Christopher Luxon joined Kerre Woodham for an hour of talkback, taking questions from listeners and delving into their plans for the upcoming months.

The Prime Minister says our housing development has been running like it's 1975. 

The Housing Minister is today announcing planning changes agreed by Cabinet in an effort to address the housing crisis.

It will reform council powers on urban boundaries, liberalise planning, and require councils to plan for 30-years of growth.

Christopher Luxon told Kerre Woodham that he recently opened a great build-to rent-development in Auckland's Sylvia Park. 

He says we've ended up in a crisis because we haven't evolved laws to unlock those kinds of developments, or to encourage investment in build to rent programmes.

With politics heating up all over the world, Luxon is keeping his thoughts about major overseas elections to himself. 

Democrat US President Joe Biden and former Republican President Donald Trump are facing off again on the 2024 election campaign trail. 

Meanwhile, people vote today in the UK on whether to support Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's Conservatives or flip to Labour and Keir Starmer. 

Luxon told Kerre he can work with either Biden or Trump. 

He says it's his job to advance New Zealand's interests, and he will do the same in the UK with Sunak or Starmer.

LISTEN ABOVE

Christopher Luxon joined Kerre Woodham for an hour of talkback, taking questions from listeners and delving into their plans for the upcoming months. 
The Prime Minister says our housing development has been running like it's 1975.  
The Housing Minister is today announcing planning changes agreed by Cabinet in an effort to address the housing crisis. 
It will reform council powers on urban boundaries, liberalise planning, and require councils to plan for 30-years of growth. 
Christopher Luxon told Kerre Woodham that he recently opened a great build-to rent-development in Auckland's Sylvia Park.  
He says we've ended up in a crisis because we haven't evolved laws to unlock those kinds of developments, or to encourage investment in build to rent programmes. 
With politics heating up all over the world, Luxon is keeping his thoughts about major overseas elections to himself.  
Democrat US President Joe Biden and former Republican President Donald Trump are facing off again on the 2024 election campaign trail.  
Meanwhile, people vote today in the UK on whether to support Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's Conservatives or flip to Labour and Keir Starmer.  
Luxon told Kerre he can work with either Biden or Trump.  
He says it's his job to advance New Zealand's interests, and he will do the same in the UK with Sunak or Starmer. 
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

Christopher Luxon takes talkback on Kerre Woodham Mornings

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/798adb9c-eebd-4ffd-8224-b1a20189c6ce/transcript

Crikey, when I suggested yesterday that it might be a good idea if you've never seen Parliament TV, you could always tune in and see the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill.  

Crikey, I expected fireworks but not quite to the level that was on display yesterday. The House was temporarily suspended as the legislation was being voted on, after members of the Te Pati Māori performed a haka in front of the bill's author David Seymour. Gerry Brownlee cleared the public gallery, suspended the House, and once order was restored about 20 minutes later, Te Pati Māori's Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was “named” for starting the haka with the speaker. Gerry Brownlee called her behaviour appalling, disrespectful, and grossly disorderly. Being “named” is one of the most serious punishments in Parliament. If you're named, you are suspended for 24 hours, and your pay is docked. Doesn't happen terribly often – former National Party MP Nick Smith was named three times in his parliamentary career, but apart from Smith, it really is a pretty rare punishment.  

Newstalk ZB's political commentator Barry Soper said the behaviour was the worst he's seen in 40 years of covering politics. Former Speaker of the House Sir Lockwood Smith said he too thought it was the worst he'd ever seen.  

“That would have to be as bad as I've ever seen. I guess, you know my feeling after it was just one of real sadness, you know? Real sadness to see Parliament treated that way. You know, you can't blame the Speaker – I don't think you can blame Gerry at all. I think in the end he had no choice but to suspend the House and let things settle down, have the gallery cleared. I think, you know, some of the rot has started a way back – the whole standard of the place has been lowered in, you know, recent years. And I think you know, this is just when, once you start letting things slip, it just, you know, another inch happens or another centimetre and so it goes on.” 

Well, the bill isn't going anywhere, but not until there's been six months of public submissions. ACT, National and NZ First agreed to support it to a first reading as part of the coalition negotiations – one of the dead rats they had to swallow to form a government. And look at the latest poll, the major parties have gained. Nationals up 3.9%, Labours up 1.2%, ACT and Te Pati Māori are both down. That says to me we don't like extremism, we don't like political opportunists making hay, we don't like people at the very extreme of politics. For the most part, we want a relatively quiet life. We just want to be able to send our kids to school and know they'll be educated. We want to be able to ensure that we can go shopping and not be mugged, that we can sleep safely in our own homes, that we can drive from point A to point B without falling down a pothole the size of a three-story skyscraper. We all want the opportunity to be able to work, look after ourselves and if the worst comes to the worst, fate deals this a cruel blow, there will be a safety net there. Oh, and it, you know, perhaps if we have an accident, there's a health system that can pick up the pieces there too.  

The extremism doesn't, for the most part, win votes. I've had David Seymour on here before and put to him that this whole Treaty Principles Bill was a huge part of campaigning and yet on voting day, on Election Day, ACT didn't get nearly the votes they thought they were going to get. National made it very clear they were not going to support the bill. They had to, in the end, form a government to first reading. They didn't want a bar of it. And neither do, I would argue, most New Zealanders of whatever ethnicity you might be.  

But come back to Lockwood Smith's point when it comes to Parliament, are MPs really role models and exemplars of behaviour we should all be seeking to emulate? Sir Lockwood Smith seemed to think so, that there's a standard within Parliament that needs to be set and maintained for the good of society. I don't think that's true. I think they are representatives of New Zealand and as such, they represent us. And we have become more tribal, less likely to debate an issue more entrenched in our beliefs, if you don't support me, you're against me. Less likely to listen and agree to disagree.  

What we saw in Parliament is pretty much what you see on social media every day. People yelling at each other, not listening, not debating, just taking a stance and sticking to it, and that's fair enough. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Everybody is entitled to put forward a proposition. You can hear the other side out and you can maintain your own position if that's what you wish to do.  You can change your mind if you wish. But David Seymour knew exactly what he was doing. ‘Oh, hey, I'm just putting it up there for discussion’. Oh, come on, it was political opportunism. He got exactly what he knew would happen. He's not stupid, he's many things, but he is not stupid.  

So all we saw in Parliament, I think, is a reflection of what we see just about every single day in social media, on the text machine. We've seen it over numerous different issues. I think this and if you don't think like me, there's no such thing as debate anymore. 

Crikey, when I suggested yesterday that it might be a good idea if you've never seen Parliament TV, you could always tune in and see the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. &nbsp;
Crikey, I expected fireworks but not quite to the level that was on display yesterday. The House was temporarily suspended as the legislation was being voted on, after members of the Te Pati Māori performed a haka in front of the bill's author David Seymour. Gerry Brownlee cleared the public gallery, suspended the House, and once order was restored about 20 minutes later, Te Pati Māori's Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was “named” for starting the haka with the speaker. Gerry Brownlee called her behaviour appalling, disrespectful, and grossly disorderly. Being “named” is one of the most serious punishments in Parliament. If you're named, you are suspended for 24 hours, and your pay is docked. Doesn't happen terribly often – former National Party MP Nick Smith was named three times in his parliamentary career, but apart from Smith, it really is a pretty rare punishment. &nbsp;
Newstalk ZB's political commentator Barry Soper said the behaviour was the worst he's seen in 40 years of covering politics. Former Speaker of the House Sir Lockwood Smith said he too thought it was the worst he'd ever seen. &nbsp;
“That would have to be as bad as I've ever seen. I guess, you know my feeling after it was just one of real sadness, you know? Real sadness to see Parliament treated that way. You know, you can't blame the Speaker – I don't think you can blame Gerry at all. I think in the end he had no choice but to suspend the House and let things settle down, have the gallery cleared. I think, you know, some of the rot has started a way back – the whole standard of the place has been lowered in, you know, recent years. And I think you know, this is just when, once you start letting things slip, it just, you know, another inch happens or another centimetre and so it goes on.”&nbsp;
Well, the bill isn't going anywhere, but not until there's been six months of public submissions. ACT, National and NZ First agreed to support it to a first reading as part of the coalition negotiations – one of the dead rats they had to swallow to form a government. And look at the latest poll, the major parties have gained. Nationals up 3.9%, Labours up 1.2%, ACT and Te Pati Māori are both down. That says to me we don't like extremism, we don't like political opportunists making hay, we don't like people at the very extreme of politics. For the most part, we want a relatively quiet life. We just want to be able to send our kids to school and know they'll be educated. We want to be able to ensure that we can go shopping and not be mugged, that we can sleep safely in our own homes, that we can drive from point A to point B without falling down a pothole the size of a three-story skyscraper. We all want the opportunity to be able to work, look after ourselves and if the worst comes to the worst, fate deals this a cruel blow, there will be a safety net there. Oh, and it, you know, perhaps if we have an accident, there's a health system that can pick up the pieces there too. &nbsp;
The extremism doesn't, for the most part, win votes. I've had David Seymour on here before and put to him that this whole Treaty Principles Bill was a huge part of campaigning and yet on voting day, on Election Day, ACT didn't get nearly the votes they thought they were going to get. National made it very clear they were not going to support the bill. They had to, in the end, form a government to first reading. They didn't want a bar of it. And neither do, I would argue, most New Zealanders of whatever ethnicity you might be. &nbsp;
But come back to Lockwood Smith's point when it comes to Parliament, are MPs really role models and exemplars of behaviour we should all be seeking to emulate? Sir Lockwood Smith seemed to think so, that there's a standard within Parliament that needs to be set and maintained for the good of society. I don't think that's true. I think they are representatives of New Zealand and as such, they represent us. And we have become more tribal, less likely to debate an issue more entrenched in our beliefs, if you don't support me, you're against me. Less likely to listen and agree to disagree. &nbsp;
What we saw in Parliament is pretty much what you see on social media every day. People yelling at each other, not listening, not debating, just taking a stance and sticking to it, and that's fair enough. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Everybody is entitled to put forward a proposition. You can hear the other side out and you can maintain your own position if that's what you wish to do. &nbsp;You can change your mind if you wish. But David Seymour knew exactly what he was doing. ‘Oh, hey, I'm just putting it up there for discussion’. Oh, come on, it was political opportunism. He got exactly what he knew would happen. He's not stupid, he's many things, but he is not stupid. &nbsp;
So all we saw in Parliament, I think, is a reflection of what we see just about every single day in social media, on the text machine. We've seen it over numerous different issues. I think this and if you don't think like me, there's no such thing as debate anymore.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: The chaos in Parliament was a reflection of us

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/bff266a0-dedd-4963-9bd4-b22900128780/transcript

You have woken up to the news that New Zealand businesses can now take meaningful action to drive down the gender pay gap. You need no longer wait for governments to legislate – the power is in your hands. The launch of an online calculator to help do so was announced yesterday by the Minister for Women, Nicola Gregg. The previous Labour government announced plans last year before the election to require public and private companies with more than 250 workers to publish a gender pay gap report. Earlier in the year, Acting Minister for Women Louise Upston said the Government was committed to addressing inequity in the workplace, but she said “we do not want to overburden businesses with unnecessary costs and regulations.   

So the Gender Pay Gap Toolkit was set up by working with businesses and organisations like Spark, ANZ, Tonkin + Taylor, to make sure it's user friendly and has a common methodology. It was also shaped and road tested, apparently, by many other organisations across the country, including Transpower, the Port of Auckland, Champions for Change, and Global Women. Although the pay gap has reduced steadily from 16.3% in 1998, its stuck at around 9 to 10% for the past decade, except for 2015/2016 when it hit 12%. So, it's come down a bit and now it's stabilised.  

My colleague Heather du Plessis-Allan had a hot take on why the gap remained stubbornly in place, which she shared with her audience last night. It's up to women, she says, not employers to fix the gender pay gap: 

“Here's my tip if you are a woman and you don't want to have a gender pay. Don't take maternity leave. Make the baby's father take the paternity leave and don't always be the one to stay home with the kids when the kids are sick, make the father stay at home with the kids when the kids are sick, because I think that is now part of our problem. We are literally, as women, a more unreliable workforce than men, because think about this: I mean this is brutal, but it's true, right? If you've got an equally qualified man and woman standing in front of you, let's say early 30s, married, but haven't had babies, are you going to hire the lady? Because I don't know about that.  

“I'd look at the lady and go oh, she hasn't had babies yet, so now she can have babies, now she's going to want take a year off for every single baby. Now, when the babies sick, got a bit of a cough, the woman's going stay at home. She's unreliable. The guy is more reliable. Guy gets the job. Right. I know that this is hard, and I know we want it all in the modern age, right. We want heaps of money, we want all the big jobs, and we also want to be the ones who stay at home and raise the babies when they come out. But life is tough, and choices are tough, and I suspect women are going to have to start helping themselves a little bit here by getting the dads to do the heavy lifting too, instead of just complaining that life ain't fair.” 

So she has a point. If you are going to take a couple of years out of the workforce to be the primary caregiver and you’re female, then you're going to have missed work opportunities, missed promotion opportunities, and that's just the way it is. If you're not around for two years, your employer can't gauge just how effective you are, how good at working you are.  

At the same time, we all know the first three years of a child's life are vitally important. Every single child psychologist will tell you that. If you're given $100,000 to put towards your child's education, stay at home for the first three years or employ a primary caregiver to do the same. It just has to be a person who can talk to the baby, speak to the baby, take it out, stimulate it, and it has to be a kind of one-on-one relationship. A best practice according to child psychologists. Not always able to do that, we all just muddle along the best we can. I was back at work when my daughter was six weeks old. I hired a nurse, a young trainee, a graduate nurse to look after her. Not ideal, but needs must. The money had to come in somehow. I tried to keep breastfeeding that first year and managed to do so pretty much, but it was a struggle.  

If you want to have children and many couples do, I think it's a lot easier these days to share the load. I mean, we've had a child sick at home and their parents have divided the time. Dad stayed home three days because he can work from home. Mum has stayed home the last two days to give him the best possible chance of recovery and to allow everybody to get the most important parts of their job done on the days they really have to go into the office. They've had to juggle it between them. It's not expected that the mum has to give up five days of working in the office to stay at home. I just don't think there is that expectation among young parents.  

I think there really should be a shared responsibility between men and women. Perhaps the mother has the first six months off, then the father has six months off, so that when you do have a man and a woman applying for a job, they're both 32, they both have the same level of qualifications for whatever job they're applying for, then an employer can look at them both and go. I know that at some point, if they want children, I'm going to lose that person for six months, be it the man, be it the woman. If there is an expectation that the man will take time off too, an expectation from within the family, from within the community, from within the workforce, that men are just as likely to take six months off as women are, that kind of evens the playing field. So I think Heather had a point: it's not always going to be possible for a woman to give birth and then skip back to work the next day, leaving the man literally to pick up the baby. But I think if there is an expectation that it will be equally shared between men and women, it will help level up the playing field. 

You have woken up to the news that New Zealand businesses can now take meaningful action to drive down the gender pay gap. You need no longer wait for governments to legislate – the power is in your hands. The launch of an online calculator to help do so was announced yesterday by the Minister for Women, Nicola Gregg. The previous Labour government announced plans last year before the election to require public and private companies with more than 250 workers to publish a gender pay gap report. Earlier in the year, Acting Minister for Women Louise Upston said the Government was committed to addressing inequity in the workplace, but she said “we do not want to overburden businesses with unnecessary costs and regulations. &nbsp;&nbsp;
So the Gender Pay Gap Toolkit was set up by working with businesses and organisations like Spark, ANZ, Tonkin + Taylor, to make sure it's user friendly and has a common methodology. It was also shaped and road tested, apparently, by many other organisations across the country, including Transpower, the Port of Auckland, Champions for Change, and Global Women. Although the pay gap has reduced steadily from 16.3% in 1998, its stuck at around 9 to 10% for the past decade, except for 2015/2016 when it hit 12%. So, it's come down a bit and now it's stabilised. &nbsp;
My colleague Heather du Plessis-Allan had a hot take on why the gap remained stubbornly in place, which she shared with her audience last night. It's up to women, she says, not employers to fix the gender pay gap:&nbsp;
“Here's my tip if you are a woman and you don't want to have a gender pay. Don't take maternity leave. Make the baby's father take the paternity leave and don't always be the one to stay home with the kids when the kids are sick, make the father stay at home with the kids when the kids are sick, because I think that is now part of our problem. We are literally, as women, a more unreliable workforce than men, because think about this: I mean this is brutal, but it's true, right? If you've got an equally qualified man and woman standing in front of you, let's say early 30s, married, but haven't had babies, are you going to hire the lady? Because I don't know about that. &nbsp;
“I'd look at the lady and go oh, she hasn't had babies yet, so now she can have babies, now she's going to want take a year off for every single baby. Now, when the babies sick, got a bit of a cough, the woman's going stay at home. She's unreliable. The guy is more reliable. Guy gets the job. Right. I know that this is hard, and I know we want it all in the modern age, right. We want heaps of money, we want all the big jobs, and we also want to be the ones who stay at home and raise the babies when they come out. But life is tough, and choices are tough, and I suspect women are going to have to start helping themselves a little bit here by getting the dads to do the heavy lifting too, instead of just complaining that life ain't fair.”&nbsp;
So she has a point. If you are going to take a couple of years out of the workforce to be the primary caregiver and you’re female, then you're going to have missed work opportunities, missed promotion opportunities, and that's just the way it is. If you're not around for two years, your employer can't gauge just how effective you are, how good at working you are. &nbsp;
At the same time, we all know the first three years of a child's life are vitally important. Every single child psychologist will tell you that. If you're given $100,000 to put towards your child's education, stay at home for the first three years or employ a primary caregiver to do the same. It just has to be a person who can talk to the baby, speak to the baby, take it out, stimulate it, and it has to be a kind of one-on-one relationship. A best practice according to child psychologists. Not always able to do that, we all just muddle along the best we can. I was back at work when my daughter was six weeks old. I hired a nurse, a young trainee, a graduate nurse to look after her. Not ideal, but needs must. The money had to come in somehow. I tried to keep breastfeeding that first year and managed to do so pretty much, but it was a struggle. &nbsp;
If you want to have children and many couples do, I think it's a lot easier these days to share the load. I mean, we've had a child sick at home and their parents have divided the time. Dad stayed home three days because he can work from home. Mum has stayed home the last two days to give him the best possible chance of recovery and to allow everybody to get the most important parts of their job done on the days they really have to go into the office. They've had to juggle it between them. It's not expected that the mum has to give up five days of working in the office to stay at home. I just don't think there is that expectation among young parents. &nbsp;
I think there really should be a shared responsibility between men and women. Perhaps the mother has the first six months off, then the father has six months off, so that when you do have a man and a woman applying for a job, they're both 32, they both have the same level of qualifications for whatever job they're applying for, then an employer can look at them both and go. I know that at some point, if they want children, I'm going to lose that person for six months, be it the man, be it the woman. If there is an expectation that the man will take time off too, an expectation from within the family, from within the community, from within the workforce, that men are just as likely to take six months off as women are, that kind of evens the playing field. So I think Heather had a point: it's not always going to be possible for a woman to give birth and then skip back to work the next day, leaving the man literally to pick up the baby. But I think if there is an expectation that it will be equally shared between men and women, it will help level up the playing field.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: The burden of parenthood should be shared equally

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/af167c7f-9b32-47d1-8d81-b228012ef22c/transcript

Police have announced Operation Nickel, a nationwide operation focused on the enforcement of the Gangs Act 2024. What is the Gangs Act 2024? It's the specific piece of legislation that enforces the prohibition of the display of gang Insignia in public places. It provides for the issue of dispersal notices to stop gang members from gathering in public places, and it also makes provisions for non-consorting orders to prevent specified gang offenders from associating or communicating with each other for three years.  

Basically, it's to make life uncomfortable for the gangs who've had a pretty free ride of it over recent times. Paul Basham, National Controller for the operation, says the display of gang insignia in public places will not be tolerated. When the new laws come into effect, he says, the police will actively enforce any breaches. As part of the operation before the legislation came into effect, police engaged with gangs and community representatives about the requirements of the Gangs Act and what the police intended to do with the legislation. He said gangs are well aware that once this law comes into effect, they are not allowed to wear a gang patch in public. If they're sitting at home watching The Chase, fine. Pop your gang patch on and be the business.  

Police staff have spoken to gang leaders and made it clear that anyone breaching the new laws can expect enforcement action, he said, and if we come across anyone wearing gang insignia in public, we will not be taking the excuse of ignorance as a defence.  

He spoke to the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning and said he is confident the Gang Disruption Units are set up and ready to go.  

“You know, it's inevitable that we will be responding to reports of gangs breaking the law but you know, in addition to that, those units will be proactive, gathering intelligence, looking to work with other police units, and taking opportunities to sort of fulfil their mandate, which is in line with the purpose of the Act, which is to reduce the ability of gangs to operate and to cause fear and intimidation and disruption by the public.  

“So those units are really clear in terms of what the purpose is, and from the 21st of November they'll be into it, and I think too, you'll see them, you know, sharpening their tradecraft and their skills relative to the provisions of this legislation. And so we just see it as an awesome tool to allow us to continue the work that we do pretty much up and down the country every day anyway, in the way that we police the gangs.” 

So there were about 400 meetings up and down the country. As the police said, this is what we intend to do, this is what the legislation is. So fair dues. It doesn't mean though that if you see a person wearing a gang patch, you think, ‘crikey, they're breaking the law’ and you jump on your phone and you dial 111, that the police will be able to descend upon the offending individual, blues and twos at the go with the full weight of the law. There may be higher priorities for the police in that situation. Police Assistant Commissioner Basham says they will gather evidence allowing them to follow through with enforcement action at a later date.  

As I say, the gangs have had it pretty cruisy for some time now. That whole ‘let's work with them’ approach was tried but I don't think it was terribly successful, and I think enough time had passed to see that it wasn't actually working for the majority of us, for the rest of the community. Might have been working brilliantly for the gangs, went gangbusters, in fact, but for the rest of us, not so much. So now gangs are being told you want to live outside the community, you want to live outside the laws, you want to break the law to make a living, then expect that your life will be difficult. The community has decided enough is enough, and we don't want to see that anymore. We don't want the flaunting, and we don't want the swaggering, and we don't want the ‘we are sticking two fingers to you’ shoved in our face.   

Gangs argue that they're not all bad. That they provide a form of family for children and young people who have been failed by their own families. And in part that is true. You can only imagine how woeful the families are they've come from if they think that the gang is a good idea. They argue they do good work. Remember at Wellsford, north of Auckland, when the local Head Hunters had a charity motor bike ride and raised $2,500 and decided to donate the money to the local volunteer fire brigade? Yes, the fire brigade was advised to give the money back and there was harrumphing about that, but let's face it, they were just looking for a bit of PR. Which is a very cheap amount for good PR - $2500 is chump change for the Head Hunters. They could have donated the proceeds of a couple of baggies and be done with it.   

The Tribal Huk – remember them? Ngaruawahia? They were making and delivering sandwiches to socially deprived children at schools in the region long before the government was doing it. They also made headlines for their attempts to rid Ngaruawahia of methamphetamine which meant that the leader, Jamie Pink, came under fire during a confrontation in Ngaruawahia in 2016. The Huks ran a Christmas party for children. They gave money to schools for drug education. Good, good boys. No, not really. When a dispute arose within the gang, Jamie Pink, the leader, repeatedly smashed the blunt edge of a log splitting axe into the legs of his former mate so that the bones were sticking out of the skin on both knees. The man needed operations to insert screws and rods into his leg so he could walk again. And Punk Pink is currently serving seven years at His Majesty's Leisure.  

You've got the Mongrel Mob Kingdom. Remember them? Our frequent caller, PR woman, Louise. We haven’t heard from her in a while. She's been lying very low, probably because the Mongrel Mob kingpin turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing. If you're going to be a gang, be a gang, be done with it. Sell your drugs, live your life – it's basically a pyramid scheme to the young ones who are thinking should I get a 9-5, which is really hard, and you have to get up five days a week, or should I go and sell drugs for the gangs? It's a pyramid scheme - only a few get really, really rich. If you're a grunt at the bottom, you get the abuse, you get the jail terms, you get very little money. You might get a few baubles or trinkets from the top guys and that's about it.  

It's a misogynist – if you're looking for diversity, equality, and inclusivity, you're going to struggle to find that in a gang. They don't seem to have places for women. You can work under them, but not in the way you might want to. Just be a gang, and be a crim and be done with it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Or renounce the patch and the crime and come join us. It's not that bad. It really, really isn't.  

You don't have to join the gang, there are other options. But for God's sake, don't dress yourself up and pretend that you're decent people, providing an alternative to the wayward and the forlorn, that the patriarchal, oppressive government has failed to provide - that is total BS. 

Police have announced Operation Nickel, a nationwide operation focused on the enforcement of the Gangs Act 2024. What is the Gangs Act 2024? It's the specific piece of legislation that enforces the prohibition of the display of gang Insignia in public places. It provides for the issue of dispersal notices to stop gang members from gathering in public places, and it also makes provisions for non-consorting orders to prevent specified gang offenders from associating or communicating with each other for three years. &nbsp;
Basically, it's to make life uncomfortable for the gangs who've had a pretty free ride of it over recent times. Paul Basham, National Controller for the operation, says the display of gang insignia in public places will not be tolerated. When the new laws come into effect, he says, the police will actively enforce any breaches. As part of the operation before the legislation came into effect, police engaged with gangs and community representatives about the requirements of the Gangs Act and what the police intended to do with the legislation. He said gangs are well aware that once this law comes into effect, they are not allowed to wear a gang patch in public. If they're sitting at home watching The Chase, fine. Pop your gang patch on and be the business. &nbsp;
Police staff have spoken to gang leaders and made it clear that anyone breaching the new laws can expect enforcement action, he said, and if we come across anyone wearing gang insignia in public, we will not be taking the excuse of ignorance as a defence. &nbsp;
He spoke to the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning and said he is confident the Gang Disruption Units are set up and ready to go. &nbsp;
“You know, it's inevitable that we will be responding to reports of gangs breaking the law but you know, in addition to that, those units will be proactive, gathering intelligence, looking to work with other police units, and taking opportunities to sort of fulfil their mandate, which is in line with the purpose of the Act, which is to reduce the ability of gangs to operate and to cause fear and intimidation and disruption by the public. &nbsp;
“So those units are really clear in terms of what the purpose is, and from the 21st of November they'll be into it, and I think too, you'll see them, you know, sharpening their tradecraft and their skills relative to the provisions of this legislation. And so we just see it as an awesome tool to allow us to continue the work that we do pretty much up and down the country every day anyway, in the way that we police the gangs.”&nbsp;
So there were about 400 meetings up and down the country. As the police said, this is what we intend to do, this is what the legislation is. So fair dues. It doesn't mean though that if you see a person wearing a gang patch, you think, ‘crikey, they're breaking the law’ and you jump on your phone and you dial 111, that the police will be able to descend upon the offending individual, blues and twos at the go with the full weight of the law. There may be higher priorities for the police in that situation. Police Assistant Commissioner Basham says they will gather evidence allowing them to follow through with enforcement action at a later date. &nbsp;
As I say, the gangs have had it pretty cruisy for some time now. That whole ‘let's work with them’ approach was tried but I don't think it was terribly successful, and I think enough time had passed to see that it wasn't actually working for the majority of us, for the rest of the community. Might have been working brilliantly for the gangs, went gangbusters, in fact, but for the rest of us, not so much. So now gangs are being told you want to live outside the community, you want to live outside the laws, you want to break the law to make a living, then expect that your life will be difficult. The community has decided enough is enough, and we don't want to see that anymore. We don't want the flaunting, and we don't want the swaggering, and we don't want the ‘we are sticking two fingers to you’ shoved in our face. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Gangs argue that they're not all bad. That they provide a form of family for children and young people who have been failed by their own families. And in part that is true. You can only imagine how woeful the families are they've come from if they think that the gang is a good idea. They argue they do good work. Remember at Wellsford, north of Auckland, when the local Head Hunters had a charity motor bike ride and raised $2,500 and decided to donate the money to the local volunteer fire brigade? Yes, the fire brigade was advised to give the money back and there was harrumphing about that, but let's face it, they were just looking for a bit of PR. Which is a very cheap amount for good PR - $2500 is chump change for the Head Hunters. They could have donated the proceeds of a couple of baggies and be done with it. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Tribal Huk – remember them? Ngaruawahia? They were making and delivering sandwiches to socially deprived children at schools in the region long before the government was doing it. They also made headlines for their attempts to rid Ngaruawahia of methamphetamine which meant that the leader, Jamie Pink, came under fire during a confrontation in Ngaruawahia in 2016. The Huks ran a Christmas party for children. They gave money to schools for drug education. Good, good boys. No, not really. When a dispute arose within the gang, Jamie Pink, the leader, repeatedly smashed the blunt edge of a log splitting axe into the legs of his former mate so that the bones were sticking out of the skin on both knees. The man needed operations to insert screws and rods into his leg so he could walk again. And Punk Pink is currently serving seven years at His Majesty's Leisure. &nbsp;
You've got the Mongrel Mob Kingdom. Remember them? Our frequent caller, PR woman, Louise. We haven’t heard from her in a while. She's been lying very low, probably because the Mongrel Mob kingpin turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing. If you're going to be a gang, be a gang, be done with it. Sell your drugs, live your life – it's basically a pyramid scheme to the young ones who are thinking should I get a 9-5, which is really hard, and you have to get up five days a week, or should I go and sell drugs for the gangs? It's a pyramid scheme - only a few get really, really rich. If you're a grunt at the bottom, you get the abuse, you get the jail terms, you get very little money. You might get a few baubles or trinkets from the top guys and that's about it. &nbsp;
It's a misogynist – if you're looking for diversity, equality, and inclusivity, you're going to struggle to find that in a gang. They don't seem to have places for women. You can work under them, but not in the way you might want to. Just be a gang, and be a crim and be done with it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Or renounce the patch and the crime and come join us. It's not that bad. It really, really isn't. &nbsp;
You don't have to join the gang, there are other options. But for God's sake, don't dress yourself up and pretend that you're decent people, providing an alternative to the wayward and the forlorn, that the patriarchal, oppressive government has failed to provide - that is total BS.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: If you want to live outside the law, expect your life to be difficult

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/004027bf-8549-400a-b29a-b2270003e9a6/transcript

Christopher Luxon takes talkback on Kerre Woodham Mornings

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips