Let's talk about something that is very crucial to our economy and that's the India Free Trade Deal. We are an exporter. We live because of what we export from the farms and in particular free trade deals help. So New Zealand's major exporters turned up the pressure on Parliament yesterday, urging all political parties to support the country's proposed free trade agreement with India. 28 exporters and industry groups including Federated Farmers, Zespri, Seafood New Zealand, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, they all signed an open letter organised by Business New Zealand and they described this free trade agreement as a strategic necessity for New Zealand's economic security.

Remember the Government confirmed that negotiations with India wrapped up way back in December, but they still need sign off. Support from Winston Peters and New Zealand First has been withheld, largely over immigration concerns. What's in this deal that could allow even more immigrants from India to come here, and will they be able to drag a whole lot of their family with them? That's all been disputed in many ways, but it's enough to turn Winston off the deal. That means the Government now needs Labour's backing to pass the deal and Labour says, well we don't know the deal. We don't know all the deal. We're still waiting for key details before making a decision. So they're withholding their support as well. So now the Government has a negotiated free trade deal, but it doesn't have the numbers in Parliament to pass it, so that's a roadblock.

Business New Zealand chief executive Catherine Rich says bipartisan support, support from all the political parties is essential for New Zealand's long term trade stability. She argues that with global protectionism all over the place, supply chain uncertainty all over the place, we need access to India, which is expected to become the world's third largest economy by 2030. There's a lot of business there, there's a lot of money and here we're given a foray into it. She says this is vital for exporters across horticulture, meat, seafood, wine, honey, wood products, technology, and services. That's a lot of our economy. Export New Zealand executive director Joshua Tan says the deal would be a major win for the wider economy and he warns that delays could leave New Zealand exporters at a disadvantage because India's doing other trade agreements, including with the European Union and some of the stuff that they've given to us, they won't give to us, they will give to someone else because they're canny negotiators. They say sign this and to sign it quick, here's a couple of things that'll be in your favour, but if you don't sign it, we'll take those away, we'll give them to somebody else. So we’re being held under the gun.

The Meat Industry Association, who also signed the letter, says the agreement would remove a 30% tariff on sheep meat and deliver gains for wool and pharmaceuticals and blood products. Nathan Guy's the chair there, he says New Zealand's primary sector needs this deal more than ever.

This letter, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has criticised it. He says it's breathtaking that businesses would endorse an agreement without seeing the full text. He says they're wanting us to sign a contract blindfolded. Winston says his office has asked Business New Zealand and Catherine Rich whether the signatories have actually read the agreement and claims that they have not received a clear answer. Meanwhile, what's Labour up to, eh? Labour leader Chris Hipkins says his party recognises of course the potential benefits of a free trade deal like this for exporters, but he says the Government must address what he calls issues and inconsistencies before Labour can commit its support. He says that Labour's been seeking clarification for nearly two months, so if they've been asking for two months, how come they haven't got that clarification? Do you think National's trying to hide something? Is there something in there? I don't know. But for now, the India Free Trade Agreement remains uncertain, exporters are calling for urgency, New Zealand First demands transparency, and Labour is waiting for answers.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Midday today, our time, is the deadline set by President Trump for the reopening of the Straits of Hormuz. Failure to do so will apparently be punished by a widespread bombing campaign on civilian targets in Iran.

Of course, for all of us, this is a bit worrying and a little bit horrifying. I had been saying around the office today, welcome to the end of civilization. I said that to Murray Kirkness, the editor of the Herald, and he said, not all civilizations, Andrew, and that's true. Iran is facing the gun.

The threat on civilian targets appears to be the very definition of a war crime, but it seems as though the President doesn't care, as he thunders at the mullahs from his warm and cozy lectern safe in Washington. Iranian civilization will die at 8pm Eastern Standard Time if they don't comply. That's not my words. That's not me summarizing what the President said, that's what the President said.

That's one of the weird aspects of the past two days – the President's language. There has been no stirring patriotic defence of liberty and democracy, and that we have a higher cause to pursue. There has been no grave, hushed tones outlining the scale of events that have deserved a mission that has been called Epic Fury. No, what we've had is an 80-year-old perma-tanned man in a boxy suit sitting at a lectern calling his opponents crazy bastards and promising an end of civilisation day. It's like a third-rate war movie. It's the product of a man who's spent 10,000 days watching bad reality TV and not a statesman who's studied leadership through the ages. I've never heard anyone say anything like this ever before. Not even crazy guys like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un. They don't say stuff this crazy. This is pretty crazy.

I actually find the President's intemperate language to be quite off-putting, but maybe some find it refreshing. And maybe it's something that people have waited to hear for a long time because we've been battling against this Iranian regime for 47 long years. I don't know, you tell me. The President's language over the last two days, does that worry, scare, and horrify you? Or do you go, no, we need a strong man and finally people are saying what needs to be said?

Meanwhile, the so-called crazy bastards, Iran, who indeed are utterly loathsome people and a dreadful regime, they seem to be taking it like a martyr, putting their people in harm's way as human shields, turning the other cheek, almost wanting the worst to happen so that the world might see them as the victims of a lunatic, not that they have been lunatics for 47 years and deserve some retribution. They haven't railed with bad language, all they said is President Trump is deluded. They seem to be the grown-ups in the room, but that seems weird because we know they are evil, crazy bastards.

The world is used to Trump's bargaining methods. He starts hard and high and then he negotiates down. He's done it enough for the term taco to be created: TACO is an acronym for Trump Always Chickens Out. Will he chicken out today? Realizing that he's been threatening – I think this is the third threat he's made to Iran. So how many times can you cry wolf before you feel forced and obligated to do what many people think could be quite unthinkable? Are we three hours away from a cataclysmic attack on a sovereign nation by the United States of America?

And if the worst does happen, one question that has not been discussed is how will Iran react? If this was happening to you, if America came and took out the Auckland Harbour Bridge, how would you want to react to this situation? Would you set up a human shield, turn the other cheek, and go, oh yeah, look at that, he's crazy, and take the hit? How will Iran react? The so-called home of terrorism, which isn't this why this has all happened? It's ended up being framed as a battle for the Strait of Hormuz, but remember, this all happened because Israel and the United States wanted to remove a regime. It was regime change. It was to get rid of the crazy pastors to save the women and children of Iran – that's what the conflict is actually about. Now they've transmogrified it into being all about opening up the Strait of Hormuz, but that's a symptom. That's not the actual cause of the illness, of the antagonism between the two sides. That's a symptom of it.

So, how would Iran react? They are the so-called home of terrorism. They've had 47 years to prepare for this conflict. I would presume they have terror cells everywhere. Do you think that if this happens today at midday and bridges get taken out and power plants get taken out and Iranian civilians get wiped out, do you think Iran's just going to sit there and say, told you so? Or do you think it could cause a new age of terrorism?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A major new Australian study tracking more than 270,000 children has found that long hours in childcare — especially more than 40 hours a week — are linked with a higher risk of children struggling with social competence and emotional maturity by the time they reach school.

And that makes total sense, doesn’t it? That’s because they basically go into a school system – they're being educated, they’re being taught how to read, maybe they’re being taught how to write, maybe they’re being taught maths. But are they being taught how to socially interact within a community? Something that parents are very, very good at – educators, not so much.

The research, released by the federal Department of Education, matched childcare, health, and census data with assessments from teachers across five key developmental areas. It found that as weekly childcare hours increased beyond 30, so did the likelihood of developmental vulnerability. Children in more than 40 hours had the highest risk.

But it’s not all one-sided. The study also found that childcare can be beneficial for language, cognitive skills, communication, and general knowledge. And for children from disadvantaged backgrounds — including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, single-parent families, and children with a language background other than English — formal childcare was associated with better outcomes across all domains.

Quality mattered too. Children attending higher-rated centres had a lower risk of developmental vulnerability, while lower-quality care increased that risk.

So they say you need strong, stable relationships with good educators, and they say the problem with early childcare education in Australia, and here in New Zealand, is high staff turnover. If you’re turning over your staff all the time because people get hacked off and they move on, it contributes to poor social and emotional outcomes.

So in Australia, they’re actually expanding childcare subsidies. They realise that two income families are the norm now – that's the only way you can afford to do it. They’re looking at alternatives, they’re looking at vouchers, looking at income splitting. And they’re looking at extended parental leave so the parents can actually stay there and look after the kids for longer, rather than putting them in the care of an early childcare centre.

Advocacy groups have come out and say, well, if you’re worries about this, you can’t just reduce your hours, but what we really have to do is improve the quality.

So here’s a question for you: how do you make sure that we’ve got good early child care, quality in the sector?

The sector in Australia is under pressure – there's been abuse allegations, there’s workplace shortages. The Government says its pay rise for educators and new funding for not-for-profit centres aim to lift quality and stabilise staffing, but it ain’t working yet.

The study reinforces that preschool remains strongly beneficial but also highlights that childcare isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, and that the quality of care, and the amount of time children spend in it, both matter.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.