Episodios

  • Kerre Woodham: Should there be name suppression for child sexual abusers?

    Kerre Woodham: Should there be name suppression for child sexual abusers?
    Oct 17 2025
    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 ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Wayne Wright Jr: Businessman on name suppression in child abuse cases

    Wayne Wright Jr: Businessman on name suppression in child abuse cases
    Oct 16 2025

    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.
    Más Menos
    9 m
  • Kerre Woodham: State houses are a launchpad, not a permanent solution

    Kerre Woodham: State houses are a launchpad, not a permanent solution
    Oct 16 2025
    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...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Paul Gilberd: CEO of community housing says focus should remain on helping the most vulnerable people

    Paul Gilberd: CEO of community housing says focus should remain on helping the most vulnerable people
    Oct 15 2025

    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 ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Más Menos
    9 m
  • Clare de Lore: Chair of the Press Gallery under Jim Bolger pays tribute to late Prime Minister

    Clare de Lore: Chair of the Press Gallery under Jim Bolger pays tribute to late Prime Minister
    Oct 15 2025

    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 ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Más Menos
    9 m
  • Kerre Woodham: The failure of Fees Free

    Kerre Woodham: The failure of Fees Free
    Oct 15 2025
    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 ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Mark Mitchell: Police Minister on the support available for those wanting to leave gangs

    Mark Mitchell: Police Minister on the support available for those wanting to leave gangs
    Oct 15 2025

    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.
    Más Menos
    6 m
  • Kirk Sargent: First Foundation CEO on the programme supporting lower socioeconomic students through tertiary study

    Kirk Sargent: First Foundation CEO on the programme supporting lower socioeconomic students through tertiary study
    Oct 14 2025

    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.
    Más Menos
    9 m