The National Party has ruled out coming to any arrangement with Te Pāti Māori in forming a National-led government after the 2023 election.

The only party that National will be able to work with is Act.

Act are they're strong ideologically, so questions have been asked as to how easy they would be to work with in a coalition.

Act Party Leader David Seymour told Kerre Woodham a vote for Act over National is a vote for a stronger brew on the right.

"Make sure that we don't get another government where National campaigns from the right and governs from the left, they've done that five times in our history."

LISTEN ABOVE

The National Party has ruled out coming to any arrangement with Te Pāti Māori in forming a National-led government after the 2023 election.
The only party that National will be able to work with is Act.
Act are they're strong ideologically, so questions have been asked as to how easy they would be to work with in a coalition.
Act Party Leader David Seymour told Kerre Woodham a vote for Act over National is a vote for a stronger brew on the right.
"Make sure that we don't get another government where National campaigns from the right and governs from the left, they've done that five times in our history."
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

David Seymour: Act leader says a vote for Act prevents a National govt that campaigns from the right and governs from the left

This election is highlighting yet another war being fought on the ideological battleground that is education. Charter schools, as they operate now, are in the sights of Labour because they're doing something different. To be fair, Labour's never liked the idea of schools operating under their own curriculum. Nothing new there. As Chris Hipkins told Mike Hosking this morning, they're all for new ideas in education, so long as the schools follow the party line. 

CH: I believe that when you're spending public money on education, there needs to be good, strong accountability. Schools, there should be a level playing field. There are gaps in our education system. Some of those charter schools are doing interesting things. They can do that within the public education system. 

MH: Interesting or good? 

CH: Well, some of them are good. And but we demonstrated last time, I think of the charter of the schools that were set up as charter schools last time, most of them are still operating. They're still operating within the public education system and they're operating successfully. 

Yes, but under the party line, aren't they? Not doing their own thing. Partnership schools, as they were once known, opened in 2014 born out of frustration from parents who could see the state school system was failing their children. They were closed by the Labour Government in 2018 and either shut their doors or became state integrated or special character schools. The charter school model was brought back following the 2023 election. David Seymour, the Associate Education Minister and champion of charter schools, says families are choosing charter schools precisely because they offer something different.  

You can see by attendance whether they're working for parents or not. Seymour cites Northwest College. That grew from 22 students in March 2025 to 150 by July of this year. Five of the first seven charter schools, he says, exceeded their attendance targets in the first year. Five exceeded their achievement targets. At Tipene, initial assessments on February 25th found more than half of students were below expected level in maths, reading, and writing. By the end of the year, 81% were achieving at or above the expected level in maths, 79% in reading, 80% in writing. 

Parents are choosing to take their children to these different schools. Schools that are run differently, that operate differently, because their kids run and operate differently on different programs. You know, a state school education works pretty well for most kids. The quality of it, well, we can debate that, but for most kids, they fit in. The school suits them, they suit the school. But for other kids, it doesn't. It doesn't work at all. And until the charter schools came along, there was really very little you could do. You just had to try and mash a square peg into a round hole. And it wasn't comfortable for either the school or the student or the family. 

If you've got a school that opens with 22 students in March 2025 and then just over a year later the school rolls grow to 150, doesn't that indicate that the school is working? And it's working because parents are telling each other about it, they're sharing the results they're getting with their children. They're saying we don't have to come and pick up the child from school because they simply cannot be there. They're saying our child is willing to get up and go to school. That is a win for a lot of families. Forget about what happens when they get there. The fact they walk through the school gates is a win for a lot of families. 

And there's got to be flexibility. I just cannot understand why everybody has to march to Labour's drumbeat. You know, what about what happened to interpretive dance off on the side somewhere? You know, some people are more interpretive dancers than they are rigidly marching in formation. And if the schools are working, if there's accountability, if the teachers are accredited, if you're ticking boxes and teachers and principals and families have the freedom to find the best way to educate a certain cohort of children, then everybody wins. The poor little square pegs who are trying to be mashed into the round hole aren't disrupting the rest of the class. The teachers aren't expected to do specialist teaching when they're generalists. They're not feeling frustrated and cross because they can't give that one child everything that one child needs and they know they're not giving the other 32 the time and attention they deserve.  

I just don't understand why, so long as you've got quality control, and surely the parents would dictate that, if you've ticked off all the quality control boxes, why can't Labour let people educate their own children the best way they see fit? 

This election is highlighting yet another war being fought on the ideological battleground that is education. Charter schools, as they operate now, are in the sights of Labour because they're doing something different. To be fair, Labour's never liked the idea of schools operating under their own curriculum. Nothing new there. As Chris Hipkins told Mike Hosking this morning, they're all for new ideas in education, so long as the schools follow the party line.&nbsp;
CH: I believe that when you're spending public money on education, there needs to be good, strong accountability. Schools, there should be a level playing field. There are gaps in our education system. Some of those charter schools are doing interesting things. They can do that within the public education system.&nbsp;
MH: Interesting or good?&nbsp;
CH: Well, some of them are good. And but we demonstrated last time, I think of the charter of the schools that were set up as charter schools last time, most of them are still operating. They're still operating within the public education system and they're operating successfully.&nbsp;
Yes, but under the party line, aren't they? Not doing their own thing. Partnership schools, as they were once known, opened in 2014 born out of frustration from parents who could see the state school system was failing their children. They were closed by the Labour Government in 2018 and either shut their doors or became state integrated or special character schools. The charter school model was brought back following the 2023 election. David Seymour, the Associate Education Minister and champion of charter schools, says families are choosing charter schools precisely because they offer something different. &nbsp;
You can see by attendance whether they're working for parents or not. Seymour cites Northwest College. That grew from 22 students in March 2025 to 150 by July of this year. Five of the first seven charter schools, he says, exceeded their attendance targets in the first year. Five exceeded their achievement targets. At Tipene, initial assessments on February 25th found more than half of students were below expected level in maths, reading, and writing. By the end of the year, 81% were achieving at or above the expected level in maths, 79% in reading, 80% in writing.&nbsp;
Parents are choosing to take their children to these different schools. Schools that are run differently, that operate differently, because their kids run and operate differently on different programs. You know, a state school education works pretty well for most kids. The quality of it, well, we can debate that, but for most kids, they fit in. The school suits them, they suit the school. But for other kids, it doesn't. It doesn't work at all. And until the charter schools came along, there was really very little you could do. You just had to try and mash a square peg into a round hole. And it wasn't comfortable for either the school or the student or the family.&nbsp;
If you've got a school that opens with 22 students in March 2025 and then just over a year later the school rolls grow to 150, doesn't that indicate that the school is working? And it's working because parents are telling each other about it, they're sharing the results they're getting with their children. They're saying we don't have to come and pick up the child from school because they simply cannot be there. They're saying our child is willing to get up and go to school. That is a win for a lot of families. Forget about what happens when they get there. The fact they walk through the school gates is a win for a lot of families.&nbsp;
And there's got to be flexibility. I just cannot understand why everybody has to march to Labour's drumbeat. You know, what about what happened to interpretive dance off on the side somewhere? You know, some people are more interpretive dancers than they are rigidly marching in formation. And if the schools are working, if there's accountability, if the teachers are accredited, if you're ticking boxes and teachers and principals and families have the freedom to find the best way to educate a certain cohort of children, then everybody wins. The poor little square pegs who are trying to be mashed into the round hole aren't disrupting the rest of the class. The teachers aren't expected to do specialist teaching when they're generalists. They're not feeling frustrated and cross because they can't give that one child everything that one child needs and they know they're not giving the other 32 the time and attention they deserve. &nbsp;
I just don't understand why, so long as you've got quality control, and surely the parents would dictate that, if you've ticked off all the quality control boxes, why can't Labour let people educate their own children the best way they see fit?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Why does everyone have to march to Labour's educational drumbeat?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c6ef5fc8-04a6-4623-87c3-b4dd000dcb01/transcript

Hopes new rules will stop people stripping our beaches of kaimoana. 

From November 1st there will be a ban on collecting and recreational gathering of shellfish and mussels from Auckland and Coromandel's rockpools and intertidal zones. 

There will also be daily limits on crabs, octopus, prawns, sea cucumbers, and squid. 

Protect Whangaparaoa Rockpools founder Mark Lenton told Kerre Woodham a local ban on Whangaparaoa, which started in March, has done wonders.  

He says there's been a natural regeneration of life.  

However, Lenton says guarding the coastlines can be a dangerous job as the law can be tough to enforce.  

He says fisheries officers wear stab-proof vests and he's been threatened while patrolling. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Hopes new rules will stop people stripping our beaches of kaimoana.&nbsp;
From November 1st there will be a ban on collecting and recreational gathering of shellfish and mussels from Auckland and Coromandel's rockpools and intertidal zones.&nbsp;
There will also be daily limits on crabs, octopus, prawns, sea cucumbers, and squid.&nbsp;
Protect Whangaparaoa Rockpools founder Mark Lenton told Kerre Woodham a local ban on Whangaparaoa, which started in March, has done wonders. &nbsp;
He says there's been a natural regeneration of life. &nbsp;
However, Lenton says guarding the coastlines can be a dangerous job as the law can be tough to enforce. &nbsp;
He says fisheries officers wear stab-proof vests and he's been threatened while patrolling.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Mark Lenton: Protect Whangaparaoa Rockpools Founder on the crackdown on recreational gathering of shellfish and mussels, rockpool vandalism

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/96daa778-e607-432a-8d36-b4dd00036c7e/transcript

Well last night I took my mum to the Q Theatre to see a performance of Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, which was fantastic. Last couple of days, I really recommend you get along and see it – I think there's a few tickets left. It was fantastic. And then I had to come home and watch the leaders' debate on demand, and I know what I'd rather have been watching, that's for sure. I agree with Mike, the format of these "debates", in inverted commas, because they're not debates. A debate as I remember it from our cup winning Sacred Heart debating team, was where each speaker got the chance to make a speech around a certain premise or topic, why I would be the best Prime Minister for New Zealand, and then the second speaker got a chance to argue against it and rebut and finesse some of the points that were made by the first speaker. It was a proper speech, debate, argument, considered, reasoned. This is not a debate. I'd say it's a television performance. And I was listening to Mike this morning and he said that he was arguing against the format in 1997, and I couldn't agree more. Oh no, 2017 but he was probably arguing about it in 1997 as well. It's outmoded, past its use by date. 

I thought Jack Tame did as good a job as he could given the format. He was very even handed, but he's trying to cover so many topics. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. But then I have to remember that I'm in a privileged position where I talk the news every single day. I'm reading, absorbing, digesting the news, party political statements, press releases every single day, and most people have the luxury of not having to do that. So I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. And the single word yes or no answers, again it comes back to the fact that's not a debate, it's a performance. It's not elucidating, it's not insightful – all you got to see was who was better on the telly than the other. And on that, within the limitations of the format, I thought Chris Hipkins was very good. He came across well, he acknowledged work that National had done, recognised where he believed he could have done better when he was Prime Minister. I thought he came across well. And Christopher Luxon was way better than I thought he was going to be. I thought Chris Hipkins would wipe the floor with him, but he coped well in that environment. 

Ultimately did we learn anything though? That's what I keep coming back to. I get far more from the hour that I get to have with each leader where they can sit down and have the time to properly talk, they can articulate policy, you get to hear a bit about the person. And while I accept that my questioning is more gentle nibbling from a toothless chihuahua than a kind of mauling from an attack dog, Jack didn't really get the opportunity in that format to do the good hard attacking journo questions either. You get far more of that on Q&A, where you can see again that Jack's really done his homework and puts them to the sword when he gets the party/political leaders in. I think we'd have learned more having reruns of Q&A on in that time slot than that debate. More of the long form, less of last night really.  

The only thing that really came back when I was, and again I didn't watch it all including the ads, I was skimming through it, but you'd have to wonder why anyone under 50 would vote for Labour when they won't even look at options around the Super. There were some truly dumb questions in there, and I'd have to ask why Christopher Luxon just will not work with Opportunity. Like flat out. I mean he might not want to, but could he not be a little bit more accommodating perhaps in his language? Anyway, love to hear your thoughts on this if you were good citizens and endured and watched, I'd love to hear your feedback. But seriously, there's some really good pieces in the Listener where Danyl McLauchlan has gone through and is looking at policy and each party's response to it and the experts are giving their opinions on whether it's good, bad or ugly policy. There are hour long debates with the different spokespeople on their portfolios. I've got the hours with the party leaders. I'm not sure I'll watch another debate. I just don't get enough out of it to make me invest that time. 

Well last night I took my mum to the Q Theatre to see a performance of Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, which was fantastic. Last couple of days, I really recommend you get along and see it – I think there's a few tickets left. It was fantastic. And then I had to come home and watch the leaders' debate on demand, and I know what I'd rather have been watching, that's for sure. I agree with Mike, the format of these "debates", in inverted commas, because they're not debates. A debate as I remember it from our cup winning Sacred Heart debating team, was where each speaker got the chance to make a speech around a certain premise or topic, why I would be the best Prime Minister for New Zealand, and then the second speaker got a chance to argue against it and rebut and finesse some of the points that were made by the first speaker. It was a proper speech, debate, argument, considered, reasoned. This is not a debate. I'd say it's a television performance. And I was listening to Mike this morning and he said that he was arguing against the format in 1997, and I couldn't agree more. Oh no, 2017 but he was probably arguing about it in 1997 as well. It's outmoded, past its use by date.&nbsp;
I thought Jack Tame did as good a job as he could given the format. He was very even handed, but he's trying to cover so many topics. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. But then I have to remember that I'm in a privileged position where I talk the news every single day. I'm reading, absorbing, digesting the news, party political statements, press releases every single day, and most people have the luxury of not having to do that. So I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. And the single word yes or no answers, again it comes back to the fact that's not a debate, it's a performance. It's not elucidating, it's not insightful – all you got to see was who was better on the telly than the other. And on that, within the limitations of the format, I thought Chris Hipkins was very good. He came across well, he acknowledged work that National had done, recognised where he believed he could have done better when he was Prime Minister. I thought he came across well. And Christopher Luxon was way better than I thought he was going to be. I thought Chris Hipkins would wipe the floor with him, but he coped well in that environment.&nbsp;
Ultimately did we learn anything though? That's what I keep coming back to. I get far more from the hour that I get to have with each leader where they can sit down and have the time to properly talk, they can articulate policy, you get to hear a bit about the person. And while I accept that my questioning is more gentle nibbling from a toothless chihuahua than a kind of mauling from an attack dog, Jack didn't really get the opportunity in that format to do the good hard attacking journo questions either. You get far more of that on Q&amp;A, where you can see again that Jack's really done his homework and puts them to the sword when he gets the party/political leaders in. I think we'd have learned more having reruns of Q&amp;A on in that time slot than that debate. More of the long form, less of last night really. &nbsp;
The only thing that really came back when I was, and again I didn't watch it all including the ads, I was skimming through it, but you'd have to wonder why anyone under 50 would vote for Labour when they won't even look at options around the Super. There were some truly dumb questions in there, and I'd have to ask why Christopher Luxon just will not work with Opportunity. Like flat out. I mean he might not want to, but could he not be a little bit more accommodating perhaps in his language? Anyway, love to hear your thoughts on this if you were good citizens and endured and watched, I'd love to hear your feedback. But seriously, there's some really good pieces in the Listener where Danyl McLauchlan has gone through and is looking at policy and each party's response to it and the experts are giving their opinions on whether it's good, bad or ugly policy. There are hour long debates with the different spokespeople on their portfolios. I've got the hours with the party leaders. I'm not sure I'll watch another debate. I just don't get enough out of it to make me invest that time.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Did we learn anything from the leaders debate?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/97835ea6-81bf-47d6-b5fc-b4dc000cde1a/transcript

David Seymour: Act leader says a vote for Act prevents a National govt that campaigns from the right and governs from the left

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips