Kerre McIvor Mornings Podcast

Eden Park's boss says last night's Warriors match was a night to remember - even if it ended in a loss for the Kiwi side. It was our biggest turnout ever for a Rugby League game, with more than 48,000 fans piling into the national stadium. The new City Rail Link was put to good use, with more than 15,000 punters getting there by train, and 13,000 taking the return trip. CEO Nick Sautner says the game was huge for Auckland's economy and international profile. "We made headlines across the ditch, in terms of the Warriors fans and what they did." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Education. I simply do not understand, and I really do want to, how two sides can be so passionate about education and about the curriculum and what is truly important in a classroom and have two sides who want the very, very best for our children and yet be so diametrically opposed. It's a conundrum. Education Minister Erica Stanford announced over the weekend that there'll be a ban on screen time in early childhood education centres, limited use in primary schools, and given the concerns around how devices and social media are contributing to declining abilities for kids to engage with complex texts and analyse data, I mean, surely this has got to be a good thing. "We need to move on quickly to what the rest of the world are doing to help set our kids up with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in life, and we can't afford to sit down and have another cup of tea. That's what Labour always want to do. They'll do the same with the curriculum. Let's sit down and have a cup of tea and a break and create a group that they appoint members to to have another think about it for 10 years. I mean, 60,000 kids start school every year, we can't afford to wait. And the key thing is, Mike, in all of this, our reforms are working. Why would you want to put that all at risk so Labour can have a cup of tea?" That was Education Minister Erica Stanford talking to Mike Hosking this morning. Yet when I was talking to Chris Hipkins in studio on Friday, he made it abundantly clear to me that National's initiatives would be rolled back should they form a government. He seemed to take absolute personal umbrage that I would suggest that from what I'd seen the reforms were working. Education seems to be as personal to him as it is to Erica Stanford. CH: "The reality here is that any curriculum change does need to KW: "For Ginny to put a halt on what's happening would be a disaster." CH: "That's rubbish, absolute nonsense. Erica Stanford is trying to rewrite the school curriculum in her own image, basically trying to and making it much, much more political than it should be. We're saying that the curriculum should be decided based on evidence of what's going to work, based on what we want all kids to be learning." KW: "It wasn't working." CH: "No, there's no question, there was curriculum, there was a need for the school curriculum to change, there's a need for the NCEA to change, but doing it in the way that the current government are doing it where they're alienating so many people, they're shutting parents out of the process, they're shutting teachers out of the process, they've got school principals up and down the country saying this is going to be bad for kids' education, that is a time to take a pause and say, okay, let's try and get this back on track because there is a need for change." KW: "I couldn't disagree with you more." Clearly I'm passionate about education too, so that was Chris Hipkins talking to me in studio. But you can hear in his voice that he genuinely believes that everything Erica Stanford is doing is wrong, and yet I'm looking at what she's doing and looking at the overseas evidence and looking under my own roof and I can see that it is working. Who's right? I mean, I think the education of our children and the options that a well educated child will have no matter where they start in life, the future of the country depending on a world class education is way too important for politics and shifting ideologies. I would gladly support Labour's curriculum if they could show they'd got it right, but their last session in office did not convince me of that in any way, shape or form. And it's not just me. You've got the Royal Society of Mathematicians saying that it was an absolute disaster what was being proposed. It's not just my reckon. There were academics and there were teachers and there were people with experience of educating children and knowledge of core curriculum subjects who said that Labour's curriculum that had been drawn up, and when you look at the money they spent on the reviews and the reforms and the contracting out, was a disaster. For all of that money and all of that time, disaster. There were probably some bits that were good, so keep those, but when it came to teaching the core subjects, they had got it completely wrong. Then you've got Erica Stanford coming in and the poor teachers are lurched in another direction again with the handwriting and the back to basics and the minimum amount of time spent on English and maths, and it seems to be working. I am so sick of reviews and reports and commissions that we have reports, reviews and commissions up the yin yang. If they propose another one on the education, it'll be a complete and utter waste of time and money, just as it will be with the bloody supermarkets. How many commissions have we had on that? But what Erica Stanford is proposing seems to make sense and it seems to be working and some educators agree with it and some do not, and then you argue that it's because some of the educators are influenced by the teachers' union. I don't necessarily buy that, but what works? It seems looking at overseas data and anecdotal evidence what Erica Stanford is proposing works. So why is Labour so vehemently opposed to what seems to be the best for our kids?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins says smaller parties shouldn't be able to veto National and Labour working together, as he eyes greater bipartisanship. This term, the two major parties have sided together on issues like the Indian free trade deal, a social media ban for under-16s, and modern slavery legislation. Hipkins told Kerre Woodham there's more work to do on issues like infrastructure and climate change. He says it's a bottom line for him that minor parties can't veto any bipartisan work, which he says ACT and NZ First have threatened to do this term. Hipkins is also confident the party will be able to find enough GPs to cover its three free visits policy, should it win government. The party's promising three free visits a year, funded through its capital gains tax on residential and commercial property. The Labour Leader told Woodham the number of medical graduates will rise in the coming years, and the party needs to attract them into primary care. He says the party will offer low interest loans to help graduates buy a stake in local GP practices. He also says GPs will be recruited from overseas, and his Government will grow the number of nurses able to prescribe medications. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now for some time, I'd say this would be over a number of years, I've been receiving texts from firefighters who are extremely unhappy with the way their organisation is being run. It hasn't just been over this latest pay dispute and the strikes. This has been ongoing for a couple of years now. There haven't been outright accusations per se, but a deep-seated uneasiness, and in some cases anger, about the way FENZ is running the organisation and the way they're treating firefighters. Now a scathing report has confirmed what they have been saying. The board is under fire and under threat of removal, and questions are being asked as to whether FENZ is capable of buying its own fire trucks, sourcing its own materials. Brooke van Velden, the Minister for Fire and Emergency, says she has absolutely no confidence in the chief executive Kerry Gregory, nor indeed of the board. National MP Tim Costley, who's the deputy chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, said the report into FENZ lays bare years of failings. For example, FENZ bought 30 new fire trucks in 2019. Well, that's good, isn't it? That's what the firefighters have been striking for. Well, yes, they're still not being used. They're almost obsolete before they've put a tyre on the road. Costley says the evidence shows FENZ has not been able to deliver. They've consistently had delays, they've consistently had issues with the trucks, and it looks like they have a culture of changing the design halfway through the process regularly, which would be a bit tricky for the manufacturers. Ladder trucks that FENZ bought have also suffered significant delays. Despite a final inspection in July 2025, they're still sitting with the original manufacturers, not yet delivered to FENZ and far from being put into operational use, which puts the firefighters at risk. They don't have the equipment they need to do the job. How the hell can you have 30 new trucks that were bought seven years ago that are still not being used? The pay disputes are ongoing. Every time I go past my Birkenhead fire station between just after midday when I finish work and there they are, standing on the side of the road, placards and horns tooting. Yesterday Brooke van Velden said she had no confidence in the CEO of FENZ or its board, specifically because of a serious breach of the no surprises clause as she told Mike Hosking this morning. BvV: There's always been issues with Fire and Emergency. We've always known that. Lots of historic issues, payroll, the fleet procurement, asset management. But at least when I've known about it, I've been able to actively hold them accountable to their plans and processes and we have actually seen some progress. This was active withholding of information and I think it reeks of people thinking they're above the law. MH: Indeed, what is it about FENZ because as you say it's been going on for years in various different guises. What is it about FENZ in and of itself that's so uniquely hopeless? BvV: Well, I've asked my officials specifically that question, which is is it because it is a Crown entity so at arm's length from government ministers that they are essentially a law unto themselves. And so I've asked for some immediate advice on whether or not there does need to be a better change to the law to allow for better accountability. Is it the fact that it is a Crown entity that is leading to these widespread cultural issues at play? Why are they not under the purview of the Crown? Make them like the Police, have a Fire Commissioner. Ensure that their funding is steady and reliable and within the budget, not dependent on people paying insurance levies. Because at the moment that's how a significant amount of their operational budget is raised: through levies. And when people cut back on their insurance when times are tough, hello, like right now, then that is felt by FENZ. If they were like the Police, then their budget would be assured. They'd always want more, of course, but at least surely to God they'd get trucks on the road and ladder trucks that could be used by the firefighters. And what is it about public servants that they don't understand their very titles? They serve the public. No, they appear to be serving themselves or they appear to be so hopeless they don't know how to do the job properly. We've seen that with immigration and an ongoing case in immigration. We've seen that now with the board and chair of FENZ. Is the job beyond them? Is it so big that they don't know what they're doing? Are they just not being, for want of a better word, are they not being ridden properly? When you're a minister you have to be on top of your department. Given that this isn't a government department per se, would it be better to have them under a good minister? But then the department is only as good as its minister. When you've got weak ministers, you've got lazy ministers, then the public servants know they can get away with anything. Well, I'm not going to call them public servants because a lot of them are not. Some of them are, a lot of them are not. I'll call them bureaucrats. They know they can run rings around their new minister and they do so. So you'd need to have a minister who is on top of their portfolio to get any kind of better outcome than we've seen so far. I imagine too that for those firefighters who've been sending in the texts, this will be vindication for you. I mean, there'll be no great joy in it because you still haven't got the equipment you need. It's still all that money has been invested with little to show for it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Morrinsville grocer is disheartened by National's plan to split up Foodstuffs. The party's campaigning on splitting Pak'nSave from New World and Four Square in a bid to increase competition. It would give the Commerce Commission six months after the election to make the final decision. New World Morrinsville Owner-operator Kym Samuels told Kerre Woodham this is heartbreaking, especially coming from National, who is a party that's meant to stand up for business. She says if the Government actually wants to bring down prices, they should look at reducing or removing GST on products like meat and seasonal produce that are impacted by inflation. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, I don't know. I've listened to all the commentary; I've listened to Nicola Willis. I'm absolutely perplexed. Stumped. I thought after all this time and having taken a lifelong interest in politics that I understood a wee bit about it. Turns out I know absolutely nothing, because if I was a National Party advisor, and let's face it, a lot of you think I am, but if I was a National Party advisor, I would not be saying to National, "look, you're languishing in the polls. You might have done some good work, you're not selling it well. We need a little something, something, something, something. I know! Let's take a big pet project of the last Labour Government and interfere with private property and manipulate the market and sell off supermarkets. And let's not sell off all supermarkets, not the Australian ones. Let's take the supermarkets owned by New Zealanders, good hard working young couples who go and live in small communities that Woolworths won't touch, and make them less profitable and make them charge less for the goods that they sell. How about that?" I am stumped that they thought this was a good idea and then even more stumped that whoever came up with the idea managed to sell it to the rest of them. Because I assume it's not a brain fart of Nicola Willis'. She's been on one ever since she came into government. She's been on the backs of the supermarkets. But for the love of all that's holy, this is an idea that goes against National's entire DNA. They're having the biggest identity crisis since Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn Jenner. It's an absolute head scratcher. However, Nicola Willis is adamant. This is what she told Mike Hosking this morning: "We believe in competitive enterprise and what the study after study has said about our supermarket sector is that it is a complete outlier internationally and that it is so consolidated it isn't operating like a normally competitive market. I want competitive, strong businesses innovating, offering variety, competing on price and the evidence I have received says that's not going to happen for so long as you have an effective duopoly. So this is not a normal market, there is evidence of market failure. Yes, this is an unusual step, but man oh man, we've got a problem here." Really? You know, it's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world in which we live. There are few things upon which you can rely. One of them is that National is the party of small government, minimal interference, a champion of small business owners. Now they're not. And the thing is it might all be for naught. They might be confusing and infuriating what voter base they have left for nothing. Dependent on the Commerce Commission, dependent on coalition partners, might be a Trojan horse. Okay, we'll leave the supermarkets, but we'll raise the age of Super to 68 – I don't know. As I say, I'm absolutely perplexed. We might be a percentage point higher in terms of grocery prices than other countries —to be fair, we have been a lot higher in recent times— but ask anyone in London or Sydney or Stockholm if they're paying too much for their groceries and they'll say, by crikey, yes we are. And although Australia and Canada and the UK among other countries have looked long and hard at their supermarket chains, none of them has taken the highly unusual step of breaking up privately owned supermarkets. It used to be that if you wanted the government to step in and try and fix things to make things a bit fairer, to protect and insulate you from the cruel vagaries of day to day life, you'd vote Labour or the Greens, you had a choice. If you wanted supermarkets broken up to create an artificial competition in the marketplace, you'd vote Labour or the Greens. And now look, you lucky, lucky things. What a choice. Labour, Greens or National. Who'd have thought. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand's economy is continuing to grow but the pace has slowed to a crawl. Latest Stats NZ data shows GDP rose 0.2% in the June quarter after rising 0.9% in the months to March. The growth is driven by construction, public services, healthcare, and wholesale trade. But the Herald's Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham some of it has to do with attitudes, which is affecting sectors like retail. He says tourism and other exporters are doing well, but many consumers are holding off on spending money because they're worried about losing their job. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT's Leader is furious at the idea of breaking-up Foodstuffs. If re-elected, and if the Commerce Commission agrees, National would separate Pak'nSave from New World and Four Square to compete with each other and Woolworths. David Seymour told Kerre Woodham it'll make the problem worse, but his party is standing alone. He says just because the focus group polling says people are upset, doesn't mean you do something simple and wrong. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Political parties are being urged to back a plan focusing on a better future for all children. Barnardos Aotearoa and its supporters is gathering at the steps of Parliament today asking for formal and long-term commitment to its Generational Plan. It aims to begin work next year, putting children at the heart of decision-making, so they can thrive as future adults. CEO Matt Reid told Kerre Woodham they've seen through social and community work that giving struggling parents the right support, especially early on, can absolutely make a difference. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's hard to know really where to start when it comes to listing the failings of all those who damn near destroyed the lives of the Phillips children. In the first instance, they were failed by their father and by their immediate family. Then, when those relationships broke down, they were failed by the very agencies that are supposed to be there to protect them, Oranga Tamariki and the Police. How agencies that are supposed to be acting in the interests of the children could think it was a good idea for them to be kept in the custody of a man who had staged their deaths, was an abusive alcoholic, and was motivated to keep the children away from their mother to spite her is beyond me. Police were concerned enough about his mental stability to deny him a firearms license or revoke it, yet they never passed on their specific concerns to Oranga Tamariki, not in detail. Still, OT really didn't need to have the police reports, one would have thought, when you look at all the other information they had. The children's older sisters had real and genuine concerns about the children's wellbeing. One rang the local office dealing with the children frequently, another swore an affidavit detailing controlling and abusive experiences with Phillips, yet the social workers didn't read it, fobbed off the one who phoned, didn't listen, insisted the kids were absolutely fine. How could you draw that conclusion? The inquiry has found that OT should not have closed the report of concern in February 2022, having done so in the face of compelling concerns raised by the children's older sisters as to the risk and harm to the children of being isolated from family and society. The children's four years of living with an alcoholic father in squalid isolation only ended when Phillips shot at and nearly killed a police officer who's had life changing injuries as a result of Phillips shooting at him. Police returned fire and Phillips died on a country road in front of his daughter. He was responsible for the trauma that that young girl experienced. He's ultimately responsible for all of what has happened to his children. But the state agencies that are there to step in when parents fail, failed too. Jill Rogers, the Deputy Police Commissioner, talking to Mike Hosking this morning, said ultimately police achieved what they set out to do. JR: We achieved what we set out to do. Did it take us a long time? Did we miss opportunities? Yes and yes, but at the end of the day we recovered the kids. MH: So if we're looking for blame and apologies, OT carry more of it than you do, fair? JR: The report identifies lessons for all of us in there, so and clearly that information sharing one is one that does stand out and we'll continue to work hard to make sure that we get the right information to the right people. Do you know the last time we had something like this was after the death, the murder of Malachi Subecz, murdered by his caregiver. That was only four years ago and one of the major findings was that government agencies needed to work together and centre children's voices. Four years ago. I have listened to government ministers and heads of department and police officers speak and they acknowledge the findings of this report, they've acknowledged the findings of previous reports, blah blah blah. Everyone's sorry. Everyone's very sorry. OT are sorry, Police are sorry. I'm sure the people that lionised Tom Phillips are very sorry now they know the despicable nature of the man. But I have absolutely no doubt that for all the reports, all the regrets, all the sorrow, all the determination to ensure this will never happen again, it will. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Would it be better to have one body responsible for running political polls? Questions have been raised as to how trustworthy existing polls are, as recent results put both National and Labour below 30%. NZ Research Association's Polling Spokesperson Murray Campbell told Kerre Woodham if there were to be an independent body responsible for three-monthly polls, it would have to be really well funded. He says high-quality political polls are expensive to run, and any one agency can't typically afford to run them with the frequency that's needed. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Political polls with the headlines and column inches they command. A cynic would say it probably depends on whether you're going up or you're going down. There's a story in Newsroom today from Professor Ben Gray that looks at how the different companies poll the population to get their results. And it doesn't give you a great deal of confidence, does it? He cites the New Zealand Health Survey as a good example of a high-quality survey because the selection of households is random from census data, representing the total population by age, sex, region, ethnicity, whether Māori, Pacific, Asian, other, and deprivation. So, if the population is made up say of 20% Māori, then they'll make sure that they have 20% of the respondents will be Māori. If there is 51% of the population that's female, they'll make sure that 51% of the respondents are female. Interviews are in person with multiple callbacks, resulting in a 75% response rate. Interpreters are used for the 5% of the sample not fluent in English and represented in the population. The methodology is approved by an independent research ethics committee and complies with National Ethics Advisory Committee research ethics guidelines. Political pollsters on the other hand, all use panels, online or telephone, who may or may not be paid, from which they claim to select a random sample. None provide any information about how their panel is recruited. It could be people who are self-selecting and they say, well, we make sure that we get 20% who self-select as Māori. I don't think that's true and they don't show you so you can't test it. In the past, apparently, New Zealand had a good reputation for accuracy in political polls when compared to other countries. We couldn't lie to save ourselves. Wouldn't have even occurred to us. You ask us who we're voting for and we'll tell you, without a word of a lie, it will be our absolute intention to vote for this. But declining trust in institutions and the media, as well as the impact of social media, is starting to erode that. We just don't trust the media, we don't trust institutions, we don't trust politicians, we don't trust pollsters. And political scientists point to sensationalist media reporting, bam, kapow, freefall, as being "not very helpful from a scientific point of view", from Professor Grant Duncan. But then when a media organisation is paid top dollar for a survey, they'll want to milk the results for all they can for headlines and by crikey, they do. 1News a couple of years ago pointed out that an analysis of the final 1News poll, the final poll before each of the last eight elections, shows the last survey of the campaign had been with an average of 1.17 percentage points of the actual party vote, according to the accuracy data. They say we're actually pretty accurate. 2020 threw everybody. That was the one that knocked most of the polling companies out of the water because it overestimated how much of the vote National would get, underestimated the love affair the nation had with Labour. But for 1News, they say with their pollsters Verian, the figures covering every election from 2002 to 2023 translate to the poll just being up by one to two seats per party, which they say shows it's pretty accurate, and it is. But do you care about them? They must have an impact. They absolutely must. Because if you see a poll showing the Opportunity party at 3% and you're thinking, oh, quite like the new shiny thing, oh, but at 3% my vote will be wasted, I'll go with the Greens. But then you see a poll showing the Opportunity party at 6% or 7% and you think, oh, oh, that's good. I'll vote for them. I'll vote for the shiny new Greens. Surely, it must have some sort of influence on how you are going to vote, especially if you're not 100% sure and a lot aren't. Now, the latest one that came out, that sort of I suppose it was a fortunate accident that we had the Newsroom story at the same time as we had the Freshwater poll come out, showed that Labour had dropped seven percentage points, which seems ridiculous. I mean, I totally get that National and Labour are unappealing to the electorate. We've seen that over a number of different surveys. People aren't enthused about voting for either of the main parties. They're flirting with the minor parties and having a look at the Opportunity party. But seven percentage points, which either means the poll was overinflated the first time or people are just having a laugh. I have never been asked in a survey. I've never been randomly selected —people want my opinion, they can tune in between 9am 12pm Monday to Friday on Newstalk ZB— but those who have say the questions are so weighted that they are trying to get a response that they want. It's not a "random question, who will you vote for?" Which I imagine a survey would be. No, nothing like it. Do you look, especially if you're flirting with some of the minor parties, at the results of a poll and think, hmm, my vote might be wasted, I'll go somewhere else? Do you look at your favoured party perhaps dropping in the polls and think, right, I'm going to make sure it's two ticks now, not just one? I don't know. I mean, they certainly don't influence me. I get where the political scientists are coming from saying, look, we're just producing a random sample, it's the media who ramps them up and milks every last piece of sensational headline out of them. But do they matter to you? Is there any point in publishing the bloody things other than making it an easy day at work for journalists? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The ACT Party has unveiled their party list ahead of the election - and they've placed Paul Henry in the top five and kept Seymour, McKee, and Hoggard at the top. Paul Henry also indicated that ACT would be looking to bump the retirement age up to 67, but allow people to access their KiwiSavers from age 65. ACT Leader David Seymour says the party would stagger retirement out - meaning people may have to work an extra few months before they reach the threshold. "It's been our official policy for a long time, we'll confirm it when we release an alternative budget. Everybody likes talking about bottom lines, but I'll just point to how much influence ACT has been able to have without setting bottom lines." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With the election under two months away, questions have been raised over the impact of Labour's proposed capital gains tax. This campaign promise has copped some backlash, with National releasing several AI-generated ads condemning its impact. Dentons tax partner Bruce Bernacchi says it could take some time to reveal the impacts of a capital gains tax, given the current 'flat' state of the property market. "I'm not privy to their modelling and maybe that's why it's been quite narrowly targeted at the free doctors' visits. But there surely must be a mismatch for the first few years." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I hope you'll be phoning in to tell me all about the CRL - because it's trains, planes and automobiles today with the official launch of the long awaited CRL yesterday. This morning it was the hard launch as commuters test the reliability, convenience and time saving potential of the railway line. Tough day to be a bus. Nobody cares, you big stinky diesel thing, even though I know a few of you have turned electric. There the buses are heroically supporting the commuter network, around 70 million passenger trips per year. Where's the gratitude? There is none. It's all, ooh, shiny trains. But honestly, who doesn't love a train? And there'll be some of you thinking, oh, how very Auckland. Come on, you know and I know that when you go to New York or London or Paris or Hong Kong or Singapore, even Australia, it's so exciting to be able to jump onto a commuter line that works, that takes you where you want to go cheaply, expeditiously. It's fantastic. We have our Oyster cards and we've worked out the lines, and we think we're so sophisticated as we jump on and off the trains. The subways, metros or tubes might be old and dirty or smelly, but you can spot a Kiwi, because they're so excited to be on there. There's none of this block yourself off and go into your own mind if you're a resident of the aforementioned cities. You just block yourself out and think this will be over soon, this too will end. We're bouncing around and hanging off the straps, just thrilled to bits to be there. And now we've got one of our own. I would definitely be using a train if the new harbour crossing is built with the capacity to run trains, although I will probably be dead by the time a new harbour crossing is built. My ancestors will rejoice. And the rejoicing yesterday, the Sky Tower was lit up with the CRL map, people of all ages set their alarms to stupid o'clock to catch the first train. People from around the country came to Auckland to ride the first train. I'd probably draw the line at saying, 'Tunnel, tunnel, tunnel' - a group chant as you go through the first tunnel, but then I'm not a rail fan or a trainspotter or a ferroequinologist or an anorak or a gunzel or a foamer or a densha otaku, which is all names from different cultures for those who love trains. But the fact that there are so many names in so many different languages and so many different cultures for people who love trains shows what a fan base they have. But beyond this special group of people getting their kicks, there's hope that there will be a significant return on investment with the building of the CRL. Aucklanders lose millions of hours each year stuck in traffic and removing even a small percentage of vehicles makes travel times faster, more reliable for everyone else and that improves productivity. It is hoped that the flow on effects will go right down the country, it won't just be a fun thing to ride - or to go on the new ale trail, or the ale rail trail, whichever you want to call it. Some friends of mine said they were going to go on the new rail link over the weekend and stop off for a glass of wine at different stations, or water after the first two. But there is an actual ale trail on the rail. Five breweries, independent breweries have signed up for it, so you can Google that and find it. Businesses like our lovely lady with the flowers in Victoria Street will be praying that the disruption and the loss of business and the hanging on by a thread will all be worth it now that the CRL is finally up and running. So I would love to hear from those of you who have ridden the train, who have jumped on board, test driven it yesterday or have taken the chance to come into work today on the train. Does it make much difference? Is it going to be part of your regular commute? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With just 57 days to go till election day, which is not long at all, most parties are starting to come out with policies. Even Labour. Capital gains tax and free GP visits seems like an age ago, but at least they came out with something. Te Pāti Māori, major constitutional reform by entrenching Te Tiriti into lawmaking, so they've sort of rustled up a couple of election promises. ACT and New Zealand First are giving their party faithful more of the same. ACT are dishing up getting rid of the Treaty, New Zealand First are doling out sanctions against migrants – so far, so appealing to those who are already there. With National, there's nothing to see here, more of the same, stick with us, we'll come right. Look, the economy's improving already, while firing shots across Labour's bow with misleading attack ads around tax. A feeling I'm picking up, and I'm sure you have too, is that people are getting sick and tired of politics and politicians, which is not great with 57 days to go until we make a really important decision about the direction of our country. There seems to be a pox on all their houses sentiment. As a texter put it, they're going to rule out the parties they simply cannot vote for and put a tick next to the party that remains. It's not really a positive vote, it's more a "the others are worse, so I suppose I'll just have to vote for you". So 57 days to go, less than two months. What issues matter most to you? Have you firmed up your vote? Have you danced around the minor parties and thought, oh well, maybe, maybe. The two main parties haven't really delivered much over the past few years, past few elections. Have a little flirt with the minor parties, no, and then you decide no, I'm not going to. No, they look new and shiny, but really, it's all insubstantial. I'll go back to the main parties. Are there issues that are important to you that you feel one party over another is going to deliver on? Are you going to be voting for yourself or for New Zealand? Do you have the luxury of being able to look at a vote for the wider community or are you just hanging in there by the skin of your teeth and voting for yourself? Are any of you so fed up that you simply won't vote? And I suppose more to the point, if you want to vote, have you made sure you're on the roll because you won't be able to do it on the day? There's a lot of you that will swing left to right and right to left – have you reached a level of dissatisfaction with both the major parties that you're ready to join forces with one of the smaller ones? There'll be a flurry, I imagine, of policies coming out, but 57 days to go is leaving it a bit late for Labour. Chris Hipkins said at a public meeting, the first one that he's done for the entire election campaign, and it was only a few days ago, he said, I'm just getting warmed up. Just starting. Has he left his run too late? Or are you still waiting to hear something that might energise you, that might make you think yes, I feel really positive about putting this tick next to this party, I feel certain that they have the answers, that their way of improving New Zealand is the right way. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An update from Tauranga's Mayor, who says Mount Maunganui won't reopen for a while yet. Six people died when the holiday park at the foot of Mauao in January was swamped by a landslide. It's been closed to the public since. Mahé Drysdale says it's tough on businesses, and they're trying to return to some normalcy. He told Kerre Woodham two summit tracks are closer to ready, but the main slip keeps getting worse despite a lack of normal triggers, which makes health and safety hard to predict. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There are concerns the culture of school rugby is distorting the values it's meant to promote. Christchurch Boys' High School's principal is raising flags about the increasingly serious way First XV rugby is treated by schools, particularly regarding recruitment, escalating expenditure, and the culture that develops when winning becomes too important. He believes that winning and playing for their school should matter, but a win-at-all-costs mentality shouldn't be prioritised over the values that team sport teaches. Principal Nic Hill told Kerre Woodham winning matters, but so does disappointment, as you can't have the great elation without disappointment. He says kids get so much out of sport, and the most they get is from the great adults they have with them, but adults are the ones who keep ruining it. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New research by Women's Refuge has shown that more women are disclosing that they are victims of family violence at work, and they are making the most of the domestic violence leave that was introduced by the Labour Government eight years ago. Under the legislation, those affected by family violence are entitled to up to 10 days of paid leave per year on top of their other leave, and they can request flexible working arrangements. The report found that the numbers using paid family violence leave rose from 9% to almost 34% since the Victims' Protection Act came into force, and that more women reported that their workplace response made them safer, not just feel safer, but they were safer. This increased from 40% to 62%. The workplaces that were clued up in their responses were offering victims of family violence practical safety, such as secure car parks and not allowing the perpetrator access to the workplace or the building. I can't imagine what it must be like trying to escape from a partner that refuses to accept that the relationship is over, and not simply that, but who wants to punish you for daring to go against their wishes. And they want to punish you personally, and worse, your children, for daring to defy them. These people —and it's predominantly men who cause the most damage— are narcissistic, manipulative, sly. Some are using sophisticated technology to track down their victims who have left the relationships. They'll hide GPS trackers in kids' belongings, the vehicle, other personal items, and using everyday apps to monitor the family's whereabouts so they can track them down and punish them. They're violent and they're dangerous. About nine women a year are killed by men for daring to leave them. Not for these men, the "oh well, we tried, you know, it's a shame, we loved each other once, but let's go and live our best lives separately and do what we can for the children." Oh no. It's not even "if I can't have you, no one else can." It's the fact that the woman dared to defy him, dared to say no, and that's what puts her and her children at risk. The most dangerous time for a woman is when she leaves. That's when they're most at risk. It's great that women feel they can disclose to their employer that they're unsafe, that they're leaving. It's great that employers are responding and saying "this leave is here for you." But it's a huge responsibility for the employer, isn't it? I would feel an enormous responsibility to my employee and to my other employees if she came to me saying her life was at risk, she needed to pack up and get out and get out quickly, she wouldn't be at work for a couple of days while she tried to find a safe place. Could the employer please be aware that the perp might come looking for her? It's not a workplace health and safety issue, but all of a sudden, it actually is. Remember that case in Māngere Bridge? A man murdered the coworker of his ex-wife. He went round to the workplace because she'd dared to leave him with a knife, tried to stab her, and when her brave coworker intervened, he fatally stabbed her. When it comes to the workplace leave that is available to those who are suffering from domestic violence, how important has it been if you are the victim of that violence to be able to take that leave from work, to be able to use that time to pack up and try to find a safe place? Do you ever truly feel safe unless the perpetrator is behind bars? Do they suddenly have a come to Jesus moment and think, "you know what? maybe killing her isn't the best option. Maybe killing the children isn't the best option. Maybe I let them live their own lives and get on with mine, try to find some purpose and meaning in my own life." Because I can't imagine that would happen very often. At what point do you feel safe? And as an employer, if you have an employee come to you and say "Look, I feel really unsafe, I have to leave this relationship," it'd be more than just giving them leave, wouldn't it? Saying "Alright then, I'll sign you off for five days, good luck." I imagine it would be a whole lot more responsibility than that. So more power to those employers who have been able to do what they can to provide a safe workplace for their employee and the other employees, but it opens a whole can of worms, doesn't it? The fact that more women are using this domestic violence leave to be able to set themselves up in a safe place is fantastic. If it saves a life, it's well, well worth it. But what is the responsibility that the employers feel? I'd love to hear from you. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some Kiwis are at risk of losing their sight as the backlog for public eye appointments grows. More than 36 thousand New Zealanders are waiting longer than recommended for their appointments, with more than 125 thousand ophthalmology follow-ups outstanding nationwide. Health NZ says its working to reduce the wait times caused by an ageing population, staff shortages, and overwhelmed services. Greenlane Clinical Centre's Clinical Director of Ophthalmology, Sarah Welch told Kerre Woodham they're doing everything they can to try improve things. She says they're potentially starting to turn a corner, but with the number of people waiting, it's not going to happen tomorrow or the next day – it'll take a year or so. And that, Welch says, probably shows we need more capacity within ophthalmology across the country. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well, I don't know what we're going to do... Good news! How on earth do you make a talkback show out of good news? That's not what we're here for. Indeed, it is very good news, though. The post-Covid collapse in education has halted, and the equity gap is narrowing as disadvantaged students improve at higher rates than their richer peers. That's according to New Zealand's 2025 PISA, Programme for International Student Assessment, results, which is a benchmark for 15-year-olds in the OECD in science, maths, and reading. Oh yes, sure, there are legitimate qualifiers. Results in other countries fell, so it was easier for us to catch up and look good. And no, thank you media, we're not back to the 2009 levels, which is when our schools delivered truly world class results in the PISAs, but come on, this is fantastic news. The Minister for Education, Erica Stanford, believes, as indeed do I, as indeed do many of you, that your socioeconomic circumstances should not dictate your academic achievement. That a world class education should be available to every child in New Zealand, not just those who can afford private schools and tutoring. Education should be a way up, and it should be a way out for those who do not want to live the same lives as their parents. Understandably, Erica Stanford is very, very pleased with the results. ES: To see these kids who are in the bottom quartile who have gained in science a year, in maths three terms, and in reading two terms or six months, that is beyond what we could have expected. And the reason I came to politics and to education was to close the equity gap that has been stubborn for decades, and this is the first time we've seen a turnaround. One of the things I put this down to is actually kids turning up to school. MH: I was going to say, right. So just being at school helps. ES: Well, if you look back to 2022 when we last did PISA, in term two our attendance rate was about 39% 39.6 In 2026 in term two, 64.3 Still a very long way to go, but when kids are turning up to school and our message has been over the last three years every single day counts, this is what happens, and it matters the most for the kids at the bottom who need education to change their lives. You cannot doubt the Education Minister's passion for her portfolio. You also cannot doubt the results that she is getting. I don't know what the teachers' unions are going to do now. How can they complain because our kids are succeeding? And in large part, it is thanks to very, very good teachers who were always motivated, who were always professional, but who had a dog of a curriculum under Labour to deal with. I don't know what the principals who said, "Oh, you can't test children, you know, these give a false result," were talking about. No, they don't. They give an international benchmark. They let us know how we're doing compared to the rest of the world. For a very, very long time, we were world leaders. And for those of us who grew up with an education in the 70s and early 80s—I'm talking the 1970s and 1980s, not the 1870s and the 1880s, just for clarity—it was a world-class education. Erica Stanford's been trying to ensure that no matter if you're in Whangārei or you're at school in Bluff, the core subjects will be the same. There'll be localised differences, there'll be regional differences, but the basics, the standard stuff, will be the same, and that's as it was. We turned out world-class scientists from tiny country schools because we had a great curriculum and brilliant teachers. We've always had good teachers, but they've been dealing with absolute politically motivated, ideologically unsound curricula over the last couple of decades. All parents want is their children to achieve their potential, to have a chance to succeed. I went to school in Pukekohe, Tokoroa, Turangi, and Waihi, and I could foot it with anybody from around the world education-wise. You were allowed to explore what you wanted to explore. I wanted to learn French, for heaven's sake, when I was in Turangi. I found an old, old French dictionary, and French wasn't offered at Turangi Primary, but a teacher found another teacher within the school that was willing to sit with me, show me it wasn't just words, it was sounds that made another language. The number of parents I spoke to who could see their children going backwards under Labour's curriculum – the money that was spent on that, the people who were employed to come up with all sorts of add-ons instead of understanding that the basics have to be there, and then the children will find the add-ons. If they know the basics, they can go exploring all by themselves. And the number of you who rang me having to find money you simply did not have to pay for extra tuition because you could see your kids were failing, you could see your kids were falling behind, you didn't want them to be left behind, so you did it. You got them educated when it is the responsibility of state schools to do that. I've seen a difference with the grandkids. Huge difference. It's so important. This used to be the way out for migrant families since forever ago. It used to be the way out for children who'd had to leave school at 12 or 13, who slogged away, made a life, but then wanted more for their own kids, wanted more choices for their own children. Education was it. I would love to hear from you on this, especially if you are somebody who's seen the difference in your home, especially if you're somebody who was having to find that money for the extra tuition because you were not going to let your kids down. The Government might have been letting the kids down, but you weren't going to let your own children down. And employers, I want to know if you're starting to see the first signs of a truly educated workforce. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Reassurances that life is not over after using methamphetamine as wastewater testing revealed record high consumption. The Herald's obtained a justice briefing showing almost two million doses were detected in testing in a single week in April. That equates to about $40 million in social harm and is 21% above the average amount consumed over the 12 months prior. Whakaronga Whanau Recovery Hub CEO Rhonda Zielinski told Kerre Woodham people absolutely can get their lives back after using meth. She says people tend to dwell on the bad side and think there's no coming back, but there are people in her life that are living testaments of overcoming meth addiction. Zielinski says that from personal experience, there seems to be more success in getting people off meth, than off alcohol. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A group of hunters has turned pest control into a way to feed their communities. Hunt for Good is a not-for-profit that culls wild deer, donating the venison and wild game meat to community groups and food banks. The volunteer group currently provides meat for the Bay of Plenty, Hawkes Bay and Manawatu Regions, and have donated over 20 thousand kilograms of mince. Trust Chair, Bill Osborne told Kerre Woodham they're very careful about how they do it, and have strict processing protocols for farms and a strong hunting doctrine. He says sustainability is really important in this day and age, and they're trying to preserve what bush they can and maintain pastures for production, so it's quite important to get that balance right. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Who the hell is doing all this meth? Yesterday came the news that there were almost 2 million doses detected in wastewater sites over one week in April. One week. 2 million doses. Consumption in the first quarter of 2024 was 15% higher than it was over the previous four quarters. The numbers are big, but beyond the numbers, that is a lot of misery. Just looking at the ODT today, two headlines stood out: 'No way out, mum sucked into major meth trafficking operation,' and 'Fatal crash caused by distressed speeding mum high on meth'. You've seen the same sort of thing. And the scary thing is that those 2 million doses were discovered in wastewater sites – doesn't even begin to cover the septic tanks. The areas where meth is rife, like the Far North and the East Coast of the North Island, aren't even counted. Part of the reason for the massive upsurge might be cost. Apparently, the street price of meth in New Zealand is currently at its lowest level ever recorded thanks to a big intake from the internationals. Data from the Massey University New Zealand Drug Trends Survey says the average retail cost of meth is around about $334 per gram or $74 for a "point" (100 milligrams), so the price has come down by half over the last couple of years. I know people who do recreational drugs. They dabble in alcohol, they dabble in cannabis, they dabble in cocaine, and they do dabble. They appear to be able to pick it up and put it down without their drug of choice impacting their families and their businesses. You would have to wonder, given the amount of meth that's being consumed, can you dabble in meth as well? Is it something you can do on the weekend? I'm probably not the best person to be talking about this, but does it give you energy? Is it one that powers you up or calms you down? I have absolutely no idea. So if you need to be powered up or calmed down, whatever the drug can do, can you take it and then leave it? Because all the stories around meth are very 'Go Ask Alice' and 'Requiem for a Dream' type stories. Horror stories of what happens when you pick up a drug and you cannot put it down. Given I have an addictive personality, I know enough to stay well clear of the illegal drugs. But surely, given the kilos and kilos being consumed, not everybody is a tragic wreck. Why meth though? It's been around for a very, very long time and there have been I mean, easily the past 20 years we've been talking about how it can tear apart families, how it's funding gangs, how it's fuelling gang wars and turf wars. Why do you want to pay that money so that a gangster and his moll can fly first class to Europe? At least the gangsters who own liquor companies pay tax. Now Northland leaders are warning against the arrival of fentanyl in this country. Otangarei Trust CEO Martin Kaipo said it was only a matter of time before the zombie drug made its way into the country as crims looked for new opportunities. And you cannot be confident that people will steer clear of fentanyl despite the fact that there have been so many videos, so many social media stories, so many stories on the mainstream media about what that drug can do to people. The images of the walking zombies, the living dead, makes synnies look like a vitamin tonic by comparison. But if the drug dealers see a new opportunity, they will take it. The drugs can get here, clearly. Your South American route down through the islands is basically a free passage for the drug exporters and importers. Is it a drug you can dabble in? It's just when you look at the people who want to get off it and can't, that's the problem. You might think you might be able to dabble, but what happens when it starts to control you? There simply aren't the beds available if you want to detox. You'll be bloody lucky if you can find one. The damage it does to families, it's multi-generational in the Far North. People are trying desperately to, offer young people an alternative to drugs and drug dealing, but when there's not much up here up there, they see it as the only way they can make a crust. Who on earth is using the meth? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Back in the day, when I first got this job, I was desperate to buy a house. All of a sudden I was earning enough to pay a mortgage, but after years of living on a waitress's wages and being a single mum, I didn't have the deposit. I would now be able to start saving for one, there was a bit left over after expenses, which was a new and wonderful feeling. But it seemed such a swizz to be paying more than a mortgage in rent every week when that could be going towards a house and security for my daughter and me. I was very lucky then that my partner, later husband, now ex husband, had a rental unit in the South Island that could be used as security for us to move into a cottage in Grey Lynn. He had the security, I had the wage, it was a beautiful thing until it wasn't. Um, nobody wanted to live in Grey Lynn at the time, wasn't at all fashionable. And although I thought it was a palace, our home was described in a story I did with a magazine as shabby. But we loved it, absolutely loved it, and it was our home for 20 years, which, to make a short story very long, is why I think it's a jolly good idea from National to increase first home buyers' access to low deposit mortgages if they become government. Their stated intention is to get home ownership rates back to their historical peak of 74% and that was achieved by the country back in the early 90s. Since then, home ownership has fallen to about 66%. Now there are all sorts of benefits for the community, for the country, not just for the young families who own their own homes, if you get home ownership rates up. It's a worthy aspiration. Right now, first home buyers account for nearly 29% of all home purchases, representing the largest single cohort in the current housing market as they take advantage of the correction in the housing market. So will lowering the deposit required make a difference? CoreLogic New Zealand chief property economist Kelvin Davidson was fairly neutral when he spoke to Early Edition this morning. "I don't think it's going to transform things. I mean, it's going to be great obviously for those individuals who were previously shut out because their income was just a bit high, they'll now be able to potentially get in under this loan scheme, but it's not going to flood the market. We already know first home buyers are really strong anyway, um, and and values are still pretty flat despite that demand. So good for those individuals, but I don't think it sort of transforms the housing market for sure." Really? But if you're renting right now, surely the lowering of the deposit would make a huge difference for you. 5% is a huge difference from 10% You genius mathematician, Kerre. But you know what I mean, like trying to get a 10% or a 20% deposit as some people had to do was, you know, it was a Herculean task and it seemed so far, it's a bit like the opposite of what the the student loan absconders are doing. Their debt seems so huge that they can't begin to tackle it. When you've got a 20% deposit to find, it seems like such a huge sum you don't even attempt it. Whereas 10% becomes doable, 5% very much so. If you are renting right now, does the thought of buying appeal and does 5% make it doable? Like really doable. When you look at how much you're paying in rent, have you done the sums to see what a mortgage would look like for your first home? Is it even something you aspire to these days or did the huge jump in house prices knock the confidence out of you when it came to owning a home? I've got friends, young friends, a couple, he's 40 and the other is 34 and they've said no, we'll just rent. They don't have children, they probably won't have children, they'll just rent and use the money to save a bit and travel a bit. They've had a long hard look, big talks about it, and they've decided no. They'll save for their retirement through KiwiSaver and a separate savings account and use the rest of the money to travel. They just don't want to, they've decided they don't want to buy into it. I'd love to hear what you have to say on this. If you're renting right now, does the 5% threshold as promised by National make you think, you know what, I can do it? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour has dropped to a new low in today's Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll with just 25.9%. The result has called into question Labour's election campaign strategy, and Chris Hipkins' leadership. NZ Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan told Kerre Woodham, "this has only happened in a couple of months, it's just fallen off a cliff. So, I think it will take some time, Labour will want to see other polls before it starts to talk about leadership." LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The KNAPP Sustainability Leadership Award recognises retailers who are advancing their sustainability efforts through a specific green initiative. Last night at the Spark Retail NZ Awards The Warehouse Ltd - The Good Drop took the prize, which is The Warehouse's clothing recycling scheme. Sustainability Partner at The Warehouse Group Caroline Dewstow joined Kerre Woodham to discuss the win. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the Government water down its move-on orders, concerned that the penalties and punishments would be disproportionate to the offences of rough sleeping and begging. Under the proposed legislation, police had the ability to move people engaging in specific behaviours, including rough sleeping and begging, away from the area for 24 hours. Breaching the rules risked a $2,000 fine or up to three months' imprisonment. But after more than 7,000 New Zealanders made submissions, with more than 98% of those submissions opposing the bill as it stood, changes have been made. Those opposed included the Police Association, city missions, faith groups, ordinary everyday New Zealanders who took the time to submit, and Retail NZ, which seems an odd one. Chairperson of the Justice Select Committee, Tom Rutherford, told the Mike Hosking Breakfast he's happy with where the move-on orders have landed. "I think we've made some really pragmatic changes, increasing the age from 14 to 18 years old, including things like freedom camping not being captured, stronger protections around providing personal details, requiring the police to report on it in a statutory review in three years' time, and reducing that fine from $2000 to $1000 – I think we've really hit the money here." Reducing the age at which the orders could apply from 14 to 18. There were real concerns that young people would be criminalised by these orders, young people who had nowhere else to go, the most vulnerable. It's interesting that Retail NZ was opposed to the bill as it stood. I totally get the Police Association and the city missions, but the move-on orders were in part designed to protect retailers from dealing with aggressive and offensive behaviour. But are the amendments fair in your mind? I had a few concerns about them, like aggressive, offensive behaviour, absolutely, get rid of it, but I would have thought that there were sufficient laws to do that anyway. The move-on orders just mean moving the problem from one place to another. If people have nowhere to go, if people have mental health issues, if people are there because they're young, home is not safe, they can't find anywhere to be, then how is the move-on order going to actually solve those issues? It'll just be a not-so-merry-go-round of people landing in one place, being moved on, and landing in another. I have absolutely no doubt that not just the police, but all of the social agencies who are set up to deal with the problem of people who live outside of the community for whatever reason, I have absolutely no doubt that the move-on orders were meant with the best possible intentions of trying to make the streets safer, of not having people abusing parents and children who are walking down the street minding their own business, your Tom and your Lindas coming off the cruise ship and just experiencing a nice bit of New Zealand to be met with near naked men brawling in a drunken stupor in the middle of Queen Street. It's not great. It's absolutely not ideal. You can't allow it to happen, and it was let go for a very, very long time. But coming down with the move-on orders doesn't seem to me to be a realistic way of solving the actual issue. People are homeless for many, many reasons, it's not simply because they don't have a home, and they're complex and it's tricky. Were the move-on orders ever designed to get to the root of those problems? I'm not entirely sure they were. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Retailers are staying opposed to move-on orders as they stand, saying they should target behaviour, not vulnerable people. The proposed Bill would let Police direct people out of a public space for rough sleeping, begging, or behaving disorderly. The Justice Committee's recommended changes, including lifting the age orders could apply to from 14 to 18. Retail NZ CEO Carolyn Young told Kerre Woodham disruptive behaviour is the main issue for retailers, not homelessness. She says it doesn't matter if the person's in a suit or what time it is, it should be down to behaviour, not whether someone has a home or not. They're also seeing less and less rough sleepers blocking doorways, Young says, as compliance officers now usher people away each morning. She says they're generally out of doorways by around 7 or 8am. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

18 year old Jade Evans was killed last year when a truck driver ran a compulsory stop sign and crashed into her car, leaving her with catastrophic brain injuries. She and her unborn baby Lily died three days later after Jade's family donated her organs to save the lives of others. Now her family's calling for stronger accountability for preventable road deaths following yesterday's sentencing of the truck driver. The driver, who pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death, was sentenced to two months community detention, disqualified from driving for one year, and ordered to pay reparation to Jade's family. Doesn't seem much for lives lost, does it? But then when you think about Jake Hamlin, he got 12 months home detention for driving drunk and killing Samantha Williams. No accident about it. No carelessness about it. It was criminal negligence on his part, really. So yes, it would be nice to see people held accountable for the damage they do. Jade's mother Kathryn Stothers and stepfather Cameron have launched Jade's Law, a national petition calling for reform of New Zealand's road safety laws. Named in Jade's honour, the petition wants to increase penalties for careless driving causing death, and asks Parliament to amend the Land Transport Act so penalties reflect the seriousness of a life lost and recognise a wider range of aggravating circumstances for breaches of traffic rules, particularly involving heavy vehicles. Kathryn says the petition is not about seeking harsher punishment for one individual, it's about seeking a change of law to allow judges to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime. If you think back to a Dutch driver —I believe he was a tourist— Johannes Appleman, he T boned a car in Canterbury back in 2014 and that killed Dr Lucy Hone's 12 year old daughter, as well as her best friend and her best friend's mum. He failed to stop at a stop sign, one of those classic long Canterbury roads where you just don't see it. There was no intent, he wasn't drunk, he wasn't tired, yet he ploughed into them and three lives are lost. A Tauranga man was sentenced to 150 hours community work, disqualified from driving for 12 months, and ordered to pay emotional harm reparation for careless driving over the death of a motorcyclist. You have that awful, awful case of the young woman in Morrinsville —I think that was back in 2011— who came round a corner just on the outskirts of Morrinsville, failed to take a moderate bend, drifted over the road and ploughed into, she wasn't even going that fast, ploughed into a group of cyclists who were absolutely doing exactly as they should. They weren't all over the road, they were riding sensibly and it was just one of those horrible accidents. She wasn't drunk, she wasn't impaired with drugs, she wasn't tired, she was on her way to work and she killed three people. When it's an accident, a pure accident, no drugs are involved, no alcohol's involved, no tiredness, you're not turning around and laughing and chatting to other people, when it's just a dreadful accident, yet the outcome of that moment of carelessness or distraction or thinking about something else, that moment of distraction causes so many lives to be changed forever. Families have to live forever without their child, their husband or wife. How do you reflect that fairly? Harsher penalties, they're not going to stop the accidents happening because these are not people who need to be told not to drink and get behind the wheel of a vehicle. They weren't drunk. They don't need to be told don't take drugs, don't speed. They weren't doing any of that. It was an accident and yet the fallout from the accident is so great. Does there need to be a marker in law to say what you did was an accident, yes, but the damage you did through being at the wrong place at the wrong time in a moment's distraction has resulted in so much damage, so much pain, so much harm, we must mark it in law by punishing you. I mean, at the moment you've got a little light community service or a fine, disqualification for a year or so for people who have taken multiple lives. They didn't mean to, they weren't impaired, there weren't aggravating circumstances around what they did, but boy they did some damage. What's appropriate? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The mother of an 18-year-old killed when a truck driver drove through a stop sign near Palmerston North is calling for stronger accountability. The driver's pleaded guilty to careless driving causing Jade Evans' death. He's been sentenced to two months' community detention, loss of licence, and must pay the family reparations. Mother Kathryn Stothers has launched a petition asking to create Jade's Law, to reform road safety law. She told Kerre Woodham that they want to close the gap so that if a serious breach of road rules results in death, the charge and sentence properly reflect the loss of life. Stothers says it's not about making higher charges for everyone, but about giving the legislation, police, and courts a wider scope to charge appropriately when fundamental road rules, such as stop signs, are breached. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now if you were to wander down to your local netball court on any given Saturday morning in winter, you would see hundreds, no matter how small the town might be, you would see hundreds, and in the biggest cities, thousands of parents and young women on the courts, on the sidelines, waiting in the queue for a park in the car park, checking to see if they're blocking a bit of your driveway as they try and desperately find a park down a side street to get to the game on time. It is our national women's game – netball's played by nearly 30,000 secondary school students and more than 60,000 juniors in New Zealand. It's the most popular participant secondary school sport for girls in New Zealand and has been for years and years and years. Moms who played netball come down to watch daughters, and sons up until secondary school, playing netball. Dads who watched the moms play netball back in the day when they were just courting are now watching daughters on the sidelines. Huge supporters. But why does that support, that love of the game, that passion for the game – because on some of those wet, cold, icy mornings, it's a lot to get up out of your warm bed and head down to the courts. All very well and good to be playing, but when you're standing shivering on the sideline, that's commitment. So why does that support, that passion and commitment not translate into being able to sustain a money-making professional league for our very, very best players? The annus horribilis of Netball New Zealand, or really, it's an anni horribiles, have been well traversed. But one of the main problems that Netball New Zealand encountered was that there just weren't enough people watching the game to support televising the league, and without high rating broadcasts, it's really hard to secure sponsorship and a long-term future for the league. Netball New Zealand will argue that viewer numbers were improving. The average live television audience for an ANZ Premiership fixture was 51,800 – a 32% increase on 2025, which means that in 2025 they were miserable numbers. But then compare that to the hundreds and thousands who watch rugby on the telly for the Super Rugby matches. The ranks of our best netballers have been gutted as Netball New Zealand worked to find a way to continue with some form of a premier competition. They just couldn't get it nailed down quickly enough, so 13 of our elite players have headed across the Tasman to play, they've been snapped up. Five are heading to the UK's Netball Superleague. If people weren't watching a competition with our very best netballers, some of the best netballers in the world, will we watch with only the up and comers? Chief executive of Netball New Zealand Jennah Wootten is confident we have the talent for a new competition. "I've been talking to a lot of former Silver Ferns and a lot of people that are deeply involved in the technical side of our sport. And I think one of the things I'm hearing from a lot of them, Mike, is yes, 18 players have signed to go offshore and we totally respect and understand why, we couldn't give them certainty early enough. But if you look at the ANZ Premiership this year, we had around 60 players in that competition. So there's actually an enormous amount that are still here. And what I'm really excited about is seeing what new talent's going to come through. You know, there'll be a whole lot of people that have been on the cusp of getting into these teams in the past. This is going to be their moment, and I reckon we're going to learn a whole lot of new names in netball that are going to be the stars of the future." Well, you hope so. And that's certainly what angel investors Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams are hoping, who are the backers of a private domestic competition as of next year. They know about sport, they know about business, they know how to get people along, they know how to drum up passion for a team, and hopefully they can do the same for this tournament. Mowbray and Williams will determine the competition format, the team structure and the season dates. And Jennah Wootten said having them come to the rescue gives the netball community clarity on the direction of travel after a lengthy period of uncertainty. But what is it that makes a sport watchable? There is no doubt that there are hundreds of thousands of people involved in netball in this country who take an interest. And they put their money where their mouth is, they travel, they get up on a Saturday morning, they take the kids to the practices, they travel from city to city too, if the kids get into the top leagues to watch the inter-sport competition. They play social netball. There's a lot of interest in the game that does not translate to eyes on screens. Why? I'll watch a sport I've never played and really enjoy it. Love watching the league, love watching the union, never played it. Really enjoy it. Love watching tennis. You'd argue that netball's more interesting than tennis on paper. But given a choice between watching the best tennis players in the world and the best netballers, I'd watch the tennis. I love watching sport. Give me a reason to watch and I'll watch it, but right now, is it the game? Is it just that it's more exciting to play than to watch? What is it? Ali Williams and Anna Mowbray are not fools. They're not going to have a passion project that doesn't see a return on investment, surely. They must believe they can get people behind netball. What would make you watch? Because I'm not one of them, and I'll watch just about any sport, but it just doesn't hold my interest and I don't know why. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's not often you hear people moaning that taxes should be put up, but we live in interesting times, people. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Transport Minister Chris Bishop yesterday announced that the Government had scrapped the 12 cents per litre fuel increase, with equivalent increases to road user charges, that were planned for January 1st next year. It's kind of expected that they would – they'd staged on for so long and it's an election year – are we seriously going to expect a government that is fighting to be re-elected to put up any costs for consumers in the next few months? Not really. So the next expected increase of 5 cents per litre will be on January the 1st 2028. To cover the lost revenue, the Government plans to top up the National Land Transport Fund at an expected cost of $1.5 billion over the forecast period, using its $450 million rainy day fund and finding the rest somewhere else. They're not saying where it's going to come from, they're saying that they'll release that later. Transport Minister Chris Bishop told 1News last night the increases couldn't be delayed indefinitely without damaging the transport network. Unless they begin again soon, the financial foundations of our land transport system will be undermined. Luxon argued the extra breathing room before the hike gives New Zealanders more time to recover from a prolonged period of post-Covid economic pain and ongoing global uncertainty around the energy prices. The pair also said, look, the regular fuel hikes that are planned in later years are necessary and people will be able to pay for them because they're saying that the country's economy will strengthen in the years to 2030, so we'll all be able to afford them. Labour has said it will freeze fuel excise hikes for the three-year electoral term if it becomes government. Either way, we're not going to be paying anything whether Labour or National gets in for the next year. But transport and infrastructure leaders aren't happy about that – they've said both parties are playing politics. Well, yeah, it's an election year, they've got to be re-elected. AA fuel spokesperson Terry Collins said the "what to do" about the fuel was a problem of the Coalition's own making. When they came into power, they wiped the 3 cent annual increases that Labour had announced. If they'd maintained those, they wouldn't be in the same predicament that they are today. Infrastructure New Zealand Chief Executive Nick Leggett said the decision was because of election season and ultimately would end up costing the country more. He said, I understand the politics, but it's become a race to the bottom. The right decision for New Zealand now and in the future would be to let those fuel excise increases continue as planned. It would take political courage to do that. I don't think there's much courage around with just a few short months and the polls looking the way they're looking. Every vote will count and raising excises, duties, taxes, tariffs, whatever you want to call them, is not going to be popular. Even the Greens say bring on the fuel excise tax. The Greens say freezing the fuel excise will make our roads worse, defer maintenance we badly need, and leave people with fewer options for getting around. They say it also shows that neither party is committed to the recommendations in the National Infrastructure Plan. Now, it's hard to believe if you are new to this country or new to this radio station, but potholes were a major election issue last time round. Remember when we had entire hours devoted to potholes? A pothole hotline was set up as a way of getting elected, a promise to set one up and then delivery on that promise from ACT. The state of our roads is an election issue, and we need money to pay for them. It's expensive, it's time consuming, it costs productivity if the roads are in poor shape. Everybody has got their favourite stretch of road or their bête noire of a road that is just hell to drive. Potholes and the state of the roads were shredding tyres and we had collectively, if you add up all the hours we spent talking about it, probably days before the last election talking about the state of our roads. Helen reminded me that we received a text a few days ago saying the roads have never been in better shape according to a truckie who travels the route regularly. He said that potholes are vastly improved, that the roads are in much better shape. Can you say that the Coalition Government has delivered on their roading promises? Will they be able to keep those promises without the money going into the roading and maintenance coffers over the next year? I mean it is going to come from somewhere, National have said that they'll top it up, but that's debt we're not paying back. What is the right thing to do? I mean yes, it would take political courage, but as the Opportunity Party says, you've got to be in power, you've got to get into Parliament to be able to enact your policies. So National, the Coalition Government, probably feel it's better to get into the seats of power, into the seats of governance, and let the fuel excise slide just for now, they'll find the money from somewhere for the roads.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Over the weekend too, Nicola Willis announced policy around student loans. And finally, finally, finally, we have a government that's going to get tough on overseas student loan defaulters. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said yesterday that National will introduce harsher penalties on Kiwis who move overseas and simply refuse to pay back the New Zealand taxpayer. This is about making it a bit easier for people who have a student loan and are in New Zealand and sending a stronger message to those offshore that they're expected to repay their loan. We've got to get that balance right. Ultimately, if you do study in New Zealand, you're being heavily subsidised by the New Zealand taxpayer, and we do that because we want you contributing to our economy and our community. It will always be the case that some Kiwis will take their qualifications offshore, but when they do that, we expect them to pay New Zealand back. Yeah, not that harsh, really, is it? At the same time, Nicola Willis said at the press conference yesterday, the party if re-elected will reduce the compulsory student loan repayment rate for those who stay in the country to 10 cents on every dollar earned above 24,128 It's down from 12 cents currently. That's not going to set the world on fire, but I think going after the defaulters is a good move. What does annoy me though, every time the story is written about, generally by Generation Z reporters, New Zealand's student loan scheme was introduced in 1992 by the Jim Bolger led National government, replacing a long standing system of near free tertiary education. The implication being those vile right wing fascists from National took away a God given right for every New Zealand young person to be able to attend university for free and put in a student loan scheme. What they don't say is that there were incredibly tough conditions around getting into university in the first place. Not everybody could go. It was academically rigorous and it was kept to the very highest marks generated by young people around the country. You couldn't just saunter into a BA while you faffed around and decided what you wanted to do. It was really, really tough to get into university. After it became a bums on seats model where you could pay and go if you wanted to, sure, it became more open so people were able to go to university even if they didn't have the very highest marks. Great. So that was a change in policy. But I do wish they'd keep, or at least remind people, that sure, loans were introduced replacing the free system, but it also meant that more people could go to university and get a tertiary education if they wanted one and if they were willing to pay for one. But anything that's going to help get back the billions of dollars those freeloaders refuse to pay back is a good thing. But do you know what? I can almost write the script on this one. Bear with me. National is re elected and as part of a coalition government introduces tough measures targeting overseas loan defaulters. Six months down the track, an extremely attractive young person working for a not for profit in London or Melbourne will have a mental health crisis. Their grieving family will point to the student loan debt as the catalyst for the mental health crisis and blame the heartless actions of a brutal centre right regime. A grim faced young reporter on the old man's news at 6:00pm will conclude with dire warnings of more mental health crises if the government doesn't pull back on its vicious crackdown of Aotearoa's best and brightest. That's One News. Can you not write the script? I mean, it won't be an unattractive person that they'll profile. There may well be mental health crises as people realise actually they're going to have to face their debt mountain. They're going to have to enter into negotiations with IRD. They're going to have to start paying it back. It is, it's tough. It will be tough. But anybody unattractive won't be profiled. It'll be somebody gorgeous who works for Greenpeace or Save the Panda or something. Something lovely. I can absolutely write the script. And I know how tough it is when you get behind on bills and payments, especially when you're young. I remember it well. It's a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach, a sense of hopelessness, I'll never be able to get on top of this, so why do I even try? But I also know that the only way you can overcome that mountain of debt is by tackling it head on and digging away at it one automatic payment at a time. Burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away is not a strategy, certainly not for the best and the brightest, you'd think they'd know better. We have been trying for decades now to get these bludgers to pay back their loans. We've appealed to their better natures, to their patriotism. It is time now to get tough and finally we have a government that's committed to doing so. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A New Zealand Herald article a couple of weeks ago revealed 87 properties across South Auckland have either been purchased, are being purchased, or are earmarked for acquisition to make way for the Mill Road corridor. The properties collectively represent around $2 billion worth of taxpayer funded land acquisition. It was now revealed that NZTA has sent a number of householders within the affected area an email saying, "With no confirmed construction timing nor funding for Mill Road, we advise that NZTA will not be purchasing your property at Redoubt Road at the present time and will be formally withdrawing from negotiations. We appreciate the time you've taken negotiating with us in good faith and understand that this may not be the news that you were hoping for." Lawyer Adina Thorn is acting for people who have been waiting in limbo for their lands and homes to be acquired, and she joined Kerre Woodham to discuss. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Families are desperately waiting to hear from loved ones thought to be caught in the deadly flash flood and mudslide along the Nepal-Tibet border. Almost 400 people were killed in yesterday's torrent - caused by a glacial collapse and landslide, and hundreds remain missing including five New Zealanders. Dr Tom Robinson of the school of earth and environment at University of Canterbury joined Kerre Woodham to discuss how these events occur and the likelihood of one taking place in New Zealand. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour has jumped on the no new taxes bandwagon, promising that if they're elected, there'll be no increase on the fuel excise duty for their first term. I don't know why Labour and National don't just join forces and be done with it and leave the left hand side to the Greens, Te Pāti Māori and the Opportunity Party. The fuel excise duty is due to rise by 12 cents a litre from January, followed by a 6 cents per litre rise in 2028 4 cents per litre in subsequent years. The thing with taxes and excise duties, tariffs, whatever you want to call them, they provide an income. Without money coming in, as Transporting New Zealand pointed out, there'll be no money for new roads, for roading repair and maintenance, and any money saved from not having to pay more for petrol will show up in the cost of living through the increased price of goods because it's going to take longer for trucks to get places. The government's position is that it is unlikely the fuel excise duty will be increased in January, although there'll be discussion around the cabinet table and a decision will be announced soon. National's view is that the increase should be delayed. But the fuel excise duty is set at a flat rate per litre, currently around 70 cents, and that has meant that as inflation and the cost of petrol rises or falls, the excise duty stays the same, and in real terms it means the fuel excise duty has fallen by 21% since the last increase in 2020 while at the same time the cost of repairing and maintaining and building new roads has risen. Finance Minister Nicola Willis told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning that they don't want to raise the fuel tax at all, but they accept down the line they just might have to. We can't forever put it off. The current circumstances are not only the heightened oil price, but also we are still recovering from that heightened inflation that the oil price has come on, and we recognise that things are still very challenging for people. Ultimately, where we want to get to is that we've got growing economy, low inflation, and actually we can lift the petrol tax in small, modest, regular increments so that we know there is funding going in to maintain your local roads. Because the issue is, if you're not putting more money into roads, you get potholes everywhere, you get bridges that get washed away in major cyclones that can't be rebuilt, you get road closures that can't be fixed up. These are problems that occur for everyone. And so that's what we're conscious of. I think, you know, Chris Hipkins' policy yesterday, it's really just a fig leaf because we're putting him under heat on his tax plan. Like it or not, we need to pay taxes if we expect to keep services running and to build stuff. If we haven't got money coming in, then there isn't the money to spend on the services. And what it's kind of a trust, a pledge of faith between ourselves and the government. Yes, we will pay taxes, you will spend them wisely on the services that we as a community need. And I think we've been let down by successive governments in terms of how they've spent the money. They've spent it thoughtlessly, they've spent it carelessly, they've spent it on vanity projects, pet projects, all the things they accuse councils of doing, governments have done themselves. The last lot were just wanton in their irresponsible, irrational spending. Even taking into account the spending, the necessary spending that needed to be done during COVID, so much of it was wasted, and that's not coming from me, that is coming from my old boyfriend who was the Auditor General, whose comments I just loved, whose reports I just loved because he was able to get the information. He's not my boyfriend, that was in my mind. I just loved his reports, I loved the way he wrote and the way he pulled no punches. So you have an accord between the taxpayer and the government. We will pay taxes, you will spend it sensibly and wisely, and we have been let down, so I think we're a bit anti tax because of that. But we do need to contribute either through taxes, through duties, through tariffs, through GST, whatever you want to call it, we need to contribute to keep the country going. And a fuel tax seems to be one of the fairest. You can also see where it's going. A tax by consumption has always been the fairest way to tax. It's a bit like GST. The more you spend, the more GST you pay, and that seems about right. If you've got the money to spend, then we can take the GST off you. The more fuel I buy, the more road I'll be using, the more tax I will then pay to maintain the roads I'm using, and that seems fair. If you're somebody who does not drive, yes, you might have to pay a little bit more if the fuel tax goes up because the price of goods will go up, because perhaps the buses will go up, public transport, but only a little bit, and you won't have to pay as much as I do if I'm using petrol to get from point A to point B. Of all the taxes, if the fuel tax is ring fenced, this is one I don't mind paying, and accordingly, I don't mind seeing it keep pace with inflation. I think they're doing the wrong thing by saying no raise in the fuel tax. They'll have to get the money from somewhere, and I'd far rather see the transparency that comes from having a ring fenced tax that's paid by road users and is spent on road users. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What will it take for public servants to be held accountable for their most egregious mistakes? Not even talking the little faffy silly ones. We're talking really, really big mistakes. Never was a group of people more misnamed than public servants. The current generation are not servants of the public, for the most part – many of them appear to have absolute contempt for the public they are supposed to serve. The latest and perhaps the most salutary is the MBIE boss Nick Blakeley. The Privileges Committee has found that Blakeley and former Immigration New Zealand head Alison McDonald deliberately misled, what you and I might call lying, deliberately misled Parliament. And the Privileges Committee said their conduct was an insult to the public service. That is damning. The reason why, in a select committee hearing back in March, Blakeley and McDonald were asked about the progress of an expensive biometric upgrade program, and they failed to disclose that the project had already been cancelled. When the truth was revealed that the people responsible for the failed program had just kept going, just kept taking taxpayers' dollars knowing that the money was going to be wasted, when asked direct questions about it, they lied. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford was quite rightly apoplectic. Blakeley has offered his resignation to Public Service Commissioner Brian Roche, who rejected it on the basis that Blakeley had only been in the role six weeks. Yeah, but he lied, and so did Alison McDonald. And despite Blakeley uttering weasel words on Heather du Plessis Allan's show last night, explaining just how the lie came about, he should have been sacked. NB: The committee found that the incomplete information that we provided amounted to a contempt of Parliament, to deliberately misleading Parliament. That's extremely serious and I'm deeply disappointed that the ministry and myself have fallen well short of expectations. At the time, there were budget and commercial sensitivities that we understood couldn't be discussed in a public forum. We got that wrong, we should have taken a different approach. That's what I said to the Privileges Committee when I gave them evidence. HDPA: So you went to Brian Roche, and you said that you're prepared to quit, and he said don't? NB: I offered my resignation. He came to his judgment. He pointed out one of the factors. HDPA: What was his judgment, Nick? Did he say don't quit? NB: One of the factors that he took into account was that I hadn't long been in the role. That was also noted in the Privileges Committee. HDPA: Who cares? You're the one sitting there fibbing. That's the most important thing. Nick, did he say to you don't quit? NB: He said he thought that would be the wrong response and that he will be holding me account for how I respond and that is what I'm focused on doing now. HDPA: Yeah, well, that's disappointing. I think you should have quit because how are we going to know next time that you're telling the truth or just giving us a Nick special? NB: Look, I have accepted the finding, I've apologised, I'm fronting up and I'm going to be fixing it. We're going to be much better prepared in future for select committees. God, I love my colleague. While I do believe that nothing short of a public flogging in the town square will begin to drive the message home to public servants that they need to be more accountable, more responsible, more careful in how they spend our money, more like the private sector and taking ownership for snafus, until the public floggings begin, a good grilling from Heather du Plessis Allan will do as a good down payment. No wonder she's the broadcaster of the year, second year running. A "Nick Special" may well enter the lexicon as a euphemism for a lie. We think 'Gliding On' and 'Yes Minister' are clever, funny comedies from yesteryear, but public service incompetence, public service lies, public service cover ups, public service treating ministers like children, it's alive and well. And when it involves the wasting of so much taxpayer money, when it involves complete and utter contempt of Parliament, nothing my Minister needs to worry her pretty little head about, I'll deal with this, throwing good money after bad so your own incompetence is not exposed, when you're asked directly about it, you lie, when it involves bringing the good hard working members of the public service into disrepute, there is nothing bloody funny about it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government has decided it will cap annual council rate increases at 4%. We've been talking about it for more than a year now, but the cap will take effect in 2029 – councils will need to consider the cap from next year. Local Government Minister Simon Watts told Mike Hosking the reason for it was to ease pressure on households, and although the national average will be savings of just $34 a week, Simon Watts said for many ratepayers the cap will be meaningful. "The key of $34 is across the country, but if you're living in Waitaki, down the bottom of the South with a 17% increase, that's a $600 increase on an average bill of three and a half grand, and you know, that's not immaterial by any stretch. And also then you've got to think about the compounding as well. You know, as these bills increase, three numbers: 14.2% increase last year, 9.2% average increase in rates this year, under us it's going to be 4% going forward. That's going to be the limit, and if you think about the compounding effect of that over years, that's some pretty big savings over a 5 to 10 year period for a household." As I say, we've been talking about a rates cap ever since National got into office – I still don't think it's a good idea. If a council doesn't know how to budget properly, a rates cap, having less money coming into the coffers, is not going to suddenly make them sound husbands of the ratepayer dollar overnight. They're not going to be able to balance their books all of a sudden just because they have less money coming in. And yes, I'm sure we can all think of barking mad vanity projects that our rates money's been spent on, and that incenses us but the Australian experience shows us that a rates cap will see reduced services, delayed infrastructure repairs, and outdated facilities. Duh, of course it will. There's been a rates cap in some Australian states for around 40 years, and work just gets deferred and deferred and deferred or not done at all. And if the political aim of a rates cap for local government is to ease the financial pressure on households, impose fiscal discipline, and get back to the basics of what councils should be doing, why don't we have a tax cap right back at you, central government? How about you lead by example? I'd really love to see the central government impose fiscal discipline and get back to the basics rather than the nice to haves and the glory vanity projects. Are you for or against a rate cap? In some ways it'd be lovely to see a tiered approach to rates given that we've got away from the sense of community where we give a bit so that others might gain. You could have economy, premium economy, and business rates. Economy, you get the absolute bare minimum, but it means you don't get access to swimming pools, libraries, art galleries, and we'll fence off the playgrounds and the beaches, and you'll have to pay to get in. It's not a serious suggestion, but something will have to give. As Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown said last year, putting a cap on rates is not going to solve anything. It will just defer it for a couple of years, then in the end, when it has to be done, ratepayers will be paying even more. He says councils are faced with making decisions that involve significant investment and should not be restricted by governments telling us what we can and cannot do. So are you Team Simon Watts or Team Wayne Brown? Are you for the rates cap or are you saying this is just going to be deferred expense and a bleaker, less enjoyable community in which to live? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dolly Parton's legacy is being remembered as one that will last lifetimes. The beloved country music star has died aged 80. She'll be remembered for songs like 'Nine to Five', 'I Will Always Love You', and 'Jolene' – just some of her 25 number one hits. Kiwi politician and country singer Suzanne Prentice opened for Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers when they visited New Zealand in the late 1980s, and remembers how kind and down to earth Parton was. She told Kerre Woodham the star seemed to look after everyone who came into her realm. "She was truly a star of our time, so I don't think in our lifetime, we'll ever see anything like Dolly Parton again." LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stars are paying homage to the late Dolly Parton, who's died aged 80. Her team has revealed to CNN that the singer songwriter died after a brief battle with cancer. Tributes from those close to the singer like Billy Ray Cyrus, Sabrina Carpenter, and Kaycee Musgraves have swamped the internet. Kiwi Country singer-songwriter Tami Neilson told Kerre Woodham Parton was her Northern Star. She says there would not be a Tami Neilson if there wasn't a Dolly Parton, and that would be the case for many country artists. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National, as you will have heard, is pushing ahead with its social media regulation bill, but it's going to have to do the heavy lifting itself. Neither New Zealand First nor ACT, its coalition partners, are supporting a ban on social media use for under-16s. Labour may yet come to the rescue of the bill, but by crikey, Erica Stanford's going to have to jump through hoops to get them to come onboard. They will want their pound of flesh before they agree to support the bill. The Prime Minister and Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, said they are determined to progress the bill because the Government could not accept the harm being done to a generation of New Zealand children. One in three children aged between 13 and 17 are now spending at least five hours on social media a day, according to the government fact sheet. Social media is exposing them to harmful content, addictive technology, and pressures they are simply not equipped to deal with, and it's affecting their family life, their mental health, their sleep, and their education. The PM said obviously parents have a role to play in monitoring what social media platforms their children are on, but that's if the parents know they're on the social media platforms. There's a piece from Chris Schulz in the Spinoff saying he didn't realise his teenage son was on Instagram until it was far, far too late. They know now, and their 12 year old is well and truly locked down social media wise. But for many parents, they simply don't know. The kids can do workarounds. The Prime Minister says we have protections to keep children safe in the real world, but we need them in the virtual world too. Erica Stanford told Mike Hosking this morning that they don't expect every child to be protected from the harms of social media simply because an Act of Parliament is passed, but it will send a strong message. "We knew that this was really important. We know that, you know, it's been done overseas, but it's been really hard for them to get traction overseas, and we wanted to be fast followers. If we'd done something immediately and not learned from Australia and the mistakes that they made, we'd be in a very different position. But I'm a lot more confident now that we've taken the time, we've taken on, you know, on board this work and been that fast follower. Now we've got all this evidence from the UK and the EU and Australia, you know, we're able to be in a position with a much stronger piece of legislation. And remember, it's the very first time in our country's history we have a dedicated online safety bill for children." And really, it can't come too soon for some kids. Once you know something, once you see something, once you read something, you can't unsee it. You can't unknow it. There are some horrific images that our children, and they are still children, are exposed to. In the olden days, this is pre computers, pre digital era, there were still things you could find, but you had to really work hard to find them. You had to work really hard to find pornography and hardcore pornography. You had to work really hard to find graphic video images. If people wanted to insult you, bully you, be cruel to you, they would, but they had to see the whites of your eyes. They had to see the effect it was having on you. These days with technology, it's in your kid's bed with them. This cruelty, this vileness, these pornographic acts are all in bed with your 13 year old. The legislation is going to require high risk social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook to take reasonable steps to check users are over 16, and that will involve several methods, including using existing account information, facial age estimation, digital ID services, and formal ID. And to those parents like the one who sent a text to Mike: "I am a parent. I am currently responsibly using time and app limits in ways that make sense for my family. Your policy will forbid parents from making these choices. This does not back me or parents like me, rather the opposite." To that parent, I say cool your jets. Do the police come knocking on your door if you let your 13 year old watch an R16 movie? No, they do not. You can make the rules for your household and your kids. But interestingly, also in the fact sheet, a survey of young New Zealanders found half of those surveyed, half of the teenagers surveyed, felt they had been given access to social media too young. That's that whole point of you cannot unsee and unknow what you've seen and been exposed to. 39% said they wished social media had never been invented. This is just as Erica Stanford says, it's sending a strong message to the tech companies that you are responsible. It's helping create a norm that social media is not for under 16s, that children grow up knowing they cannot have access to it legally until they're 16 and it's backing parents who want to keep their kids off social media for as long as they possibly can. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.