Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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