Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

From Michelin stars to school lunches, sublime, ridiculous. I think it's safe to say none of the school lunches on offer will be getting Michelin stars. Then the last lot probably wouldn't have either. A scathing report has been issued by the Auditor General, which says only 50% percent of the meals delivered by the new school lunch programme in 2025 complied with the Ministry of Education's nutrition standards. We haven't talked about the school lunches for a hot minute, have we? Remember when it was the topic du jour? The parliamentary watchdog also took aim at inaccurate costings for the lunches, safety issues, contingency planning, and their rollout. Associate Minister for Education and the equivalent of 'Thatcher Thatcher milk snatcher', David Seymour is the one that said no, we're going to do away with them altogether, oh all right we'll keep them, but they have to be cheaper. He’s hit out at the criticism, inferring the Auditor General took far too much notice of malcontents formerly involved in the scheme.
“What they haven't done is a comparison of the quality before and after I took over. So they've been very critical in various ways and I'm happy to to answer their criticisms, but they haven't evaluated the whole programme and it appears that a lot of the initiation of the report and the feed into the report came from people that frankly had to be sacked after they were not able to manage the programme when I came in, and those who previously supplied the government, often at twice the current price. None of those people are very happy and they seem to have had a pretty good hearing from the Auditor General.”
I don't think we can shoot the messenger. The office of the Auditor General has done some sterling work over the past few years and they're just simply looking at the numbers. But should we just do away with them altogether? Because when it was initially conceived, I mean if you look at the data, the 50% nutrition figure for the School Lunch Collective's meals was calculated by the Ministry of Education. It was disputed by the Collective, which said by Term 3 we'd got it up to 69% of the lunches complying with nutrition standards, and in Term 4 compliance was 75%. I bet your bottom dollar I was churning out school lunches back in the day that did not comply with the Ministry's nutrition standards. And probably, if you look at the kids' lunchboxes this morning, there's a lot of pressure from schools and fellow parents to produce nutritional, yet decorative, eye catching, pleasing to the palate school lunches. Honestly, that thing where you're doing the bento boxes with the pretty patterns in the sandwiches, as if parents didn't have enough to do of a morning. Anyway, they probably wouldn't meet the criteria every day either.
And that's the thing. When school lunches were first envisaged, you and I, and indeed the MPs involved in the decision making, probably imagined a couple of Marmite or cheese sandwiches, some yoghurt, a muesli bar and an apple. Easy. Why not? Fill your boots. Do it. But that's where you and I, and indeed the MPs, are coming from a place of privilege. Who knew that a Marmite sandwich was privilege? It is. Bureaucrats stuck their oars in and said, no, when it comes to the school lunches for certain children, the school lunch may well be the only regular meal of the day. You privileged people with your Marmite sandwich go home to cooked dinners full of protein and veggies. These children don't. Therefore, we must cram as many nutrients and veggies as we possibly can into the school lunch to ensure these poor kids get their daily allowance. That's where it all got very, very, very complicated. Because if you're trying to make the school lunch the main meal of the day, generally it'll have to be heated. And you'll have to pack it full of veggies and some of these kids, you, some of these kids don't even know the texture of raw vegetables or couscous or rice or anything of the like.
Some providers did it very well. Remember that school in Porirua? Where we had the lovely principal and they got the parents involved and they did their own lunches. And they were mums and they were sensible and they knew how to make meals on the smell of an oily rag and how to disguise vegetables. You grate the carrot into the spaghetti bolognese. You don't put it there in big lumps because they're not used to that, a lot of these kids – they don't want to eat chunks of carrot. Most parents who are listening to this show will know how you disguise veggies into food. You usually do it when they're about 18 months old, nine months to 18 months old. You don't make it slop, but get them used to texture and chewing and the like. And that's what you do. You don't hit them up with a couscous salad on day one and expect them to scarf it down.
We come back to what success looks like for this programme. For me, I never imagined in 10 trillion years that it would cause this much angst, political toing and froing, that it would cost that much, around $328 million a year, that it would take up, command so much airtime and column inches in the media. It's absurd. I thought it would be a lunch as you and I know it, not every single calorie and veggie a child would need in a day. That it would be about improving attendance because when the kids knew there was a good meal for them, they'd turn up to school, and performance would improve.
But no, that hasn't happened. School attendance hasn't improved and the only data around improved classroom performance is non-existent. You just get the touchy feelies – the children reported a better sense of wellbeing. Well, that's not getting an A+, is it? That's not being able to sit through a reading lesson. No, the programme's become more trouble than it's bloody worth. Do away with the government being involved, you know, give some money to the charities that do provide, KidsCan provide lunches, Sanitarium and Fonterra provide breakfast clubs. Either scale it right back and keep it simple and keep it as cheap as possible, the sandwich, the yoghurt, the apple, or just don't do it at all.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Multiple hospitals are dealing with failing infrastructure.
Episodes of heavy rain are causing leaks and water damage at Middlemore Hospital’s aging maternity block.
And conditions at Hutt Hospital are being described as “disgraceful”, with water getting into wards, collapsing ceilings, and potential electrical hazards.
Nurses say they’re juggling patient care with buckets and mops, while Health NZ insists the issues are contained the hospitals remain safe.
Chief Financial Officer Bevan McKenzie told Kerre Woodham those specific issues will be addressed over the next 12 months under the remediation programme.
More broadly, he says, they have a weather tightness programme being implemented across the Health NZ estate, and they’ve earmarked $10 million for improvement in 2026/27 to continue that work.
McKenzie says that water-related issues are complex, as it can be difficult to identify where they’re stemming from, and wants to acknowledge the work the clinical and facilities teams are doing to improve the situation.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yesterday, I was talking about the amount of aid we're sending to places like Vietnam and Indonesia. Places I would venture to suggest that are showing more go ahead, more investment in infrastructure than we are. When you're looking at Vietnam, they're building one of the largest stadiums in the world, they've got fast rail underway, they're building a huge city to house much of its population – they're spending billions. It's also a place where New Zealanders travel to get first class healthcare that we can't access here.
Now we've asked Winston Peters why we're sending money to Vietnam and Indonesia. He, or his people, referred us to MFAT. MFAT says they need time to tell us why Vietnam is in need of New Zealand money – we're waiting to hear back from them. They have been asked this before. Why are we sending money to places that don't really need it? It's the equivalent of donating to a Givealittle page for your neighbour to find out that they're building a swimming pool, but you can't afford to.
I was asking this question yesterday, this morning there are two stories about the parlous state of two of New Zealand's hospitals. Could be any of the hospitals, but in this case it's Middlemore, the ageing maternity block, and Hutt Hospital. And staff are complaining about the multiple leaks and electrical faults and mould and water on the window as a result of the heavy rain – the buildings can't cope with it. And they accept that every now and then, at times of heavy rain, there will be the odd leak, but they say throughout winter this is what they and the patients have to put up with.
Both of the hospital directors at Middlemore and Hutt Hospital say patient health was not compromised, services continued as usual, they're just leaks people, nothing to see here. But staff say they're fed up with working under sodden and collapsing roof panels, damp conditions and electrical issues. It might just be a leak on that one particular day and as a patient at the hospital you're only there for three days – the nurses, the doctors, the staff are working there all day every day and throughout winter they say it's miserable.
There's a programme of works for our hospitals around the country, a 10 year plan, but the need is so great it's hard to know where to start. The average age of our public health estate —1,274 buildings across 86 campuses— is around 47 years. That's the average age, some will be much, much older, and the new ones, the brand new spanking new facilities, will drag that average up. The population is growing and ageing and demand for mental health services is growing. The pressure on government budgets and on the health staff trying to deliver services in decrepit infrastructure is immense.
There is a 10 year programme of works, but Middlemore maternity hospital and Hutt Hospital don't feature as far as I can see on the plan. You've got Whangārei Hospital – and it's all built into stage one, two, three, and four. Waitākere, and God knows, despite the fact that wasn't in the news, according to locals, that needs a revamp. You've got Middlemore, but they're looking at targeted ED upgrades, and then stage two will be planning a new site. Stage three will be a new site or Middlemore expansion. Nothing about the maternities. Waikato, Tauranga, Gisborne, Hawke's Bay, God knows that needs a revamp. Palmerston North, Wellington and Nelson. So nothing there for Middlemore or Hutt Hospital, so I guess they'll have to keep going to the paper. And if the average age is around 47 years, the need will be great. I don't know how they prioritise which hospitals get it first.
Then you look at the last financial year, 24/25 New Zealand spent $943.81 million in foreign aid across 624 activities. I get that we want to be good global citizens and I get that we are wealthy compared to other nations and I'm not saying stop all aid, but come on. When household budgets tighten, you have to give less. There isn't that much money to go around, otherwise you are depriving your own family. And this is the case here on a macro scale.
How can we justify donations to Vietnam, which is just thriving, and Indonesia? How can $943.81 million in foreign aid be justified when we have leaky ageing hospitals, some schools need to be completely and utterly revamped, and some of the police stations are just appalling. A lot of the public buildings in which our public servants work are just not suitable and not fit for people to be there. How can we justify that level of aid when New Zealand citizens are travelling to the very country that we're giving aid to for their medical and dental care? Do foreign aid officials realise how weird that looks?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nobody loves a tradie more than a politician in election year. Labour announced it would reset the apprenticeship boost scheme back to two years from 2028 if come the glorious day they became the next government. Labour leader Chris Hipkins announced the election policy to the party faithful at Labour's congress as they call it in election year in Wellington over the weekend.
There are so many young New Zealanders who would love to get into the trades and are just desperate for the opportunity to do that. And we've got a lot of feedback from those employers who would love to take on an apprentice but they just need a bit more financial support to be able to do that.
And they'll get it if Labour becomes the government with the Greens and Te Pāti Māori and maybe TOP. It's a hangover from COVID. The scheme started in 2020 Employers were paid $500 a month for one year to take on apprentices, helping pay for things like wages and ensuring apprentices can keep earning while they're training. In 2025 the scheme was pegged back by the coalition government from a two year subsidy to instead focus on first year apprentices in targeted occupations.
At the time, the government said targeting the scheme would ensure the skills and qualifications people were getting were in sync with what the country needed. Labour's scheme would see the 2020 we're back to the future with 2020 reinstated. It would be a two year subsidy and the trades that would qualify would also be expanded to include road construction, water treatment, and hairdressing. Hipkins later told media that Labour had deliberately sought to expand the scheme to more industries that employed more women. Pollys love a tradie.
Remember in 1999 you may not, but perhaps your employer does, Helen Clark campaigned on apprenticeships. Labour introduced legislation for a modern apprenticeship programme which would provide better opportunities for New Zealanders to gain national qualifications through work based training. So that was a big platform plank of Labour's policies going into the 1999 election.
In 2013 then Prime Minister John Key promised cash incentives to encourage people to take up apprenticeships as of election year 2014 Modern apprenticeships and other apprenticeship type training would be combined under a new scheme called New Zealand Apprenticeships. The overall subsidy payments to the scheme would be increased by 12 million in the first year, that would rise over time.
And then along came Labour's COVID scheme which the coalition government kept kind of but tinkered with. And now here we are with another election in a few months and yet again the tradies are being wooed. Are you wooable? Is this the sort of thing your business needs to take on more apprentices? Of all the schemes that have been dangled before you, that have been offered, that have been introduced and then tinkered with and then merged into one and then separated and then, times two divide by three, carry the four and plus five. Which scheme has worked the best for you?
When it comes to taking on apprentices, training them up, having the time and the opportunity and the readies to be able to take on apprentices, which apprenticeship scheme has worked the best for you? Of all the many, and I only went back 27 years, has a government scheme made a difference to your business being able to take on apprentices or does it very much depend on the economic climate of the day rather than any kind of government?
Surely a subsidy of $500 a month for a year would help because taking on apprentices does take time. You get a few prancing unicorns that come into your workshop or to your salon or to your work gang who are brilliant, who are meant to be doing the job, who understand it instinctively, who turn up on time. They're amazing and we get a few of those here.
But the rest of us, and I include myself in that, aren't much use for a couple of years. We make mistakes, we learn from them, we cost you money, you roll your eyes, you manage not to kick our bums and in the end we come right and we're worth something to you. It takes time, it takes dedication, it takes the right temperament to take on apprentices.
Is this COVID 2.0 scheme that Labour has announced, the apprenticeship boost scheme, is that going to make a difference to you in terms of taking on apprentices? Is there a government scheme over the last 27 years that's worked best for you or is it pretty much up to the economic climate of the time as to whether you can take on apprentices or not?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Kiwi doctor who’s lived in Australia for decades was arrested at Wellington Airport over about $180,000 in unpaid student loan debt.
Police stopped him as he tried to leave the country, his passport’s been seized, and he’s now stuck in New Zealand until it’s sorted.
It’s part of a tougher crackdown, with billions still owed by borrowers living offshore.
IRD Customer Segment Leader Rebecca Baker joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the details of the crackdown, and what will be done about Kiwis who are already abroad.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.