James Smith and Richard Heller have been sentenced for their roles in a sophisticated meth ring in Waikato.

However, they've received hefty reductions in their prison sentences for admitting guilt, and the circumstances of their childhoods.

Criminal Bar Association President Fiona Guy Kidd KC told Mike Hosking this morning, adverse childhood experiences have an impact - and they can contribute to who a person becomes and the offence they commit.

To discuss this I'm joined by Neuroscience Educator Nathan Wallis.

LISTEN ABOVE

James Smith and Richard Heller have been sentenced for their roles in a sophisticated meth ring in Waikato.
However, they've received hefty reductions in their prison sentences for admitting guilt, and the circumstances of their childhoods.
Criminal Bar Association President Fiona Guy Kidd KC told Mike Hosking this morning, adverse childhood experiences have an impact - and they can contribute to who a person becomes and the offence they commit.
To discuss this I'm joined by Neuroscience Educator Nathan Wallis.
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

Nathan Wallis: Neuroscience educator & Director of X-Factor Education on adverse childhood experiences and crime

Women are still underrepresented in the trades. 

Despite employing more than 300,000 people, women only make up around 16% of those working in the construction sector.  

Chair of construction firm Naylor Love, Jackie Lloyd is interested in seeing more women enter the industry and play a role in leading it as well.  

Auckland Plumbers Group’s Hera Eruera is one of only fifteen certified female plumbers in New Zealand, and told Kerre Woodham that the sector’s still a bit of an old boys’ club. 

When she first came across Auckland Plumbers Group, Director Andrew Durrans was one of the few people looking to take on a female apprentice. 

“All the other companies that I had gone to, they were just not wanting to have a bar of it,”  Eruera said . 

The stigma of plumbing being a “dirty job” may also be keeping women away from the trade, and while some elements can be, that’s not all they deal with. 

“It’s such a huge variety – you've got your hot water systems, you’ve got all your piping systems, guttering, spouting, roofing. We’ve also got gas fitting, draining.” 

“It's just a huge variety and it’s not always a dirty job like what most people would think it is, and it’s quite enjoyable as well."  

LISTEN ABOVE 

Women are still underrepresented in the trades.&nbsp;
Despite employing more than 300,000 people, women only make up around 16% of those working in the construction sector. &nbsp;
Chair of construction firm Naylor Love, Jackie Lloyd is interested in seeing more women enter the industry and play a role in leading it as well. &nbsp;
Auckland Plumbers Group’s Hera Eruera is one of only fifteen certified female plumbers in New Zealand, and told Kerre Woodham that the sector’s still a bit of an old boys’ club.&nbsp;
When she first came across Auckland Plumbers Group, Director Andrew Durrans was one of the few people looking to take on a female apprentice.&nbsp;
“All the other companies that I had gone to, they were just not wanting to have a bar of it,” &nbsp;Eruera said .&nbsp;
The stigma of plumbing being a “dirty job” may also be keeping women away from the trade, and while some elements can be, that’s not all they deal with.&nbsp;
“It’s such a huge variety – you've got your hot water systems, you’ve got all your piping systems, guttering, spouting, roofing. We’ve also got gas fitting, draining.”&nbsp;
“It's just a huge variety and it’s not always a dirty job like what most people would think it is, and it’s quite enjoyable as well." &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Hera Eruera: Certified Plumber at Auckland Plumbers Group on the job and lack of women in trades

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a29e4705-c57b-4515-935c-b40b01892863/transcript

Today we thought it would be Fuel Friday because we haven't really touched on the oil crisis so far, have we? I filled up at my local on the way to work and it was certainly more expensive than it was last week, but nowhere near the heights we've reached previously. Back in the day I had to give up driving the Club Sport, which was a beast of a car —loved that car— when fuel topped $3 a litre. I loved her, but I couldn't afford to keep her.  

There's a lot of things like that really. With the war in Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, the only tankers going through are the most tenacious or those with a death wish as they attempt to negotiate the waters. I mean, there is oil getting through, but it seems to be a, ‘well, let's give it a bash’ rather than with any kind of certainty. So, one of the main sources of oil and fertiliser has, in effect, been blocked and Iran's doubling down on that. They're just going to shut up shop and that will be that.  

The whole world is looking at their country's respective fuel gauges, wondering if they have enough in the tank to see them through the conflict. Ministers here have joined forces and are getting advice on how, well the relevant ministers are joining forces for a special advisory group and getting advice on how low fuel supplies have to go before the Government should introduce demand measures such as reducing the amount of petrol people can buy or only allowing fuel outlets to open on alternate days. So instead of car-less days, we'd have petrol-less days, appealing to people's better natures and saying please only travel if you absolutely have to.  

We have about 50 days supply including what we have in the country and what's on its way here, which hopefully will not be diverted to other countries. Shane Jones was on with Heather du Plessis Allan last night and when she said what about other countries? Can't they just divert it? Can't they tell the oil companies come on, we're a bigger customer and we should be able to have that oil that's heading down to that tiny little island nation at the bottom of the world? And he said they were hoping the strength of the contracts they had with the various oil companies would be sufficient to withstand that sort of pressure from other countries to in effect hijack our shipments. The Associate Energy Minister told her the Government had asked officials to come up with all sorts of contingency plans and yes, car-less days were included in the briefing, but they weren't a likely option. 

SJ: No, it's too early to identify any specific intervention. I mean, perhaps this thing's all over in a week, who knows? But the reality is. 

HDPA: But why are you taking advice on it if you're not seriously considering it? 

SJ: Well, no, Kiwis expect their government to be proactive. Kiwis expect us to deal with the fact that other countries are hoarding their fuel. They're introducing export restrictions. So what we need to do is ensure that we've exhaustively looked at every option so if things do deteriorate and we make decisions, they're made on the basis of quality information, not some grasshopper attitude. 

I thought he answered that pretty well and you know, of course car-less days makes great headlines and that seems to have been dominating the media over the last 24 hours, but I thought Shane Jones was quite right. They're looking at every single option that's on the table and they're weighing the relative merits of each option, which makes sense. So those of you with EVs, I don't know if you feel like you'd like to join the discussion, feel free. It probably doesn't have much to do with you as we all pile into the petrol station and try to get the petrol on the specials days, everybody refreshing their Gaspy, seeing which petrol station in your neighbourhood has the cheapest petrol. But it's so much more than that.  

It's more than just the petrol in the car to get us from point A to point B. It's the petrol within the supply chain and the diesel within the supply chain to get our goods around the country. It's the growers and their fertiliser and the farmers and their diesel stocks. How are you feeling? It's very easy to whip yourself up into a panic and a frenzy, but it is sensible to be prepared. You don't have to panic, but you can, I would have thought, certainly be prepared if you can. There was a petrol special on at my local service station so I filled up on the way to work and got the 95 for $2.88, which I was relatively happy about – who knows what it will be next week. And while I'm not in the habit of Sunday drives, I probably won't start them until this particular conflict is over. 

I think we can take sensible measures as your average commuter-consumer without panicking. If you're dependent on fuel for your work, like farmers, like growers, like Uber drivers, it might be a different story. There might be a higher level of fuel anxiety and if so, I'd love to hear from you. You know, have you been here before? Do you have reserves of your own? Probably not the Uber drivers, but perhaps the farmers might and the growers might. When it comes to the fertiliser, will you have enough? I suppose going into winter, I don't know enough about farming cycles, but would you be using fertiliser now anyway or would that be more a spring thing?  

The narrative is that it's not over yet despite what Donald Trump is saying. Iran is saying they're going to double down when it comes to closing off the Strait of Hormuz and basically hoping to strangle the enemy as they call them, whoever they perceive the enemy to be. We are a tiny country at the bottom of the world. We're going to have to get by and make do and we're just simply not used to doing that, not even during Covid I don't think. Where's your level of fuel anxiety, fertiliser anxiety, diesel anxiety at and what do you think the most sensible measure would be if we have to start looking at reducing the amount of fuel, diesel, fertiliser we consume in this country? 

Today we thought it would be Fuel Friday because we haven't really touched on the oil crisis so far, have we? I filled up at my local on the way to work and it was certainly more expensive than it was last week, but nowhere near the heights we've reached previously. Back in the day I had to give up driving the Club Sport, which was a beast of a car —loved that car— when fuel topped $3 a litre. I loved her, but I couldn't afford to keep her. &nbsp;
There's a lot of things like that really. With the war in Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, the only tankers going through are the most tenacious or those with a death wish as they attempt to negotiate the waters. I mean, there is oil getting through, but it seems to be a, ‘well, let's give it a bash’ rather than with any kind of certainty. So, one of the main sources of oil and fertiliser has, in effect, been blocked and Iran's doubling down on that. They're just going to shut up shop and that will be that. &nbsp;
The whole world is looking at their country's respective fuel gauges, wondering if they have enough in the tank to see them through the conflict. Ministers here have joined forces and are getting advice on how, well the relevant ministers are joining forces for a special advisory group and getting advice on how low fuel supplies have to go before the Government should introduce demand measures such as reducing the amount of petrol people can buy or only allowing fuel outlets to open on alternate days. So instead of car-less days, we'd have petrol-less days, appealing to people's better natures and saying please only travel if you absolutely have to. &nbsp;
We have about 50 days supply including what we have in the country and what's on its way here, which hopefully will not be diverted to other countries. Shane Jones was on with Heather du Plessis Allan last night and when she said what about other countries? Can't they just divert it? Can't they tell the oil companies come on, we're a bigger customer and we should be able to have that oil that's heading down to that tiny little island nation at the bottom of the world? And he said they were hoping the strength of the contracts they had with the various oil companies would be sufficient to withstand that sort of pressure from other countries to in effect hijack our shipments. The Associate Energy Minister told her the Government had asked officials to come up with all sorts of contingency plans and yes, car-less days were included in the briefing, but they weren't a likely option.&nbsp;
SJ: No, it's too early to identify any specific intervention. I mean, perhaps this thing's all over in a week, who knows? But the reality is.&nbsp;
HDPA: But why are you taking advice on it if you're not seriously considering it?&nbsp;
SJ: Well, no, Kiwis expect their government to be proactive. Kiwis expect us to deal with the fact that other countries are hoarding their fuel. They're introducing export restrictions. So what we need to do is ensure that we've exhaustively looked at every option so if things do deteriorate and we make decisions, they're made on the basis of quality information, not some grasshopper attitude.&nbsp;
I thought he answered that pretty well and you know, of course car-less days makes great headlines and that seems to have been dominating the media over the last 24 hours, but I thought Shane Jones was quite right. They're looking at every single option that's on the table and they're weighing the relative merits of each option, which makes sense. So those of you with EVs, I don't know if you feel like you'd like to join the discussion, feel free. It probably doesn't have much to do with you as we all pile into the petrol station and try to get the petrol on the specials days, everybody refreshing their Gaspy, seeing which petrol station in your neighbourhood has the cheapest petrol. But it's so much more than that. &nbsp;
It's more than just the petrol in the car to get us from point A to point B. It's the petrol within the supply chain and the diesel within the supply chain to get our goods around the country. It's the growers and their fertiliser and the farmers and their diesel stocks. How are you feeling? It's very easy to whip yourself up into a panic and a frenzy, but it is sensible to be prepared. You don't have to panic, but you can, I would have thought, certainly be prepared if you can. There was a petrol special on at my local service station so I filled up on the way to work and got the 95 for $2.88, which I was relatively happy about – who knows what it will be next week. And while I'm not in the habit of Sunday drives, I probably won't start them until this particular conflict is over.&nbsp;
I think we can take sensible measures as your average commuter-consumer without panicking. If you're dependent on fuel for your work, like farmers, like growers, like Uber drivers, it might be a different story. There might be a higher level of fuel anxiety and if so, I'd love to hear from you. You know, have you been here before? Do you have reserves of your own? Probably not the Uber drivers, but perhaps the farmers might and the growers might. When it comes to the fertiliser, will you have enough? I suppose going into winter, I don't know enough about farming cycles, but would you be using fertiliser now anyway or would that be more a spring thing? &nbsp;
The narrative is that it's not over yet despite what Donald Trump is saying. Iran is saying they're going to double down when it comes to closing off the Strait of Hormuz and basically hoping to strangle the enemy as they call them, whoever they perceive the enemy to be. We are a tiny country at the bottom of the world. We're going to have to get by and make do and we're just simply not used to doing that, not even during Covid I don't think. Where's your level of fuel anxiety, fertiliser anxiety, diesel anxiety at and what do you think the most sensible measure would be if we have to start looking at reducing the amount of fuel, diesel, fertiliser we consume in this country?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Are you feeling fuel anxiety?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4efd4c5c-3600-4b97-9ce0-b40b017d3f8c/transcript

For nine months now, the Public Service Commission has been negotiating with the primary school teachers union over pay and conditions. Every other union in the education sector has settled, but not the NZEI Te Riu Roa. There have been strikes, there have been rejected pay offers, in some cases offers haven't even been presented to union members to vote on, and there have been accusations of bad faith from both sides. In interviews, the Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche has sounded increasingly grumpy and frustrated, and when he spoke to Mike Hosking last week, he said that he was exploring options, looking for a way to offer non-union teachers, about a third of the primary teacher workforce, a pay increase so they didn't have to wait for the union to find an offer acceptable. And now he has, as he explained to Heather du Plessis Allan last night. 

BR: There are 10,000 non-unionised teachers who have been deprived of a settlement. In the normal course of events, we would have kept going with the NZEI, and we are still keeping going with them, but I got to the point where I could no longer justify withholding an offer. So they, the non-union members, have the option now of accepting or not accepting. I don't think it impacts at all on our good faith bargaining and our strong commitment to reach a settlement with NZEI. 

HDPA: Is it lawful? 

BR: Of course, but it is risky and that's playing out now. But this is a question of equity. Why would somebody who's not in the union be deprived of being able to benefit from something? They're under no obligation to accept it, I fully respect that, but 10,000 people where I can make their lives better and get greater stability is worth doing. 

So that was what Sir Brian Roche was doing, looking at the legality of it, whether they could do it. He's found a way that they can, and he says it's risky because he fears the unions will kick off. They'll go hardline, they'll take the strikes and go all sort of waterfront union on it. The union says it will cause a division, but as Education Minister Erica Stanford told Mike Hosking this morning, she thinks it's fair and reasonable that nearly a third of primary school teachers who are not part of the union should be offered a contract now so that they can receive the pay increases now that the government has already offered. 

ES: I know that the unions, of course they're not happy with it, and they're trying to say, look, it's causing division. But I would say there's already division. A third of their workforce are not in a union, you know, and if they seriously think it's about division, they should ask themselves why a third of the workforce don't want anything to do with them. 

Interesting. This will equate to approximately 50 to 76 bucks every week, which is not inconsiderable. And it's pay that teachers could be receiving already, were they not impacted by the ongoing holdout from the union. They would say that it's the Government's failure to meet their perfectly reasonable demands, so there'll be stories from both sides. But good on the Public Service Commission. I mean, if unions want to keep going because they believe they can get a better deal for their union members, that's what their members pay their dues for, that they want to get the best possible conditions for their members, fine, fill your boots, keep going. But if I was a non-union teacher, I'd be getting more and more brassed off.  

It's not just the parents and young people too who are fed up with the ongoing negotiations and ongoing industrial action. Plenty of teachers are too, if the text traffic is anything to go by. A number of teachers told me they were only in the union for the legal protection it afforded them. They certainly didn't agree with the hardline stance being taken by negotiators. Will it cause friction? More friction than there already is in the staffroom when you have some teachers earning more while others are having to wait for their union to settle? I mean, when we were talking about the waterfront workers’ strike lockout depending on which side you're on, there were people who would cross the street to avoid scabs, you know, in Huntly or Otahuhu and different parts of the country. Those old resentments lingered and lingered and lingered.  

Surely we're beyond that now. You shouldn't have to join a union to be able to negotiate fair pay and conditions, and I wouldn't have thought teachers particularly would need one. They know their worth, they're articulate. Why would you need a union per se? I bet, as a number of them said, they're only there for the legal protection. If there was a way of insuring yourself privately for a reasonable fee against malicious lawsuits, then perhaps there'd be no need for the union at all. How many of you belong to unions and why? Do you see the benefit it brings you? How many of you would like to be in a union and how many of you are perfectly confident that you can negotiate the best pay and conditions for you?  

I'd be really interested to hear from those of you who benefit from union membership and whether you think in this particular case there is going to be friction. I don't think, like if the NZEI can negotiate better conditions for their members, I don't think the non-union staff should get that. Like if you get non-contact time, whatever it is you're holding out on, you know, the non-union members shouldn't necessarily get that. You didn't want to join the union, you wanted to accept the pay offer, that's what you were concerned about, fine, fill your boots, you go for it. But if the union members say no, it's about the conditions, not the pay, and they get better conditions, I don't necessarily think that the non-union members should get it. 

For nine months now, the Public Service Commission has been negotiating with the primary school teachers union over pay and conditions. Every other union in the education sector has settled, but not the NZEI Te Riu Roa. There have been strikes, there have been rejected pay offers, in some cases offers haven't even been presented to union members to vote on, and there have been accusations of bad faith from both sides. In interviews, the Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche has sounded increasingly grumpy and frustrated, and when he spoke to Mike Hosking last week, he said that he was exploring options, looking for a way to offer non-union teachers, about a third of the primary teacher workforce, a pay increase so they didn't have to wait for the union to find an offer acceptable. And now he has, as he explained to Heather du Plessis Allan last night.&nbsp;
BR: There are 10,000 non-unionised teachers who have been deprived of a settlement. In the normal course of events, we would have kept going with the NZEI, and we are still keeping going with them, but I got to the point where I could no longer justify withholding an offer. So they, the non-union members, have the option now of accepting or not accepting. I don't think it impacts at all on our good faith bargaining and our strong commitment to reach a settlement with NZEI.&nbsp;
HDPA: Is it lawful?&nbsp;
BR: Of course, but it is risky and that's playing out now. But this is a question of equity. Why would somebody who's not in the union be deprived of being able to benefit from something? They're under no obligation to accept it, I fully respect that, but 10,000 people where I can make their lives better and get greater stability is worth doing.&nbsp;
So that was what Sir Brian Roche was doing, looking at the legality of it, whether they could do it. He's found a way that they can, and he says it's risky because he fears the unions will kick off. They'll go hardline, they'll take the strikes and go all sort of waterfront union on it. The union says it will cause a division, but as Education Minister Erica Stanford told Mike Hosking this morning, she thinks it's fair and reasonable that nearly a third of primary school teachers who are not part of the union should be offered a contract now so that they can receive the pay increases now that the government has already offered.&nbsp;
ES: I know that the unions, of course they're not happy with it, and they're trying to say, look, it's causing division. But I would say there's already division. A third of their workforce are not in a union, you know, and if they seriously think it's about division, they should ask themselves why a third of the workforce don't want anything to do with them.&nbsp;
Interesting. This will equate to approximately 50 to 76 bucks every week, which is not inconsiderable. And it's pay that teachers could be receiving already, were they not impacted by the ongoing holdout from the union. They would say that it's the Government's failure to meet their perfectly reasonable demands, so there'll be stories from both sides. But good on the Public Service Commission. I mean, if unions want to keep going because they believe they can get a better deal for their union members, that's what their members pay their dues for, that they want to get the best possible conditions for their members, fine, fill your boots, keep going. But if I was a non-union teacher, I'd be getting more and more brassed off. &nbsp;
It's not just the parents and young people too who are fed up with the ongoing negotiations and ongoing industrial action. Plenty of teachers are too, if the text traffic is anything to go by. A number of teachers told me they were only in the union for the legal protection it afforded them. They certainly didn't agree with the hardline stance being taken by negotiators. Will it cause friction? More friction than there already is in the staffroom when you have some teachers earning more while others are having to wait for their union to settle? I mean, when we were talking about the waterfront workers’ strike lockout depending on which side you're on, there were people who would cross the street to avoid scabs, you know, in Huntly or Otahuhu and different parts of the country. Those old resentments lingered and lingered and lingered. &nbsp;
Surely we're beyond that now. You shouldn't have to join a union to be able to negotiate fair pay and conditions, and I wouldn't have thought teachers particularly would need one. They know their worth, they're articulate. Why would you need a union per se? I bet, as a number of them said, they're only there for the legal protection. If there was a way of insuring yourself privately for a reasonable fee against malicious lawsuits, then perhaps there'd be no need for the union at all. How many of you belong to unions and why? Do you see the benefit it brings you? How many of you would like to be in a union and how many of you are perfectly confident that you can negotiate the best pay and conditions for you? &nbsp;
I'd be really interested to hear from those of you who benefit from union membership and whether you think in this particular case there is going to be friction. I don't think, like if the NZEI can negotiate better conditions for their members, I don't think the non-union staff should get that. Like if you get non-contact time, whatever it is you're holding out on, you know, the non-union members shouldn't necessarily get that. You didn't want to join the union, you wanted to accept the pay offer, that's what you were concerned about, fine, fill your boots, you go for it. But if the union members say no, it's about the conditions, not the pay, and they get better conditions, I don't necessarily think that the non-union members should get it.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Is the primary teachers' union causing friction?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/8ae7cd70-5004-448f-bf9c-b40a0182f40c/transcript

Nathan Wallis: Neuroscience educator & Director of X-Factor Education on adverse childhood experiences and crime

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips