ACT's leader says Government departments will have to prove race-based policies have value.

Cabinet is circulating a memo to agencies with the instruction to prioritise public services on the basis of need, rather than ethnic identity.

David Seymour says a discussion needs to be had.

LISTEN ABOVE

ACT's leader says Government departments will have to prove race-based policies have value.
Cabinet is circulating a memo to agencies with the instruction to prioritise public services on the basis of need, rather than ethnic identity.
David Seymour says a discussion needs to be had.
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 Party leader on the latest Government directives

Let's talk politics, specifically the latest Taxpayers Union Curia poll. It showed a firming up of support for the Coalition Government and the parties that make that up, but Labour leader Chris Hipkins has lost support as preferred Prime Minister and the party is languishing. The party vote changes were all within the margin of error in this latest poll, but the preferred prime minister stakes saw Chris Hipkins dropping 6.1 percentage points. 

When you compare the previous Taxpayers Union Curia poll, which was in July, two months prior, so comparing apples with apples, National was up 1.4% to 39. Labour was 25.9%, that was up 0.8, but 25.9% is nothing to crow about. The Greens finally saw some downward movement after all their goings on, they seemed to be absolutely Teflon coated, but finally saw some movement down 1.5 on 11%. ACT, 8.8% around about what they got on election night, NZ First, 6.8%. Te Pati Māori 5%, up 1.5. 

Now parties do have a hard time after a trouncing in a general election and they generally look to the to the leader as the sacrificial lamb. Get rid of the leader, sacrifice them to the political gods, we can start afresh and we haven't got the bad juju from the previous election. Look at National – they had five leaders in five years before settling on Christopher Luxon. Labour after the Helen Clark years saw Phil Goff, David Shearer, David Cunliffe, Andrew Little, then finally Jacinda Ardern. Andrew Little made the call to resign just seven weeks out from the 2017 election, and history will reflect that Little's call was one of New Zealand political leadership's gutsiest. Cunliffe, Shearer and Little all went when the polls fell too low for comfort, and that was around the 24 to 25% mark. 

So here we've got Labour sitting on 26%, that is dangerously close to the knives being sharpened. Again, I think the only thing that's saving him is what saved previous political leaders from both parties: the fact that there is no obvious choice to replace him. When the party's been decimated and all the pretenders to the throne have been turfed out of office, your options are few. Chris Hipkins, when I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago was all Chipper Chippy.  

“So you will be leader leading Labour into the next election against Christopher Luxon?” “Absolutely.”

Yep, absolutely. He was confident on-air. He was confident off-air. Looking forward to it. Had a big think, have I got in in me? Yes I have. Didn't really get a chance to do what I wanted to do when I took over from Jacinda Ardern.  She said I can't do it, I said, well, I will, and I'll take us up to the election. Not really me, he said. It wasn't really my party. There was a lot of Sergeant Schultz, I see nothing, wasn't me, didn't do it. But he was there all the way through the last Labour administrations regime, he was there front and centre. So, he might not have been Prime Minister, but he certainly was a key figure in that administration. 

He may be the obvious choice at the moment, but is he ever going to be able to lead Labour back to victory? There is a strong core of electors who don't want a centre right Coalition Government. You know you've got a good block of Greens and Labour and Te Pati Māori, and then you've got the swinging voters, those in the middle, those who voted National last time but could be persuaded. Is Chris Hipkins the man to galvanise those voters or is he yesterday's man? Too much associated with the past, with the Covid years? There were some die hards who say they saved lives, who will think that by being there his reputations enhanced. I think the majority say no. When you look at him you see the Covid years, you see enormous waste of taxpayer money. 

When he said, oh yes, we want to borrow more and tax more, I almost fell off my chair. You seriously expect the electorate to trust you with more money? You have got to be kidding. So, 24-25% is when the previous Labour leaders have been goneburger, have been asked to look at other options within the job market, perhaps their talents could be better served elsewhere. Labour's on 26%. Is Chris Hipkins the man to lead Labour into the next election or does he need to make room for new ideas, fresh ideas, a new Labour leader?  

Let's talk politics, specifically the latest Taxpayers Union Curia poll. It showed a firming up of support for the Coalition Government and the parties that make that up, but Labour leader Chris Hipkins has lost support as preferred Prime Minister and the party is languishing. The party vote changes were all within the margin of error in this latest poll, but the preferred prime minister stakes saw Chris Hipkins dropping 6.1 percentage points.  
When you compare the previous Taxpayers Union Curia poll, which was in July, two months prior, so comparing apples with apples, National was up 1.4% to 39. Labour was 25.9%, that was up 0.8, but 25.9% is nothing to crow about. The Greens finally saw some downward movement after all their goings on, they seemed to be absolutely Teflon coated, but finally saw some movement down 1.5 on 11%. ACT, 8.8% around about what they got on election night, NZ First, 6.8%. Te Pati Māori 5%, up 1.5.  
Now parties do have a hard time after a trouncing in a general election and they generally look to the to the leader as the sacrificial lamb. Get rid of the leader, sacrifice them to the political gods, we can start afresh and we haven't got the bad juju from the previous election. Look at National – they had five leaders in five years before settling on Christopher Luxon. Labour after the Helen Clark years saw Phil Goff, David Shearer, David Cunliffe, Andrew Little, then finally Jacinda Ardern. Andrew Little made the call to resign just seven weeks out from the 2017 election, and history will reflect that Little's call was one of New Zealand political leadership's gutsiest. Cunliffe, Shearer and Little all went when the polls fell too low for comfort, and that was around the 24 to 25% mark.  
So here we've got Labour sitting on 26%, that is dangerously close to the knives being sharpened. Again, I think the only thing that's saving him is what saved previous political leaders from both parties: the fact that there is no obvious choice to replace him. When the party's been decimated and all the pretenders to the throne have been turfed out of office, your options are few. Chris Hipkins, when I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago was all Chipper Chippy.   
“So you will be leader leading Labour into the next election against Christopher Luxon?” “Absolutely.” 
Yep, absolutely. He was confident on-air. He was confident off-air. Looking forward to it. Had a big think, have I got in in me? Yes I have. Didn't really get a chance to do what I wanted to do when I took over from Jacinda Ardern.  She said I can't do it, I said, well, I will, and I'll take us up to the election. Not really me, he said. It wasn't really my party. There was a lot of Sergeant Schultz, I see nothing, wasn't me, didn't do it. But he was there all the way through the last Labour administrations regime, he was there front and centre. So, he might not have been Prime Minister, but he certainly was a key figure in that administration.  
He may be the obvious choice at the moment, but is he ever going to be able to lead Labour back to victory? There is a strong core of electors who don't want a centre right Coalition Government. You know you've got a good block of Greens and Labour and Te Pati Māori, and then you've got the swinging voters, those in the middle, those who voted National last time but could be persuaded. Is Chris Hipkins the man to galvanise those voters or is he yesterday's man? Too much associated with the past, with the Covid years? There were some die hards who say they saved lives, who will think that by being there his reputations enhanced. I think the majority say no. When you look at him you see the Covid years, you see enormous waste of taxpayer money.  
When he said, oh yes, we want to borrow more and tax more, I almost fell off my chair. You seriously expect the electorate to trust you with more money? You have got to be kidding. So, 24-25% is when the previous Labour leaders have been goneburger, have been asked to look at other options within the job market, perhaps their talents could be better served elsewhere. Labour's on 26%. Is Chris Hipkins the man to lead Labour into the next election or does he need to make room for new ideas, fresh ideas, a new Labour leader?

Kerre Woodham: Is Hipkins the man to lead Labour into the next election?

Chris Hipkins’ falling popularity could spell trouble for his party.

The Labour leader's slumped more than six points to 12.6% in the preferred prime minister stakes of the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll. 

National leader and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has taken a hit of 1.8 points - but is still leaps and bounds ahead on 32.7%. 

All up, the coalition parties have tightened their grip on power by gaining a seat, while the Opposition has lost two. 

Newstalk ZB Political Editor Jason Walls told Kerre Woodham that while we aren’t a presidential system, much of a political party’s popularity is based on the leader.

He said that if you have a leader doing this badly in terms of net favourability, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the party. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Chris Hipkins’ falling popularity could spell trouble for his party. 
The Labour leader's slumped more than six points to 12.6% in the preferred prime minister stakes of the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll.  
National leader and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has taken a hit of 1.8 points - but is still leaps and bounds ahead on 32.7%.  
All up, the coalition parties have tightened their grip on power by gaining a seat, while the Opposition has lost two.  
Newstalk ZB Political Editor Jason Walls told Kerre Woodham that while we aren’t a presidential system, much of a political party’s popularity is based on the leader. 
He said that if you have a leader doing this badly in terms of net favourability, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the party.  
LISTEN ABOVE

Jason Walls: Newstalk ZB Political Editor on the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll figures

So the Government's 'Phones Away For The Day' regulations came into force in state schools and kura at the beginning of term two. Schools must ensure students do not use or access a phone while they're attending school, including during lunch time and breaks.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced the policy before the election last year and there were the typical naysayers saying that'll never work. How can you enforce it, the children need their phones to be able to contact their parents, it's going to put more pressure on teachers, and so on and so forth.

The ban was part of National's plan to eliminate distractions and lift achievement within schools. And the press release cited studies that were themselves cited in the 23 Global Education Monitoring report which showed banning mobile phones improved academic performance, especially for low-performing students, and the results of the ban are starting to come in.

We read about Mt Albert Grammar today saying that they're seeing really positive results within their school. Some Taranaki high schools were ahead of the game - they're already reaping the benefits from banning mobile phone use.

I've mentioned them before, but from the beginning of last year, Waitara High School students in years 9 to 12 had to put their phones in a magnetic pouch when they arrived at school.

And Waitara is an interesting case, because initially the ban was on phones for years 9 to 12. Year 13s, Darryl Warburton the principal said, could keep them - because after all, the year 13s can wear mufti, they can sign out without parent parental consent, they're transitioning to adulthood, it makes sense for them to keep their phones.

He said he was reluctant to ban a device that's so central to modern life, it was better to teach them how to use it responsibly. That was last year

However, not having phones had got rid of a significant distraction in class, and last year the academic results in years 9 to 12 were up 15 - 20 percent, and that is not insignificant.

The only year that didn't go up was year 13. So Darryl Warburton, being a bright guy and seeing the results went - you know what? Year 13s, you've got them banned too.

This year, with the total ban, senior academic performance has also increased and other schools are reporting much the same results. Education Minister Erica Stanford says the results so far are promising.

"Yeah, we're seeing it all over the country. I mean, there was a little bit of grumbling from especially kids like my daughter straight away, but actually we're seeing really positive results from all of the principals I teach to. And actually, interestingly, the kids as well. And the biggest difference this has, we know from research, is our low socioeconomic girls and their mental health and that's a massive win."

Massive win indeed. I found it quite amusing listening to the Secondary School Principals President Vaughan Couillault on the ban this morning.

"I still believe that vaping is a bigger issue than cell phone devices. However, I am always happy to take it on the chin and say the cell phone ban probably has added value to the work that we're doing on campus rather than distracting from it."

Talk about damn with faint praise. Spit it out Vaughan! It’s a good policy and let's introduce it for vaping now as well. To his credit he did say - yes it's probably making life a bit easier in the classroom, not out of the classroom, though and vaping is a bigger problem, but yes, okay, yes, it is working.

You might not like the party or the policy but if it's good for the kids, if it's improving their mental well-being, if it's improving their academic performance, if it's making life easier for teachers to teach, where's the harm?

So yes, as he says, when it comes to vaping, if you can introduce the ban on cell phones, if you can see positive results as a result of banning cell phone use during school hours, why not ban vaping? I just can't understand how it's not.

It was a known thing that you did not smoke at school. I mean, everyone talks about having a few fags behind the bike sheds. I don't think at Sacred Heart Girls College, Hamilton, there were even fags behind the bike sheds.

You just didn't smoke at school, so - how is how is vaping even a thing at school?

These days when I'm emceeing, I have to go through the health and safety in the event of a fire, and I say there is no smoking or vaping on the grounds and no vaping or smoking anywhere near the venue.

The only place you could probably find to vape or smoke are the Auckland Grammar girl’s toilets, that seems to be about the only place where you'll hear of people vaping. In the school loos? How is that even possible? How are they not banned?

And for people who say banning doesn't work, - well, you'd have to say that the cell phones which are ubiquitous, which everyone said would be incredibly difficult to police. Well, no, not really.

Vapes are smaller, they can be hidden on your person - and you can see the puffs coming out of the school loos. You know what's going on.

If Vaughan can grudgingly, through clenched teeth, concede that yes, perhaps the ban on cell phones has been a good thing in schools, then I can agree with Vaughan that he's right, that banning vaping would also be a very, very good thing to do.

Give the kids some boundaries, give them some rules and watch them actually enjoy having those boundaries, having those limits on what they can and cannot do and benefiting from them.

LISTEN ABOVE

So the Government's 'Phones Away For The Day' regulations came into force in state schools and kura at the beginning of term two. Schools must ensure students do not use or access a phone while they're attending school, including during lunch time and breaks.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced the policy before the election last year and there were the typical naysayers saying that'll never work. How can you enforce it, the children need their phones to be able to contact their parents, it's going to put more pressure on teachers, and so on and so forth.
The ban was part of National's plan to eliminate distractions and lift achievement within schools. And the press release cited studies that were themselves cited in the 23 Global Education Monitoring report which showed banning mobile phones improved academic performance, especially for low-performing students, and the results of the ban are starting to come in.
We read about Mt Albert Grammar today saying that they're seeing really positive results within their school. Some Taranaki high schools were ahead of the game - they're already reaping the benefits from banning mobile phone use.
I've mentioned them before, but from the beginning of last year, Waitara High School students in years 9 to 12 had to put their phones in a magnetic pouch when they arrived at school.
And Waitara is an interesting case, because initially the ban was on phones for years 9 to 12. Year 13s, Darryl Warburton the principal said, could keep them - because after all, the year 13s can wear mufti, they can sign out without parent parental consent, they're transitioning to adulthood, it makes sense for them to keep their phones.
He said he was reluctant to ban a device that's so central to modern life, it was better to teach them how to use it responsibly. That was last year
However, not having phones had got rid of a significant distraction in class, and last year the academic results in years 9 to 12 were up 15 - 20 percent, and that is not insignificant.
The only year that didn't go up was year 13. So Darryl Warburton, being a bright guy and seeing the results went - you know what? Year 13s, you've got them banned too.
This year, with the total ban, senior academic performance has also increased and other schools are reporting much the same results. Education Minister Erica Stanford says the results so far are promising.
"Yeah, we're seeing it all over the country. I mean, there was a little bit of grumbling from especially kids like my daughter straight away, but actually we're seeing really positive results from all of the principals I teach to. And actually, interestingly, the kids as well. And the biggest difference this has, we know from research, is our low socioeconomic girls and their mental health and that's a massive win."
Massive win indeed. I found it quite amusing listening to the Secondary School Principals President Vaughan Couillault on the ban this morning.
"I still believe that vaping is a bigger issue than cell phone devices. However, I am always happy to take it on the chin and say the cell phone ban probably has added value to the work that we're doing on campus rather than distracting from it."
Talk about damn with faint praise. Spit it out Vaughan! It’s a good policy and let's introduce it for vaping now as well. To his credit he did say - yes it's probably making life a bit easier in the classroom, not out of the classroom, though and vaping is a bigger problem, but yes, okay, yes, it is working.
You might not like the party or the policy but if it's good for the kids, if it's improving their mental well-being, if it's improving their academic performance, if it's making life easier for teachers to teach, where's the harm?
So yes, as he says, when it comes to vaping, if you can introduce the ban on cell phones, if you can see positive results as a result of banning cell phone use during school hours, why not ban vaping? I just can't understand how it's not.
It was a known thing that you did not smoke at school. I mean, everyone talks about having a few fags behind the bike sheds. I don't think at Sacred Heart Girls College, Hamilton, there were even fags behind the bike sheds.
You just didn't smoke at school, so - how is how is vaping even a thing at school?
These days when I'm emceeing, I have to go through the health and safety in the event of a fire, and I say there is no smoking or vaping on the grounds and no vaping or smoking anywhere near the venue.
The only place you could probably find to vape or smoke are the Auckland Grammar girl’s toilets, that seems to be about the only place where you'll hear of people vaping. In the school loos? How is that even possible? How are they not banned?
And for people who say banning doesn't work, - well, you'd have to say that the cell phones which are ubiquitous, which everyone said would be incredibly difficult to police. Well, no, not really.
Vapes are smaller, they can be hidden on your person - and you can see the puffs coming out of the school loos. You know what's going on.
If Vaughan can grudgingly, through clenched teeth, concede that yes, perhaps the ban on cell phones has been a good thing in schools, then I can agree with Vaughan that he's right, that banning vaping would also be a very, very good thing to do.
Give the kids some boundaries, give them some rules and watch them actually enjoy having those boundaries, having those limits on what they can and cannot do and benefiting from them.
LISTEN ABOVE

David Seymour: ACT Party leader on the latest Government directives

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips