Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

The Greens are under fire with Marama Davidson doubling down on her desire to work with the mob to get positive health outcomes. First there was the photo in the mob headquarters, cha ching, look at us, woo hoo! That was the Greens and Te Pāti Māori MPs popping along to a health hui.  

And when asked about that in faintly judgy tones by the media, Greens co leader Marama Davidson said, "We are open to funding the Mongrel Mob to deliver drug prevention programs. We're open to funding what works. We're an evidence-based party."  And that instead of pushing problems under the carpet, they want to bring problems out into the light, get to the people who are hard to reach, and if that means working with the mob, well, all well and good.  

They have got the receipts already, we will support more of that work. But have they? The thing with receiving government money for pet projects and worthy community initiatives is that you have to show you get results, measured in hard data, before you can get any more dosh. And when it comes to drug rehabilitation and trying to rehabilitate people who are not part of the mainstream, sure, try something different. 

But Labour has tried. Under Jacinda Ardern, they funded the Harry Tam marae-based rehab program for gang members. Harry Tam's a lifelong Mongrel Mob member. The money didn't come from the taxpayer's pocket per se, it came from the Proceeds of Crime Fund, which seemed perverse to critics but logical to supporters: use gang money to rehabilitate gang members.  

But the whole thing boils down to whether or not it worked. And the answer is: who would know? There were 80 participants across nine intakes who went through an eight-week live-in program at Waipawa, followed by two weeks of reintegration and then wrap around support services for six weeks. All of the intakes were drug tested at the beginning, almost all of them testing positive for meth. The program was addiction treatment, then cultural immersion to build self-worth, physical activity programs, and help towards the end of the program with welfare applications, writing CVs and applying for driver's licenses or training courses to make you more employable. 

All very well and good and marvellous, but did it work? Did the graduates kick the meth? Again, who would know? To quote from Derek Cheng's story in the Herald, "an exact figure is not possible from the reports, as only some of them include data for the post program checks, while others have the data redacted." Available data shows that some relapsed at some point, while a minority were using methamphetamine regularly after the program, and this data is caveated as mostly self-reported." And that's the thing, Lynn, as Tom Sainsbury would say. You cannot self-report and rely on anecdotal evidence and reckons if you want more money from the government. You don't get that when you're dealing with the government. They want to know that if they're putting in money, there is a set of measures, there's a set of outcomes, and you have to tick a certain number of them before you can get the money.  

You'll know that if you're working in a not for profit or a community initiative or a community organization. Trying to get funding is really, really difficult, and you have to show that your program works. I feel much the same way about the boot camps.  If they're not working, can them. I don't expect a 100% success rate. You simply won't get that when you're dealing with drug addiction, nor will you get that with lawless kids.  I'm not asking for 100%. You do need a bit more than "it felt really good to talk with the brothers" from the participants. An early evaluation of the program after the first two intakes found of the 22 people who had completed the program, two thirds still used meth, although most said they used less than they used to. 

On the positive side, 65% of those participants self-reported an improvement in their physical health between week one and week eight of the course. Cool. Healthier, fitter, stronger gangsters. And of the 22 unemployed participants who attended the first two intakes, 10 had since found employment of some kind, although whether they're still in employment, who would know.  

Now, if Harry Tam was doing all this through private funders and sponsors, great. Go for it. Show them and see if they want to keep funding the rehab program. If the mob wants to put its members through a rehab program and pay the going rate for a place in a rehab centre for each of the lads, again, go for it. None of our business, good luck, I wish you the best of British. But as every worthy organization reliant on public money needs to know, before we show you the money, you need to show us we're going to get value for it. When Marama Davidson says, hey, we're an evidence-based party," on that level, Harry Tam's rehab program fails. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The manager of a popular West Auckland campground is claiming a win with its short-term future being saved. 

The Waitakere Ranges Local Board will again let people camp overnight at Piha Domain, despite the area being a high flood hazard environment.   

It has updated its monitoring and warning systems, occupancy restrictions, evacuation procedures and reporting requirements - with a long-term plan being decided next year.  

Fiona Anderson told Kerre Woodham the community has pulled together to make this happen. 

She says the phone has been ringing constantly this morning, and the bookings are now flooding in.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sweet mercy. I don't know about you, but the sight of Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs posturing and posing with members of the Mongrel Mob brought back very bad memories of the bad old days. Remember when gang members were given funding for dubious rehab programs? And when they took over the roads and the streets as they were going to tangihanga or just, you know, going from point A to point B and wanted to put on a show?  

Remember when the Mongrel Mob Kingdom tried to tell New Zealanders, "Hey, look, we're just ordinary everyday members of society who want the best for our kids and our families just like you," who got Don Brash on board with their education trust, and had their own media liaison person, Louise, who would ring me almost on the daily for a while and harangue me for my anti-gang sentiments? This is the same Mongrel Mob Kingdom that said, "Hey, we're not like the other Mongrel Mob. I mean, we might have it in our name, but we're anti-drugs." Bit awks then when the 2IC of the Mongrel Mob Kingdom was jailed for 10 years in 2023 for importing, distributing, and supplying meth and the date rape drug. Cool story, guys. Some of somebody believed it.  

One of the best things about the gang patch ban is that it's stopped the gang members overtly recruiting in my neighbourhood. They used to park up on sunny days on their gleaming bikes on the patch of grass next to the roundabout, and the local kids would ooh, aah around the bikes while these men swaggered and punked around. Now the recruiting is not quite so obvious and not quite so overt, not so bloody shamelessly in the face of the neighbourhood. I couldn't agree more with Casey Costello when she condemned the MPs for their ill-advised photo op. 

"It was beyond despicable. They have done more damage for our fight against organised crime than I think they even realise. You know, these are trying to legitimise themselves and they've just played into their hand and told young people, "Oh, look at these cool guys." Just pathetic. If they want to be treated legitimate, take their damn patches off and meet as individuals. Don't try and come as a collective entity as if you're representing some legitimate business. And I wouldn't allow them into my office. I wouldn't allow them into I wouldn't meet with them full stop. Take your patches off and be treated as individuals." 

Absolutely. Could not agree with her more. And I accept that there are people within gangs who are hardworking, productive members of society. I don't know if you remember Paul who rang us from Kawerau around home detention. People are complicated. The world is not binary. But when you wear that patch, you have to accept that people will judge you on that patch. They've worked very, very hard to build up a reputation around the patch so that as soon as you see it, you know what it stands for. They want to make you fearful. That's the point. And the reason you do feel fearful when you see it is that they associate it with so many violent crimes and drug dealing. It's like working at ZB a bit. You know, there are people who think that everyone who works at ZB is a foaming right-wing racist. They've never listened to any of the shows, but because ZB has been branded that, that's what people believe. And the truth's a little bit more nuanced than that, I hope.  

I think Casey Costello is right. I mean, individuals, absolutely fine. Take off the patch, have a discussion, cool. But these guys look like 16 year olds posing with the gang members inside the pad. "Ooh, look at us flirting with danger. Oh my god, we're just so cool. Just so cool." No, you're not cool. Looks pathetic. And it gives validation to a criminal organisation that that organisation has not earned. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christopher Luxon says National's delivered a lot of what it wanted to this term.  

While taking talkback with Kerre Woodham, a supporter asked why he allowed ACT and New Zealand First to veto National promises after the 2023 election. 

She pointed out although Luxon had expressed support for capping vape stores at 600, in Coalition negotiations he handed NZ First responsibility for regulation of smoking and cessation tools.  

Luxon says voters decided the election, and National had to make that work.  

He says you have to make trade offs, but the minor parties had to sign up to the National Party agenda.   

Another supporter told Luxon he's foolish to rule out working with the Opportunity Party, saying he owes it to New Zealanders to at least have a conversation if Qiulae Wong’s party holds the balance of power. 

Luxon responded with a well-worn answer saying he opposed Opportunity’s land tax policy, despite Wong previously saying it would be worth considering accepting no tax reform next term if it meant forming a government with other policy gains. 

“Taxing New Zealanders is just the wrong thing at the moment.” 

The caller encouraged the National leader to reconsider, saying they don't have to agree with the minor party's policies, but closing the door from the get-go is foolish if they want to get into power.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What would you rather? New Zealand jobs in a premium product or cheap materials? The aluminium extrusion industry says the government's decision not to impose a safeguard on imports may have signed the New Zealand industry's death warrant. Under advice from MBIE, the government has rejected a request to give special temporary protection to the aluminium extrusion industry in the face of growing competition from offshore.  

The industry, which manufactures aluminium into products such as windows and door frames, had asked the government for what is known as safeguard protection measures to give it time to adjust to the competition. However, Minister of Commerce Cameron Brewer decided the threshold for a safeguard measure had not been met, which is interesting because the MBIE report noted that the domestic industry had suffered serious injury in recent years. It also said the increase in imports was one source among many, including a contracting domestic market and cost increases. It said while a safeguard measure might help the domestic industry in the short term, it would be likely to raise prices for consumers and would not support New Zealand's trade goals. 

However, it was odd because the industry, who was talking to Mike this morning, said that the MBIE officials had asked them to investigate taking a dumping case. Clearly MBIE thinks that there is a case there, or at least a case to be made, but in the meantime, they're not willing to put in the safeguard protections.  

Dave Slomp, Managing Director of McKenney Aluminium Solutions says what they need in the short term to look after jobs and to ensure that a quality world class product remains on the market. 

"We operate at world-class levels of quality, service, productivity, the envy of the world, and we're an industry that services the New Zealand market extremely well. And what we're seeing here is Chinese extrusion being landed in New Zealand for less than what extruders pay for the raw billet that we make extrusions out of." 

When you are bringing in a product for less than the price of the material in the home country, that is dumping, pure and simple. You would have thought it was an open and shut case. He said it's going to put the country's manufacturers' skilled jobs and critical industry capability at immediate risk. And all very well and good for those of us who want to buy aluminium extrusion products thinking, "Oh yay, they're cheap as chips because the Chinese are dumping their products here." What happens if they decide they're not going to? What happens if they decide that New Zealand's not a market worth bothering about?  

We won't have the product at all because our premium product, our New Zealand made product, will have shut up shop. We've been here before with the imported peaches versus homegrown. The government found that Chinese peaches were in fact being dumped into New Zealand following an investigation of claims made by Heinz Wattie's last year. Again, goods are considered to be dumped if they're exported for less than their normal value in their home country.  The peach industry just took an absolute hammering when all of the imported produce turned up, and despite the fact that tariffs were put on, it was all far too late for the peach growers.  

But ultimately, Heinz Wattie's said we won't be able to can New Zealand peaches because of a declining demand for canned peaches of New Zealand origin. It's a premium product, just like our New Zealand aluminium extrusions. Premium, costs more, and consumers decide with their wallets. The consumers ultimately decided they'd rather have the cheaper imported fruit, and that was the end of the premium product. That's the rub. Ultimately, the consumer will decide. If you're a customer, if you're somebody who is buying aluminium extrusion products, do you want the cheaper or do you want New Zealand aluminium industry safeguarded? 

And I can't understand if MBIE is saying to the industry, "Go ahead, put together a dumping case." Surely, it's incumbent upon them to put safeguards in place to protect the industry while the case is considered. As a consumer living in a free trade world, do you want the cheapest available goods that are on the market globally, or is there some merit in paying more to keep New Zealand jobs here? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand First has confirmed it's not putting out a fiscal plan this election that would detail funding for its promises. 

The plans also allocate extra spending during the term. 

So far, they've been released by Labour, National, and ACT.  

Costly NZ First policies this election include buying the Bank of New Zealand. 

Winston Peters says that could cost as much as $15 billion, but he told Kerre Woodham Governing parties don't need to produce fiscal plans.   

He says the 2026 Budget is New Zealand First's fiscal plan. 

Peters also says people planning to stay here long-term should sign up to being a New Zealander.  

A resident who arrived here as a two-year-old has asked the NZ First Leader why it would make her a more loyal Kiwi to officially become a citizen after 65-years. 

She says she never needed to officially apply for citizenship, but Peters told her he'd have expected her to sign up years ago. 

He says the least we can expect is people to sign up to our country, sign up to our flag, and make this the country of their future. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've seen a few posts on my social media over the past month from young people moaning that "they're locking us out of voting". They, presumably being the rich white patriarchal establishment, us, presumably being the 18 to 24 year olds. What absolute hogwash. Yes, the rules around enrolment have changed and same day enrolment is no longer possible, but they are doing everything they can to get young people registered to vote and have been doing so since time immemorial, since every election.  

In 2020 the Electoral Commission paid 12 Kiwi social media stars a combined $160k or thereabouts to create and share dozens of pieces of nonpartisan content about voting on their TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook pages. Overall, in 2020 the Commission spent $3 million on advertising that targeted 18 to 29 year olds alone. The budgeting bill for advertising was higher than that, but $3 million was spent on younger voters. It'll be more this time round, heaven only knows what's been spent, it'll take an OIA to find out.  

I don't think there's anything wrong with a message that says if you want to vote, you've got to take it seriously. Registering is a very good start to understanding that with rights come responsibilities. If you want to vote, you have to think about it. If you want to vote, you have to get your act together and enrol. A young colleague was saying to me this very morning that an acquaintance of hers, who would describe herself as an activist and will attend a protest march at the drop of a keffiyeh, posted that she wouldn't normally use her platform to encourage people to vote, but this one matters. What is wrong with using your platform to encourage people to vote?  

I know it's a lot harder to think about issues and problems that we have at home, far easier to rig yourself up a witty slogan painted on a placard and get out there and march, be on the six o'clock news, show that you care. Actually showing that you care is registering, voting, taking an interest, reading the policies, things that 18 to 24 year olds are perfectly capable of doing. And interestingly, of those young people who do get off their chuffs and enrol to vote, they show up on election day.  

Mike was quoting a story from the Herald this morning that showed in '23, 74% of young people who were enrolled to vote did in fact cast their vote. They were the biggest proportion of the enrolled voting population to actually use the power of their vote to cast it. It matters. In our household, I think we've got three of us voting differently across the spectrum. And that's okay, that's democracy, and aren't we lucky to live in a society where men and women can debate political matters, can turn up without fear of getting mown down to cast their vote, to know that for all its faults and for all a few spot issues, voting is fair, you're not going to get corruption at the ballot box.  

It's an imperfect society in which we live. Very few of us going to get a government that we're passionate about. For a lot of us, turning up to vote is going to be holding your nose and ticking the box. But it matters. And if young people cannot be bothered, not be sufficiently informed to understand that they have to enrol to vote, they can't rock up on voting day, then perhaps they shouldn't be in possession of a vote. If they don't care enough, they're not informed enough to know that they need to be enrolled, fine by me if they don't cast their vote. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, it looks like a matter of when, not if, given that Barbara Edmonds and Nicola Willis, Finance Minister and Finance spokesperson respectively, were appearing on Jack Tame's Q&A yesterday, and they've agreed they'll work together on the future of superannuation in this country.

This is Nicola Willis:

"We can afford superannuation right now, but in the future the settings are going to have to change in order to ensure that it's sustainable and that every Kiwi knows that they can rely on the government to support them in their retirement. If we don't make changes, we are going to end up in a situation where we can't foot that bill. So what National has said for a couple of elections now, is let's come together and agree on a date in the future when we will start progressively, modestly increasing the age of eligibility in a way that is predictable and fair on New Zealanders, so that younger generations coming through don't miss out on the entitlement that people today are getting. And we have called on Labour to work with us on that, to do this in a way that's open, honest, transparent and fair."

And Barbara Edmonds, Labour's finance spokesperson, said absolutely, they're more than happy to have an accord, but they want to look at the wider issues around superannuation:

"Well, ultimately it comes down to the full retirement system. The conversation with New Zealanders needs to be what is KiwiSaver, when you have these large sums of money, what does that decumulation framework look like as people start to spend that money? What does universal super look like when contributions are being stopped by Governments? How do we stop that flip flop? How does housing, what does housing look like for our aged care? Is that part of that wider aged care system? Is it retirement homes? Are we building sufficient social housing to meet that need? So that conversation around universal super needs to happen within the wider conversation around the retirement system as a whole. What do Kiwis expect when they go to retire, young and old right now, and how do we get there?"

So big questions, but the agreement was around an accord to sit down together and work out, thrash out when and how the age of universal super will be raised. And ACT has always said they want to raise the superannuation age by three months every year, put contributions to the New Zealand Super Fund on hold, and they would include compassionate access for those who'd spent a substantial portion of their career in physically demanding jobs.

David Seymour spoke to Tim Beverage on Newstalk ZB yesterday:

"People are living much longer and having far fewer children. That means that the number of taxpayers per retiree is going down. Every other country is raising its age of entitlement to superannuation. And I know there's people who will try and get a few votes by saying, oh that guy's wrong, vote for me, we'll keep it all the same. I don't think that that is putting New Zealand's long term interests first. I think it's important that we make the adjustment, but we do it slowly so people can plan for it. It goes from 65 to 67 it affects no one that's already retired, and we do a few other things."

So National, Labour, ACT, all in agreement that the age of entitlement needs to go up, and it's just ironing out the finer points. I still don't understand why we would be giving superannuation to people who do not need it.

On the 1st of November 1898 New Zealand was the first in the world to give an old age pension, which we call the Super these days. There was stringent criteria, including open court hearings to attest that you were of good moral character before you could receive it. How many of the old rockers would pass that now, I wonder to myself? Myself included. 

Through the Social Security Act in 1938 a two tier public pension system was introduced, and that lasted up until the 1970s, and then New Zealand Super became the Super that we have today, that Super's been around for more than 50 years without any kind of changes, which seems bizarre. 

So in the beginning we had means testing and open court hearings for good moral character. I think we'll do away with those, thinking purely of myself here, I don't think we need to go through those.

In the 1930s, they changed it to a Super, but there was also means testing as well. In the 1970s it was just universal, didn't matter if you were a billionaire or not, you got the Super. Benefits and taxpayer funded payments these days tend to go to people who need them, other than Super. That just goes to everybody.

I'd love to hear from those of you 60 and under, because this is who it's really going to affect. All of you over 60 you don't have to worry. If it goes up as of the next Government, it'll be three months at a time, it's neither here nor there really.

But for those 60 and under, this is who it's really going to affect. Super in the future as far as I'm concerned would look like it does in Australia. 67 means and asset tested, and a resident of the country. 

And like ACT, I think there should be the ability to get the Super early if you're in a truly physical job where your body's breaking down, or a really high stress job where you're exposed to all sorts of trauma, like a frontline responder or something like that.

But hopefully by the time somebody who's working now, who's 35 gets to 67 they'll have a good healthy sum locked away in their KiwiSaver. Hopefully they'll have their own house because you'll be able to buy one at a good price around about now. And then the super will be there as a backup, but if you need it.

Take it back to the future, take it back to how it was originally intended, so that it was mainly for single men, because in the olden days they believed that family should look after you. If you were a single man, you were stuffed once you got old and couldn't work anymore, so it was primarily for the single men who didn't have family that could take them in.

But keep it for those who need it, the same way that we give the dole to those who need it while they're looking for work in an ideal world, the sickness benefit, disability benefit, working for families benefit, for those people who need it. Not just holus bolus as a little yay for you, you survived to 65.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Erica Stanford says the Government's put a lot of work into boosting educational outcomes - and she wants students to improve. 

The Party is campaigning on requiring students to stay in school until they finish Year 11, rather than being able to leave as soon as they turn 16.

Stanford says the best place for these young people to be is in school, where they can get the proper support they need. 

"Where is the best place for a 16-year-old who feels like that? In our school, where we know where they are, we can wrap around supports, we can put these things in place where we can have the guidance counsellors and the careers councillors talking to them." 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Northland's MP believes National's plan to introduce drug testing for beneficiaries is a smart move. 

It's proposing ten thousand random drug tests next year – ramping up over the years. 

It also wants to reduce payments from April 2028 for people who've collected it for two of the previous three years, with a smaller cut for those with children. 

Grant McCallum told Kerre Woodham there are employers who have casual work or things like fruit picking available, but can't get workers because they can't pass a drug test. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.