Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

There's an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied.  

It's a legal maxim that means if legal redress to an injured party is available, but it's not forthcoming in a timely fashion, that's effectively the same as having no remedy at all. I don't think it's entirely true - a conviction and a prison term would bring some relief for victims of serious crime, but the stress of waiting years to see that justice delivered would be a heavy burden for the victim and their families.  

The Government's looking for feedback on ways to speed up the court process. Currently, people can choose a jury trial if they're charged with an offence that has a maximum penalty of two years or more in prison. The discussion document from the Government is requesting feedback on whether that threshold should be extended to three years or more, five years or more, or seven years or more. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Heather du Plessis-Allan last night how the changes might work: 

PG: There will be arguments around three years, five years or seven years. Seven years would be a big change, and it would certainly have a huge impact on the overall efficiency of the courts, but of course you’ve got to balance that against, you know, the ancient right. And so I think it would be an interesting discussion. I certainly think we should lift it, it's just a question of how far.  

HDPA: What kind of a crime we're talking about that carries seven years in jail?  

PG: Well, things like tax evasion and arson.  

HDPA: Indecent assault?   

PG: Yes, and so five years for thinking of things like aggravated assault and three years, it would be things like, you know, driving while disqualified or with excess breath alcohol.   

HDPA: I don't think you should go for a jury if you've just been pinged boozing behind the wheel, do you?  

PG: Well if you lift it to three years you'd exclude those and so yeah, I think that's a very reasonable starting point.  

That was Heather talking to Paul Goldsmith last night. Law Association Vice President Julie-Anne Kincade told Mike Hosking this morning that right now in the Auckland District Court, you'll get a jury trial faster than a judge-alone trial. And we need to be careful about using a “blunt tool” to try to solve the problem of the backlog within the courts. And certainly, there are improvements to the court process she outlined that have come into play just this year. Category 1 and 2 offences are heard in the district court before a judge alone. You don't have the choice of a jury trial. Category 3 offences that carry a maximum penalty of two or more years in prison, you do get the choice right now. Category 3 offences could include aggravated assault, threatening to kill, dangerous driving, or a third or more drunk driving conviction - that boozed behind the wheel one that Heather was talking about. So that's Category 3 where you do get the choice of judge-alone or jury.  

They are serious offences, but do we really need a jury of our peers to sit in judgment of those crimes? Shouldn't we save the jury trials for the most serious crimes, the ones that are heard in the High Court -the murder, the manslaughter, the rape, the aggravated robbery? Jury trials are vitally important, they date back to Athens. Chief Justice Sian Elias and her colleague in the Supreme Court, Justice McGrath, summed up the importance of the jury in the case of Siemer v Heron in 2012: 

"In exercising that function, jurors bring a diverse range of perspectives, personal experience and knowledge to bear in individual cases, which judges may lack. As fact finders, jurors determine which of the admissible evidence presented at trial is to be believed and acted upon. Juries ultimately decide whether the facts fit within a particular legal definition, according to community standards. In this way, they reflect the attitude of the community and their determination of guilt or innocence. The right to trial by jury is also generally seen as providing a safeguard against the arbitrary or oppressive enforcement of the law by the government."

They go on to say that in cases where they feel the government or the forces of government through the prosecutor and through the police are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, then juries will acquit. They'll go no, this is oppressive, this is unfair, you've been way too heavy-handed. We, the community think this is wrong and it's a way for the community to say to the state you've overstepped the mark. So vitally important.  

But should juries be reserved for the big-ticket crimes? Intuitively, I think yes, you know it should be for the big-ticket ones. But we don't want judges clearing up the backlog in the courts by whipping through cases without due thought and process. I'm not saying they would, and they don't at the moment.  Judges seem to be a little bit too thoughtful, a little bit too considered for my liking from time to time. But if you're told right, judge-alone, get cracking, let's clear this backlog - wouldn't your subconscious say righto, bugger it, guilty, next case, please. That kind of pressure to clear the backlog may inform the decision you make.  

And it may not sound like a big deal, two years or more in prison, but by the time you take into account discounts and troubled backgrounds and the like, you'd probably only get nine months. But nine months in prison, you say it like it's nothing but what would nine months in prison do to you and me? It would be absolutely devastating if you were innocent. So intuitively, yes, save the juries for the big-ticket crimes, the High Court offences. At the same time, you don't want to see people sent to prison, even if it is just for a six-month term for a crime they didn't commit. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am —and always have been— a huge believer in on-the-job training. 

When I left school, I wanted to be a journalist. But I didn’t go to polytech or university, I went and did a newspaper cadetship at the Otago Daily Times, in Dunedin. 1986 this was.  

And, even though day one was horrific, it was the best thing I could have done. Even though I turned up on day one thinking I was Christmas and went home that night feeling like Good Friday - despite that, I’m in no doubt that learning on-the-job was absolutely THE BEST way. 

The best way for me then, and the best way for anyone now. 

Which is why I’m loving the talk we’re hearing today from the Civil Contractors Association and the Motor Trade Association - who are both saying that we need more on-the-job training, more apprenticeships, and less theoretical stuff in the classrooms and lecture rooms. 

Let’s start with the civil contractors. We’re hearing today that if the Government is going to have any hope in hell of delivering the big infrastructure projects it’s promising to deliver, then the number of extra civil engineering and construction workers that are going to be needed is the same as the number of people who live in Ashburton. 

So, percentage-wise, we need about 50% more people working in roading and civil construction. And the timeframe is pretty tight, with government officials saying it needs to happen within the next two-to-three years. 

So we’re in a bind. The Government —which is talking a big game on new roads and infrastructure— is in even more of a bind. 

You might have heard the civil construction guy talking to Mike Hosking a couple of hours ago about this. He was saying that it’s probably going to mean they have to bring-in more workers from overseas. 

But he also said that we need to be doing much more to train more of our own people. 

And that was when he said the magic words - apprenticeships and on-the-job training. 

Fraser May is his name - and he was saying to Mike that they want to see more money going into work-based training, because that’s the best way for people to learn the skills they need to build the roads and put water pipes under the ground. 

He said companies do on-the-job training under their steam, but he reckons the Government needs to come to the party and put apprenticeships and work-based training on more of a pedestal. 

And I couldn’t agree more. Call me old hat or old school, but there is no way someone who learns in a classroom can be as good as someone who learns on the job. So hallelujah for the civil constructors wanting to see more apprenticeships and less essay-writing. 

The other outfit extolling the virtues of apprenticeships and work-based learning today is the Motor Trade Association. In fact, it’s one of about 20 organisations involved in the automotive sector that want to see a return to new mechanics being taught on-the-job. 

Lee Marshall, who is the chief executive of the Motor Trade Association, was also on with Mike earlier. And he says that when it comes to training people to be mechanics and auto electricians, the education sector has done a hopeless job keeping up with the pace of changes in the likes of motor vehicle technologies.  

Which is meaning people are coming out of these polytech programmes not as work ready as they would be if they had learnt on the job doing something like an old-school apprenticeship. 

He says the technology we see in cars is changing at an exponential rate, and the education sector needs to keep up with that —or should have kept up with that— and it hasn’t. 

So these motor industry organisations have written a big document and sent it through to the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission telling them they’ve dropped the ball. 

Not only that, they’re also demanding that the Government takes training for the automotive industry away from the polytechs and put it back in the hands of the automotive industry itself. 

And just like I do with the civil contractors, I couldn’t agree with the people in the automotive industry. 

Because there is nothing better than learning on-the-job. Nothing better. I know from my experience - on-the-job training keeps it real; it knocks you down a peg or two if you need to be knocked-down a peg or too. 

Like I said earlier, I thought I was the bees knees when I left school to become a cadet newspaper reporter. I’d been editor of the school newspaper, I’d been a debater, I thought I knew it all. And, chances are, if I’d gone and done a journalism course at a polytech or a university, they would’ve allowed me to keep thinking that I was Christmas. 

But I didn’t go to university or polytech. I learned the hard way. Which, as it turned out, was the best way. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand's economy has barely escaped another technical recession. 

New Stats NZ figures show our Gross Domestic Product contracted 0.2% in the three months to June. 

Its revised figures downgrade the March quarter to show the economy grew just 0.1%, not the 0.2% initially estimated. 

Herald Business Editor at Large Liam Dann told John McDonald that minimal growth kept us out of another technical recession but doesn't change reality. 

He says with a lot of migration gains and population growth, on a per capita basis we're still in a recession. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Who'd be a teacher?  Not many of us, apparently - the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand says half as many Kiwis are signing up to become teachers than there were in 2010, and the number of students graduating as teachers has dropped by more than a third. The Deputy Chief Executive Clive Jones said if you look at the number of domestic students enrolling in teacher training programmes for the first time, that's dropped by 51% between 2010 and 2023. We're simply not producing enough teachers to replenish the teaching workforce. He said teaching was not the attractive career prospect it once was. Those who'd chosen it felt undermined, undervalued and underpaid.  

But what about the holidays I hear you ask? Those teacher only days? The cushy 9-3 hours? Well, as anyone who has a teacher in the family knows, these are not long, lovely days of rest and relaxation, especially when the only constant in the education sector is change; changes to curriculum, changes to the way they teach, changes to the way children are evaluated and tested. Yes, it is annoying when schools close at the hint of a raindrop and yes, it causes eyebrows to raise when teacher only days happen on the last day before a public holiday, but anyone who has children or grandchildren in school, and anyone who has a teacher in the family knows that dedicated teachers are putting in the time and the nurturing and the professionalism that make our kids' lives better.  

At the school that my little ones go to they've had school discos, and movie and pizza nights, and art exhibitions, and sports competitions, and Matariki festivals, and school productions (the production ran over a week), and that's just in the last couple of months. And that's on top of the hours spent in the classroom. And these are the teachers who are ensuring that they’re a success, putting in their late nights away from their families and their friends to ensure the kids get an incredible experience at school, which is why they want to go to school. They're out of bed, leaping into their uniform, and they cannot wait to go to school, and that's because of their teachers.  

So what is it about teaching that used to be attractive and why is it no longer appealing? The kind of good news is that it's not a specifically New Zealand problem, in fact, very few of our problems are.  Secondary Principals Association President Vaughan Couillault says there is a global teaching shortage. 

“If you go into teacher training and you go on your first practicum, you know in the first half a day whether this bag is for you, and so it is a calling but also it's a global situation. So we're, we're pretty harsh in New Zealand looking at ourselves and going ‘good grief what’re we doing wrong?’ Actually, there's a global teacher shortage. I was talking to my offsider in Australia who does the same thing as me over there, they've got exactly the same conditions that we've got. I was talking to a guy in the UK recently, the teacher shortage in the UK is extreme, so it's a global phenomenon where people aren't going into teaching. It is becoming more challenging with regard to the non-curriculum based demands that are being placed on the school sector across the globe. It's a fantastic job.” 

Well, it is. It is a fantastic job. Any job is fantastic when you love it, when you love going to work, when you want to do the job, and you feel a calling to do it. And I would agree with Vaughan that it is in fact a calling. It's more than just turning up, going through the motions and getting a paycheck. It's a service job, and maybe that's the problem. Are young people no longer interested in service jobs like nursing, like teaching, like social work? Because they want to be the next big thing on TikTok? They want to do hair and makeup because that's much more glamorous than wiping snotty noses and taking children to the toilet who haven't yet been toilet trained or being dissed and disrespected by teenagers. There has to be something above and beyond the job to make you want to be a nurse, a social welfare worker, a police officer, a teacher, the traditional service jobs.  

Perhaps too, in the olden days like 2010, as a teacher you earned enough to pay the bills. These days, perhaps you don't. If you're a young teacher trying to look after a family, there would need to be another income coming in, and you certainly couldn't do it on one income – although I'm struggling to think of a job at the moment where you could just go just beyond one wage, especially living in the city. It might be okay if you are out of the main centres.  

Is it the pay that's putting people off? Is it the fact that teachers have to be all of the service jobs I mentioned? Not only do they have the duty of teaching, they also have to be police officers, social welfare workers and nurses, psychological counsellors. If they were just allowed to teach and do what they trained for, would that be sufficient to get people back into the job? Or those who've left the profession to encourage others into it? Generally teachers follow teachers, follow teachers. You know, if you have a mother or a father that was a teacher, somebody in the family tends to follow suit. Is that what is happening within your family? I would love to hear from those of you who do have some experience of teaching either with children at school or a teacher in the family.  

What is it that the profession needs to do to market itself as an attractive one for young people? Or are service jobs just not doing it for the kids anymore? They want the bright lights, they want a bit of fun, they want a bit of pizzazz, and teaching is not that. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let's talk politics, specifically the latest Taxpayers Union Curia poll. It showed a firming up of support for the Coalition Government and the parties that make that up, but Labour leader Chris Hipkins has lost support as preferred Prime Minister and the party is languishing. The party vote changes were all within the margin of error in this latest poll, but the preferred prime minister stakes saw Chris Hipkins dropping 6.1 percentage points.  

When you compare the previous Taxpayers Union Curia poll, which was in July, two months prior, so comparing apples with apples, National was up 1.4% to 39. Labour was 25.9%, that was up 0.8, but 25.9% is nothing to crow about. The Greens finally saw some downward movement after all their goings on, they seemed to be absolutely Teflon coated, but finally saw some movement down 1.5 on 11%. ACT, 8.8% around about what they got on election night, NZ First, 6.8%. Te Pati Māori 5%, up 1.5.  

Now parties do have a hard time after a trouncing in a general election and they generally look to the to the leader as the sacrificial lamb. Get rid of the leader, sacrifice them to the political gods, we can start afresh and we haven't got the bad juju from the previous election. Look at National – they had five leaders in five years before settling on Christopher Luxon. Labour after the Helen Clark years saw Phil Goff, David Shearer, David Cunliffe, Andrew Little, then finally Jacinda Ardern. Andrew Little made the call to resign just seven weeks out from the 2017 election, and history will reflect that Little's call was one of New Zealand political leadership's gutsiest. Cunliffe, Shearer and Little all went when the polls fell too low for comfort, and that was around the 24 to 25% mark.  

So here we've got Labour sitting on 26%, that is dangerously close to the knives being sharpened. Again, I think the only thing that's saving him is what saved previous political leaders from both parties: the fact that there is no obvious choice to replace him. When the party's been decimated and all the pretenders to the throne have been turfed out of office, your options are few. Chris Hipkins, when I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago was all Chipper Chippy.   

“So you will be leader leading Labour into the next election against Christopher Luxon?” “Absolutely.” 

Yep, absolutely. He was confident on-air. He was confident off-air. Looking forward to it. Had a big think, have I got in in me? Yes I have. Didn't really get a chance to do what I wanted to do when I took over from Jacinda Ardern.  She said I can't do it, I said, well, I will, and I'll take us up to the election. Not really me, he said. It wasn't really my party. There was a lot of Sergeant Schultz, I see nothing, wasn't me, didn't do it. But he was there all the way through the last Labour administrations regime, he was there front and centre. So, he might not have been Prime Minister, but he certainly was a key figure in that administration.  

He may be the obvious choice at the moment, but is he ever going to be able to lead Labour back to victory? There is a strong core of electors who don't want a centre right Coalition Government. You know you've got a good block of Greens and Labour and Te Pati Māori, and then you've got the swinging voters, those in the middle, those who voted National last time but could be persuaded. Is Chris Hipkins the man to galvanise those voters or is he yesterday's man? Too much associated with the past, with the Covid years? There were some die hards who say they saved lives, who will think that by being there his reputations enhanced. I think the majority say no. When you look at him you see the Covid years, you see enormous waste of taxpayer money.  

When he said, oh yes, we want to borrow more and tax more, I almost fell off my chair. You seriously expect the electorate to trust you with more money? You have got to be kidding. So, 24-25% is when the previous Labour leaders have been goneburger, have been asked to look at other options within the job market, perhaps their talents could be better served elsewhere. Labour's on 26%. Is Chris Hipkins the man to lead Labour into the next election or does he need to make room for new ideas, fresh ideas, a new Labour leader?   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Hipkins’ falling popularity could spell trouble for his party. 

The Labour leader's slumped more than six points to 12.6% in the preferred prime minister stakes of the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll.  

National leader and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has taken a hit of 1.8 points - but is still leaps and bounds ahead on 32.7%.  

All up, the coalition parties have tightened their grip on power by gaining a seat, while the Opposition has lost two.  

Newstalk ZB Political Editor Jason Walls told Kerre Woodham that while we aren’t a presidential system, much of a political party’s popularity is based on the leader. 

He said that if you have a leader doing this badly in terms of net favourability, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the party.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So the Government's 'Phones Away For The Day' regulations came into force in state schools and kura at the beginning of term two. Schools must ensure students do not use or access a phone while they're attending school, including during lunch time and breaks.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced the policy before the election last year and there were the typical naysayers saying that'll never work. How can you enforce it, the children need their phones to be able to contact their parents, it's going to put more pressure on teachers, and so on and so forth.

The ban was part of National's plan to eliminate distractions and lift achievement within schools. And the press release cited studies that were themselves cited in the 23 Global Education Monitoring report which showed banning mobile phones improved academic performance, especially for low-performing students, and the results of the ban are starting to come in.

We read about Mt Albert Grammar today saying that they're seeing really positive results within their school. Some Taranaki high schools were ahead of the game - they're already reaping the benefits from banning mobile phone use.

I've mentioned them before, but from the beginning of last year, Waitara High School students in years 9 to 12 had to put their phones in a magnetic pouch when they arrived at school.

And Waitara is an interesting case, because initially the ban was on phones for years 9 to 12. Year 13s, Darryl Warburton the principal said, could keep them - because after all, the year 13s can wear mufti, they can sign out without parent parental consent, they're transitioning to adulthood, it makes sense for them to keep their phones.

He said he was reluctant to ban a device that's so central to modern life, it was better to teach them how to use it responsibly. That was last year

However, not having phones had got rid of a significant distraction in class, and last year the academic results in years 9 to 12 were up 15 - 20 percent, and that is not insignificant.

The only year that didn't go up was year 13. So Darryl Warburton, being a bright guy and seeing the results went - you know what? Year 13s, you've got them banned too.

This year, with the total ban, senior academic performance has also increased and other schools are reporting much the same results. Education Minister Erica Stanford says the results so far are promising.

"Yeah, we're seeing it all over the country. I mean, there was a little bit of grumbling from especially kids like my daughter straight away, but actually we're seeing really positive results from all of the principals I teach to. And actually, interestingly, the kids as well. And the biggest difference this has, we know from research, is our low socioeconomic girls and their mental health and that's a massive win."

Massive win indeed. I found it quite amusing listening to the Secondary School Principals President Vaughan Couillault on the ban this morning.

"I still believe that vaping is a bigger issue than cell phone devices. However, I am always happy to take it on the chin and say the cell phone ban probably has added value to the work that we're doing on campus rather than distracting from it."

Talk about damn with faint praise. Spit it out Vaughan! It’s a good policy and let's introduce it for vaping now as well. To his credit he did say - yes it's probably making life a bit easier in the classroom, not out of the classroom, though and vaping is a bigger problem, but yes, okay, yes, it is working.

You might not like the party or the policy but if it's good for the kids, if it's improving their mental well-being, if it's improving their academic performance, if it's making life easier for teachers to teach, where's the harm?

So yes, as he says, when it comes to vaping, if you can introduce the ban on cell phones, if you can see positive results as a result of banning cell phone use during school hours, why not ban vaping? I just can't understand how it's not.

It was a known thing that you did not smoke at school. I mean, everyone talks about having a few fags behind the bike sheds. I don't think at Sacred Heart Girls College, Hamilton, there were even fags behind the bike sheds.

You just didn't smoke at school, so - how is how is vaping even a thing at school?

These days when I'm emceeing, I have to go through the health and safety in the event of a fire, and I say there is no smoking or vaping on the grounds and no vaping or smoking anywhere near the venue.

The only place you could probably find to vape or smoke are the Auckland Grammar girl’s toilets, that seems to be about the only place where you'll hear of people vaping. In the school loos? How is that even possible? How are they not banned?

And for people who say banning doesn't work, - well, you'd have to say that the cell phones which are ubiquitous, which everyone said would be incredibly difficult to police. Well, no, not really.

Vapes are smaller, they can be hidden on your person - and you can see the puffs coming out of the school loos. You know what's going on.

If Vaughan can grudgingly, through clenched teeth, concede that yes, perhaps the ban on cell phones has been a good thing in schools, then I can agree with Vaughan that he's right, that banning vaping would also be a very, very good thing to do.

Give the kids some boundaries, give them some rules and watch them actually enjoy having those boundaries, having those limits on what they can and cannot do and benefiting from them.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT's leader says Government departments will have to prove race-based policies have value.

Cabinet is circulating a memo to agencies with the instruction to prioritise public services on the basis of need, rather than ethnic identity.

David Seymour says a discussion needs to be had.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the emails that did come in for the Prime Minister caught my eye, and I thought, you know, this is not a silly idea. It might be. I think there's some merit and discussing it and I'd love to run it by you.  

It was from the Elephant Beetle Think Tank and a quick Google found that no such thing exists, probably a couple of people enjoying a glass of wine and having chats, but none the less... it questions why we still have intermediate schools. There are 116 intermediate schools that remain within the education system, and according to the Elephant Beetle Intermediate School plan, there would be huge cost savings without the fixed costs of operating intermediates, which can be diverted into the remaining school system.  

The operating budget for running the network of intermediates is big and there are massive savings to be had, potentially. The savings could be diverted into providing better outcomes in education, perhaps paying teachers more. Then take the land that the intermediate schools are on, which is generally in prime position in the middle of communities, in the middle of cities, in the middle of towns, and convert them into housing developments with 30% or so of the residences reserved for service workers like police, teachers, and nurses at subsidised prices and with better mortgage interest rates. As intermediate schools typically sit in the middle of established residential areas, there is little issue or a big strain on creating the infrastructure to do this. Create a mix of high and low rise housing, utilising the existing school halls etcetera as community centres and thereby creating a new utopia.  

Now obviously it's going to be more difficult than that, more expensive than that, but it's not a bad idea because what purpose do intermediate schools have? My daughter went to Ponsonby Intermediate and it was a very, very good school, but if the same teachers had been either at extended primary schools or at extended colleges... it was the people who made the education, it wasn't the fact that it was an intermediate school.  

You look back at the history of intermediate schools and they've been neither fish nor fowl. They were set up in 1922, initially to act as a kind of sorting gate to steer kids either into the trades or into academic courses. That's why you did the cooking and the metal work at intermediate. A study done on intermediates, ‘The New Zealand Intermediate School Experiment - Caught Between Two Schools’ was done by the Waikato Journal of Education and they said directors and Ministers of Education were unable to provide guidance for intermediate schools, thus, they found neither a clear nor consistent philosophy to justify their existence. Consequently, intermediate schools were left to develop in their own ways, in the hope that a role could somehow be found for them.  

When there was a review of the development and progress of New Zealand Intermediate schools in 1938, the author of the report said the cause for surprise is not that the schools should have lagged along the road, but that they should have gone so far since no one has ever known quite what they were doing. And the authors of the Waikato Journal Report say nearly 60 years later, the intermediates are still no closer to discovering and developing a clear educational philosophy and identity.  

And you would have to wonder, what is the point of them? You could easily, I would have thought, even with the pressure on school buildings, amalgamate them into either primary or secondary schools. And a lot of campuses are year 7 through to 13, and then you have all of that space freed up to do with as you wish, and all of that money freed up to do with as you wish. Now, presumably there are ideas against this, and I'd like to hear them because so far I've just heard the idea for and it doesn't sound like a bad one. But if the reason to keep them is just because they've always been there since 1922, I don't think that's a good enough reason.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prime Minister says he will bring the Opposition leader on board to hammer out a plan for infrastructure. 

The Government is promoting a message of bipartisanship as it sets its sights on designing a 30-year pipeline for delivering major projects. 

Christopher Luxon and his Transport, Infrastructure, and Housing Ministers visited New South Wales last month to learn from Australia's productivity.  

Newstalk ZB's Kerre Woodham pushed Luxon on why he didn't take Labour leader Chris Hipkins if he's trying to build consensus.  

He says they have already reached out to other parties to make it clear the coalition wants to work in a bipartisan way. 

When it comes to the coalition itself, Luxon insists he's leading a stable coalition, and works well with both partners.  

That's despite the controversial Treaty Principles Bill coming up in this week's Cabinet meeting, and a paper unveiling Act's David Seymour's proposed principles.  

Luxon's adamant he won't support the Bill past first reading and has admitted this was the issue that stalled coalition negotiations.  

Luxon told Kerre the three parties are very different. 

But he says he's very proud of the way he works with both Seymour and Winston Peters. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.