エピソード

  • Kerre Woodham: allowing 24/7 hospital visitor hours is bonkers
    2025/09/15

    Of the many, many insane, ideologically driven policies I have heard come from government departments over the years, this has got to be one of the most bonkers.

    There have been times over the years, when I'm feeling a little overwhelmed, when I've fantasised about ending up in hospital. Nothing life-changing or dramatic, just a nice routine operation, five days in a lovely quiet ward. Crisp white sheets, view out to Cornwall Park, the scent of lush green grass carried by the gentle zephyrs of spring through the open window. Matron running the ward with a firm, but benevolent gloved hand. I can sleep and rest and be protected from the rigours of reality in a nurturing, safe environment.

    Oh, how those days have gone. If they ever existed, I think they may well be some kind of Enid Blyton-esque type fantasy I got through reading old-fashioned books.

    I am really, really struggling to see how 24/7 visitors' access to hospitals is going to benefit anyone. Anyone. Not the patients, not the security staff, certainly not the nursing staff.

    On the face of it, it looks like a desperate attempt to shore up staff deficiencies in the wards. They say it's not. Health New Zealand says the implementation of the new patient and whānau family support policy is not driven by staffing levels, but is about giving patients the choice of having whānau support when they needed it.

    National Chief Nurse Nadine Gray says the policy is patient-centred and driven by whānau voice. That's what the official party line is.

    New Zealand Nurses Organisation says the union supports full access for families to be involved in patients' care, which can be very important in some cultures, but they reckon the current push is more a response to the increasing need for patient watches and the lack of staff to do them, and I think they're probably on the money.

    Patient watches are needed if a vulnerable patient needs monitoring to ensure they don't hurt themselves or interfere with treatment, and are usually carried out by trained healthcare assistants.

    But because there's a chronic shortage of healthcare assistants, family members, say the Nurses Organisation, are being expected to take up the role.

    Now, decision-makers might think that the general public will understand that the 24/7 access is ideally for those with children in hospital or family members with dementia or patients who have specific needs. But that is not what the general public will hear. You'll get 20 people camped around a bed with takeaways for five days, while an adult son waits for an operation for his leg fracture. It'll be hoots-wah-hey and off. Party central.

    The Health New Zealand Chief Executive says under the policy, whānau will be supported to be with patients 24/7 (24/7! have we even asked the patients if they want the whānau there for 24/7?) where appropriate, working alongside nursing and maternity teams to make this possible. And here's the absolute banger for me - while respecting the privacy and recovery of others. How? Unless you're in a Portacabin 20 miles away from me on the hospital grounds, how is my privacy going to be respected?

    How, when the only thing preventing me from becoming a member of my neighbour's extended family is a flimsy nylon curtain?

    The nursing staff and security can't be expected to manage the number of visitors, supposed to be one or two per person. That doesn't work now. How are they going to be expected to manage the behaviour of the visitors, the transgressions of the visitors?

    We are living in a culture of self, where individuals prioritise their own needs. Their own wants and desires over the need of the collective good of others.

    Bloody hell, if there was ever an incentive to lace up the walking shoes and say no to the doughnut, it's this. The thought of ending up in a hospital ward now, my vision has long been shattered. In an ward with three other people is bad enough. The thought of ending up in a ward with three other people and their partners, and their kids, and their parents, and their siblings' children ... euthanise me now. Don't worry about fixing my broken arm. No, pass. Chop it off. No, I'll have to stay in hospital. I'll just live with it. I'll have a gimpy arm for the rest of my life.

    Of the many, many insane, ideologically driven policies I have heard come from government departments over the years, this has got to be one of the most bonkers.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    5 分
  • Nadine Gray: Health NZ National Chief Nurse on 24/7 visiting hours in hospitals
    2025/09/14

    Health NZ is planning to remove restrictions on visiting hours at hospitals.

    The change would allow family members to visit patients at any hour of the day, a move that has led to mixed responses.

    Health NZ National Chief Nurse Nadine Gray told Kerre Woodham that the change is part of a patient support policy.

    ‘It’s part of the code of patients’ rights to have support.’

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    11 分
  • Kerre Woodham: The consequences of Stuart Nash's ill-advised one liner
    2025/09/12
    Now, long-time listeners will know that I have said, I do say, and I will undoubtedly in the future say stupid things. In a career spanning decades, we are talking live on stage or live on air, television or radio. When you're going for the snappy one-liner and you're pushing the language out and you're trying to be clever and you're trying to be funny, a lot of the time you're operating on instinct. You have to speak without thinking. I know you're not supposed to, but when you're doing live radio, live television, live on stage, you have to speak without thinking. So the potential for saying something offensive or stupid or both is very real. That does not excuse you from the consequences of saying something out of line. I've had to suffer them before. It just explains how it happens. So, while I can see how Stuart Nash came to make his ill-advised one-liner on what defines a woman, I can also see and understand the repercussions. Especially for someone who works in executive recruitment for a company that presumably sees women as more than being how Stuart Nash described them. And also, for someone who wants to run for public office. Yesterday, Nash resigned from his job at Robert Walters after he gave his definition of a woman to The Platform media outlet earlier this week. For those who don't know what he said, text Nash to 9292 and we'll text it back to you. No, that's not what will happen, but you must know what he said! Anyway, as soon as the words came out of his mouth, he knew he'd gone too far. He asked his wife, "Was this a really stupid thing to say?" And she went, "Yeah, it really, really, really was, you complete and utter numpty." I'm putting words into Mrs. Nash's mouth, but I imagine it was that or somewhat stronger. He phoned The Platform back asking for the clip of what he'd said to be taken down. As if. It was all over social media in a matter of minutes. The matter's been bubbling away for a few days now and then Nash's employers, Robert Walters, the executive recruitment firm, took decisive action yesterday by encouraging, no doubt, Nash's resignation. Now Nash's potential employer, New Zealand First, is in a bit of a conundrum really, because Winston Peters is old school. He holds decorum and standards and ways of doing things, he holds fast to those old principles. He might swear – I've been at private parties where he's been. I've never heard him, but I'm not saying he doesn't, I've just never heard him swear. And I cannot imagine him ever using the words Nash used to describe women. Peters spoke to my colleague Nick Mills earlier in the week about the values pledge needed for new migrants, because too many people were coming to New Zealand without the requisite respect for equality and respect for women. Awkward. Winston doesn't like coarseness, and he doesn't like vulgarity. So that's against Nash. But he hates the media, and the media is who got his golden boy into trouble. What to do, what to do if you're the leader of NZ First? After some consideration, Winston Peters issued a statement saying the words used by Nash were not acceptable, and on that point, we agree with Mrs. Nash. End of statement. The irony is that Nash's definition of a woman, here it comes, for all of you who are texting 9292, he described a woman as a person with a "p***y and a pair of t**s", which is a rather crude reduction of what an individual might be, but nonetheless, that's what he said. But the irony is that definition of a woman could equally describe a trans woman. "P***y and a pair of t**s". Or a trans man. Nash has lost quite a lot without getting any further ahead. We are no further ahead in the definition. Peters has previously described Nash's transition from sacked Labour minister to NZ First party member as seamless. Well, there might be a few wrinkles in that seam now. But where do you stand on this one? Should he have resigned? He would have been shoved had he not. Personally, I don't think you can be a specialist recruitment executive and be on record as having reduced women to a "p***y and a pair of t**s". You can't look at a woman who is going for a high-powered job, well, any job really, and say, "Well, let's have a look at your qualifications." I mean, maybe if he was a recruitment specialist for Showgirls or any of the other strip clubs in town, sure, let's see what you've got. But not when you're looking for someone who's slightly more than that, you know, who needs a bit more than that to do the job. An MP? If he was still an elected MP relying on an electorate to vote you in, you could get the people of the electorate to decide. That would be really easy. They could make the choice of whether they thought it was a stupid, crude, poor old thing to say. The sort of thing you might say after many beers with the lads, maybe a few of the ladesses, you snigger, you move on. But you don't do it on a media platform when you're a recruitment executive. That just...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • Kerre Woodham: Who's going to pay a fine for shoplifting?
    2025/09/11
    Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has released a cabinet paper proposing a raft of changes to the Crimes Act. This is part of the coalition agreement with NZ First. It introduces new offences and strengthens existing ones. The proposals include a new strict liability offence for shoplifting, with a $500 infringement fee, doubling to $1,000 if the value of the stolen goods is more than $500. It would be proven simply by evidence that people, or the person, left the store with the goods, so CCTV footage, but with a reasonable excuse defence to mitigate against catching people who genuinely make a mistake, according to Goldsmith's paper. A strict liability offence means there's no requirement to prove a guilty mind. So, the offence removes the requirement to prove intent and introduces reverse onus. The burden of proof is shifted to the defendant for the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence. Paul Goldsmith explained how he thought the new law would work on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. “It's more akin to a traffic offence. So you know, you're speeding, you get a ticket. There's no sort of debate about it really, unless you've got a reasonable excuse, and you pay the fine. And the whole purpose of it is to come up with a quick and swift way to deal with shoplifting, other than the alternative, which is to go through the whole court process. “I mean, we've got to remember we've got a real issue with retail crime with this big increase in people going around stealing stuff. We've got to do something different. Currently, you've got to go off to court, that's a very high threshold and doesn't happen enough. And so what we're introducing is a swift and effective fine as an intermediate step to deal with things and so that there is a real consequence for that level of shoplifting.” Swift and effective fine? Who the hell is going to pay it? There are concerns the new shoplifting law would come up against the Bill of Rights, which says we have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Also, within the New Zealand Herald story on this that's online, there's a whole subheading saying, what it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse. Paul Goldsmith says in his paper, a strict liability offence increases the risk that misinterpreting the behaviour of deaf people, or people with an intellectual or neurodisability, could result in disproportionate impacts on this group. I get if you have an intellectual disability, you might not know it's wrong. Since when were deaf people shoplifters just because they were deaf? Since when were Māori shoplifters just because they were Māori? Sure, if you have an intellectual disability, absolutely. What it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse... the disabled and Māori and the neurodiverse aren't typically criminal? Honestly, how is how is being deaf going to make you a shoplifter? That it's going to increase the chances of you being pinged? My concerns are far more pragmatic. Whatever your reason for stealing stuff, whether you're a kid on a dare, you're desperate and starving, you're a low-life lazy thief – who's going to pay the fine? Maybe if you're a shoplifting former Green MP with PTSD and a fine taste in clothing, you'll pay the fine. But those sorts of people are still in the minority at the moment. I know they're trying to stop the courts getting cluttered up with shoplifters and that some shoplifters are getting away scot-free because the amount they stole doesn't meet the threshold for going to court. How many shoplifters, can you imagine, are going to sit down, oh, goodness me, I've got to pay that fine before I incur any extra costs. Must sit down and process the payment. There we go, job done. Or wander down to their nearest post shop with their $500 infringement fee clutched in their hot little hand and stand in the queue and go to the counter and say, sorry, I've got to pay my fine for shoplifting. I cannot see it. How many people shoplift accidentally? That's what I would like to know. There are also ways to mitigate that. I went to the supermarket with the grandchildren yesterday, chased down a poor security officer who was minding his own business and looking for trolleys of groceries going out the door of the New World. I said, look, I'm so sorry, excuse me, so sorry. Look, my granddaughter's just got some yoghurt that she didn't eat from her school lunch and she's going to eat that while we walk around and I'm very sorry, but we didn't. Yeah, okay, lady. Please get out of my grills, is what he seemed to be saying. There are ways and ways. What, you're going to say, I'm so sorry, I forgot I put this pack of sausages down the front of my trousers? I mean, what? How do you shoplift accidentally? How do you shoplift clothing accidentally? I'd really love to know. Perhaps you do. And equating it to speeding is just silly. Most of the time when people are speeding, nobody is ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • Kerre Woodham: Do we need to adjust our alcohol policies?
    2025/09/10

    The cost of alcohol abuse in this country is absolutely phenomenal. Worldwide, I can't even imagine what it would be, but here in this country it's bad enough. A report that came out last year from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, the first of its kind since 2009, found that:

    • The cost of alcohol abuse in terms of alcohol harm based on disability adjusted life years is $9.1 billion.
    • $4.8b associated with disability-adjusted life years from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD)
    • $1.2 b associated with disability-adjusted life years from alcohol use disorder
    • $281m - intimate partner violence (for alcohol use disorder alone)
    • $74m - child maltreatment (for hazardous drinking alone),
    • $2.1b in societal cost of road crashes where alcohol was a factor
    • $4b in lost productivity associated with alcohol use, including FASD, crimes and workplace absenteeism
    • $810m, predominantly in health and ACC spending.

    Peter Dunne, in an article in Newsroom this week, argues that these costs are a result of a decades-long failure in policy. He says when he was working for the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council way back in the late 70s, they undertook the first national survey of New Zealanders' alcohol consumption and drinking patterns. The most dramatic finding, he says, was that 9% of drinkers were responsible for two-thirds of the alcohol drunk.

    Of all the alcohol consumed in the country, 9% of drinkers drink two-thirds of it. He says that told you there were binge drinkers, problem drinkers, who made up a minority of the population, and a minority of the drinking population, but consumed the most, and that's where education and policy should have been directed. However, around the same time that survey came out, the World Health Organisation came up with its own policy and advised that government interventions should focus on reducing alcohol consumption levels overall to reduce the number of alcohol-related problems, rather than focus on specific groups.

    So you've had broad-brush, once over lightly programmes, you know, general, ‘hey guys, you know, it's not what you drink, it's how you're drinking’, the general programs. And that, he says, has failed. Most people do know how to drink sensibly. They'll enjoy a glass or two of wine occasionally, and that'll be that. A couple of beers on a hot day after a surf. Fantastic.

    Then there are those of us who board a sky-sailing pirate ship to whiskey Valhalla and it's hoots way hay and off as Caitlin Moran put it. And sometimes that's fine, and sometimes that's not. When you set out to lose control, chuck everything in the air and see where it all lands, sometimes it lands you in a police cell, or hospital, or in the bed of someone you shouldn't be with. And that's when the trouble starts.

    Peter Dunne argues that we need to do away with the broad-brush approach and focus on the binge drinkers, the problem drinkers. Targeted policies for that 9 to 10% of the population who cannot drink sensibly, who do not drink moderately, and who are causing all of the harm.

    Do you need to be told how much you should drink, when you should drink it, like not when you're pregnant? Do you need to be told that? Do you just switch off when you drink and think, oh for heaven's sake, who on earth are they talking to? I know all of this stuff. Do we need to be focusing on the people who need to hear the message, all that money going into general education, redirected to those groups who need to hear the message most, and putting more of the money into the rehabilitation and the turning around and the changing of dangerous drinking behaviours? That is a hell of a lot of money to spend on disordered drinking, on problem drinking. And it's not you, probably, or you. But over there in the corner, it's us. And we're the ones that need to hear the message, not them.

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    5 分
  • Peter Dunne: Political Commentator on the need for alcohol laws to target binge-drinkers
    2025/09/10

    New Zealand has long had a problem with alcohol abuse.

    A report last year from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research found that the total estimated harm from alcohol use costs $9.1 billion in a single year.

    Peter Dunne argues the costs are a result of a decades-long failure in policy – saying that we need to do away with broad stroke approaches and target those prone to binge drinking.

    He told Kerre Woodham that we should be targeting the response to those who are most affected by alcohol harm, and therefore making interventions early as opposed to a broad sweep that hasn’t worked.

    Dunne says our cost of alcohol abuse is as high as it ever was.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • Antonia Watson: ANZ New Zealand CEO on the job cuts in Australia, capital gains tax, mortgages
    2025/09/09

    ANZ's New Zealand boss says the bank has no major restructure plans on this side of the Tasman.

    The Australian banking group has announced plans to axe about 3,500 in-house roles and 1000 contractors.

    Its New Zealand arm says about 20-30 mostly head-office roles might be cut here.

    But Chief Executive Antonia Watson told Kerre Woodham it's part of a normal review of efficiencies, which they do every year.

    She says times of change always generate nervousness, but they've been clear that what's driving the change in Australia isn't a factor here.

    She says staff will have a lot of empathy for their Australian colleagues who are going through a tough time at the moment.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    33 分
  • Kerre Woodham: The sewage and filth that fills social media after a tragedy
    2025/09/09
    I said yesterday when I left you at midday that I thought I'd brought you one of the nicest stories that we'd done all year, which you clearly loved, and one of the saddest. The nicest: the interview with the musical director of the Auckland Pasifika Secondary Schools Choir, the choir who sang the national anthems for New Zealand and South Africa at Eden Park. The saddest: the shooting of a police officer, the fatal shooting of Tom Phillips, and the recovery of three children who had spent four years being force marched through rugged bush by their father. What made it sadder still was the bile and the sewage that filled the text machine and social media and is still doing so. You probably never see this sort of thing, and I'm glad for you. You don't know the inner workings of some of your fellow New Zealanders' minds. People that you might work with or play sport with, or heaven forfend live with, because you can choose to disengage. And you should, you absolutely should. It chips away at your soul when you read some of the stuff. Just how much some men loathe women. How much some men loathe authority. Who think shooting a police officer is justified. Who think the old “if I can't have her, nobody else can” trope that sees so many ex-partners end up dead, and in this case, “if I can't have them, nobody else can have the children, they can't see anybody else but me” - who think that's justified. Maybe in the fullness of time, when all the details come out, the angry men might think differently. I would hope so. And you always get the superheroes after every tragedy. Pike River, the Rena, Whakaari-White Island. Every single time, you get the superheroes who would have put their underpants on over their trousers and would have solved the situation earlier, and quicker, and more expediently, and they knew what to do and they'd have saved more lives. This case is no different. There are so many people who think they would have found Phillips and the children with just their knowledge of the stars, a bit of beef jerky and a good dog. And possibly they could have. But there was so much more at play here, as the Police Commissioner told Mike Hosking this morning. RC: We have always been very, very concerned, Mike. We knew that we were dealing with an armed, a dangerous, and a very motivated individual in Mr. Phillips. And we had to be very, very cautious about the approach that we have taken. You know, that played out yesterday morning in a way that we suspected it could, which is not something that any of us wanted, but our assessment of the situation over the last four years has been spot on. And, and that was shown yesterday morning when we confronted, Mr. Phillips, he shot one of my staff and, and we, we had to return fire. And, we have always been concerned that may be exactly what occurred, and of course that may also involve, the children. MH: The thing that's bugged me the whole time is this community thing whereby somehow this guy's a hero, or he's allowed to do what he wants to do, or he's, I don't understand that. Do you deal with that? Is that common in rural New Zealand? RC: You mean in respect of Mr. Phillips? MH: Yeah. RC: He's not a hero. There will be inquiries. There'll be reviews of processes, of how things could have been done differently and possibly better, and that says it should be. But I don't know how you speak to, connect with the men who are so angry, so alienated, so self-pitying, that they think the shooting of a police officer is justified, and taking three children hostage in the bush for four years is the action of a loving father. I mean, already here it is. “How can you defend the cops? They shot a father dead in front of his child. That child will be screwed up for life”, says Ben. You don't think that perhaps four years on the run in the bush might have done something to them? God knows what he was telling them. You don't think the fact that he pulled out a gun and shot a cop might have been the reason he ended up dead in front of his child? See, this is what I mean? That isn't the action of a loving father. The loving dads, the hero dads, in my mind, are the ones who put their own anger and their sense of grievance behind them, and who turn up and show up for their kids, who accept the kids aren't their property, that children have a wider community of family and friends who love them and who the kids deserve to be around. They're the hero dads. So often on the radio, I only hear from the 2%. It's a well-known stat that of the 100% of people who listen to talkback radio, only 2% will ever ring. I think the stats are probably higher. I haven't seen those for those who text. It would be amazing today if the reasonable people, the rational people, the ones who appreciate our police, and the ones who know what it is to swallow your pride, to swallow your grievance, to swallow your hurt, who know what it is to be a good mum or a good dad, ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分