Auckland Council is aiming to reduce drownings and improve safety by upgrading its Navigation Bylaw. 

The most significant change would make life jackets mandatory for everyone on vessels under six meters long whilst it’s in motion. 

Current rules only require for them to be carried, with the person in charge of the vessel making the decision on whether it’s necessary. 

Auckland Councillor and Bylaw Review Panel member Alf Filipaina told Kerre Woodham this is the first review since the bylaw’s approval, and five years on, they want the community to have their say. 

He says they’re hopeful the majority will come in and say wearing life jackets while a vessel is on the water and in motion is common sense.  

LISTEN ABOVE  

Auckland Council is aiming to reduce drownings and improve safety by upgrading its Navigation Bylaw.&nbsp;
The most significant change would make life jackets mandatory for everyone on vessels under six meters long whilst it’s in motion.&nbsp;
Current rules only require for them to be carried, with the person in charge of the vessel making the decision on whether it’s necessary.&nbsp;
Auckland Councillor and Bylaw Review Panel member Alf Filipaina told Kerre Woodham this is the first review since the bylaw’s approval, and five years on, they want the community to have their say.&nbsp;
He says they’re hopeful the majority will come in and say wearing life jackets while a vessel is on the water and in motion is common sense. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;

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

Alf Filipaina: Auckland Councillor on the review into the Navigation Bylaw

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/9ded000e-00da-4674-bf5e-b441001b23bb/transcript

New figures reveal hundreds of Kiwi officers are continuing to head across the Tasman, nearly one in three police resignations are now linked to the move.

But, the Police Commissioner didn't seem too worried when he spoke to Mike Hosking this morning, saying they prioritise quality over quantity. 

Minister of Police Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham "of course we want to pay our frontline police, all of our police personnel as much as we can, but we are limited. We are in a pretty bad fiscal situation at the moment as a country but we'll do our best without a doubt."

LISTEN ABOVE

New figures reveal hundreds of Kiwi officers are continuing to head across the Tasman, nearly one in three police resignations are now linked to the move.
But, the Police Commissioner didn't seem too worried when he spoke to Mike Hosking this morning, saying they prioritise quality over quantity.&nbsp;
Minister of Police Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham "of course we want to pay our frontline police, all of our police personnel as much as we can, but we are limited. We are in a pretty bad fiscal situation at the moment as a country but we'll do our best without a doubt."
LISTEN ABOVE

Mark Mitchell: Police Minister says 'bad fiscal situation' prohibiting paying our police more

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6d667bf5-389b-4c4c-8582-b44700141011/transcript

Well, Winston let the cat out of the bag on Friday afternoon with Heather du Plessis Allan. Oh, we're scrapping fees free in the third year, he said, you'll find that in the budget.

And Finance Minister Nicola Willis has confirmed that yes indeed, the scheme will be ditched in the upcoming budget. 

Those students completing their tertiary studies this year in their final year will remain eligible for fees free.

So, all well and good.

It was a dog of a scheme, it was an absolute bribe, we all knew that. It was one of those nice policies that Labour brought in and ultimately, yet again, it didn't work. On paper it looked as though it might, but it didn't.

It's a nice to have and right now we are a country that cannot afford nice things. Had it been doing what it was intended to do, what on paper it looked like it might do, then the coalition government might have found the money to continue the scheme.

However, it never did, never achieved the goal of increasing the number of students participating in tertiary education.

It was also really bad at getting people who were disadvantaged to take up the scheme and that was the intention behind it when Jacinda Ardern announced the policy at a decile 5 school all those years ago.

Didn't work when it was first year fees free. It was a flagship policy from Labour to pay for the first year of tertiary education and then as the numbers swelled and children from decile 1 schools trooped off to university and raised themselves to the excellence they needed to find within themselves and just be fabulous, it was going to be free for anybody to go to university.

Didn't work.

The original intentions were to help people overcome economic barriers to higher education while also growing the numbers of those enrolled. In fact, the disparity between university entrance from low decile schools and higher decile schools got worse.

The Herald applied under the Official Information Act and it showed that in 2017 the year prior to the scheme being introduced, 38% of first year students at uni came from school deciles 1 to 5, the remaining 62% from deciles 6 to 10.

In 2021 that gap had widened, there were just 28% taking up the fees free policy coming from deciles 1 to 5, 72% from deciles 6 to 10.

So, you know, there's any number of reasons for that. It was a period of high unemployment in 2021 because we hadn't been opening the borders to workers so you might go straight into work rather than uni.

There's a number of reasons for that, but ultimately the reason for the scheme being introduced was to have a greater representation of young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Didn't work.

And it also doesn't work having the final year fees free in terms of encouraging people to complete their degrees because we've still got about a third of bachelor's degree level students not completing their qualifications even if they take six years to do it.

So that's not working.

I thought the final year fees free might encourage people to to stay on. No, data shows it hasn't.

So let's be done with it. Absolutely let's be done with it.

Put the money where it can better support the education and vocational needs of young people maybe. I mean university just does not have the cachet it once had and that's because it's a bums on seats model.

It used to be that universities were centres for higher academic learning. And they're not now.

It used to be that only a few people went to university and the taxpayer paid for them, all of their fees. Now hundreds of thousands of people go to university with a third of them never even completing their degree while the taxpayer picks up the tab for 80% of the course costs.

Are we getting value for money? I don't think we are.
 
As a model, and because the world is moving so fast, a lot of what young people are learning is out of date by the time they sit down and open their textbooks.

It's not for everyone, so put that money, a lot of that money into where it can most be used by young people.

I think, you know, universities still have a place, absolutely, but changing the focus away from higher academic learning to, 'hey anyone can have a go', I don't think is serving the young people, I don't think it's serving the universities and I don't think it's serving the taxpayer.

The Greens have called the decision outrageous. Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the Greens will fight to reinstate fees free support.

They say it's a fantastic, wise and smart investment to invest in tertiary education for students and communities. Is it?

The way it is right now, I don't I'm not entirely sure it is. I mean even 25-30 years ago I remember the the guy from Spark saying they don't take people from university in their technology and innovation and, I mean I'm sure they take some from other other areas, but if you're looking at the tech side of things they don't take them from university.

They'd far rather have bright young things go from school into their departments, having new ideas, new innovations. And that was 25 years ago.

So it's a nice to have the fees free tertiary education. If it was delivering, you might think about finding the money.

It's not, not on any metric, not on any level. And if the Greens think it's a smart investment, you'd have to worry about their financial nous, wouldn't you?

LISTEN ABOVE

Well, Winston let the cat out of the bag on Friday afternoon with Heather du Plessis Allan. Oh, we're scrapping fees free in the third year, he said, you'll find that in the budget.
And Finance Minister Nicola Willis has confirmed that yes indeed, the scheme will be ditched in the upcoming budget.&nbsp;
Those students completing their tertiary studies this year in their final year will remain eligible for fees free.
So, all well and good.
It was a dog of a scheme, it was an absolute bribe, we all knew that. It was one of those nice policies that Labour brought in and ultimately, yet again, it didn't work. On paper it looked as though it might, but it didn't.
It's a nice to have and right now we are a country that cannot afford nice things. Had it been doing what it was intended to do, what on paper it looked like it might do, then the coalition government might have found the money to continue the scheme.
However, it never did, never achieved the goal of increasing the number of students participating in tertiary education.
It was also really bad at getting people who were disadvantaged to take up the scheme and that was the intention behind it when Jacinda Ardern announced the policy at a decile 5 school all those years ago.
Didn't work when it was first year fees free. It was a flagship policy from Labour to pay for the first year of tertiary education and then as the numbers swelled and children from decile 1 schools trooped off to university and raised themselves to the excellence they needed to find within themselves and just be fabulous, it was going to be free for anybody to go to university.
Didn't work.
The original intentions were to help people overcome economic barriers to higher education while also growing the numbers of those enrolled. In fact, the disparity between university entrance from low decile schools and higher decile schools got worse.
The Herald applied under the Official Information Act and it showed that in 2017 the year prior to the scheme being introduced, 38% of first year students at uni came from school deciles 1 to 5, the remaining 62% from deciles 6 to 10.
In 2021 that gap had widened, there were just 28% taking up the fees free policy coming from deciles 1 to 5, 72% from deciles 6 to 10.
So, you know, there's any number of reasons for that. It was a period of high unemployment in 2021 because we hadn't been opening the borders to workers so you might go straight into work rather than uni.
There's a number of reasons for that, but ultimately the reason for the scheme being introduced was to have a greater representation of young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Didn't work.
And it also doesn't work having the final year fees free in terms of encouraging people to complete their degrees because we've still got about a third of bachelor's degree level students not completing their qualifications even if they take six years to do it.
So that's not working.
I thought the final year fees free might encourage people to to stay on. No, data shows it hasn't.
So let's be done with it.&nbsp;Absolutely let's be done with it.
Put the money where it can better support the education and vocational needs of young people maybe. I mean university just does not have the cachet it once had and that's because it's a bums on seats model.
It used to be that universities were centres for higher academic learning. And they're not now.
It used to be that only a few people went to university and the taxpayer paid for them, all of their fees. Now hundreds of thousands of people go to university with a third of them never even completing their degree while the taxpayer picks up the tab for 80% of the course costs.
Are we getting value for money? I don't think we are. &nbsp; As a model, and because the world is moving so fast, a lot of what young people are learning is out of date by the time they sit down and open their textbooks.
It's not for everyone, so put that money, a lot of that money into where it can most be used by young people.
I think, you know, universities still have a place, absolutely, but changing the focus away from higher academic learning to, 'hey anyone can have a go', I don't think is serving the young people, I don't think it's serving the universities and I don't think it's serving the taxpayer.
The Greens have called the decision outrageous. Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the Greens will fight to reinstate fees free support.
They say it's a fantastic, wise and smart investment to invest in tertiary education for students and communities. Is it?
The way it is right now, I don't I'm not entirely sure it is. I mean even 25-30 years ago I remember the the guy from Spark saying they don't take people from university in their technology and innovation and, I mean I'm sure they take some from other other areas, but if you're looking at the tech side of things they don't take them from university.
They'd far rather have bright young things go from school into their departments, having new ideas, new innovations.&nbsp;And that was 25 years ago.
So it's a nice to have the fees free tertiary education. If it was delivering, you might think about finding the money.
It's not, not on any metric, not on any level. And if the Greens think it's a smart investment, you'd have to worry about their financial nous, wouldn't you?
LISTEN ABOVE

Kerre Woodham: Fees free would be nice... if it actually worked

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/346d5c7a-ee90-4787-bd19-b44601853a9d/transcript

New Zealand, according to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, needs to reform the electricity sector, expand and strengthen capital markets, speed up digitisation of the health sector, and reform the pension. The OECD joined other international agencies in calling for the age of eligibility for super to be raised by indexing it to life expectancy with measures to take account of different ethnicities and work backgrounds. A bit like in Australia, if you're in a tough job that is tough on your body and you physically cannot work any longer, then you can get the pension a bit earlier, it just won't be as much as the full pension. 

If Bill English had been able to form a coalition government when he was leading National, we would have raised the age of super by now to 67. But it doesn't, for those of you who are concerned, go from 65 to 67 overnight. You'll remember when National was looking at raising the age to 67 – it would just increase six months each year and it wouldn't have started until the 1st of July 2037. So it doesn't happen overnight, there's plenty of time for people to get used to it, it's phased in slowly, it's not a huge seismic shock. What is a huge seismic shock is the cost of super to the national economy. 

Simplicity Managing Director Sam Stubbs says super is a huge problem that needs to be addressed urgently. He says without change, by 2060 all of our income tax will only be able to pay for health and national super, there'll be no money left for anything else – unless we suddenly get incredibly wealthy. But if things stay as they are pretty much, our GDP stays the same, the increase in the number of people needing healthcare and national Super will be such that our income tax will only pay for that. There'll be nothing for roads, nothing for schools, nothing for any of the things we like to have. 

“What about the Cullen Fund?” I hear you ask, and that's a good question. The fund was never a fully funded Super scheme; it was just designed to smooth out some of the population shocks so that it wouldn't completely cripple the economy as a big cohort of the population reached superannuation age. It's expected to contribute roughly 3.3-3.5% of the total super cost by 2040. It may well get up to covering 10% of the costs by 2080, but certainly not 100% 

Finance Minister Nicola Willis was sort of trying to calm things down. She told Mike Hosking that changes don't need to be as dramatic as the OECD suggests, but do need to happen. 

“In the 1960s there were around seven New Zealanders of working age for every person aged 65 or older. Today there are four and by 2065 there will only be two. So that burden on our taxpayers is increasing significantly. Already between last year and the end of the fiscal period, the cost of New Zealand superannuation will increase by about $6 billion a year. It's rising as a proportion of what we tax you for, so it's currently just over 16%, it's going to rise to over 20%. And every dollar we're spending on superannuation is a dollar not available for education, for health, for infrastructure. So gradually over time some changes will need to be made. They don't need to be as dramatic as the OECD suggests, but some adjustments will be needed.” 

Well, it will need to be as dramatic unless political parties bite the bullet. And in this case, there would need to be, and Chris Hipkins said himself, that he was open to having cross party discussions about what to do around the super. Because without change, without sensible, orderly change, it will need to be dramatic. Independent economist Cameron Bagrie told Heather du Plessis Allan last night he's a fan of means testing the super. 

“We're on an unsustainable fiscal path. You know, the Government needs to bite the bullet in regards to making some pretty big, hard, bold decisions. We've been talking about this sort of stuff for 30 years. I can remember modelling this sort of stuff in the 1990s when I was at New Zealand Treasury 30 years ago. And all that's happened is that we've kicked the can down the road. You know, a little bit of stuff has been brought in, New Zealand Super Fund, the KiwiSaver contributions, but when push comes to shove here, we need to address the entitlement side of New Zealand Superannuation and that comes through, you know, potentially lifting the age or means testing has to come into the equation.” 

So what would you be a fan of? And this is accepting that we cannot continue with the status quo – it’s unsustainable and everybody has said that. You might not believe the media, you might not believe politicians, but independent organisations have said this, Treasury has said this, economists, as Cameron Bagrie was saying, from as far back as the 1980s, 1990s were saying there needs to be provision made, it can't go on the way it's going. The advantage for young people or younger people, I guess, is that they have KiwiSaver, which enables them to contribute a considerable amount towards a comfortable retirement. The longer you're in it, the better it is.

So many decisions we should have made many, many years ago. You look back and we'd be in a far better position, far more able to weather economic shocks than we are now had we made those hard calls 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. We need to make a hard call now, not kick the can down the road as we have been doing, government after government, voting cohort after voting cohort.  

So what particular poison are you willing to swallow? Bringing back what Bill English proposed, raising the age of entitlement to 67 and starting from the 1st of July 2037, raising the age at which you can get it by six months? So you'll be 65 years and six months. 65 years and six months is not that burdensome, is it? There are other ways of doing it gently without a brutal overnight decision. Is means testing the way to go? I would always want to see an allowance for somebody who's had a really tough job, to be able to withdraw it or apply for it earlier but just get a little bit less. We need to have a sensible discussion. We can't just bury our heads in the sand as successive voters have done over generations, and governments are going to have to be bold enough to make the call. Should it be a cross-party decision? Yeah, I think it should be. There should be a collective agreement from all parties that this is what needs to happen for future generations. 

New Zealand, according to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, needs to reform the electricity sector, expand and strengthen capital markets, speed up digitisation of the health sector, and reform the pension. The OECD joined other international agencies in calling for the age of eligibility for super to be raised by indexing it to life expectancy with measures to take account of different ethnicities and work backgrounds. A bit like in Australia, if you're in a tough job that is tough on your body and you physically cannot work any longer, then you can get the pension a bit earlier, it just won't be as much as the full pension.&nbsp;
If Bill English had been able to form a coalition government when he was leading National, we would have raised the age of super by now to 67. But it doesn't, for those of you who are concerned, go from 65 to 67 overnight. You'll remember when National was looking at raising the age to 67 – it would just increase six months each year and it wouldn't have started until the 1st of July 2037. So it doesn't happen overnight, there's plenty of time for people to get used to it, it's phased in slowly, it's not a huge seismic shock. What is a huge seismic shock is the cost of super to the national economy.&nbsp;
Simplicity Managing Director Sam Stubbs says super is a huge problem that needs to be addressed urgently. He says without change, by 2060 all of our income tax will only be able to pay for health and national super, there'll be no money left for anything else – unless we suddenly get incredibly wealthy. But if things stay as they are pretty much, our GDP stays the same, the increase in the number of people needing healthcare and national Super will be such that our income tax will only pay for that. There'll be nothing for roads, nothing for schools, nothing for any of the things we like to have.&nbsp;
“What about the Cullen Fund?” I hear you ask, and that's a good question. The fund was never a fully funded Super scheme; it was just designed to smooth out some of the population shocks so that it wouldn't completely cripple the economy as a big cohort of the population reached superannuation age. It's expected to contribute roughly 3.3-3.5% of the total super cost by 2040. It may well get up to covering 10% of the costs by 2080, but certainly not 100%&nbsp;
Finance Minister Nicola Willis was sort of trying to calm things down. She told Mike Hosking that changes don't need to be as dramatic as the OECD suggests, but do need to happen.&nbsp;
“In the 1960s there were around seven New Zealanders of working age for every person aged 65 or older. Today there are four and by 2065 there will only be two. So that burden on our taxpayers is increasing significantly. Already between last year and the end of the fiscal period, the cost of New Zealand superannuation will increase by about $6 billion a year. It's rising as a proportion of what we tax you for, so it's currently just over 16%, it's going to rise to over 20%. And every dollar we're spending on superannuation is a dollar not available for education, for health, for infrastructure. So gradually over time some changes will need to be made. They don't need to be as dramatic as the OECD suggests, but some adjustments will be needed.”&nbsp;
Well, it will need to be as dramatic unless political parties bite the bullet. And in this case, there would need to be, and Chris Hipkins said himself, that he was open to having cross party discussions about what to do around the super. Because without change, without sensible, orderly change, it will need to be dramatic. Independent economist Cameron Bagrie told Heather du Plessis Allan last night he's a fan of means testing the super.&nbsp;
“We're on an unsustainable fiscal path. You know, the Government needs to bite the bullet in regards to making some pretty big, hard, bold decisions. We've been talking about this sort of stuff for 30 years. I can remember modelling this sort of stuff in the 1990s when I was at New Zealand Treasury 30 years ago. And all that's happened is that we've kicked the can down the road. You know, a little bit of stuff has been brought in, New Zealand Super Fund, the KiwiSaver contributions, but when push comes to shove here, we need to address the entitlement side of New Zealand Superannuation and that comes through, you know, potentially lifting the age or means testing has to come into the equation.”&nbsp;
So what would you be a fan of? And this is accepting that we cannot continue with the status quo – it’s unsustainable and everybody has said that. You might not believe the media, you might not believe politicians, but independent organisations have said this, Treasury has said this, economists, as Cameron Bagrie was saying, from as far back as the 1980s, 1990s were saying there needs to be provision made, it can't go on the way it's going. The advantage for young people or younger people, I guess, is that they have KiwiSaver, which enables them to contribute a considerable amount towards a comfortable retirement. The longer you're in it, the better it is.
So many decisions we should have made many, many years ago. You look back and we'd be in a far better position, far more able to weather economic shocks than we are now had we made those hard calls 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. We need to make a hard call now, not kick the can down the road as we have been doing, government after government, voting cohort after voting cohort. &nbsp;
So what particular poison are you willing to swallow? Bringing back what Bill English proposed, raising the age of entitlement to 67 and starting from the 1st of July 2037, raising the age at which you can get it by six months? So you'll be 65 years and six months. 65 years and six months is not that burdensome, is it? There are other ways of doing it gently without a brutal overnight decision. Is means testing the way to go? I would always want to see an allowance for somebody who's had a really tough job, to be able to withdraw it or apply for it earlier but just get a little bit less. We need to have a sensible discussion. We can't just bury our heads in the sand as successive voters have done over generations, and governments are going to have to be bold enough to make the call. Should it be a cross-party decision? Yeah, I think it should be. There should be a collective agreement from all parties that this is what needs to happen for future generations.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: The super situation - what poison are you willing to swallow?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/352bac75-6599-4797-b1cb-b44400156d99/transcript

Alf Filipaina: Auckland Councillor on the review into the Navigation Bylaw

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips