Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast Podcast Por Newstalk ZB arte de portada

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

De: Newstalk ZB
Escúchala gratis

OFERTA POR TIEMPO LIMITADO. Obtén 3 meses por US$0.99 al mes. Obtén esta oferta.
Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.2025 Newstalk ZB Ciencia Política Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • Kerre Woodham: A different view point does not permit you to invade someone's home

    Kerre Woodham: A different view point does not permit you to invade someone's home
    Oct 6 2025
    When I heard the Green Party co-leaders were holding a press conference yesterday, I thought fleetingly, ever the optimist, "Oh, they might be holding a press conference calling for the cessation of protests outside the home of a fellow parliamentarian." Undoubtedly they'd couch it in greeny language – they would call out the Foreign Affairs Minister for his lack of courage at the UN, etc, etc, but ultimately they would make the point that protesting in a personal sphere is wrong, and they would call off the hounds and remind people that yes, we have a right to protest, but with that right comes responsibility and it is quite clearly irresponsible to make the attacks personal and bring the protest to the door of an MP's home. That's what I thought, fleetingly. But no, nothing of the sort. In fact, it was a PR stunt for the flotilla to Palestine. No mention was made of the protesters outside Winston Peters' home. In fact, one of them was alongside the Green co-party leaders. Chlöe Swarbrick lectured us again about our responsibility to ensure the safety of the three New Zealand citizens detained by the Israeli government after the flotilla was intercepted, and that was that. A bit of tearful beseeching of the government to do something. Love for the detainees, and that was about it. Can you imagine what would happen if Groundswell decided to protest Green policies, and they decided to take that protest to the door of Marama Davidson's home or Chlöe Swarbrick's home? I would be absolutely appalled, and I would demand they be arrested or leave immediately. There is absolutely no excuse for it. You might disagree vehemently with policies, you might think you have moral, intellectual, scientific right on your side, on the side of whatever argument you're putting forward, but there are standards and there are limits and there are boundaries. The lot outside Winston's house, you're perfectly entitled to hold a point of view. You may well feel that you're on the right side of history. That does not give you carte blanche to invade a man's home, and that's exactly what you're doing, and that of his neighbours. The noise invading somebody's home. You know, if you have had really ugly neighbours who have made your life hell because of the noise they're making, It's an invasion. So too is the bloody rock through the window. If anybody thinks that the new legislation around protests at people's homes is going to provide any protection at all for public figures, for anybody, think again. The bill is before the Justice Select Committee. Submissions on it closed yesterday, but critics say it's way too vague to do much good. Constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler said as much to Mike Hosking this morning. “There are offences which deal with this already. And I, my suspicion is that the new offence, that the draft, at least at the moment, is so complex, perhaps so difficult to prove, you know, was that the reason they're doing that? Was it, you know, just all the difficulties in proving it, that police may just continue to use the criminal offences that already exist, which kind of have the similar penalties. “And when people aren't sure what's covered and it's a criminal offence, courts tend to err on the side of, well, if you wanted to make this clearly legal, you'd have done a better job of writing it. So if it's not clear, you tend to favour on the side of the criminal for criminal cases. And so, hopefully the government can sort of narrow this and fix it to cover exactly what it is they want. I mean, it's sort of protests near residential areas. I mean, Queen Street's got massive apartment buildings on it – are those residential areas and no protests down Queen Street? I mean, no one's going to apply the law that way. The police aren't going to apply that law that way. The courts aren't going to apply the law that way. And so it’s really going to do much of anything.” No, it's not. So we're going to have to rely on existing laws to give people a measure of protection in their own homes. That and inculcating a sense of decency and fair play. If anyone attempted to disturb or frighten or harass the Green Party co-leaders and members of their families in their own homes, it would be absolutely inexcusable. The Green Party co-leaders have pointed out how inexcusable the internet trolling and the abuses of their MPs, and indeed of other women MPs, but mainly theirs, but women MPs, non-gender specific MPs, they are absolutely ropeable about the level of vitriol and harassment and violent language being used against MPs on social media. What difference is it being outside somebody's home? Absolutely no difference whatsoever. They are the first to point the digeridoo at people who have a different point of view and express it vocally and violently, and rightly so. Nobody should be subject to that. They want the police protection, they demand the people have a right to be safe ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Kerre Woodham: A tough but fair change to the benefit

    Kerre Woodham: A tough but fair change to the benefit
    Oct 5 2025
    On the face of it, it seems tough. Telling young people to get out there and get a job when the economy is tanked and unemployment is high, is you'd think, unrealistic. From November of next year, young people wanting to get job seeker support or the equivalent emergency benefit will have to take a parental income test to see whether their parents can support them instead of the taxpayer. About 4,300 18 and 19-year-olds were estimated to become ineligible for support, with 4,700 remaining eligible in the 27-28 financial year. As I said, this kicks in from November of next year, so from 2026. As of June, there were just over 15,000 18 and 19-year-olds on job seeker support. It's a lot of young kids. There is no doubt it is difficult right now for young people to find work, to be taken on as apprentices. When the economy contracts, young people tend to be the first laid off, having fewer skills and less work experience. Last on, first off kind of thing. As well, they can be in casual or part-time employment, jobs that are more easily dispensed with. But of course, look beyond the headlines. They're not being told to go out and find a job in a really tight labour market. They have to find a job, they have to be studying, or they have to be training. They have three options. What they can't be, according to this government and the Prime Minister, is reliant on the taxpayer. The bigger issue here is we're trying to reset expectations with young people that you just can't partially attend school and then just drift on into unemployment benefit. And it is a bit of a reset for under 25s to say, I'm sorry, you're expected to get connected with work or employment or training or education. $65,000, where do you why how do you land on that? It's basically the income cut-out point for the supported living payment. And so it basically says if you're coming from very low-income families, we're exempting you. But we know it's quite low, but the reality is it puts the pressure back on parents to say get those young people into work or education. That was Chrisopher Luxon, Prime Minister, talking to Mike Hosking this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast. A youth worker who was spoken to in relation to the story, to the announcement, said, and I quote, "I've never met a young person that doesn't want to find work." Really? You need to get out more. I think the vast majority of young people do want to work. They want to study, they want to train to be able to work so that they can become self-determining, to stand on their own two feet. Not all of them. We have had young people say as much on this show. Nature boy, anyone? And you'd have to wonder about Barbecue Man, whether his children are fine upstanding productive citizens, because generally welfare dependency leads to welfare dependency and further down the generations it goes. There are fantastic stories of young people who were struggling, who got the kick up the bum they needed and managed to achieve beyond their wildest expectations. One of the owners of a New World supermarket started life as a trolley boy in Whakatāne when his mum said, "If you're not going to go to school, you are getting a job. You are not staying under my roof and not contributing." "Oh, I can't find an apprenticeship." Well, get any job, she said. And he started life as a trolley boy. And one thing led to another. He discovered not only did he actually like work, he was actually productive and respected by his peers, he was really good at it, to the extent that he ended up owning his own supermarket. And I could not agree more with Rod Bell, Chief Operating Officer for Blue Light, who spoke to Mike too this morning. The big danger is if a young person starts down the track where a benefit becomes part of their life, as the stat shows, that they end up probably at least a minimum of 18 years of their life on the benefit. That's amazing. Yeah, we want to break that. You break that once and you've actually paid then probably for 20 people. So financially it makes a huge sense, but for anybody, they want to have worth and worth is doing something positive and proactive, whether it's work or training or education is what will make people feel better about themselves and make a difference to the young people. Absolutely. And it's that stat that's really really hard to read that if you are a kid that goes straight onto a benefit out of school that you might have been attending haphazardly, you've got no habit of getting up and being somewhere presentable, ready to go, because you haven't been attending school. It's been a very haphazard, spotty, patchy attendance record. The number of people I've spoken to in the Far North who want to give young people jobs to the extent that they kit them out in the clothing they'll need for the job, they'll drive to their house, they will get them out of bed, get them into the shower them, get them into the van, take them ...
    Más Menos
    8 m
  • Kerre Woodham: You need to know how to play the system to enact change

    Kerre Woodham: You need to know how to play the system to enact change
    Oct 3 2025
    I've always thought that if you want to change the system, if you feel that the system, whatever it might be, doesn't work for you, the best way is to change it from within. When you live in a democracy, that is one of the beauties of a democracy. You don't have to riot in the streets, you don't have to depose tyrannical dictators, you can use the ballot box to effect change. You can also enter the system and change it from within. But only if you take the time to learn how the system works, and only if you're prepared to settle for incremental change rather than spectacular seismic show-stopping change. Plenty of people think they can go into Parliament and make a real difference and retire hurt, basically, realising that the system is too big for them to grapple with, that they're not best suited for Parliament. That's across all parties. I remember my own former colleague, Pam Corkery, entered Parliament with the Alliance Party, thinking instead of talking about making change, she'd enter Parliament and try and make the change from within. But she was frustrated – the system stymied her. You’ve seen it with New Zealand First, you've seen it with National, you've seen it with Labour. And as Eru Kapa-Kingi has pointed out, activism and politics are completely different beasts. Kapa-Kingi is the driving force behind the protest movement Toitū Te Tiriti, largely responsible for last year's nationwide hikoi to Parliament that drew tens of thousands of protesters. Yesterday, the movement announced it was distancing itself from Te Pāti Māori. Eru Kapa-Kingi, he's the son of Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and a former party vice president, said yesterday that Toitū Te Tiriti was not a lobby group for the Māori Party. He went further, claiming Te Pāti Māori had a problematic leadership style, which amounted to effectively, he said, a dictatorship model, as reported by Te Ao Māori News. I thought Te Ururoa Flavell spoke really well this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast, outlining the problem with activists entering Parliament to advance their goals. “I mean, the statement that he's made is politicians need to stop being activists and activists need to stop being politicians, which I think is a fair call. So and in that regard, trying to separate out the movement that he set up, Toitū Te Tiriti, he said that's their focus around the obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi and keeping those at the forefront of the New Zealand society. And then the second part of course is what is the point of a political movement in Parliament and how can they best achieve goals for the best interests of the nation.” Right now, Te Pāti Māori are incompetent and impotent politically. They have their core base of voters, much the same as the Greens. The Greens, it's hard to see how effective they could be in Parliament as part of a government. Dame Tariana Turia's Te Pāti Māori was not an impotent political force. Dame Turia understood how politics worked. She entered Parliament on the Labour ticket but resigned in 2004 over the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to set up the Māori Party, Te Pāti Māori. She understood politics, she understood the importance of compromise. As the Spinoff said in her obituary, an architect of Whanau Ora and Smoke-free Aotearoa, Turia's legacy is one that belies a waning art in politics, knowing when to compromise and how to make it count. In no way was she a sell-out. She stayed true to her own beliefs, she stayed true to acting as a voice for her people, but she knew how to work the system from within. She knew how to make the system work for her and the people she represented. Labour would need the Greens and Te Pāti Māori to form a government based on current polling. Yesterday Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Te Pāti Māori looked like they're quite a long way away from being ready to play a constructive role in any future government. And again, I'd say the Greens would struggle too. Since the former co-leader James Shaw left Parliament, and again, that was a man who understood how Parliament worked, how politics worked, the gentle and powerful art of compromise. But since he's left, there's been the sacking and/or resignation of four MPs —Elizabeth Kerekere, Darleen Tana, Golriz Ghahraman, and Benjamin Doyle— and the party's been distracted with issues advanced by activist MPs, like their anti-police stance. That takes a lot of time to deal with when they could be furthering what the party says it stands for, when they could be advancing the causes of their voters. Again, like Te Pāti Māori, they have a core group of voters, people who can't imagine voting for anybody else, who would swallow a dead rat rather than vote for National or New Zealand First, who might reluctantly vote for Labour, but who are Greens through and through. But it's knowing how to use that power, knowing how to use the system, knowing how to ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
Todavía no hay opiniones