National's Erica Stanford says the Government's put a lot of work into boosting educational outcomes - and she wants students to improve. 

The Party is campaigning on requiring students to stay in school until they finish Year 11, rather than being able to leave as soon as they turn 16.

Stanford says the best place for these young people to be is in school, where they can get the proper support they need. 

"Where is the best place for a 16-year-old who feels like that? In our school, where we know where they are, we can wrap around supports, we can put these things in place where we can have the guidance counsellors and the careers councillors talking to them." 

LISTEN ABOVE

National's Erica Stanford says the Government's put a lot of work into boosting educational outcomes - and she wants students to improve.&nbsp;
The Party is campaigning on requiring students to stay in school until they finish Year 11, rather than being able to leave as soon as they turn 16.
Stanford says the best place for these young people to be is in school, where they can get the proper support they need.&nbsp;
"Where is the best place for a 16-year-old who feels like that? In our school, where we know where they are, we can wrap around supports, we can put these things in place where we can have the guidance counsellors and the careers councillors talking to them."&nbsp;
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

Erica Stanford: National's Education spokesperson on the party campaigning on requiring students to finish Year 11

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a7dcfa09-bd66-420a-83b4-b4e001795348/transcript

I've seen a few posts on my social media over the past month from young people moaning that "they're locking us out of voting". They, presumably being the rich white patriarchal establishment, us, presumably being the 18 to 24 year olds. What absolute hogwash. Yes, the rules around enrolment have changed and same day enrolment is no longer possible, but they are doing everything they can to get young people registered to vote and have been doing so since time immemorial, since every election.  

In 2020 the Electoral Commission paid 12 Kiwi social media stars a combined $160k or thereabouts to create and share dozens of pieces of nonpartisan content about voting on their TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook pages. Overall, in 2020 the Commission spent $3 million on advertising that targeted 18 to 29 year olds alone. The budgeting bill for advertising was higher than that, but $3 million was spent on younger voters. It'll be more this time round, heaven only knows what's been spent, it'll take an OIA to find out.  

I don't think there's anything wrong with a message that says if you want to vote, you've got to take it seriously. Registering is a very good start to understanding that with rights come responsibilities. If you want to vote, you have to think about it. If you want to vote, you have to get your act together and enrol. A young colleague was saying to me this very morning that an acquaintance of hers, who would describe herself as an activist and will attend a protest march at the drop of a keffiyeh, posted that she wouldn't normally use her platform to encourage people to vote, but this one matters. What is wrong with using your platform to encourage people to vote?  

I know it's a lot harder to think about issues and problems that we have at home, far easier to rig yourself up a witty slogan painted on a placard and get out there and march, be on the six o'clock news, show that you care. Actually showing that you care is registering, voting, taking an interest, reading the policies, things that 18 to 24 year olds are perfectly capable of doing. And interestingly, of those young people who do get off their chuffs and enrol to vote, they show up on election day.  

Mike was quoting a story from the Herald this morning that showed in '23, 74% of young people who were enrolled to vote did in fact cast their vote. They were the biggest proportion of the enrolled voting population to actually use the power of their vote to cast it. It matters. In our household, I think we've got three of us voting differently across the spectrum. And that's okay, that's democracy, and aren't we lucky to live in a society where men and women can debate political matters, can turn up without fear of getting mown down to cast their vote, to know that for all its faults and for all a few spot issues, voting is fair, you're not going to get corruption at the ballot box.  

It's an imperfect society in which we live. Very few of us going to get a government that we're passionate about. For a lot of us, turning up to vote is going to be holding your nose and ticking the box. But it matters. And if young people cannot be bothered, not be sufficiently informed to understand that they have to enrol to vote, they can't rock up on voting day, then perhaps they shouldn't be in possession of a vote. If they don't care enough, they're not informed enough to know that they need to be enrolled, fine by me if they don't cast their vote. 

I've seen a few posts on my social media over the past month from young people moaning that "they're locking us out of voting". They, presumably being the rich white patriarchal establishment, us, presumably being the 18 to 24 year olds. What absolute hogwash. Yes, the rules around enrolment have changed and same day enrolment is no longer possible, but they are doing everything they can to get young people registered to vote and have been doing so since time immemorial, since every election. &nbsp;
In 2020 the Electoral Commission paid 12 Kiwi social media stars a combined $160k or thereabouts to create and share dozens of pieces of nonpartisan content about voting on their TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook pages. Overall, in 2020 the Commission spent $3 million on advertising that targeted 18 to 29 year olds alone. The budgeting bill for advertising was higher than that, but $3 million was spent on younger voters. It'll be more this time round, heaven only knows what's been spent, it'll take an OIA to find out. &nbsp;
I don't think there's anything wrong with a message that says if you want to vote, you've got to take it seriously. Registering is a very good start to understanding that with rights come responsibilities. If you want to vote, you have to think about it. If you want to vote, you have to get your act together and enrol. A young colleague was saying to me this very morning that an acquaintance of hers, who would describe herself as an activist and will attend a protest march at the drop of a keffiyeh, posted that she wouldn't normally use her platform to encourage people to vote, but this one matters. What is wrong with using your platform to encourage people to vote? &nbsp;
I know it's a lot harder to think about issues and problems that we have at home, far easier to rig yourself up a witty slogan painted on a placard and get out there and march, be on the six o'clock news, show that you care. Actually showing that you care is registering, voting, taking an interest, reading the policies, things that 18 to 24 year olds are perfectly capable of doing. And interestingly, of those young people who do get off their chuffs and enrol to vote, they show up on election day. &nbsp;
Mike was quoting a story from the Herald this morning that showed in '23, 74% of young people who were enrolled to vote did in fact cast their vote. They were the biggest proportion of the enrolled voting population to actually use the power of their vote to cast it. It matters. In our household, I think we've got three of us voting differently across the spectrum. And that's okay, that's democracy, and aren't we lucky to live in a society where men and women can debate political matters, can turn up without fear of getting mown down to cast their vote, to know that for all its faults and for all a few spot issues, voting is fair, you're not going to get corruption at the ballot box. &nbsp;
It's an imperfect society in which we live. Very few of us going to get a government that we're passionate about. For a lot of us, turning up to vote is going to be holding your nose and ticking the box. But it matters. And if young people cannot be bothered, not be sufficiently informed to understand that they have to enrol to vote, they can't rock up on voting day, then perhaps they shouldn't be in possession of a vote. If they don't care enough, they're not informed enough to know that they need to be enrolled, fine by me if they don't cast their vote.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: If you want to vote, you have to take it seriously

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6ef547c1-dbc9-4c6c-8c73-b4e1017c6b4b/transcript

Well, it looks like a matter of when, not if, given that Barbara Edmonds and Nicola Willis, Finance Minister and Finance spokesperson respectively, were appearing on Jack Tame's Q&A yesterday, and they've agreed they'll work together on the future of superannuation in this country.

This is Nicola Willis:

"We can afford superannuation right now, but in the future the settings are going to have to change in order to ensure that it's sustainable and that every Kiwi knows that they can rely on the government to support them in their retirement. If we don't make changes, we are going to end up in a situation where we can't foot that bill. So what National has said for a couple of elections now, is let's come together and agree on a date in the future when we will start progressively, modestly increasing the age of eligibility in a way that is predictable and fair on New Zealanders, so that younger generations coming through don't miss out on the entitlement that people today are getting. And we have called on Labour to work with us on that, to do this in a way that's open, honest, transparent and fair."

And Barbara Edmonds, Labour's finance spokesperson, said absolutely, they're more than happy to have an accord, but they want to look at the wider issues around superannuation:

"Well, ultimately it comes down to the full retirement system. The conversation with New Zealanders needs to be what is KiwiSaver, when you have these large sums of money, what does that decumulation framework look like as people start to spend that money? What does universal super look like when contributions are being stopped by Governments? How do we stop that flip flop? How does housing, what does housing look like for our aged care? Is that part of that wider aged care system? Is it retirement homes? Are we building sufficient social housing to meet that need? So that conversation around universal super needs to happen within the wider conversation around the retirement system as a whole. What do Kiwis expect when they go to retire, young and old right now, and how do we get there?"

So big questions, but the agreement was around an accord to sit down together and work out, thrash out when and how the age of universal super will be raised. And ACT has always said they want to raise the superannuation age by three months every year, put contributions to the New Zealand Super Fund on hold, and they would include compassionate access for those who'd spent a substantial portion of their career in physically demanding jobs.

David Seymour spoke to Tim Beverage on Newstalk ZB yesterday:

"People are living much longer and having far fewer children. That means that the number of taxpayers per retiree is going down. Every other country is raising its age of entitlement to superannuation. And I know there's people who will try and get a few votes by saying, oh that guy's wrong, vote for me, we'll keep it all the same. I don't think that that is putting New Zealand's long term interests first. I think it's important that we make the adjustment, but we do it slowly so people can plan for it. It goes from 65 to 67 it affects no one that's already retired, and we do a few other things."

So National, Labour, ACT, all in agreement that the age of entitlement needs to go up, and it's just ironing out the finer points. I still don't understand why we would be giving superannuation to people who do not need it.

On the 1st of November 1898 New Zealand was the first in the world to give an old age pension, which we call the Super these days. There was stringent criteria, including open court hearings to attest that you were of good moral character before you could receive it. How many of the old rockers would pass that now, I wonder to myself? Myself included. 

Through the Social Security Act in 1938 a two tier public pension system was introduced, and that lasted up until the 1970s, and then New Zealand Super became the Super that we have today, that Super's been around for more than 50 years without any kind of changes, which seems bizarre. 

So in the beginning we had means testing and open court hearings for good moral character. I think we'll do away with those, thinking purely of myself here, I don't think we need to go through those.

In the 1930s, they changed it to a Super, but there was also means testing as well. In the 1970s it was just universal, didn't matter if you were a billionaire or not, you got the Super. Benefits and taxpayer funded payments these days tend to go to people who need them, other than Super. That just goes to everybody.

I'd love to hear from those of you 60 and under, because this is who it's really going to affect. All of you over 60 you don't have to worry. If it goes up as of the next Government, it'll be three months at a time, it's neither here nor there really.

But for those 60 and under, this is who it's really going to affect. Super in the future as far as I'm concerned would look like it does in Australia. 67 means and asset tested, and a resident of the country. 

And like ACT, I think there should be the ability to get the Super early if you're in a truly physical job where your body's breaking down, or a really high stress job where you're exposed to all sorts of trauma, like a frontline responder or something like that.

But hopefully by the time somebody who's working now, who's 35 gets to 67 they'll have a good healthy sum locked away in their KiwiSaver. Hopefully they'll have their own house because you'll be able to buy one at a good price around about now. And then the super will be there as a backup, but if you need it.

Take it back to the future, take it back to how it was originally intended, so that it was mainly for single men, because in the olden days they believed that family should look after you. If you were a single man, you were stuffed once you got old and couldn't work anymore, so it was primarily for the single men who didn't have family that could take them in.

But keep it for those who need it, the same way that we give the dole to those who need it while they're looking for work in an ideal world, the sickness benefit, disability benefit, working for families benefit, for those people who need it. Not just holus bolus as a little yay for you, you survived to 65.

LISTEN ABOVE

Well, it looks like a matter of when, not if, given that Barbara Edmonds and Nicola Willis, Finance Minister and Finance spokesperson respectively, were appearing on Jack Tame's Q&amp;A yesterday, and they've agreed they'll work together on the future of superannuation in this country.
This is Nicola Willis:
"We can afford superannuation right now, but in the future the settings are going to have to change in order to ensure that it's sustainable and that every Kiwi knows that they can rely on the government to support them in their retirement. If we don't make changes, we are going to end up in a situation where we can't foot that bill. So what National has said for a couple of elections now, is let's come together and agree on a date in the future when we will start progressively, modestly increasing the age of eligibility in a way that is predictable and fair on New Zealanders, so that younger generations coming through don't miss out on the entitlement that people today are getting. And we have called on Labour to work with us on that, to do this in a way that's open, honest, transparent and fair."
And Barbara Edmonds, Labour's finance spokesperson, said absolutely, they're more than happy to have an accord, but they want to look at the wider issues around superannuation:
"Well, ultimately it comes down to the full retirement system. The conversation with New Zealanders needs to be what is KiwiSaver, when you have these large sums of money, what does that decumulation framework look like as people start to spend that money? What does universal super look like when contributions are being stopped by Governments? How do we stop that flip flop? How does housing, what does housing look like for our aged care? Is that part of that wider aged care system? Is it retirement homes? Are we building sufficient social housing to meet that need? So that conversation around universal super needs to happen within the wider conversation around the retirement system as a whole. What do Kiwis expect when they go to retire, young and old right now, and how do we get there?"
So big questions, but the agreement was around an accord to sit down together and work out, thrash out when and how the age of universal super will be raised. And ACT has always said they want to raise the superannuation age by three months every year, put contributions to the New Zealand Super Fund on hold, and they would include compassionate access for those who'd spent a substantial portion of their career in physically demanding jobs.
David Seymour spoke to Tim Beverage on Newstalk ZB yesterday:
"People are living much longer and having far fewer children. That means that the number of taxpayers per retiree is going down. Every other country is raising its age of entitlement to superannuation. And I know there's people who will try and get a few votes by saying, oh that guy's wrong, vote for me, we'll keep it all the same. I don't think that that is putting New Zealand's long term interests first. I think it's important that we make the adjustment, but we do it slowly so people can plan for it. It goes from 65 to 67 it affects no one that's already retired, and we do a few other things."
So National, Labour, ACT, all in agreement that the age of entitlement needs to go up, and it's just ironing out the finer points. I still don't understand why we would be giving superannuation to people who do not need it.
On the 1st of November 1898 New Zealand was the first in the world to give an old age pension, which we call the Super these days. There was stringent criteria, including open court hearings to attest that you were of good moral character before you could receive it. How many of the old rockers would pass that now, I wonder to myself? Myself included.&nbsp;
Through the Social Security Act in 1938 a two tier public pension system was introduced, and that lasted up until the 1970s, and then New Zealand Super became the Super that we have today, that Super's been around for more than 50 years without any kind of changes, which seems bizarre.&nbsp;
So in the beginning we had means testing and open court hearings for good moral character. I think we'll do away with those, thinking purely of myself here, I don't think we need to go through those.
In the 1930s, they changed it to a Super, but there was also means testing as well. In the 1970s it was just universal, didn't matter if you were a billionaire or not, you got the Super. Benefits and taxpayer funded payments these days tend to go to people who need them, other than Super. That just goes to everybody.
I'd love to hear from those of you 60 and under, because this is who it's really going to affect. All of you over 60 you don't have to worry. If it goes up as of the next Government, it'll be three months at a time, it's neither here nor there really.
But for those 60 and under, this is who it's really going to affect. Super in the future as far as I'm concerned would look like it does in Australia. 67 means and asset tested, and a resident of the country.&nbsp;
And like ACT, I think there should be the ability to get the Super early if you're in a truly physical job where your body's breaking down, or a really high stress job where you're exposed to all sorts of trauma, like a frontline responder or something like that.
But hopefully by the time somebody who's working now, who's 35 gets to 67 they'll have a good healthy sum locked away in their KiwiSaver. Hopefully they'll have their own house because you'll be able to buy one at a good price around about now. And then the super will be there as a backup, but if you need it.
Take it back to the future, take it back to how it was originally intended, so that it was mainly for single men, because in the olden days they believed that family should look after you.&nbsp;If you were a single man, you were stuffed once you got old and couldn't work anymore, so it was primarily for the single men who didn't have family that could take them in.
But keep it for those who need it, the same way that we give the dole to those who need it while they're looking for work in an ideal world, the sickness benefit, disability benefit, working for families benefit, for those people who need it. Not just holus bolus as a little yay for you, you survived to 65.
LISTEN ABOVE

Kerre Woodham: We need to have a discussion about the future of NZ Super

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/9b2e9e09-2890-4b8f-9bcf-b4e0017d14bf/transcript

Northland's MP believes National's plan to introduce drug testing for beneficiaries is a smart move. 

It's proposing ten thousand random drug tests next year – ramping up over the years. 

It also wants to reduce payments from April 2028 for people who've collected it for two of the previous three years, with a smaller cut for those with children. 

Grant McCallum told Kerre Woodham there are employers who have casual work or things like fruit picking available, but can't get workers because they can't pass a drug test. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Northland's MP believes National's plan to introduce drug testing for beneficiaries is a smart move.&nbsp;
It's proposing ten thousand random drug tests next year – ramping up over the years.&nbsp;
It also wants to reduce payments from April 2028 for people who've collected it for two of the previous three years, with a smaller cut for those with children.&nbsp;
Grant McCallum told Kerre Woodham there are employers who have casual work or things like fruit picking available, but can't get workers because they can't pass a drug test.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Grant McCallum: Northland MP discusses National's plan to implement random drug testing for Jobseeker beneficiaries

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/dac1677f-f33d-4258-907c-b4de00112398/transcript

Erica Stanford: National's Education spokesperson on the party campaigning on requiring students to finish Year 11

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips