Very shortly public voting will be underway for the Spark Retail NZ's People's Choice award.

The People’s Choice Award recognises a retailer that has made a genuine, positive impact on its customers.

Retail NZ Chief Executive Carolyn Young said it's important to allow Kiwis to have a say in who they think deserves the award.

Voting is open from Friday the 26th, and the awards ceremony will be on the 3rd of September.

LISTEN ABOVE

Very shortly public voting will be underway for the Spark Retail NZ's People's Choice award.
The People’s Choice Award recognises a retailer that has made a genuine, positive impact on its customers.
Retail NZ Chief Executive Carolyn Young said it's important to allow Kiwis to have a say in who they think deserves the award.
Voting is open from Friday the 26th, and the awards ceremony will be on the 3rd of September.
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

Carolyn Young: Retail NZ Chief Executive discusses the upcoming vote for the Spark Retail NZ's People's Choice award

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f09e9900-5544-4ea2-8ed9-b46e002ce795/transcript

The Financial Services Council is backing National’s KiwiSaver overhaul, saying it’ll boost long-term savings.

Plans include lifting contribution rates to 12%, making the scheme compulsory, and enrolling Kiwis at birth with a $1500 kickstart — plus extending support for parents and over-65s.

Financial Services Council Chief Executive Kirk Hope joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the changes, and the effect it will have on Kiwis going forward. 

LISTEN ABOVE

The Financial Services Council is backing National’s KiwiSaver overhaul, saying it’ll boost long-term savings.
Plans include lifting contribution rates to 12%, making the scheme compulsory, and enrolling Kiwis at birth with a $1500 kickstart — plus extending support for parents and over-65s.
Financial Services Council Chief Executive Kirk Hope joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the changes, and the effect it will have on Kiwis going forward.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Kirk Hope: Financial Services Council Chief Executive backs National's Kiwisaver overhaul

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e7637e44-99ab-43ce-b1d9-b4710011278a/transcript

As the election gets closer, parties are starting to release their policies. And after a slow start, keeping their cards close to their chest, Labour's building up steam. We already had the three free doctors visits for all, now we've got free maternity scans and a promise to scrap the $5 fee on prescriptions and make them universally free. Add that to the free public transport, well, up to a point, $20 in the major cities and $10 everywhere else, and that capital gains tax is going to be working overtime to pay for it all. So far, so Labour. But I'm not really sure about the Oprah-fication of Labour's policies. "You get a doctor's visit, and you get a doctor's visit, and here's one for you too. You get a free bus ride, and here's a free bus ride for you, and one for you as well." 

I understand that universal allowances, free bus rides for all, means less admin as opposed to targeted assistance, which if the administration and the paperwork for that didn't exist, would be a faff. But it does. The admin's already been done to reach those who need help the most. We have the community services card. So why not link the three free GP visits, the free bus trips, the free maternity scans to the community services card? And when I say free, I mean taxpayer funded. There is no such thing as free.  

So why would the taxpayer be funding free public transport, free doctor's visits, free prescriptions for people who don't need it? I don't think anybody would object to trying to keep pregnant mums healthy, to trying to keep the community healthy, to trying to prevent people from going into hospital because they can't afford to go to the doctor or pick up prescriptions. We're all in it for that, and even if you don't care about people, you only care about the sums, if you do the sums, it pays off for people to be seen by their primary healthcare provider so they don't end up in hospital. All makes perfect sense. 

What doesn't make sense is why the taxpayer is funding all of these things for people who do not need it. And you can't even say no thank you very much to some of them. I totally get that one of the platforms of Labour's policies is health, and they want to make sure that we keep people out of hospitals. Absolutely fine. But when Chris Hipkins was talking to Heather du Plessis Allan yesterday afternoon about the 150,000 people who aren't picking up prescriptions, I am not convinced that all of those people were avoiding picking up their prescriptions because of cost. Some of them can't be bothered. You know, buses are put on to remote areas to take people to their hospital appointments. Short of picking them up in a sedan chair and carrying them on the shoulders of the healthy and the hale to get them to their hospital appointments, you could not make it any easier. But I've heard from nurses and doctors and people themselves that they don't go. They take the free bus and then they go shopping in Whangārei, even though they've got an appointment. They don't bother telling people they're not going to turn up. So there'll be people who just can't be bothered. They don't prioritise their own health, they've got other things they're prioritising and it's not their own health. There are people who don't like taking pills, thinking oh for heaven's sake, you're asking me to take another pill, I'm already taking three, I don't want to take a fourth. There are people who'll be feeling better, think nah, don't need this one. 

I am not entirely convinced that when he says 150,000 people aren't picking up prescriptions, that a) those numbers are right, because we're hearing a lot of numbers being thrown around by every party over all of their policies. I'm not entirely convinced about that. I'm not convinced about the cost. All I would like is targeted assistance to people who need it. As a taxpayer, I am perfectly happy to fund any kind of policy that will help make life a little bit easier and ultimately save us money in the long run by looking after people. The community services card exists to help those who need a little bit extra. Use that. The rest of us are fine. 

As the election gets closer, parties are starting to release their policies. And after a slow start, keeping their cards close to their chest, Labour's building up steam. We already had the three free doctors visits for all, now we've got free maternity scans and a promise to scrap the $5 fee on prescriptions and make them universally free. Add that to the free public transport, well, up to a point, $20 in the major cities and $10 everywhere else, and that capital gains tax is going to be working overtime to pay for it all. So far, so Labour. But I'm not really sure about the Oprah-fication of Labour's policies. "You get a doctor's visit, and you get a doctor's visit, and here's one for you too. You get a free bus ride, and here's a free bus ride for you, and one for you as well."&nbsp;
I understand that universal allowances, free bus rides for all, means less admin as opposed to targeted assistance, which if the administration and the paperwork for that didn't exist, would be a faff. But it does. The admin's already been done to reach those who need help the most. We have the community services card. So why not link the three free GP visits, the free bus trips, the free maternity scans to the community services card? And when I say free, I mean taxpayer funded. There is no such thing as free. &nbsp;
So why would the taxpayer be funding free public transport, free doctor's visits, free prescriptions for people who don't need it? I don't think anybody would object to trying to keep pregnant mums healthy, to trying to keep the community healthy, to trying to prevent people from going into hospital because they can't afford to go to the doctor or pick up prescriptions. We're all in it for that, and even if you don't care about people, you only care about the sums, if you do the sums, it pays off for people to be seen by their primary healthcare provider so they don't end up in hospital. All makes perfect sense.&nbsp;
What doesn't make sense is why the taxpayer is funding all of these things for people who do not need it. And you can't even say no thank you very much to some of them. I totally get that one of the platforms of Labour's policies is health, and they want to make sure that we keep people out of hospitals. Absolutely fine. But when Chris Hipkins was talking to Heather du Plessis Allan yesterday afternoon about the 150,000 people who aren't picking up prescriptions, I am not convinced that all of those people were avoiding picking up their prescriptions because of cost. Some of them can't be bothered. You know, buses are put on to remote areas to take people to their hospital appointments. Short of picking them up in a sedan chair and carrying them on the shoulders of the healthy and the hale to get them to their hospital appointments, you could not make it any easier. But I've heard from nurses and doctors and people themselves that they don't go. They take the free bus and then they go shopping in Whangārei, even though they've got an appointment. They don't bother telling people they're not going to turn up. So there'll be people who just can't be bothered. They don't prioritise their own health, they've got other things they're prioritising and it's not their own health. There are people who don't like taking pills, thinking oh for heaven's sake, you're asking me to take another pill, I'm already taking three, I don't want to take a fourth. There are people who'll be feeling better, think nah, don't need this one.&nbsp;
I am not entirely convinced that when he says 150,000 people aren't picking up prescriptions, that a) those numbers are right, because we're hearing a lot of numbers being thrown around by every party over all of their policies. I'm not entirely convinced about that. I'm not convinced about the cost. All I would like is targeted assistance to people who need it. As a taxpayer, I am perfectly happy to fund any kind of policy that will help make life a little bit easier and ultimately save us money in the long run by looking after people. The community services card exists to help those who need a little bit extra. Use that. The rest of us are fine.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: I'm not sure about the Oprah-fication of Labour's policies

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/73aa3067-dd4a-4d70-9559-b46e0014cf81/transcript

Work ethics – where do we stand on those? Is it a generational thing? Do you continue to soldier on despite Covid changing the way we see coming to work while sick? Do you still soldier on? Do you pause and take a break if you can feel a sniffle coming on because you want to A) ensure you don't infect your colleagues and B) ensure that you've got the best possible chance of getting better by staying home? Is it a generational thing or just an individual thing?  

Gerry Brownlee, the Speaker of the House, is cracking the whip. At scrutiny week yesterday, he proposed changing Parliament's sitting hours and expressed a strong view that Parliament did not sit long enough. During the 30 weeks that Parliament meets for business, it generally sits from 2pm until 10pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays with a dinner break —and this is harking back to 1953— with a dinner break from 6pm to 7.30pm. None of this snatching a thing of pre-packaged sushi and scoffing it at your desk for ten minutes. No, no, no. When the House sits, there's a dinner break from 6pm to 7.30pm, and then the House sits again. On Thursdays it sits from 2pm until 6pm.  

Governments can move motions to extend sitting hours to the following morning or they can put the House into urgency, but that doesn't happen very often. Gerry Brownlee has proposed extending Parliament's sitting hours, but he wouldn't tell the media the specifics of the proposal saying it would be unreasonable to do so while all the parties were considering it. Of course, many MPs do much more work than just sitting in the House debating proposed legislation. If they're good MPs, they'll work every day of the week. I mean our electorate MP, I see him at every community thing, every community clean up, every school fair, and that's with two small children – a new baby and a toddler. When you're doing it properly, it's a job that's tough on people and on relationships.  

And while we might like the idea of them all working longer hours and getting our money out of them, working longer hours and more days is all very well and good, but if MPs are just rehashing the same old ideas and arguing amongst themselves and point scoring and whatever, we wouldn't be getting value for money out of them, we'd just be getting more of the same. Working longer doesn't necessarily mean working better, does it? If you're the sort of jobsworths that sit there and work their hours, don't add anything, don't come up with any innovation, do something that way because it's always been done that way and we don't deviate from doing that way because that's the way it's always been done. I don't really think that you're getting value for money there. 

And on the same day that Gerry was reported as calling for MPs to work longer and harder, there was an interview on Stuff with journalist and men's health campaigner Jehan Casinader talking about Gen Z getting it right when it comes to prioritising work-life balance. He said in the interview, “We hear Gen Z described or Gen Zed described as the snowflake generation, but I think they're actually just showing the rest of us how to prioritise what's important in our lives. They have better boundaries, they're more emotionally open, they're better at articulating their needs and they're focused on how do I get my work to support my life rather than the other way around." Jehan said, “I think that's challenging for a lot of older people because they grew up with the opposite story: sacrifice your health, sacrifice your wellbeing, do whatever you need to do to provide for your family, keep your employer happy." But I do think he says that we're seeing a cultural change. 

And I have to say I am probably in that generation that turns up for work. I don't think there's anything wrong than doing whatever you need to do to provide for your family and keeping your employer happy. But then I've always had good employers, so you want to work when you've got good employers. I haven't had a crappy one. And my work's interesting, so I guess that's a bit different. Who's right, who's wrong? 

I'm all for MPs sitting longer, but it's really difficult because when you are an electorate MP particularly, although I'm sure there are some good list MPs as well who work every hour God sends, but it's a bit harder to quantify what they do. Sitting longer in the House isn't necessarily going to ensure better legislation, more innovative legislation, great ideas, bright ideas.  I think there should definitely be penalties if you don't turn up for the bare minimum. Looking at you, Te Pāti Māori.  I don't know. Who's got it right, who's got it wrong? Is it a generational thing or is it an individual thing? And should our MPs be sitting longer and more often? 

Work ethics – where do we stand on those? Is it a generational thing? Do you continue to soldier on despite Covid changing the way we see coming to work while sick? Do you still soldier on? Do you pause and take a break if you can feel a sniffle coming on because you want to A) ensure you don't infect your colleagues and B) ensure that you've got the best possible chance of getting better by staying home? Is it a generational thing or just an individual thing? &nbsp;
Gerry Brownlee, the Speaker of the House, is cracking the whip. At scrutiny week yesterday, he proposed changing Parliament's sitting hours and expressed a strong view that Parliament did not sit long enough. During the 30 weeks that Parliament meets for business, it generally sits from 2pm until 10pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays with a dinner break —and this is harking back to 1953— with a dinner break from 6pm to 7.30pm. None of this snatching a thing of pre-packaged sushi and scoffing it at your desk for ten minutes. No, no, no. When the House sits, there's a dinner break from 6pm to 7.30pm, and then the House sits again. On Thursdays it sits from 2pm until 6pm. &nbsp;
Governments can move motions to extend sitting hours to the following morning or they can put the House into urgency, but that doesn't happen very often. Gerry Brownlee has proposed extending Parliament's sitting hours, but he wouldn't tell the media the specifics of the proposal saying it would be unreasonable to do so while all the parties were considering it. Of course, many MPs do much more work than just sitting in the House debating proposed legislation. If they're good MPs, they'll work every day of the week. I mean our electorate MP, I see him at every community thing, every community clean up, every school fair, and that's with two small children – a new baby and a toddler. When you're doing it properly, it's a job that's tough on people and on relationships. &nbsp;
And while we might like the idea of them all working longer hours and getting our money out of them, working longer hours and more days is all very well and good, but if MPs are just rehashing the same old ideas and arguing amongst themselves and point scoring and whatever, we wouldn't be getting value for money out of them, we'd just be getting more of the same. Working longer doesn't necessarily mean working better, does it? If you're the sort of jobsworths that sit there and work their hours, don't add anything, don't come up with any innovation, do something that way because it's always been done that way and we don't deviate from doing that way because that's the way it's always been done. I don't really think that you're getting value for money there.&nbsp;
And on the same day that Gerry was reported as calling for MPs to work longer and harder, there was an interview on Stuff with journalist and men's health campaigner Jehan Casinader talking about Gen Z getting it right when it comes to prioritising work-life balance. He said in the interview, “We hear Gen Z described or Gen Zed described as the snowflake generation, but I think they're actually just showing the rest of us how to prioritise what's important in our lives. They have better boundaries, they're more emotionally open, they're better at articulating their needs and they're focused on how do I get my work to support my life rather than the other way around." Jehan said, “I think that's challenging for a lot of older people because they grew up with the opposite story: sacrifice your health, sacrifice your wellbeing, do whatever you need to do to provide for your family, keep your employer happy." But I do think he says that we're seeing a cultural change.&nbsp;
And I have to say I am probably in that generation that turns up for work. I don't think there's anything wrong than doing whatever you need to do to provide for your family and keeping your employer happy. But then I've always had good employers, so you want to work when you've got good employers. I haven't had a crappy one. And my work's interesting, so I guess that's a bit different. Who's right, who's wrong?&nbsp;
I'm all for MPs sitting longer, but it's really difficult because when you are an electorate MP particularly, although I'm sure there are some good list MPs as well who work every hour God sends, but it's a bit harder to quantify what they do. Sitting longer in the House isn't necessarily going to ensure better legislation, more innovative legislation, great ideas, bright ideas. &nbsp;I think there should definitely be penalties if you don't turn up for the bare minimum. Looking at you, Te Pāti Māori. &nbsp;I don't know. Who's got it right, who's got it wrong? Is it a generational thing or is it an individual thing? And should our MPs be sitting longer and more often?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Who's got it right when it comes to work ethics?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/d165b869-c14e-43c4-ba35-b46d00189427/transcript

Carolyn Young: Retail NZ Chief Executive discusses the upcoming vote for the Spark Retail NZ's People's Choice award

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips