Political parties are being urged to back a plan focusing on a better future for all children. 

Barnardos Aotearoa and its supporters is gathering at the steps of Parliament today asking for formal and long-term commitment to its Generational Plan. 

It aims to begin work next year, putting children at the heart of decision-making, so they can thrive as future adults. 

CEO Matt Reid told Kerre Woodham they've seen through social and community work that giving struggling parents the right support, especially early on, can absolutely make a difference. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

Political parties are being urged to back a plan focusing on a better future for all children.&nbsp;
Barnardos Aotearoa and its supporters is gathering at the steps of Parliament today asking for formal and long-term commitment to its Generational Plan.&nbsp;
It aims to begin work next year, putting children at the heart of decision-making, so they can thrive as future adults.&nbsp;
CEO Matt Reid told Kerre Woodham they've seen through social and community work that giving struggling parents the right support, especially early on, can absolutely make a difference.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;

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

Matt Reid: Barnardos Aotearoa CEO on their call for a cross-party generational plan to support children

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/123e392f-8b37-4d2e-abfa-b4c70018c740/transcript

It's hard to know really where to start when it comes to listing the failings of all those who damn near destroyed the lives of the Phillips children. In the first instance, they were failed by their father and by their immediate family. Then, when those relationships broke down, they were failed by the very agencies that are supposed to be there to protect them, Oranga Tamariki and the Police. How agencies that are supposed to be acting in the interests of the children could think it was a good idea for them to be kept in the custody of a man who had staged their deaths, was an abusive alcoholic, and was motivated to keep the children away from their mother to spite her is beyond me.  

Police were concerned enough about his mental stability to deny him a firearms license or revoke it, yet they never passed on their specific concerns to Oranga Tamariki, not in detail. Still, OT really didn't need to have the police reports, one would have thought, when you look at all the other information they had. The children's older sisters had real and genuine concerns about the children's wellbeing. One rang the local office dealing with the children frequently, another swore an affidavit detailing controlling and abusive experiences with Phillips, yet the social workers didn't read it, fobbed off the one who phoned, didn't listen, insisted the kids were absolutely fine. How could you draw that conclusion?  

The inquiry has found that OT should not have closed the report of concern in February 2022, having done so in the face of compelling concerns raised by the children's older sisters as to the risk and harm to the children of being isolated from family and society. The children's four years of living with an alcoholic father in squalid isolation only ended when Phillips shot at and nearly killed a police officer who's had life changing injuries as a result of Phillips shooting at him. Police returned fire and Phillips died on a country road in front of his daughter. He was responsible for the trauma that that young girl experienced. He's ultimately responsible for all of what has happened to his children. But the state agencies that are there to step in when parents fail, failed too. Jill Rogers, the Deputy Police Commissioner, talking to Mike Hosking this morning, said ultimately police achieved what they set out to do. 

JR: We achieved what we set out to do. Did it take us a long time? Did we miss opportunities? Yes and yes, but at the end of the day we recovered the kids. 

MH: So if we're looking for blame and apologies, OT carry more of it than you do, fair? 

JR: The report identifies lessons for all of us in there, so and clearly that information sharing one is one that does stand out and we'll continue to work hard to make sure that we get the right information to the right people. 

Do you know the last time we had something like this was after the death, the murder of Malachi Subecz, murdered by his caregiver. That was only four years ago and one of the major findings was that government agencies needed to work together and centre children's voices. Four years ago. I have listened to government ministers and heads of department and police officers speak and they acknowledge the findings of this report, they've acknowledged the findings of previous reports, blah blah blah. Everyone's sorry. Everyone's very sorry. OT are sorry, Police are sorry. I'm sure the people that lionised Tom Phillips are very sorry now they know the despicable nature of the man. But I have absolutely no doubt that for all the reports, all the regrets, all the sorrow, all the determination to ensure this will never happen again, it will. 

It's hard to know really where to start when it comes to listing the failings of all those who damn near destroyed the lives of the Phillips children. In the first instance, they were failed by their father and by their immediate family. Then, when those relationships broke down, they were failed by the very agencies that are supposed to be there to protect them, Oranga Tamariki and the Police. How agencies that are supposed to be acting in the interests of the children could think it was a good idea for them to be kept in the custody of a man who had staged their deaths, was an abusive alcoholic, and was motivated to keep the children away from their mother to spite her is beyond me. &nbsp;
Police were concerned enough about his mental stability to deny him a firearms license or revoke it, yet they never passed on their specific concerns to Oranga Tamariki, not in detail. Still, OT really didn't need to have the police reports, one would have thought, when you look at all the other information they had. The children's older sisters had real and genuine concerns about the children's wellbeing. One rang the local office dealing with the children frequently, another swore an affidavit detailing controlling and abusive experiences with Phillips, yet the social workers didn't read it, fobbed off the one who phoned, didn't listen, insisted the kids were absolutely fine. How could you draw that conclusion? &nbsp;
The inquiry has found that OT should not have closed the report of concern in February 2022, having done so in the face of compelling concerns raised by the children's older sisters as to the risk and harm to the children of being isolated from family and society. The children's four years of living with an alcoholic father in squalid isolation only ended when Phillips shot at and nearly killed a police officer who's had life changing injuries as a result of Phillips shooting at him. Police returned fire and Phillips died on a country road in front of his daughter. He was responsible for the trauma that that young girl experienced. He's ultimately responsible for all of what has happened to his children. But the state agencies that are there to step in when parents fail, failed too. Jill Rogers, the Deputy Police Commissioner, talking to Mike Hosking this morning, said ultimately police achieved what they set out to do.&nbsp;
JR: We achieved what we set out to do. Did it take us a long time? Did we miss opportunities? Yes and yes, but at the end of the day we recovered the kids.&nbsp;
MH: So if we're looking for blame and apologies, OT carry more of it than you do, fair?&nbsp;
JR: The report identifies lessons for all of us in there, so and clearly that information sharing one is one that does stand out and we'll continue to work hard to make sure that we get the right information to the right people.&nbsp;
Do you know the last time we had something like this was after the death, the murder of Malachi Subecz, murdered by his caregiver. That was only four years ago and one of the major findings was that government agencies needed to work together and centre children's voices. Four years ago. I have listened to government ministers and heads of department and police officers speak and they acknowledge the findings of this report, they've acknowledged the findings of previous reports, blah blah blah. Everyone's sorry. Everyone's very sorry. OT are sorry, Police are sorry. I'm sure the people that lionised Tom Phillips are very sorry now they know the despicable nature of the man. But I have absolutely no doubt that for all the reports, all the regrets, all the sorrow, all the determination to ensure this will never happen again, it will.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: The report shows us just how badly the Phillips kids were failed

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/0ac553d4-2c35-4e85-8071-b4c700039085/transcript

Would it be better to have one body responsible for running political polls? 

Questions have been raised as to how trustworthy existing polls are, as recent results put both National and Labour below 30%.  

NZ Research Association's Polling Spokesperson Murray Campbell told Kerre Woodham if there were to be an independent body responsible for three-monthly polls, it would have to be really well funded. 

He says high-quality political polls are expensive to run, and any one agency can't typically afford to run them with the frequency that's needed. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

Would it be better to have one body responsible for running political polls?&nbsp;
Questions have been raised as to how trustworthy existing polls are, as recent results put both National and Labour below 30%. &nbsp;
NZ Research Association's Polling Spokesperson Murray Campbell told Kerre Woodham if there were to be an independent body responsible for three-monthly polls, it would have to be really well funded.&nbsp;
He says high-quality political polls are expensive to run, and any one agency can't typically afford to run them with the frequency that's needed.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;

Murray Campbell: NZ Research Association's Polling Spokesperson on political polling

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/7b0964b3-b6ec-477a-9bb4-b4c600235067/transcript

Political polls with the headlines and column inches they command. A cynic would say it probably depends on whether you're going up or you're going down. There's a story in Newsroom today from Professor Ben Gray that looks at how the different companies poll the population to get their results. And it doesn't give you a great deal of confidence, does it? He cites the New Zealand Health Survey as a good example of a high-quality survey because the selection of households is random from census data, representing the total population by age, sex, region, ethnicity, whether Māori, Pacific, Asian, other, and deprivation. So, if the population is made up say of 20% Māori, then they'll make sure that they have 20% of the respondents will be Māori. If there is 51% of the population that's female, they'll make sure that 51% of the respondents are female. Interviews are in person with multiple callbacks, resulting in a 75% response rate. Interpreters are used for the 5% of the sample not fluent in English and represented in the population.  

The methodology is approved by an independent research ethics committee and complies with National Ethics Advisory Committee research ethics guidelines. Political pollsters on the other hand, all use panels, online or telephone, who may or may not be paid, from which they claim to select a random sample. None provide any information about how their panel is recruited. It could be people who are self-selecting and they say, well, we make sure that we get 20% who self-select as Māori. I don't think that's true and they don't show you so you can't test it. 

In the past, apparently, New Zealand had a good reputation for accuracy in political polls when compared to other countries. We couldn't lie to save ourselves. Wouldn't have even occurred to us. You ask us who we're voting for and we'll tell you, without a word of a lie, it will be our absolute intention to vote for this. But declining trust in institutions and the media, as well as the impact of social media, is starting to erode that. We just don't trust the media, we don't trust institutions, we don't trust politicians, we don't trust pollsters. And political scientists point to sensationalist media reporting, bam, kapow, freefall, as being "not very helpful from a scientific point of view", from Professor Grant Duncan.  

But then when a media organisation is paid top dollar for a survey, they'll want to milk the results for all they can for headlines and by crikey, they do. 1News a couple of years ago pointed out that an analysis of the final 1News poll, the final poll before each of the last eight elections, shows the last survey of the campaign had been with an average of 1.17 percentage points of the actual party vote, according to the accuracy data. They say we're actually pretty accurate. 2020 threw everybody. That was the one that knocked most of the polling companies out of the water because it overestimated how much of the vote National would get, underestimated the love affair the nation had with Labour. 

But for 1News, they say with their pollsters Verian, the figures covering every election from 2002 to 2023 translate to the poll just being up by one to two seats per party, which they say shows it's pretty accurate, and it is. But do you care about them? They must have an impact. They absolutely must. Because if you see a poll showing the Opportunity party at 3% and you're thinking, oh, quite like the new shiny thing, oh, but at 3% my vote will be wasted, I'll go with the Greens. But then you see a poll showing the Opportunity party at 6% or 7% and you think, oh, oh, that's good. I'll vote for them. I'll vote for the shiny new Greens. Surely, it must have some sort of influence on how you are going to vote, especially if you're not 100% sure and a lot aren't. Now, the latest one that came out, that sort of I suppose it was a fortunate accident that we had the Newsroom story at the same time as we had the Freshwater poll come out, showed that Labour had dropped seven percentage points, which seems ridiculous. 

I mean, I totally get that National and Labour are unappealing to the electorate. We've seen that over a number of different surveys. People aren't enthused about voting for either of the main parties. They're flirting with the minor parties and having a look at the Opportunity party. But seven percentage points, which either means the poll was overinflated the first time or people are just having a laugh. I have never been asked in a survey. I've never been randomly selected —people want my opinion, they can tune in between 9am 12pm Monday to Friday on Newstalk ZB— but those who have say the questions are so weighted that they are trying to get a response that they want. It's not a "random question, who will you vote for?" Which I imagine a survey would be. No, nothing like it.  

Do you look, especially if you're flirting with some of the minor parties, at the results of a poll and think, hmm, my vote might be wasted, I'll go somewhere else? Do you look at your favoured party perhaps dropping in the polls and think, right, I'm going to make sure it's two ticks now, not just one? I don't know. I mean, they certainly don't influence me. I get where the political scientists are coming from saying, look, we're just producing a random sample, it's the media who ramps them up and milks every last piece of sensational headline out of them. But do they matter to you? Is there any point in publishing the bloody things other than making it an easy day at work for journalists? 

Political polls with the headlines and column inches they command. A cynic would say it probably depends on whether you're going up or you're going down. There's a story in Newsroom today from Professor Ben Gray that looks at how the different companies poll the population to get their results. And it doesn't give you a great deal of confidence, does it? He cites the New Zealand Health Survey as a good example of a high-quality survey because the selection of households is random from census data, representing the total population by age, sex, region, ethnicity, whether Māori, Pacific, Asian, other, and deprivation. So, if the population is made up say of 20% Māori, then they'll make sure that they have 20% of the respondents will be Māori. If there is 51% of the population that's female, they'll make sure that 51% of the respondents are female. Interviews are in person with multiple callbacks, resulting in a 75% response rate. Interpreters are used for the 5% of the sample not fluent in English and represented in the population. &nbsp;
The methodology is approved by an independent research ethics committee and complies with National Ethics Advisory Committee research ethics guidelines. Political pollsters on the other hand, all use panels, online or telephone, who may or may not be paid, from which they claim to select a random sample. None provide any information about how their panel is recruited. It could be people who are self-selecting and they say, well, we make sure that we get 20% who self-select as Māori. I don't think that's true and they don't show you so you can't test it.&nbsp;
In the past, apparently, New Zealand had a good reputation for accuracy in political polls when compared to other countries. We couldn't lie to save ourselves. Wouldn't have even occurred to us. You ask us who we're voting for and we'll tell you, without a word of a lie, it will be our absolute intention to vote for this. But declining trust in institutions and the media, as well as the impact of social media, is starting to erode that. We just don't trust the media, we don't trust institutions, we don't trust politicians, we don't trust pollsters. And political scientists point to sensationalist media reporting, bam, kapow, freefall, as being "not very helpful from a scientific point of view", from Professor Grant Duncan. &nbsp;
But then when a media organisation is paid top dollar for a survey, they'll want to milk the results for all they can for headlines and by crikey, they do. 1News a couple of years ago pointed out that an analysis of the final 1News poll, the final poll before each of the last eight elections, shows the last survey of the campaign had been with an average of 1.17 percentage points of the actual party vote, according to the accuracy data. They say we're actually pretty accurate. 2020 threw everybody. That was the one that knocked most of the polling companies out of the water because it overestimated how much of the vote National would get, underestimated the love affair the nation had with Labour.&nbsp;
But for 1News, they say with their pollsters Verian, the figures covering every election from 2002 to 2023 translate to the poll just being up by one to two seats per party, which they say shows it's pretty accurate, and it is. But do you care about them? They must have an impact. They absolutely must. Because if you see a poll showing the Opportunity party at 3% and you're thinking, oh, quite like the new shiny thing, oh, but at 3% my vote will be wasted, I'll go with the Greens. But then you see a poll showing the Opportunity party at 6% or 7% and you think, oh, oh, that's good. I'll vote for them. I'll vote for the shiny new Greens. Surely, it must have some sort of influence on how you are going to vote, especially if you're not 100% sure and a lot aren't. Now, the latest one that came out, that sort of I suppose it was a fortunate accident that we had the Newsroom story at the same time as we had the Freshwater poll come out, showed that Labour had dropped seven percentage points, which seems ridiculous.&nbsp;
I mean, I totally get that National and Labour are unappealing to the electorate. We've seen that over a number of different surveys. People aren't enthused about voting for either of the main parties. They're flirting with the minor parties and having a look at the Opportunity party. But seven percentage points, which either means the poll was overinflated the first time or people are just having a laugh. I have never been asked in a survey. I've never been randomly selected —people want my opinion, they can tune in between 9am 12pm Monday to Friday on Newstalk ZB— but those who have say the questions are so weighted that they are trying to get a response that they want. It's not a "random question, who will you vote for?" Which I imagine a survey would be. No, nothing like it. &nbsp;
Do you look, especially if you're flirting with some of the minor parties, at the results of a poll and think, hmm, my vote might be wasted, I'll go somewhere else? Do you look at your favoured party perhaps dropping in the polls and think, right, I'm going to make sure it's two ticks now, not just one? I don't know. I mean, they certainly don't influence me. I get where the political scientists are coming from saying, look, we're just producing a random sample, it's the media who ramps them up and milks every last piece of sensational headline out of them. But do they matter to you? Is there any point in publishing the bloody things other than making it an easy day at work for journalists?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Do the political polls matter to you?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e8e865e4-d77f-4313-b410-b4c600123a60/transcript

Matt Reid: Barnardos Aotearoa CEO on their call for a cross-party generational plan to support children

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips