Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Happy International Workers Day to all the labourers and workers out there. All right, brother. All right, sister. Dedicated to recognizing the contributions and achievements of workers worldwide and taking the opportunity to promote workers rights and opportunities so. Go us, all of us paid grunts.  

MPs, would you consider them paid grunts? Not really public servants, sure, and reasonably well-paid public servants. Too much? Well, who decides that? The remuneration authority, that's who. A very good idea to leave the setting of certain public servants pay to an independent authority. And let's face it, it is never a right time for MPs to be accepting pay rises, they're on a hiding to nothing. Particularly tough, though, when the government has been calling for financial restraint when it's been calling for cost cutting in every government department. At a time when hundreds, if not thousands, of workers are being made redundant, you get the remuneration authority saying ‘look time for a pay rise for MPs.’ On a sliding scale, depending on what job you do. It doesn't matter that many of those who were sucking off the public tit shouldn't have been there anyway. That hiring spree in the last six months of ‘23 was an outrage. Redundancies are punishing and create uncertain times for those on the receiving end of a ‘don't come Monday’.  

The Remuneration Authority has announced pay rises backdated to October 2023 and coming in tranches through to 2026. It will be the first increase to MPs salaries since 2017 and the first major overview of the remuneration package since in about 20 years. The Prime Minister's salary will rise by almost $50,000 over six years, from $471k to $520k. Which you know, if you're the CEO of a big company, as he likes to see it, or if you're the Prime Minister, you probably wouldn't begrudge. 

I don't think people begrudge the big money for the big job. It's when you look at some of the backbenchers from numerous parties that you start to get a little sniffy and a little bit, what about me-ism starts to creep in. The Prime Minister has said he'll donate the extra to charity, as has become almost customary.  

So, what to do? What to do?  

Now we can all say they don't deserve it, but that's not true. Some of them do deserve the money they get, be they a backbencher from any party, be they a minister, be they a leader of an opposition party, some of them work hard for the money. They understand the concept of public servant. They are there to do their best for their constituents, for their party, for the country. Some of them are underpaid. Others would be overpaid if they were on the dole.   

So, what do you do? Would you do the job for the money? I heard the man from the Remunerations Authority saying, look, it's a matter of looking at what similar jobs pay in the private sector. It's a matter of attracting people to do the job and it's a matter of retention. Now, I know you've got to look for comparisons, but when it's attracting people to the job, you wouldn't do it for the money, would you? When you look at the hours they work, the scrutiny they're under, the pressure they're under, the meetings they have to sit through, the numpties they have to listen to. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't be in a backbench MP. Not for the money. I might do it if I thought I could add something and help create a New Zealand that's fair and just in the way I want to see it, but I certainly wouldn't do it for the money.  

As for retention, quite frankly that's not up to a wage band, that's up to a voter. If you're doing a good job, you'll be retained. The voters will vote you back in. It's got nothing to do with the money. 

So, when it comes to the backbenches, some of them are overpaid, massively, given what they do, others are underpaid. If you look at the work of the ministers, I think it's too soon to tell from the current government as to whether they’re value for money.  

The last lot? Well. You know my views on that. Very few of them I think could have commanded a ministerial salary in the private sector, and I'd be really interested to find out from those who have left Parliament, got bundled out of Parliament, what they're doing now and whether they're earning anywhere near as much as they were earning as a minister. Somehow, I doubt it. Other than Grant Robertson, who managed to land himself, get his trotters inpossibly the biggest trough in the country, 600 odd thousand at the Otago University.  

They're on a hiding to nothing. Well, how else do we set their pay? An independent authority does it? They haven't had a pay rise since 2017. It's the wrong time to do it. Absolutely the wrong time to do it. When is the right time? We get value for money for some, not for the others. And still again, the question: would you do it for any money? 

A former Labour Minister says a proposed pay rise for politicians gives them a real dilemma. 

The Remuneration Authority's set to increase most MP salaries 10.5% over three years. 

If implemented, it would be the first pay rise for MPs since 2017 and the first rise of 2.8% will be backdated to the election.  

Stuart Nash told Kerre Woodham that the public tends to hear about poorly performing MPs, which can shift perceptions of MPs in general.  

He says about 90% of MPs work incredibly hard and put the hours in, but it's often unseen. 

LISTEN ABOVE   

Unemployment has risen again but economists don't think it's peaked yet. 

Stats NZ figures out today show the rate reached 4.3% for the March quarter, up 0.3 percentage points from the December quarter's 4%. 

It reflects the impacts of higher interest rates as the Reserve Bank keeps trying to rein in inflation. 

Herald Business Editor at Large Liam Dann told Kerre Woodham that it's a slow and steady rise. 

He says 134 thousand people are now unemployed, up from 122 thousand at the end of 2023, meaning 12 thousand jobs have gone. 

LISTEN ABOVE   

Well, the 1News Verian poll released last night shows that support for the coalition government, after seeing an operation for a few months, has dropped since election night. Hardly surprising. Well, to my mind. Anyway, clearly there were others who were simply gob smacked and amazed, but on to them in a moment.   

National, ACT, and New Zealand First have collectively dropped 5 percentage points. According to the numbers from that poll, and based on that poll, the left block would be able to form a government and New Zealand First would be out of Parliament. How many times have New Zealand first voters heard that? So many times, you'll be out of government dead and buried.   

The poll had National at 36%, down two points from the last poll in February, Labour jumped to 30%, up two. And the Green Party also increased by two to 14%. Te Pati Māori was on 4%, the same as the last poll. This is pretty much par for the political course. Labour showed a dip after it formed a coalition government in 2017 after three years of heading their coalition government. The first Colmar Brunton poll of 2020 saw National scraping into power and again New Zealand First out of Parliament in their polls. 

These snapshots are an indication of how people are feeling, both in themselves and around politics. Christopher Luxon was questioned about it this morning when he was on with Mike Hosking. He said, he didn't say it in so many words, but this is me. He said, it was hardly surprising that people were feeling grumpy. These are his words, he told Mike Hosking, we've got high inflation and high interest rates. People are sick of it. We're making some pretty tough decisions. We need to do that in order to fix the mess. We've been left New Zealand, as he said, would make a call into and a half years' time. And he went on with the usual spiel. Everyone in the coalition government is very focused on fixing the mess that they inherited, which is quite true. They've got a big job. They knew that going in. But people are going to need to see some results and they're going to need to see them soon.  

The shocking daylight robbery of a jewellery store over the weekend, all very 2020. The price of everything is still rising, uncertainty in the job market, there's a lot going on and not a lot of it is good for most people. It is not the government's fault, but it is their responsibility. And they are going to need to see some wins within the next three months and they are also going to have to watch their messaging. The accommodation entitlement, the snide tweets from ACT on Twitter over job losses in the public service, the weeks of fumbling and obfuscation from Melissa Lee handling the broadcasting portfolio, none of that has been helpful at all. Sacking Melissa Lee? Very helpful.  

I noticed that, I thought that was a really good move. I was up in Hokianga trying to avoid the news and I saw this and thought, damn it, what a great talk back day that would have been because I think that is really decisive, really good. She's clearly not up for the job. She can't handle it. Get. Go.  

Brutal, but a good sign to Ministers, perform, or you're out. A good sign to backbenchers that if you perform, you're in. I thought I thought that was a really good move, so the poll was taken over a week and ended on the day of Melissa Lee's sacking, so I'd be interested to know whether that will have an impact the next time around.  

But it's polls. You know, as every they're great to have a bit of a yarn about, great to give different media outlets their lead for the day or the night. People can have a yarn about them. Take the pulse, see where everybody's at, they count for nothing until Election Day. You can take some learnings out of them. You can think. OK, well, yes. No, we need to be careful here. We need to be more positive here.  

It will give Labour a bit of heart because they have been in the doldrums, and they need to reinvigorate themselves to bring themselves up to a decent opposition. But it's a poll. There's two and a half years to go. A lot can happen in that time.   

If you're a teenager addicted to your phone and the world that lies within and beyond your apps, it's the end of the world as you know it today.   

The Government's ban on phones in schools kicks in as kids return to school for Term two, meaning students won't be able to use their cell phones during the day - including at lunch time and during breaks. Some schools have gone early and introduced it in Term one. They saw the writing on the wall, thought they'd bedded in before they were required to by law. Others have gone even earlier. They decided it was the right thing for their school to ban cell phones, and they didn't need a government imperative to do so.  

In a shocking departure from the norm, there seemed to be wholesale support for the ban, despite it being an initiative of the wicked, evil National government. And it appears that the headlines are in the main, supportive that the media have found people who are supportive of the ban, like New Zealand Secondary Principals Council Chair Kate Gainsford. She says schools across the country already have measures in place, but the changes will make it easier to stop distractions. She says parents have appreciated the support because they're having the same sorts of conversations in their own homes about the harmful effects of too much time online, about limiting screen time.  

So, now you've got rules around cell phone use at home that are being replicated in the school grounds, so the adults are working together. It seems that parents, educators, even some of the kids agree that 24/7 access to cell phones is a bad idea, but for years nobody wanted to be the one with the stick - you wanted to be down with the kids on their level, you didn't want to impinge on their freedoms. And then along came Erica Stanford. When she entered government as part of the National team in the coalition government. She was big on banning cell phones and she says she has no problem waving a big stick if it means the kids will benefit. 

Erica Stanford - “I've had a lot of principals say to me, look, it was really hard, there was lots of pushback from kids, but now you've done it, you're the bad guy. I'm quite happy to be the bad guy, Mike. It means improved mental health and academic outcomes for our kids. I mean, there was a Norwegian study that's just come out saying that this has got incredibly good outcomes for especially low socioeconomic girls for their mental health, but also GPA grades and bullying is reduced as well, so look - I'm happy to be the bad guy.” 

That was bad guy, Erica Stanford, Education Minister, talking to Mike Hosking this morning. It's not just Norwegian studies. Studies by researchers at the University of Texas and Louisiana State University found that where students were banned from bringing their smartphones into the classroom, their grades quickly improved. Around an average of 6 percent. That's without the distractions. That's amazing. The results were most pronounced for high school students over 16. It's even better for at risk students, as Erica Stanford referred to. Students who live in poverty or attend special education classes benefited approximately twice as much as their peers, after ditching the technological distraction.  

By removing phones from the classroom, apparently it's the equivalent of adding an extra hour of class per week. Students lose almost a full week of school interacting with their phones rather than engaging in class time. The only counter study I can find, with arguments against is that children feel infantilised. Well, your children, it’s kind of a point. And if you can't stay off your phones then it shows that your childlike behaviour needs to be modified.  

I just cannot believe that teachers, principals feel so disempowered that they can't make the rules in their own schools. Some don't, some have, and some did - and good on them. But a lot of principals didn't want to have a battle with parents who said I need to get in touch with my child in case there's an emergency. Well, you know, there is still the school, P.A. Let's go analog and use your copper phone to dial up Mrs Grimes, the school secretary, and she will be able to pass on a message. She will also be able to vet whether it is indeed an emergency. I forgot to pack your lunch, darling, mummy will bring it in in two hours is not an emergency. And Mrs Grimes knows that so she won't pass that message on.  I just cannot see any downside to this.  

There's a lot of cyber bullying that goes on, and while the internet has been an extraordinary invention and cell phones have been amazing and we can't go back and nor would we want to, the dark side, the downside, is severe and cruel and the cyber bullying is vicious. Kids should be safe at school. They shouldn't have to be checking their phones under their desks, desperately making sure that nobody's started for no reason at all, a campaign against them that's going to ruin their lives for the next five years.  

School should be a safe place. Home should be a safe place. Surely there is nobody, nobody who would speak against a ban on cell phones in schools? It's a good move.