every child right across the country, and one that worked.  Labour leader Chris Hipkins was quick to claim credit for the structured literacy program, telling reporters after the press conference yesterday the scheme had been underway under the previous Labour government. It was being rolled out, he said. We were in the early stages of rolling it out, but then we lost the election. Clearly, we believe in it, we developed it, the vast bulk of the work around structured literacy was done when Jan Tinetti was Associate Minister of Education and I was the Minister. Right. You had six years to make the changes, being generous, to look at the science and introduce a best practice for all of our Kiwi kids, but you didn't. You didn't. And as for the comment he made too, in a really churlish kind of look at me, what about us? He said, of course we'd be making more progress if teachers were in the classroom rather than on strike because the Government are offering them a real terms pay cut.  Short memory former Education Minister. 2023 was a terrible year, absolutely terrible year for strike action by teachers. In March 2023, tens of thousands of primary, area, and secondary school teachers participated in an historic one-day walkout, but that show of strength didn't work. Despite the fact Labour is supposed to be the teachers' friend, teachers, primary and or secondary, went on strike for six days in 2023. And there were further rolling strikes and works to rule. So yeah, it would have been good to have them in the classroom in 2023 when you were Prime Minister, especially after the disruption of Covid.    Ultimately though, what matters is our kids are back on track. Baby steps, but it's a very, very good beginning. For hundreds of years, a decent education was what gave you options. It didn't matter where you were born and what circumstances you were born, a good education gave you options. It emancipated you from material poverty, intellectual poverty, spiritual poverty. And the quality of New Zealand's education for all children, not just the children of the elite, was what set us apart from the rest of the world. We lost our way for a time. And we lost a whole cohort of young New Zealanders. But hopefully this is the beginning of giving New Zealand kids choices and opportunities, giving them the sort of future that they deserve. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, better late than not at all. On Saturday morning, I went upstairs and said to my daughter, "Have you seen the orange envelopes that had all the voting?" "Oh, hell. Today, isn't it?" she said. "Yes." So we scrambled around and found it in that drawer that has everything, where they'd been since they arrived in the mail. And we had until midday to vote, so both got down to it, and I took hers in with mine to drop into the local library. I knew who I wanted to vote for, so that was relatively simple. And picked up her voting papers in the sealed envelope and mine, and went to our local library, and dropped them in.   Which is what I did last local body elections. Scrambled around, but I had to make a special vote because I couldn't find my papers and posted them in Hamilton, at a library in Hamilton, just on the stroke of midday. I didn't even know if my vote counted, but hopefully it did. Hopefully I made it in time, and this time it certainly should. I wasn't the only one leaving it to the last minute, and I wasn't the only one scrambling around trying to get a special vote, as I'd done in the previous local body elections. The library was absolutely chocker when I went in there to post the envelopes. There was probably around about 30 odd people sitting on chairs and another 20 waiting to cast a special vote. At least we were trying to have our say. At least, even though we'd left it to the very last minute, we were trying to have our say in local body elections. And hopefully, by the time all of the special votes have been counted, the voter turnout will come up slightly because at the moment, it's the lowest voter turnout in 36 years. Less than a third of us, 32.65%, bothered to have our say. Of those who did, typically, it's the lazy city goers who were the most useless. In metro areas, only 28.8% cast their votes. Those in the provinces, 38.3%. While the rural turnout, yet again, it's the rural folk doing the heavy lifting, 43.6%. Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch saw mayors elected with a landslide, if you can call it that when you've got such a low proportion of voters turning out. Local Government New Zealand wants to get voter turnout to 80%. As they say in the Placemakers ad, tell him he's dreaming. Mayor Brown called it a strong endorsement to finish what he started, which is over-egging the omelette. Andrew Little felt thrilled, excited, and somewhat daunted by the job ahead as Wellington Mayor. And Phil Major was surprised at the size of his majority. To be honest, I'm not particularly enthused about re-electing Wayne Brown. I did, but because there was very little in the way of options. He's not the most engaging of personalities, but, you know, when you're looking for a mayor, he turns up sober, gets things done, hasn't bonked anyone in the Ngati Whatua room. You know, so go Wayne. Better than you can say about other mayors around the country and in the past. And that's kind of how you get elected these days. If you're vaguely adequate, then people voters just think, thank heavens, and give you the tick. How on earth do we get a better turnout and more engaged communities? Councils matter. In 2024, councils across the country were responsible for $217 billion dollars' worth of assets and employed 39 and a half thousand staff. They had a collective spending power of $20 billion dollars. It really matters. That's our money. Political parties know the power of controlling these assets. Blocks of politically motivated people try to get on councils to push their agendas through. And they can do that because of the apathy of the voters. I mean, look what happened in Wellington. But what do we do? I think I'm preaching to the converted here. I imagine most of you would have been very sensible and cast your vote long before Saturday morning like me. But you and I are interested in politics. We know that we have a responsibility to vote. Don't we? I'm imagining that most of you would have turned out. If you didn't, I'd love to know why. If you did, how do we get more people to take an interest? The good councillors, and you know the ones in your area, I know the ones in mine, do their level best to get out there an show you what they're doing, show you how they're spending your money, exhorting you to take an interest in what they're doing, exhorting you to critique their performance. I don't know how it can be too hard. Maybe reading up on the backgrounds of the candidates, maybe reading what they want to spend your money on is hard. But so too is finding out that something you're vehemently opposed to or that your rates are going up and you've got no idea why. That's hard too. Choose your hard. Maybe having polling booths, maybe not having so long, because otherwise they go in that drawer where everything goes. I don't know. I would love to hear your ideas. Because it matters. It really does matter - $217 billion dollars worth of assets and a collective spending power of $20 billion dollars and two-thirds of New Zealand goes, "yeah, whatever."  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The government has changed methane targets, aiming to make the changes easier for farmers.  The Government's slashed the 2050 targets to 14% to 24% below 2017 levels, it was previously 24% to 47% lower than previously. Former Speaker of the House Sir Lockwood Smith told Kerre Woodham that this change is the right decision.  He said that it would be a bad idea to impede New Zealand's meat and dairy production when the business will fall to 'countries that actually put out more methane and more carbon dioxide in producing it.' LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This year’s local government elections have seen the lowest voter turnout in 36 years, with less than a third - or 32% - bothering to have their say. Of those who did, the contrast between the urban rural divide was stark. In metro areas, only 28.8% cast their votes, provincial people made up 38.3% while rural turnout was 43.6% Local Government New Zealand says it is clear local elections have to change urgently - they'd like  to see a voter turnout of at  least 80%. University of Otago Law Professor Andrew Geddis told Kerre Woodham that moving away from postal ballots could be the way forward.  'We can't keep using postal ballots because the postal service is disintegrating.'  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dame Wendy Pye is one of the most successful businesspeople in New Zealand. She’s a rich-lister, her publishing company Sunshine Books has sold over 300 million books worldwide, she's met countless more world leaders, and she was the first living woman to be inducted into the New Zealand Business Hall of Fame.   But it hasn’t all been easy. Dame Wendy has gone through a life changing redundancy, legal battles, and had many deals that couldn't be closed.   She joined Newstalk ZB's Kerre Woodham in studio for the first episode of Bosses Unfiltered.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Orini Kaipara gave her maiden speech in Parliament yesterday, and she's just the sort of person you want to see entering politics – she's young, she's smart, she's passionate. And I don't know about you, but I love seeing an electorate MP, somebody who has been overwhelmingly selected by voters, given a mandate by voters to be their person in Parliament, as opposed to sliding in on the list.   But when she agreed to enter Parliament, surely she is agreeing then to the rules and conventions that govern Parliament. Her maiden speech focused on the importance of te reo and that we must respect and honour everybody, despite the colour of their skin, despite the language that they speak. All well and good.   But the message was marred by a number of violations of House rules. Her maiden speech ran well over time, causing clear frustration for Speaker Gerry Brownlee. Maiden speeches are allocated 15 minutes of Parliament's time, and Kaipara's went well over that.   "This is not on," the Speaker thundered, as he rang the bell for a third time to signal she had run out of time for her speech. I have no doubt she felt moved to tell the House and her supporters what it had taken to get her there, what inspired her, her reason for being there.   But every maiden MP has a story. Every maiden MP from every party has a group of people who have guided them to where they are today and their very, very real reasons for being there. Kaipara's are important, but no more important than any other MPs from any other party in the House.   Then, after a waiata and a haka followed her overlong speech, Gerry Brownlee had enough and suspended the House. He had given permission for a waiata, but not a haka. Permission has to be sought before you can do either. And before anyone jumps up and down and says a haka should be able to be performed anytime, anywhere, whenever the wairua takes you, rules are rules, man.   As Brownlee put it, when the House resumed after half an hour, "We have a protocol here. This is our tikanga. That tikanga is based on agreement." He said there'd been no agreement for the haka, nor for the speech to go on and on as it did. And he said he was going to investigate whether the haka had been spontaneous —I suspect it was, that's what you do at graduation ceremonies and the like and as a sign of enormous respect— or planned by a political party. He says for people to decide they are not going to participate in that process, they put themselves very firmly in contempt of Parliament.   Would Te Pāti Māori members accept breaches of protocol on the marae? Continued breaches of protocol? I doubt it – especially if they were deliberate. Ignorance you can kind of accept. It's annoying that people don't know the rules of your church or your golf club or your marae or your Parliament, but hey ho, that's life. Gentle correction and people are back on course. Continual breaches, when you know better, it's a different story. That's contempt. If a person or a group of people continually stick two fingers to your organisation and the way you do things, would you keep them in that organisation?   So what does the Speaker do about Te Pāti Māori, who have made it abundantly clear time and time again that they simply do not respect the values and the rules of Parliament? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.