Episodios

  • Kerre Woodham: Is the primary teachers' union causing friction?

    Kerre Woodham: Is the primary teachers' union causing friction?
    Mar 11 2026
    For nine months now, the Public Service Commission has been negotiating with the primary school teachers union over pay and conditions. Every other union in the education sector has settled, but not the NZEI Te Riu Roa. There have been strikes, there have been rejected pay offers, in some cases offers haven't even been presented to union members to vote on, and there have been accusations of bad faith from both sides. In interviews, the Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche has sounded increasingly grumpy and frustrated, and when he spoke to Mike Hosking last week, he said that he was exploring options, looking for a way to offer non-union teachers, about a third of the primary teacher workforce, a pay increase so they didn't have to wait for the union to find an offer acceptable. And now he has, as he explained to Heather du Plessis Allan last night. BR: There are 10,000 non-unionised teachers who have been deprived of a settlement. In the normal course of events, we would have kept going with the NZEI, and we are still keeping going with them, but I got to the point where I could no longer justify withholding an offer. So they, the non-union members, have the option now of accepting or not accepting. I don't think it impacts at all on our good faith bargaining and our strong commitment to reach a settlement with NZEI. HDPA: Is it lawful? BR: Of course, but it is risky and that's playing out now. But this is a question of equity. Why would somebody who's not in the union be deprived of being able to benefit from something? They're under no obligation to accept it, I fully respect that, but 10,000 people where I can make their lives better and get greater stability is worth doing. So that was what Sir Brian Roche was doing, looking at the legality of it, whether they could do it. He's found a way that they can, and he says it's risky because he fears the unions will kick off. They'll go hardline, they'll take the strikes and go all sort of waterfront union on it. The union says it will cause a division, but as Education Minister Erica Stanford told Mike Hosking this morning, she thinks it's fair and reasonable that nearly a third of primary school teachers who are not part of the union should be offered a contract now so that they can receive the pay increases now that the government has already offered. ES: I know that the unions, of course they're not happy with it, and they're trying to say, look, it's causing division. But I would say there's already division. A third of their workforce are not in a union, you know, and if they seriously think it's about division, they should ask themselves why a third of the workforce don't want anything to do with them. Interesting. This will equate to approximately 50 to 76 bucks every week, which is not inconsiderable. And it's pay that teachers could be receiving already, were they not impacted by the ongoing holdout from the union. They would say that it's the Government's failure to meet their perfectly reasonable demands, so there'll be stories from both sides. But good on the Public Service Commission. I mean, if unions want to keep going because they believe they can get a better deal for their union members, that's what their members pay their dues for, that they want to get the best possible conditions for their members, fine, fill your boots, keep going. But if I was a non-union teacher, I'd be getting more and more brassed off. It's not just the parents and young people too who are fed up with the ongoing negotiations and ongoing industrial action. Plenty of teachers are too, if the text traffic is anything to go by. A number of teachers told me they were only in the union for the legal protection it afforded them. They certainly didn't agree with the hardline stance being taken by negotiators. Will it cause friction? More friction than there already is in the staffroom when you have some teachers earning more while others are having to wait for their union to settle? I mean, when we were talking about the waterfront workers’ strike lockout depending on which side you're on, there were people who would cross the street to avoid scabs, you know, in Huntly or Otahuhu and different parts of the country. Those old resentments lingered and lingered and lingered. Surely we're beyond that now. You shouldn't have to join a union to be able to negotiate fair pay and conditions, and I wouldn't have thought teachers particularly would need one. They know their worth, they're articulate. Why would you need a union per se? I bet, as a number of them said, they're only there for the legal protection. If there was a way of insuring yourself privately for a reasonable fee against malicious lawsuits, then perhaps there'd be no need for the union at all. How many of you belong to unions and why? Do you see the benefit it brings you? How many of you would like to be in a union and how many of you are perfectly confident that you can negotiate ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Sharon Zollner: ANZ Chief Economist on New Zealand's economic response to the Covid pandemic

    Sharon Zollner: ANZ Chief Economist on New Zealand's economic response to the Covid pandemic
    Mar 11 2026

    New Zealand’s economic response to the Covid pandemic is under scrutiny.

    The second phase of the Covid Inquiry found New Zealand’s overall pandemic response effective, but some restrictions went too far, and the Government moved too slowly in some areas.

    It highlights our Covid increase on health spending was one of the OECD's largest.

    ANZ Chief Economist Sharon Zollner told Kerre Woodham that debt is likely going to be permanently higher, and we have a lot of medium-term fiscal challenges as a result.

    She says in broad terms, we’ve used up two crises worth of buffer for a single crisis.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Más Menos
    10 m
  • Johan Norberg: Cato Institute Senior Fellow on Sweden's Covid response compared to New Zealand's

    Johan Norberg: Cato Institute Senior Fellow on Sweden's Covid response compared to New Zealand's
    Mar 11 2026

    Comparisons are being drawn between New Zealand’s approach to Covid, and Sweden’s.

    The findings of the second phase of the Covid Inquiry were released yesterday, and the response was found to be broadly effective, but slow to adapt and poorly communicated.

    It also found some mandates to be overly restrictive, and the Auckland lockdown went on too long.

    In Sweden, they had a less restrictive approach, focused on keeping life moving as normal as much as possible.

    Cato Institute Senior Fellow Johan Norberg told Kerre Woodham that the population voluntarily engaged in social distancing and reducing travel, and so they only felt the need to briefly enforce limitations when a new wave hit in 2020.

    He says the focus was on normalcy, as they didn’t know what would happen next, but they knew it would be a bad idea to hurt themselves further by shutting down schools and the economy.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • Kerre Woodham: Do you feel our Covid response was successful?

    Kerre Woodham: Do you feel our Covid response was successful?
    Mar 10 2026
    We all seem to be suffering from Long Covid. It's lingering as the findings of the second phase of the Covid-19 response inquiry were released yesterday. And what its findings were pretty much depends on what media you read. According to RNZ, it found the Government's response was effective but late and not communicated well enough to people. From Newsroom: ‘Lockdown, vaccine decisions considered and appropriate, Royal Commission’. So looking at that headline, you'd think nothing to see here, no criticisms, excellent, well done. ‘Covid-19 inquiry commission criticises length of Auckland lockdown and government spending’ – that's from the New Zealand Herald. Maybe read it yourself and see what you think. It's on publicly available on websites. There are video explainers, there are findings there. See for yourself. If you were anti-the infantilisation of the country, as I was, you will read it and wonder why the commission was so temperate in its findings. If you believed the Government was your saviour and without their instructions you would have died, you will read the excuses and the findings and nod along and say, “Yes, didn't we do well?" The second phase of the inquiry tested whether the Government took a balanced approach and found overall it largely did, but said the public was not brought on board —maybe they didn't want to be on board, maybe they could start to see through the nonsense— and the public must be brought on board in the next pandemic. One of the 24 recommendations made yesterday said that there should be more open decision making in future around the impacts on people's isolation, health, and incomes. And that's really, really important because surely, we must be allowed to question decisions, we must be able to debate them and argue against them without being considered treasonous or a conspiracy theorist or a granny killer. Look what happened when then leader of the National Party Simon Bridges grilled Ashley Bloomfield over the Ministry of Health's decision-making transparency and data at the Covid Response Select Committee hearing. In effect, just by daring to question the Director General of Health, just by asking him some tough questions, he lost his job. Cost him the job as leader of the National Party. We have to be able to question and debate, even if the decisions are ultimately the Government's based on the best possible advice. The report confirmed, as reported at the time, that the Auckland lockdown in late 2021 went on six days longer than recommended by Ashley Bloomfield. I think Aucklanders would argue it went on six weeks longer than it should have, but hey ho, there we go. That's what they found. It also found that advice from health experts that under 18s in work shouldn't be mandated to have two vaccine doses because of the risk of cardiac myocarditis wasn't followed. Another finding was that the Auckland Northland border stayed in place over the 2021/22 Christmas period when it was advised it could be reopened. There was also criticism of the then Labour Government's economic approach, saying policies around stimulus and inflation became unaligned from mid ‘21. For unaligned, I'd have put unhinged, but again, hey ho, it's their report. And that was despite the best advice from Treasury that spending must be temperate, timely, and targeted. The people of New Zealand are now vulnerable for at least the next 40 years to another shock, another pandemic, an earthquake. We're built on the shaky isles, you know, there's bound to be another, and we are now really vulnerable because too much money was not just spent but wasted by the previous Labour Government. And it's not just Treasury or the Inquiry that have pointed the finger at Labour for their financial sloppiness. Auditor General John Ryan, as he was then, heavily criticised the $15 billion infrastructure spend up during the pandemic. He said he decided to look at the funding because of the scale of the investment and the potential intergenerational impacts. His criticism and list of failings by officials and ministers are many. This is from a man who could ask the hard questions and get the answers that he needed to get, unlike journos who had to go through the OIA to get any kind of answers to any pertinent questions. They were far too busy saving lives to give answers to genuine questions around lockdowns, around vaccinations, around mandates and the like. But even with the hard data in front of them, Chris Hipkins and the like just recycle the “it's hard to be sorry when you've saved lives" trope. The inquiry finishes: “These lessons do not detract from the overall success of the pandemic response. Indeed, our findings, lessons, and recommendations are offered in the hope that they will assist decision makers to be as successful in fighting a pandemic in the future." Well, with what you know now, do you believe that the response was a success? Do you believe that when ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Kerre Woodham: Are parents restricting their kids' online access?

    Kerre Woodham: Are parents restricting their kids' online access?
    Mar 10 2026

    The Government is doing its bit to protect children from themselves by banning the use of smartphones during the school day and by moving to bring in legislation restricting social media use for children under 16. The schools are doing their bit, although it's more mopping up than prevention, by bringing in counsellors to help children, some as young as eight, who've been exposed to extreme online content.

    The question is what are parents doing to protect their own children? Teachers talk about hearing students discussing their gaming exploits late into the night and doom scrolling TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram, repeating objectionable things they've heard online that they don't really understand.

    I'm not in the position of having to deal with young ones and smartphones, not in terms of setting the rules. The young ones in my house, the just-turned-nine year old and seven year old, love using my phone to look at videos or to add music to their playlists on Spotify, so I've put controls on the phone, but then we couldn't get some of Eminem's stuff, so we had to go for the radio edit version of Eminem. And that's fine, we work around that, but I have put controls on the phone just in case. It's not them looking for it, it's the accidental discovery of things that you cannot unsee. But I don't have to set the rules around how many hours they can have and when they can view it – that's for their parents to do.

    But surely, and that's the way it works in our house, you set limits on what the kids can access, how much time they have to access it, when they can access it, and if they break those rules, their rights are rescinded. That hasn't happened yet, but they're not old enough I suppose to go looking for trouble. But surely that's the way it works. It always has worked. You set the rules and if the children break the rules, then there are consequences for that. Or has parenting suddenly been turned on its head since the year 2020?

    Why on earth should schools have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on counsellors to mitigate the harm children have exposed themselves to outside of school hours when they're supposed to be under parental supervision? One parent talked about getting up to go to the loo in the middle of the night and seeing the light behind the closed bedroom door – their daughter was on the phone at 1am. That's not the school's problem if she has access to material she finds harmful or if she's been exposed to material that's disturbed her.

    When you're looking at the amount of money that schools say they're having to spend because the kids are so upset and beside themselves, surely that money could be better spent on activities or resources for the school that all children could enjoy, rather than have it spent on a small number of traumatised late night scrollers.

    I'd really love to know what the rules are, what rules you've set. According to the Greens, it's pointless putting any kind of restrictions on children and social media use. Pointless having legislation around it because the kids will just get around any restrictions placed on them by the government. But as a parent, can you say that you have put protections in place that work, that you have got rules in place for your house that work, or has the whole concept of parenting as I understood it completely and utterly changed, that there are no rules and there are no consequences?

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Más Menos
    5 m
  • Casey Costello: Customs Minister on the changing fees and levies for small parcels entering New Zealand

    Casey Costello: Customs Minister on the changing fees and levies for small parcels entering New Zealand
    Mar 9 2026

    Shipping prices could soon be rising for cheap online stores like Shein and Temu.

    Changes from next month will add fees and levies to small parcels crossing the border, making them fairer and helping cover Customs costs.

    It should save taxpayers $70 million in parcel subsidies.

    Customs Minister Casey Costello told Kerre Woodham Mornings border control can't cope with the more than 24 million packages entering New Zealand each year.

    She says the relationship between retailer and couriers may need changing, and could increase the price of some goods.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • Kerre Woodham: Three women killed by repeat offenders, when will courts learn?

    Kerre Woodham: Three women killed by repeat offenders, when will courts learn?
    Mar 8 2026
    It was a glorious weekend. Somewhat marred when I read this story from Anna Leask in yesterday's New Zealand Herald. I really had to I really had to reset myself after reading this. Anna writes, urgent calls for change are mounting after a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and a raft of prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe. Which it didn't. Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Chantal McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes. All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders. Men who were released under supervision and conditions designed to keep the public safe. Nathan Boulter murdered Chantal McDonald in front of her kids, 13 days after he was released from prison where he'd been sent after terrorising, abusing, and kidnapping other women. In 2022 Juliana Herrera was murdered by a convicted rapist, Joseph Brider. He'd been released on parole 72 days before he crept into her house while she was sleeping and subjected her to a prolonged sexual and physical assault before stabbing her to death. And Nicole Tuxford was murdered by Paul Pounamu Tainui, otherwise known as Paul Russell Wilson, who was on parole for the earlier rape and murder of his girlfriend. The girlfriend he'd previously killed had told her mother it was just a matter of time before she ended up dead. She knew he was going to kill her. She knew he was going to do it sooner or later, and he did, and then he was sent to prison, and then he did it again. After each woman's murder, Corrections mounted a review. Corrections confirmed it communicated and worked with police and others in a multi agency group to monitor the parolees' risk and compliance with their conditions. Clearly they haven't learned any lessons. Not after the first one, not after the second, not after the third. There'll be a fourth and a fifth. And primarily, primarily it's because these men have been given sentences where they have to come out eventually. And then it's on Corrections to try and monitor them, and they can't be monitored. They have shown through their actions that they cannot be rehabilitated, if they could be habilitated at all. If they were given preventive detention, we, the community and women in particular, wouldn't have to worry. Have a look at Australia. You know, they are not considered a particularly backward, primitive society. You wouldn't think of Australia and think, oh yeah, but they're nutters, you know, they chop people's hands off in the square. No, they don't do that. But what they do do, is keep the community safe. A man who raped and killed an international student was sentenced to 30 years minimum jail term. The Crown appealed that because they said despite the fact he was 20 at the time of the attack, that he pleaded guilty, he had no criminal record and had not premeditated the offence, the Crown said its sheer violence meant the safety of the community needed to be placed above the limited prospect of him being rehabilitated when he was released. They argued the minimum 30 year sentence was manifestly inadequate for a 20 year old who pleaded guilty, who'd never had a history of criminal offending. And what do our judges do? Nine years, 10 years, 12 years for people with long, documented histories of violence and abuse. Another one, Derek Barrett, 32 initially sentenced to at least 34 years in jail in 2017 in Sydney for killing his 26 year old niece who was boarding with him and his wife at the time. It's 46 years. That's what the judge handed out, 46 years, and he's eligible for parole in 34 He probably won't get it because they found out later he'd done all sorts of unspeakable things when they found a USB. That's what that's how much the courts in Australia value the lives of women. Innocent women who have their lives completely and utterly destroyed in prolonged assaults by men who are very, very sick. Now, in our case, over the ditch in New Zealand, we knew these men were sick. They'd shown they were sick. They'd shown they had absolutely no interest in rehabilitation, and they'd been recalled to jail a number of times for assaults against women before they murdered again. Had our judges applied the same consideration in sentencing these men with their proven history, the other two in Australia had never put a foot wrong that anybody had found out about. They might have been deviant creeps in their in their private life, hadn't commit you know, they hadn't shown to the judges that they'd done anything wrong. These ones have. Join the dots. Could we make it any clearer? All three of those women named in Anna's article and many, many other women would still be alive today if we applied the sort of sentencing that Australian judges think is perfectly reasonable to apply to monsters who are sick and ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Greg Newbold: Criminologist and Author discusses Christchurch woman's murder by a repeat offenders

    Greg Newbold: Criminologist and Author discusses Christchurch woman's murder by a repeat offenders
    Mar 8 2026

    Over the weekend, a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe.

    Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Shantelle McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes.

    All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders.

    Professor Emeritus in Sociology at University of Canterbury and Criminologist Greg Newbold joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the importance of NZ courts cracking down on violent crime, including a call to issue 'life without parole' sentences.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Más Menos
    9 m