The number of New Zealanders with dementia is expected to double in the next 20 years, with social disadvantages playing a big role.

Public Health Communication Centre's briefing reveals the risk of developing dementia is 60% higher for people living in the most deprived areas in New Zealand.

Director of the Centre for Brain Research, Sir Richard Faull told Kerre Woodham that there are about 14 factors which, when addressed, reduce the risk of developing dementia.

These factors, which include education quality, social isolation, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, uncorrected vision loss, and air quality, are often associated with poverty and deprivation.

LISTEN ABOVE

The number of New Zealanders with dementia is expected to double in the next 20 years, with social disadvantages playing a big role. 
Public Health Communication Centre's briefing reveals the risk of developing dementia is 60% higher for people living in the most deprived areas in New Zealand. 
Director of the Centre for Brain Research, Sir Richard Faull told Kerre Woodham that there are about 14 factors which, when addressed, reduce the risk of developing dementia. 
These factors, which include education quality, social isolation, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, uncorrected vision loss, and air quality, are often associated with poverty and deprivation. 
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

Sir Richard Faull: Director of the Centre for Brain Research on the risk of developing dementia being 60% higher for those in deprived areas

I could not have put it better than ACC Minister Matt Doocey did yesterday. He wants ACC to lift its own game before it starts raising levies. 

The Accident Compensation Corporation has just begun a one-month consultation on suggested rises of more than 7% on levies for motorists, and more than 4% for employers and earners. I mean everybody else is raising their rates, aren't they? So here goes ACC. They have motorcyclists, professional sports people and ballerinas, specifically in their sights. Ballerinas?! Dainty, little, tiny, wee things like them, I imagine it's a strenuous job, and if something goes wrong, if you're a ballerina, it would go wrong badly, but I wouldn't have thought there would be that many to make a drain on the Accident Compensation Corporation’s finances. But none the less, be warned ballerinas – you are in the ACC’s sights. 

To be fair, ACC has said it is just a consultation at this stage, and the proposal is part of a legislative requirement every three years, with cabinet making the final decision on whether levies are raised before December. Can you imagine any minister going ‘hmm, probably a bit unfair, let's see ACC improve its game before we lift the levies’. I cannot see any government organisation or minister going, ‘you know what? let's keep things the way they are’.Doocey says ACC has to make its own efforts to lift its poor financial performance, it has to increase its rehab rates, and it has to do a lot more around injury prevention before they can make a case for raising levies. And that is a fair call given ACC has just done a U-turn and reintroduced one-on-one case managers. They took them away as part of a $74 million restructure, despite the fact the agency had been warned that the new restructure was a dud. A complete dud that wouldn't work. 

And in fact, we had a caller a couple of weeks ago who said that they had been trying to talk to ACC about their particular rehabilitation, they said they were passed from pillar to post, from one person to the next. They had to explain everything from beginning to end every single time they phoned, and it was just a waste of everybody's time and incredibly frustrating. So one-on-one case managers have been reinstated. 

It's just another colossal waste of time and money. The rollout began in 2020 with some zingy person leading the restructure going ‘hey, we're going to increase productivity. Yes, we are. We're going to save costs and you case managers, you're going to see a direct lift in your performance. We're going to improve your workloads’.  By 2022, running costs had doubled, there were no discernible benefits to clients, and there was little improvement to case backlogs with exhausted and overworked case managers dropping at their desks. So the agency's gone back after $74 million down the gurgler to one-on-one case management. 

Back to the proposed living increases, they are up for discussion, so let's discuss. Motorcyclists - the levy covers only around 28% of your costs to the ACC scheme. When things go wrong if you're a motorcyclist, things go wrong badly, so you're going to need a lot of rehab. So Matt Doocey asked do we lower the levy for lower powered bikes while increasing the cost for more powerful bikes? And I would really love to know what ballerinas are doing to stuff themselves up so much. 

Professional sportspeople - I thought you would have been well and truly covered with the medical system that surrounds you as part of your job and the fact that you would go private.  I mean when have you ever heard of any All Black going on the waiting list for a knee operation? They don't. They're in surgery the next day, so I would have that would have been part of your contract that your medical costs are covered. Interesting though, at the Kerre Woodham Morning Show, two out of two of us have been on ACC in the past year. Helen with her never ending shoulder fracture and then me with the smashed arm. But again, the ACC ended after I think it was about 6 physio visits. I've been paying for them ever since. I paid for my own acupuncture, I didn't need any taxis. But we have used it. 

It is a good system when it works. You know you take responsibility for your own recovery as well. You don't just lie there, lumpingly, and expect the taxpayer and the government to fix you. You do your own rehab and try and get yourself better. Everybody says, oh, it's the envy of the world, your ACC, it's just wonderful. Is it still? There's a $1 billion shortfall and you know a lot of that is the damaged babies that actually survive the brutal beatings, but they are left needing lifelong care, so a fund has been set aside for their lifelong needs, which sickens me. 

You cannot get blood out of a stone. I don't know how much more they expect us to pay for everything, for all of the everything. For the rates, for the insurance, for the ACC, for the food, for the doctor's visits, for the everything. You know, there comes a point where you just cannot pay any more. But is ACC serving you well? I can put up my hand and I can do that now and say it has, it has worked well, provided you do your bit too. It's got to be a 50/50 partnership, I think. But can they really justify asking for more in levies when they have just wasted $74 million on a failed restructure? I’m with Matt Doocey: lift your own game before you take money out of our pockets.

I could not have put it better than ACC Minister Matt Doocey did yesterday. He wants ACC to lift its own game before it starts raising levies.  
The Accident Compensation Corporation has just begun a one-month consultation on suggested rises of more than 7% on levies for motorists, and more than 4% for employers and earners. I mean everybody else is raising their rates, aren't they? So here goes ACC. They have motorcyclists, professional sports people and ballerinas, specifically in their sights. Ballerinas?! Dainty, little, tiny, wee things like them, I imagine it's a strenuous job, and if something goes wrong, if you're a ballerina, it would go wrong badly, but I wouldn't have thought there would be that many to make a drain on the Accident Compensation Corporation’s finances. But none the less, be warned ballerinas – you are in the ACC’s sights.  
To be fair, ACC has said it is just a consultation at this stage, and the proposal is part of a legislative requirement every three years, with cabinet making the final decision on whether levies are raised before December. Can you imagine any minister going ‘hmm, probably a bit unfair, let's see ACC improve its game before we lift the levies’. I cannot see any government organisation or minister going, ‘you know what? let's keep things the way they are’. Doocey says ACC has to make its own efforts to lift its poor financial performance, it has to increase its rehab rates, and it has to do a lot more around injury prevention before they can make a case for raising levies. And that is a fair call given ACC has just done a U-turn and reintroduced one-on-one case managers. They took them away as part of a $74 million restructure, despite the fact the agency had been warned that the new restructure was a dud. A complete dud that wouldn't work.  
And in fact, we had a caller a couple of weeks ago who said that they had been trying to talk to ACC about their particular rehabilitation, they said they were passed from pillar to post, from one person to the next. They had to explain everything from beginning to end every single time they phoned, and it was just a waste of everybody's time and incredibly frustrating. So one-on-one case managers have been reinstated.  
It's just another colossal waste of time and money. The rollout began in 2020 with some zingy person leading the restructure going ‘hey, we're going to increase productivity. Yes, we are. We're going to save costs and you case managers, you're going to see a direct lift in your performance. We're going to improve your workloads’.  By 2022, running costs had doubled, there were no discernible benefits to clients, and there was little improvement to case backlogs with exhausted and overworked case managers dropping at their desks. So the agency's gone back after $74 million down the gurgler to one-on-one case management.  
Back to the proposed living increases, they are up for discussion, so let's discuss. Motorcyclists - the levy covers only around 28% of your costs to the ACC scheme. When things go wrong if you're a motorcyclist, things go wrong badly, so you're going to need a lot of rehab. So Matt Doocey asked do we lower the levy for lower powered bikes while increasing the cost for more powerful bikes? And I would really love to know what ballerinas are doing to stuff themselves up so much.  
Professional sportspeople - I thought you would have been well and truly covered with the medical system that surrounds you as part of your job and the fact that you would go private.  I mean when have you ever heard of any All Black going on the waiting list for a knee operation? They don't. They're in surgery the next day, so I would have that would have been part of your contract that your medical costs are covered. Interesting though, at the Kerre Woodham Morning Show, two out of two of us have been on ACC in the past year. Helen with her never ending shoulder fracture and then me with the smashed arm. But again, the ACC ended after I think it was about 6 physio visits. I've been paying for them ever since. I paid for my own acupuncture, I didn't need any taxis. But we have used it.  
It is a good system when it works. You know you take responsibility for your own recovery as well. You don't just lie there, lumpingly, and expect the taxpayer and the government to fix you. You do your own rehab and try and get yourself better. Everybody says, oh, it's the envy of the world, your ACC, it's just wonderful. Is it still? There's a $1 billion shortfall and you know a lot of that is the damaged babies that actually survive the brutal beatings, but they are left needing lifelong care, so a fund has been set aside for their lifelong needs, which sickens me.  
You cannot get blood out of a stone. I don't know how much more they expect us to pay for everything, for all of the everything. For the rates, for the insurance, for the ACC, for the food, for the doctor's visits, for the everything. You know, there comes a point where you just cannot pay any more. But is ACC serving you well? I can put up my hand and I can do that now and say it has, it has worked well, provided you do your bit too. It's got to be a 50/50 partnership, I think. But can they really justify asking for more in levies when they have just wasted $74 million on a failed restructure? I’m with Matt Doocey: lift your own game before you take money out of our pockets.

Kerre Woodham: ACC needs to lift its game before lifting levies

It won't be a particularly good morning for the people of the central North Island. There was a sense of inevitability really, though, with the announcement that Winstone International will be closing its two mills near Ohakune. For months now, Winstone have been working on trying to find a way to keep the mills open in the face of declining commodity prices and astronomically high power prices. More than 200 workers are directly affected, but of course many, many more will feel the ripple effects of the mills closure. And this comes right on the heels of Ruapehu Alpine lifts troubles as well. It's a real double whammy for the region. The Tangiwai Sawmill and the Karioi Pulpmill have been a part of the central North Island community for more than 40 years. Generations have worked at the mills, but no more. 

Resources Minister Shane Jones was with Mike Hosking this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast and says the reason for the closure can be laid squarely at the feet of the electricity authority, and we need to make changes to the energy sector. 

“Look, it's up to you and I, as Kiwis and your listeners, do you want an economy where the price of power is internationally competitive to keep businesses functioning? Or do you want to disembowel your economy and turn it into an import model? I don't want that. Which is why Simeon Brown and I are signing off now the criteria and that criteria for the review of the power sector will involve structural separation, but look, mate, people have their had this nervousness, they've had this skittishness - don't touch the power system. We trusted the power system to deliver outcomes that boost international competitiveness and national security, they haven't so we have to change it, simple.”

Well, it's not going to be that simple, is it? Changing it is not going to be that simple at all.  I'd be really interested to hear from other manufacturers or those involved in manufacturing and in business. Is it the fluctuating power prices? Can you point to the electricity authority if your business is really struggling and saying you, you as an entity are the reason that I may well go to the wall? There have been so many stresses put on business, put on manufacturers in particular, over the past four or five years.  

Is the fluctuating price of electricity the straw that's breaking many camel's backs, or is it just four or five years of really tough times? Is it international prices making you uncompetitive when compared with product from the rest of the world and the electricity authority is being used as the whipping boy? I love the way he says simple, he’s going to break up the electricity authority. Well no, it’s not going to be simple. And it's too late for Ohakune, far too late. When Shane Jones says it's the electricity market that's going to stuff our economy, I would have thought there was a bit more to it than that. For people having to pay high interest on business loans, the cost of living crisis, which means spending is reduced internationally competitive prices, other countries being able to outbid you, the high wages that you have to pay here compared to other countries, really the electricity component, I would have thought is just another big pressing, weighty issue coming into your office, not the only one.  

It won't be a particularly good morning for the people of the central North Island. There was a sense of inevitability really, though, with the announcement that Winstone International will be closing its two mills near Ohakune. For months now, Winstone have been working on trying to find a way to keep the mills open in the face of declining commodity prices and astronomically high power prices. More than 200 workers are directly affected, but of course many, many more will feel the ripple effects of the mills closure. And this comes right on the heels of Ruapehu Alpine lifts troubles as well. It's a real double whammy for the region. The Tangiwai Sawmill and the Karioi Pulpmill have been a part of the central North Island community for more than 40 years. Generations have worked at the mills, but no more.  
Resources Minister Shane Jones was with Mike Hosking this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast and says the reason for the closure can be laid squarely at the feet of the electricity authority, and we need to make changes to the energy sector.  
“Look, it's up to you and I, as Kiwis and your listeners, do you want an economy where the price of power is internationally competitive to keep businesses functioning? Or do you want to disembowel your economy and turn it into an import model? I don't want that. Which is why Simeon Brown and I are signing off now the criteria and that criteria for the review of the power sector will involve structural separation, but look, mate, people have their had this nervousness, they've had this skittishness - don't touch the power system. We trusted the power system to deliver outcomes that boost international competitiveness and national security, they haven't so we have to change it, simple.” 
Well, it's not going to be that simple, is it? Changing it is not going to be that simple at all.  I'd be really interested to hear from other manufacturers or those involved in manufacturing and in business. Is it the fluctuating power prices? Can you point to the electricity authority if your business is really struggling and saying you, you as an entity are the reason that I may well go to the wall? There have been so many stresses put on business, put on manufacturers in particular, over the past four or five years.   
Is the fluctuating price of electricity the straw that's breaking many camel's backs, or is it just four or five years of really tough times? Is it international prices making you uncompetitive when compared with product from the rest of the world and the electricity authority is being used as the whipping boy? I love the way he says simple, he’s going to break up the electricity authority. Well no, it’s not going to be simple. And it's too late for Ohakune, far too late. When Shane Jones says it's the electricity market that's going to stuff our economy, I would have thought there was a bit more to it than that. For people having to pay high interest on business loans, the cost of living crisis, which means spending is reduced internationally competitive prices, other countries being able to outbid you, the high wages that you have to pay here compared to other countries, really the electricity component, I would have thought is just another big pressing, weighty issue coming into your office, not the only one.

Kerre Woodham: It won't be that simple to solve the electricity crisis

As much as I hate the gangs profiting from misery and tying up police time with their internecine feuds, the late amendment to the gangs bill, banning people from wearing their gang patches in their own homes, seems ludicrous for the reasons that have been given. 

The Gangs Bill, as it was tabled in July at the Justice Select Committee, will give police the power to disperse gatherings and to ban patches in public. All good. But a clause added a few weeks ago allows the police to apply to the courts for a gang prohibition order for repeat offenders, meaning anyone convicted of wearing their patch in public three times in five years won't be allowed to wear the patch in their own home. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Mike Hosking this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast that he makes no apologies for giving police extra tools to deal with gang members.

“What it's about is giving them, the police, that option to deal with what we think will be a small group of people who say, well, stuff you, I'm just gonna wear my patch and I'll pay my fine and I'll keep on doing it. And that would undermine the purpose of the bill and that's why we got that feedback during the Select Committee and so we're bringing in this extra tool to give the police extra powers to deal with that small number of repeat offenders.”

Well, all very well and good, but there's a couple of things here. This amendment really should have been discussed at Select Committee so that organisations, experts, and the public could have their say. You can't just discuss a bill at Select Committee, everybody knows what's in it, everybody has their say, and then after it's been tabled go - oh, hang on, hang on. I've got an idea. You can't have a thought bubble and pop it in (although it appears you can). But I think it sets a precedent that other substantial changes and amendments can be made to bills without the public getting to have their say. 

An open letter from the Law Society to Goldsmith urged him to withdraw the amendment, calling it an unjustified limitation on the right to freedom of expression and not rationally connected to the stated purpose of the gang patch ban, which is to reduce public intimidation. And it is. I don't like seeing them on the streets, we share the streets, I'm very unlikely to visit a gang member's home and if they want to wear their patch at home and they're not doing anything unlawful, then I find it hard to see how that is going to impact anybody around us. 

Then there's the policing of the ban. Making rules that are unenforceable weakens the impact of legislation and laws. Are the police really going to go around peering in the windows of gang members, hauling them into cells if they spot them wearing their patch while sitting on the couch watching The Chase? They're not. And I think this is where Paul Goldsmith should have just come clean. Surely the purpose of the law is to give the police licence to niggle. How could any recidivist patch wearer relax in the comfort of their own home, dealing their drugs or polishing their firearms or whatever it is that they do, if they know that at any time of the day or night the police can turn up? Oy, oy, oy, understand that you're a recidivist patch wearer, just checking you're not wearing your patch, Sir.Ostensibly, it would be to check that the patch is still in the wardrobe in its dry-cleaning bag, waiting for the no patch order to be served, but really, it's so that the police can just turn up and make the gang members life misery. 

And that's fine, because if you're going to keep wearing your patch, then it's probably pretty likely that you're going to ignore other laws as well, but I don't know why they didn't just come clean on that. It's the Operation Raptor approach that the Australian police used, niggle, niggle, niggle. Every time one of the Aussie gang members went out in public what they were wearing, what they were driving, what they were riding, was just put through the ringer. And it was just constant niggle. And if that's what it's for, fine, I still think it should have been put through at the right time. You can't have a thought bubble and pop it into your Bill. If they forgot, then it should go through the process and do it properly. 

But to say we're giving the police powers to stop recidivist gang members from wearing patches in their own home, to me sounds silly. If you say we're giving the police powers to niggle the living daylights out of recidivist gang members, fine with that.

As much as I hate the gangs profiting from misery and tying up police time with their internecine feuds, the late amendment to the gangs bill, banning people from wearing their gang patches in their own homes, seems ludicrous for the reasons that have been given.  
The Gangs Bill, as it was tabled in July at the Justice Select Committee, will give police the power to disperse gatherings and to ban patches in public. All good. But a clause added a few weeks ago allows the police to apply to the courts for a gang prohibition order for repeat offenders, meaning anyone convicted of wearing their patch in public three times in five years won't be allowed to wear the patch in their own home. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Mike Hosking this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast that he makes no apologies for giving police extra tools to deal with gang members. 
“What it's about is giving them, the police, that option to deal with what we think will be a small group of people who say, well, stuff you, I'm just gonna wear my patch and I'll pay my fine and I'll keep on doing it. And that would undermine the purpose of the bill and that's why we got that feedback during the Select Committee and so we're bringing in this extra tool to give the police extra powers to deal with that small number of repeat offenders.” 
Well, all very well and good, but there's a couple of things here. This amendment really should have been discussed at Select Committee so that organisations, experts, and the public could have their say. You can't just discuss a bill at Select Committee, everybody knows what's in it, everybody has their say, and then after it's been tabled go - oh, hang on, hang on. I've got an idea. You can't have a thought bubble and pop it in (although it appears you can). But I think it sets a precedent that other substantial changes and amendments can be made to bills without the public getting to have their say.  
An open letter from the Law Society to Goldsmith urged him to withdraw the amendment, calling it an unjustified limitation on the right to freedom of expression and not rationally connected to the stated purpose of the gang patch ban, which is to reduce public intimidation. And it is. I don't like seeing them on the streets, we share the streets, I'm very unlikely to visit a gang member's home and if they want to wear their patch at home and they're not doing anything unlawful, then I find it hard to see how that is going to impact anybody around us.  
Then there's the policing of the ban. Making rules that are unenforceable weakens the impact of legislation and laws. Are the police really going to go around peering in the windows of gang members, hauling them into cells if they spot them wearing their patch while sitting on the couch watching The Chase? They're not. And I think this is where Paul Goldsmith should have just come clean. Surely the purpose of the law is to give the police licence to niggle. How could any recidivist patch wearer relax in the comfort of their own home, dealing their drugs or polishing their firearms or whatever it is that they do, if they know that at any time of the day or night the police can turn up? Oy, oy, oy, understand that you're a recidivist patch wearer, just checking you're not wearing your patch, Sir. Ostensibly, it would be to check that the patch is still in the wardrobe in its dry-cleaning bag, waiting for the no patch order to be served, but really, it's so that the police can just turn up and make the gang members life misery.  
And that's fine, because if you're going to keep wearing your patch, then it's probably pretty likely that you're going to ignore other laws as well, but I don't know why they didn't just come clean on that. It's the Operation Raptor approach that the Australian police used, niggle, niggle, niggle. Every time one of the Aussie gang members went out in public what they were wearing, what they were driving, what they were riding, was just put through the ringer. And it was just constant niggle. And if that's what it's for, fine, I still think it should have been put through at the right time. You can't have a thought bubble and pop it into your Bill. If they forgot, then it should go through the process and do it properly.  
But to say we're giving the police powers to stop recidivist gang members from wearing patches in their own home, to me sounds silly. If you say we're giving the police powers to niggle the living daylights out of recidivist gang members, fine with that.

Sir Richard Faull: Director of the Centre for Brain Research on the risk of developing dementia being 60% higher for those in deprived areas

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips