A new policy guide for New Zealand schools, titled ‘Students and Social Transition: A Gender Identity Policy Guide’, has been emailed to schools across the country today.

It was created by Ethos, a charity that supports people with questions about freedom of conscience and belief.

Ethos had been contacted by a number of parents and schools with questions about the best way to help children experiencing gender identity questions.

The guide advocates for schools to follow a ‘watchful waiting’ policy which is now best practice in countries like Sweden, Finland, and England.

Ethos CEO Alex Penk told Kerre Woodham that it’s important to have a holistic approach like this, that can provide support to a child that is in their best interests and fits within the school’s legal responsibilities.

LISTEN ABOVE

A new policy guide for New Zealand schools, titled ‘Students and Social Transition: A Gender Identity Policy Guide’, has been emailed to schools across the country today. 
It was created by Ethos, a charity that supports people with questions about freedom of conscience and belief. 
Ethos had been contacted by a number of parents and schools with questions about the best way to help children experiencing gender identity questions. 
The guide advocates for schools to follow a ‘watchful waiting’ policy which is now best practice in countries like Sweden, Finland, and England. 
Ethos CEO Alex Penk told Kerre Woodham that it’s important to have a holistic approach like this, that can provide support to a child that is in their best interests and fits within the school’s legal responsibilities. 
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Alex Penk: Ethos CEO on the 'Students and Social Transition: A Gender Identity Policy Guide'

Prolific author and former investigative journalist Jake Adelstein has quite an extensive knowledge of the Yakuza.

He was a reporter for the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan’s largest newspaper, between 1993 and 2005, and from 2006 to 2007 he was the chief investigator for a US State Department-sponsored investigation into human trafficking in Japan. 

He’s written for outfits such as the Independent and The Guardian, as well as writing three books: ‘Tokyo Vice: a Western Reporter on the beat in Japan’, ‘The Last Yakuza: Life and Death in the Japanese Underworld’, and ‘Tokyo Noir’.

‘Tokyo Noir’ is his latest, covering his life post-journalism as well as some details of Japan’s criminal underworld.

He joined Kerre Woodham to discuss his life, career, and extensive knowledge of the Yakuza.

LISTEN ABOVE

Prolific author and former investigative journalist Jake Adelstein has quite an extensive knowledge of the Yakuza. 
He was a reporter for the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan’s largest newspaper, between 1993 and 2005, and from 2006 to 2007 he was the chief investigator for a US State Department-sponsored investigation into human trafficking in Japan.  
He’s written for outfits such as the Independent and The Guardian, as well as writing three books: ‘Tokyo Vice: a Western Reporter on the beat in Japan’, ‘The Last Yakuza: Life and Death in the Japanese Underworld’, and ‘Tokyo Noir’. 
‘Tokyo Noir’ is his latest, covering his life post-journalism as well as some details of Japan’s criminal underworld. 
He joined Kerre Woodham to discuss his life, career, and extensive knowledge of the Yakuza. 
LISTEN ABOVE

Jake Adelstein: Investigative journalist and author on his career and the Japanese Yakuza

Fundamentally, I would have thought that limiting debt-to-income is a good idea. 

The debt-to-income ratio is the ratio of your total debt —mortgage credit cards, child support payments, hire, purchase, and the like— relative to your total pre-tax income. So, for example, if you have a total debt of $500,000 and your total gross income is $80,000, your debt-to-income ratio is 6.25. It means your total debt is 6.25 of your total gross income. So, as I say, to estimate your debt-to-income ratio, start by adding up all your debt payments, any large fixed payments you simply can't afford, and divide them by your pre-tax income. 

From July the 1st the Reserve Bank will put in place new debt-to-income ratio restrictions on the banks. That means they will have to limit the volume of high debt-to-income lending that they can extend. So, up to 20% of new loans to owner occupiers can be issued to borrowers with a DTI ratio of more than 6. Only up to 20%. Anything beyond that, it has to be below 6. Up to 20% of new loans to investors could be allocated to borrowers with a debt-to-income ratio above 7, the rest have to be below. 

However, just to throw some more letters into the mix, the bank will ease the loan-to-value ratio restrictions (LVR's) and that means banks can lend on more low deposit loans. So, before you had to have a high deposit before you could get into a house, now they're saying you could have a lower deposit, but your debt-to-income ratio will be the figure that is scrutinised. 

The Reserve Bank argues that by adjusting these levers it's managing different types of risk to the financial system. With LVR restrictions, it's targeting default risks from undercapitalised loans where you didn't have enough in there and now your debt is so high you can't pay it, while DTIs address default risks from income insufficiency. So, you've just got too much debt for your income to sustain, there's your pay packet groaning under the strain of all the debt repayments, and they're saying that they're going to help you by not letting you get into that predicament. 

However, some people see this as a very bad thing, including property commentator Ashley Church, who pulled no punches when he was discussing the new restrictions with Mike Hosking this morning.



“Oh, terrible. And in fact, I was thinking the other day I must do something for the release on this. This will be the single most stupid move that the Reserve Bank has ever made. And I don't make that statement lightly. He’s made some stupid moves. He's made some stupid ones. The LVR restrictions a few years ago were pretty bad, this is worse. If I was going to make a prediction on this, it will be reversed within three years. It will completely screw up the property market at a time when we should actually be looking for it to recover from what it's been for over the last three or four years.”



Now Ashley, of course, is a property commentator and you know he's in the business of property and wants to see it booming. But it seems the Reserve Bank is trying to stop just that. Trying to stop the boom and bust housing cycle, so that you can only take on a debt if you can afford to repay it. I mean, there's good debt and bad debt. HP is probably bad debt; you would consider that bad debt. AfterPay is bad debt. Good debt is taking on, say, a home in which you can live. It doesn't have to be as an investment, but if you are renting, then a lot of people see that as just empty money, dead money. If you are putting that into a home you can call your own, many see that as good money. So, it might be the biggest debt you ever have, but it's considered good debt as opposed to credit card debt or AfterPay debt. 

Now the Reserve Bank, Ashley Church said, has made some very stupid decisions and by trying to tinker with the economy. You know, we're in the position we are in where we've got high interest rates and unemployment is starting to rise and that, it appears, is what the Reserve Bank wants. They're trying to engineer a recession so that the spending stops, demand stops, and then the interest rates can come down, and it means those with mortgages can breathe a little easier. 

But surely it is a good thing if the property market is a lot more even, a lot more level? We don't want booms and busts, nobody does. Well, some people make a fortune out of them, but the majority do not, and nobody wants more debt than they can manage. There is nothing worse than that feeling of being strangled or crushed by debt. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Having to make decisions month on month about what you're going to fix first or what you're going to pay off first. Trying to keep the slavering wolves from the door. 

And there is the capacity to be able to borrow more by lowering your debt-to-income ratio by paying off bad debt. You know, if you pay off your student loan, you can borrow more. If you get rid of the credit card and pay that off, you will be able to borrow more. 

Ashley, as I say, pulled no punches, but then he has interests vested in the property market. I mean at first reading; I see this is not a bad idea. You know, there are a lot of people who are crushed by debt. By restricting how much they can borrow, surely that's in everybody's best interests, including the banks. 

So I'd very much like to hear from you on this one and if it affects you in terms of your plans for home ownership. By having a lower deposit and having a reasonably good debt-to-income ratio, are you going to be able to get into a house? But if you're only earning, say $80,000, can you get a house for what the bank is willing to lend you on your debt-to-income ratio?

Fundamentally, I would have thought that limiting debt-to-income is a good idea.  
The debt-to-income ratio is the ratio of your total debt —mortgage credit cards, child support payments, hire, purchase, and the like— relative to your total pre-tax income. So, for example, if you have a total debt of $500,000 and your total gross income is $80,000, your debt-to-income ratio is 6.25. It means your total debt is 6.25 of your total gross income. So, as I say, to estimate your debt-to-income ratio, start by adding up all your debt payments, any large fixed payments you simply can't afford, and divide them by your pre-tax income.  
From July the 1st the Reserve Bank will put in place new debt-to-income ratio restrictions on the banks. That means they will have to limit the volume of high debt-to-income lending that they can extend. So, up to 20% of new loans to owner occupiers can be issued to borrowers with a DTI ratio of more than 6. Only up to 20%. Anything beyond that, it has to be below 6. Up to 20% of new loans to investors could be allocated to borrowers with a debt-to-income ratio above 7, the rest have to be below.  
However, just to throw some more letters into the mix, the bank will ease the loan-to-value ratio restrictions (LVR's) and that means banks can lend on more low deposit loans. So, before you had to have a high deposit before you could get into a house, now they're saying you could have a lower deposit, but your debt-to-income ratio will be the figure that is scrutinised.  
The Reserve Bank argues that by adjusting these levers it's managing different types of risk to the financial system. With LVR restrictions, it's targeting default risks from undercapitalised loans where you didn't have enough in there and now your debt is so high you can't pay it, while DTIs address default risks from income insufficiency. So, you've just got too much debt for your income to sustain, there's your pay packet groaning under the strain of all the debt repayments, and they're saying that they're going to help you by not letting you get into that predicament.  
However, some people see this as a very bad thing, including property commentator Ashley Church, who pulled no punches when he was discussing the new restrictions with Mike Hosking this morning. 
 
“Oh, terrible. And in fact, I was thinking the other day I must do something for the release on this. This will be the single most stupid move that the Reserve Bank has ever made. And I don't make that statement lightly. He’s made some stupid moves. He's made some stupid ones. The LVR restrictions a few years ago were pretty bad, this is worse. If I was going to make a prediction on this, it will be reversed within three years. It will completely screw up the property market at a time when we should actually be looking for it to recover from what it's been for over the last three or four years.” 
 
Now Ashley, of course, is a property commentator and you know he's in the business of property and wants to see it booming. But it seems the Reserve Bank is trying to stop just that. Trying to stop the boom and bust housing cycle, so that you can only take on a debt if you can afford to repay it. I mean, there's good debt and bad debt. HP is probably bad debt; you would consider that bad debt. AfterPay is bad debt. Good debt is taking on, say, a home in which you can live. It doesn't have to be as an investment, but if you are renting, then a lot of people see that as just empty money, dead money. If you are putting that into a home you can call your own, many see that as good money. So, it might be the biggest debt you ever have, but it's considered good debt as opposed to credit card debt or AfterPay debt.  
Now the Reserve Bank, Ashley Church said, has made some very stupid decisions and by trying to tinker with the economy. You know, we're in the position we are in where we've got high interest rates and unemployment is starting to rise and that, it appears, is what the Reserve Bank wants. They're trying to engineer a recession so that the spending stops, demand stops, and then the interest rates can come down, and it means those with mortgages can breathe a little easier.  
But surely it is a good thing if the property market is a lot more even, a lot more level? We don't want booms and busts, nobody does. Well, some people make a fortune out of them, but the majority do not, and nobody wants more debt than they can manage. There is nothing worse than that feeling of being strangled or crushed by debt. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Having to make decisions month on month about what you're going to fix first or what you're going to pay off first. Trying to keep the slavering wolves from the door.  
And there is the capacity to be able to borrow more by lowering your debt-to-income ratio by paying off bad debt. You know, if you pay off your student loan, you can borrow more. If you get rid of the credit card and pay that off, you will be able to borrow more.  
Ashley, as I say, pulled no punches, but then he has interests vested in the property market. I mean at first reading; I see this is not a bad idea. You know, there are a lot of people who are crushed by debt. By restricting how much they can borrow, surely that's in everybody's best interests, including the banks.  
So I'd very much like to hear from you on this one and if it affects you in terms of your plans for home ownership. By having a lower deposit and having a reasonably good debt-to-income ratio, are you going to be able to get into a house? But if you're only earning, say $80,000, can you get a house for what the bank is willing to lend you on your debt-to-income ratio?

Kerre Woodham: Debt-to-income restrictions aren't a bad idea

A petition has been set up asking for students on placement to receive a stipend from the Government, because as part of their qualifications many students, like those in healthcare, social work, and education, are required to complete unpaid placements to practically apply what they've learnt. And it's a really, really good idea because quite often, the theory bears no real relation to reality. You might think you want to be a nurse, and then you're in amongst the blood and the gore and you think, ‘maybe not. Maybe not. Maybe I'll go to being a researcher, apply all that knowledge and learning to being a researcher rather than being at the grunt end of things.’ So, you need to know what you're getting yourself in for, otherwise it can be a waste of training. 

However, masters student Bex Howells says unpaid placements are causing huge financial hardship for students. They need to take on extra work to pay their bills, but if you're working all day, studying the rest, you've got between the hours of 1am and 3am to find work. So, eight months ago Bex started Paid Placements Aotearoa as a social media movement to get students paid for their placements, and that led her to launch a petition to get students in health care, social work, and education paid for the work that they do. 

It's not a new idea. As of next year, the Australian government will pay teachers, midwives, and nurses $320 a week (that would be $350 odd New Zealand dollars a week) during their mandatory placements, but it will be means tested. So, campaigners and students here have been fighting for a similar payment. Previous Health Minister Andrew Little had considered it for 3rd year students. Bex Howells says there are ways and means to make a stipend work. 

“My proposal is that we pay students a stipend, which effectively is like topping up their study link allowance so that they're being paid at least equivalent to the minimum wage because they have huge amounts of costs involved with training on top of actually doing the unpaid labour, and they need to be able to meet those costs of training so that they can actually prioritise learning and working rather than survival.”

Yes. So, I mean, I think we all know that a lot of the med students, the nursing students, the midwifery students are really putting in the hours and to all intents and purposes they’re another set of trained hands on the wards, and yet they're not. They're supposed to be students, they're supposed to be learning, they're supposed to be shadowing. She says we pay police to train, we pay prison officers, customs officers, the military, yet for some reason, if you're a nurse, a teacher, a social worker, or a midwife you're not paid to train.  

We heard from a couple of people a few years ago who were in just this bind. Living in and training in one city but their placement’s in another city, so they have to give up a flat or else they have to keep paying for the flat while finding alternative accommodation in the city or town that they're being placed in. You're not always placed just down the road from where you live, so it's an extra financial burden on top of what is already a tough time, and yet you're expected to work. You're not expected to just sit there taking notes. 

So, it seems reasonable, does it not, to give them a bit more than the student allowance? A number of these students, these teachers, these midwives are older. They're coming into it as a second career. So, they might have children and childcare, and it's a huge juggling act. And that's their choice and they know to a certain extent what they're getting into, but I don't think anybody has any real idea till you're in the thick of it. And great if you've got the Bank of Mum and Dad, supportive parents that you can tap into, but we don't want these careers only open to those families who can afford to subsidise their children on behalf of the rest of the taxpayers. We're all going to benefit by having these people well trained, well suited for their careers. And it's asking a lot of these young people, and of these mature students, that they give up the opportunity to work extra hours to make ends meet because they simply can't when they're on placement, they're studying and on placement. 

So, what do you think is fair?  I'm quite happy to pay for them in terms of paying them a stipend that helps them cover the cost of their bills while they are unable to do extra work, while they are focused on their training. Sign them up for a bond if needs be. You know, if you if you take the stipend that gives you an extra $150 a week, or however much it is it. We're not talking of fortune here. If you take the stipend, that means you don't have to worry about trying to find extra work, then we'll bond you for a couple of years and that seems to be a good quid pro quo.

A petition has been set up asking for students on placement to receive a stipend from the Government, because as part of their qualifications many students, like those in healthcare, social work, and education, are required to complete unpaid placements to practically apply what they've learnt. And it's a really, really good idea because quite often, the theory bears no real relation to reality. You might think you want to be a nurse, and then you're in amongst the blood and the gore and you think, ‘maybe not. Maybe not. Maybe I'll go to being a researcher, apply all that knowledge and learning to being a researcher rather than being at the grunt end of things.’ So, you need to know what you're getting yourself in for, otherwise it can be a waste of training.  
However, masters student Bex Howells says unpaid placements are causing huge financial hardship for students. They need to take on extra work to pay their bills, but if you're working all day, studying the rest, you've got between the hours of 1am and 3am to find work. So, eight months ago Bex started Paid Placements Aotearoa as a social media movement to get students paid for their placements, and that led her to launch a petition to get students in health care, social work, and education paid for the work that they do.  
It's not a new idea. As of next year, the Australian government will pay teachers, midwives, and nurses $320 a week (that would be $350 odd New Zealand dollars a week) during their mandatory placements, but it will be means tested. So, campaigners and students here have been fighting for a similar payment. Previous Health Minister Andrew Little had considered it for 3rd year students. Bex Howells says there are ways and means to make a stipend work.  
“My proposal is that we pay students a stipend, which effectively is like topping up their study link allowance so that they're being paid at least equivalent to the minimum wage because they have huge amounts of costs involved with training on top of actually doing the unpaid labour, and they need to be able to meet those costs of training so that they can actually prioritise learning and working rather than survival.” 
Yes. So, I mean, I think we all know that a lot of the med students, the nursing students, the midwifery students are really putting in the hours and to all intents and purposes they’re another set of trained hands on the wards, and yet they're not. They're supposed to be students, they're supposed to be learning, they're supposed to be shadowing. She says we pay police to train, we pay prison officers, customs officers, the military, yet for some reason, if you're a nurse, a teacher, a social worker, or a midwife you're not paid to train.   
We heard from a couple of people a few years ago who were in just this bind. Living in and training in one city but their placement’s in another city, so they have to give up a flat or else they have to keep paying for the flat while finding alternative accommodation in the city or town that they're being placed in. You're not always placed just down the road from where you live, so it's an extra financial burden on top of what is already a tough time, and yet you're expected to work. You're not expected to just sit there taking notes.  
So, it seems reasonable, does it not, to give them a bit more than the student allowance? A number of these students, these teachers, these midwives are older. They're coming into it as a second career. So, they might have children and childcare, and it's a huge juggling act. And that's their choice and they know to a certain extent what they're getting into, but I don't think anybody has any real idea till you're in the thick of it. And great if you've got the Bank of Mum and Dad, supportive parents that you can tap into, but we don't want these careers only open to those families who can afford to subsidise their children on behalf of the rest of the taxpayers. We're all going to benefit by having these people well trained, well suited for their careers. And it's asking a lot of these young people, and of these mature students, that they give up the opportunity to work extra hours to make ends meet because they simply can't when they're on placement, they're studying and on placement.  
So, what do you think is fair?  I'm quite happy to pay for them in terms of paying them a stipend that helps them cover the cost of their bills while they are unable to do extra work, while they are focused on their training. Sign them up for a bond if needs be. You know, if you if you take the stipend that gives you an extra $150 a week, or however much it is it. We're not talking of fortune here. If you take the stipend, that means you don't have to worry about trying to find extra work, then we'll bond you for a couple of years and that seems to be a good quid pro quo.

Alex Penk: Ethos CEO on the 'Students and Social Transition: A Gender Identity Policy Guide'

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips