Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Should we be looking at banning youth from owning smartphones instead of banning them from social media?
ACT Leader David Seymour has suggested that under-16s should be limited to “dumbphones” that can’t access the internet, but can text and call.
While not suggesting it as official policy yet, he says social media has caused anxiety, depression, self-harm, poor body image, loneliness, and declining life satisfaction.
President of the New Zealand Principals' Federation, Jason Miles told Kerre Woodham he would recommend parents give their kids a dumb phone – the practical elements are appealing.
However, he says, the pressure that comes with the expanding online world will always be there now, and it should be on the social media companies to keep kids safe.
Miles asks why social media companies should be driving how society acts, telling Woodham that it’s surely something our government, parents, and educators should be doing.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The ACT Party's not really a “ban” sort of a party. I've always thought they supported the idea of letting people go to hell in their own way. If you want to make your own decisions, fill your boots – if they're bad ones, live with the consequences. And perhaps they do still support the idea of adults going to hell in their own way, but not when it comes to kids.
Leader David Seymour did not support the National Party ban getting kids off social media. They've said that's a dumb idea, there's no way you can police the internet. But what David Seymour has proposed is a total ban on smartphones for under 16-year-olds. He says Parliament could prohibit the purchase, possession, and supply of smartphones in much the same way we prohibit young people from purchasing alcohol and tobacco, and we prohibit adults from supplying minors with these substances. He's putting smartphones in the same category as tobacco and alcohol.
He says teenagers are perfectly able, in his world, to have dumb phones, but given the known link between smartphones and the social media apps you can access on them and anxiety, depression, and self-harm, he says we should consider a smartphone yet another harmful substance that should only be available to adults.
Now, of course, if you don't want your child to have a smartphone, you don't have to get them one. You can make your own rules in your own house for your own kids. But it's really hard to make a rule for your child that other parents don't have for their children. It's really hard too, in this day and age, to access notices at school about upcoming events, sports practices, lifts that people are offering to get your kid to training and back again. Everything's on platforms these days that you need the phones to access. There must be a way around it. We can just get the Gestetner out and get the school notices home again.
There was a time where we had a perfectly functioning community and civilisation that did not have smartphones, so there must be a way to do it. And if the Government is willing to do the heavy lifting and play bad cop so you don't have to, so much the better. “I want a smartphone, everybody else has got one," says the 13-year-old. “I'm sorry, it's against the law. In the same way I can't give you alcohol or cigarettes, I can't give you a smartphone." It makes it easier if there's a ban.
Of course, kids will still get them in the same way they will do workarounds if there's a ban on under 16s going onto certain social media apps. There'll be a workaround. But if the general accepted norm is that young people do not have access to smartphones until they're 16, it's just one of those things. Children, young people, don't drink until they're 18. Of course, some of them do, but the general accepted norm is that they don't. The general accepted norm is that you don't buy cigarettes for children.
Could it be possible that the general accepted norm becomes young people do not get smartphones until they're 16? It doesn't seem impossible. Yes, smartphones are everywhere now, but it's not that long ago that they didn't used to be. You don't have to have them. Some people don't, some people still don't. The world can perfectly capably function without them.
And certainly, in the world of a teenager, you should be able to function without them. There is no doubt that the anxiety, the bullying, the depression, the self-harm, the self-doubt has got worse. Social skills have got worse. The ability to function in the real world has got worse because you can hide away, you go through a portal into an app, through the other side, through your smartphone, and you don't have to face reality. No good has come of allowing the kids access to smartphones. There are kids as under 13 who are able to use them and accessing them. Once you see something, once you get embroiled in something beyond you, that's it. You can't unsee something, you can't unhear something. Keep the ugly, unpatrolled, unpoliced dark side of the web away from our kids until they're able to cope, they've got to build up a bit more resilience to cope.
David Seymour says banning smartphones will be a lot easier than trying to police the internet, and he's right. So if you're looking for a way to protect our young people, do you go with David Seymour's total ban on smartphones for under 16s, or do you try and patrol the internet by denying them access to certain apps? I think I'd just go for the ban. Quicker, easier, simpler. Cigarettes, alcohol, smartphones – no access till you're an adult.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stop the press, the media has a new darling. Chlöe Swarbrick and the Opportunity Party can have a breather this week, a bit of downtime, because there's only one show in town and it's Paul Henry. The self-made millionaire, the former broadcaster, has thrown his hat into the political ring again. He wants to become a polly, and not just any old polly. He has no interest in sitting on the back benches, cooling his heels, learning the ropes. He is not there to shag spiders. He's made it perfectly plain that he wants to be a minister in the next coalition government. Prime Minister, hey, why not? There is no doubt when you hear him speak that he has a real passion for New Zealand and that he wants New Zealand to be a great place for his children and grandchildren, for your children and grandchildren. And there's no doubt that he's a great cheerleader for the ACT Party.
“I think with ACT I can tangibly affect change. I think with ACT, it is the only party that I think can genuinely steer this country in the right direction. By right direction I mean create policies that inspire growth of our economy because our economy is perilously small, cut wasteful government spending in so many different ways, and hopefully create an environment whereby New Zealanders, I mean your introduction was spot on, where New Zealanders aren't angsting, they're not suspicious of everything all the time. I mean the thing that holds New Zealand back, because both of us travel a lot, we can both see New Zealand with a bit of perspective from offshore. What a brilliant country with extraordinary resources and potential it is. So why is it not being realised?"
That was former broadcaster Paul Henry talking to broadcaster Mike Hosking this morning. Will Paul Henry have the discipline to sit through the turgid meetings and briefings that are a part of being a politician? A lot of people go into politics and they say they're going to cut red tape and they're going to get things done, and within a matter of months they end up hogtied in the corner defeated by the red tape.
Paul Henry is a loose cannon – he doesn't have to do anything. He's perfectly fine where he is. He could do whatever the hell he wanted. He's very bright, he's very quick witted. These are both blessings and curses for the ACT Party. He doesn't need the gig. He has his own thoughts. It might be a libertarian party, but by crikey, once he starts speaking his own mind within Parliament, it can create issues when you have to abide by coalition rules. And of course, Paul Henry is not the ACT Party – he's one person among many. The party has broad ranging policies and very strong ideas on just about everything, and you would have to surely look at those closely. You might like Paul Henry, but you might not like the policies that come along with Paul Henry.
Do celebrities make good parliamentarians? On the one hand, it brings profile to the party, especially if they've been languishing a bit, and it's fair to say that ACT has taken a back seat to New Zealand First this year in terms of column inches generated, probably even taken a back seat to the Opportunity Party this year. National's Christopher Luxon doesn't have the pizzazz, the jazz hands of Paul Henry, nor indeed does Chris Hipkins. But I don't think Labour voters would be looking to ACT as their alternate party – but who knows, stranger things have happened. When you look at former broadcasters that have gone into politics, they've done okay, I suppose. Maggie Barry's probably the best of the recent crop. She made minister, but I think it was pretty tough going. Do self-made millionaires make good MPs? John Key was a good Prime Minister. Didn't have to do the gig and when he got bored, he went. But I think it's widely agreed that he was a pretty good PM for the times.
This is probably just going to be a flash in the pan. There'll be the big announcement, we got it yesterday, it's gripped the media news cycle to the extent that we're going to wrap up I think the 24 hours of, I don't know what it was really, excitement? It wasn't shock so much, but it just seemed to be wow, it sort of energized the conversation around ACT, it energized the conversation around politics. And that's got to be a good thing. Anything that gets people interested in politics, great, but it's got to go beyond one person, it's got to go beyond celebrity, it's got to go beyond face value.
As I say, if you're voting for Paul Henry you have to be very careful, as people did for Winston Peters. They liked him and the party came second. So be aware that there are broad ranging policies, have a look at those before you decide oh, I like that Paul Henry, I'm going to give him a tick. And be aware too that quick witted, mercurial people who don't need the gig might not be around for a long time. It'll be a good time, but it won't be a long time.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I would like to get your feedback on whether or not we should be upgrading our warships. New Zealand's two main warships will reach the end of their working lives within about a decade, and Cabinet must decide by 2027 what should replace them.
The way we're going it'd be a fleet of jet skis. The choice will shape the country's ability to help keep its trade routes open for a generation, according to retired Major General John Howard, who's a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. He argues the decision about what to buy, if to buy, deserves far more scrutiny than it's ever done before. He says almost everything New Zealand sells and buys travels by ship. About 99% of its trade, measured by volume, moves by sea: dairy, meat, fuel, machinery. We're also responsible for one of the world's largest stretches of ocean, about 4.1 million square kilometres.
He says if the decision on the frigates is delayed or the wrong capability is chosen, New Zealand could spend years without a warship able to operate in contested waters alongside its allies, and the skills, the systems, and the experience behind that capability would take a generation to rebuild. If we don't have a navy and then decide that we want one, it's not going to be as simple as buying ships. You have to train up a whole generation of command structure, troops, sailors, the like.
No argument from me there, but you would have to wonder why we spent $600 to $700 million on upgrades to the Te Mana and Te Kaha if they're going to be obsolete within a few years. Major General Howard retired says we are a serious maritime nation – what we decide here will show whether we intend to stay one.
Now I've had no argument with his thoughts so far, but this one I would have to dispute. Can we seriously be considered a serious maritime nation if our naval fleet comprises two frigates, two support vessels, and four basically cop cars for the sea? We have of course one at the bottom of the ocean, but that was a survey ship and wouldn't have really counted. Norway, which is the same size as New Zealand, has a naval fleet of 69 vessels: submarines, frigates, corvettes, minesweepers, minehunters, you know, pick a ship, any ship, and they've got it. And sure, they are far, far richer than we are, and the Russian bear is close enough to them that they can feel its fur. But come on, a serious maritime nation does not have two warships and one survey ship at the bottom of the ocean.
I can understand why we haven't made our defence and our interoperative capability a priority over recent years when we have been lucky enough to have lived in a relative state of peace and calm. But the way we are now, the way the world is now, we need to decide whether we want to be part of serious alliances and play our part or whether we just bludge off our mates, who may or may not choose to help us depending on whether they can be arsed or what we've got that they want. There'll be no guarantees.
You only have to look at Europe to see what happens when you rely on another country for your defence. All of a sudden, they pull the plug and Europe is left scrambling. All of a sudden, they're having to play catch up for the past 30-odd years on their defence spending, on their defence capability, because they cannot rely on the US anymore.
We don't have to have a traditional navy. It doesn't have to look like it did 50 years ago. With changes to technology, the way wars are fought, wars are won – if you could ever say that wars can be won. But the way wars and battles are fought now, you'd need different technology, different capability, but we have to do some spending surely. For those who say we don't need to, look at Europe. The US said you've done nothing for us, you haven't spent any money, look after yourselves. And now they really are playing catch up.
We can stand on the shores to the beat of rhythmic drums and sing 'Give Peace a Chance' while people take what they want, and that is a valid option. Even with a fleet we could afford, we're not going to be able to repel a serious invader. But surely, we have to play our part if we want to be considered a serious maritime nation? I would consider that playing our part in an interoperative alliance. That's what we have to do, or that's what we have to make the decision on. I'm all for doing our bit and not bludging off our mates. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Defence Minister says we can't just follow Australia's footsteps as the time for replacing our two ageing warships nears.
The NZ Initiative says the frigates need to retire within a decade, with complex geopolitics adding urgency.
It says the replacements will impact our status as a maritime nation, and our trade routes and defence capabilities for the next generation.
Minister Chris Penk told Kerre Woodham we want to be able to coordinate with Australia but have other needs.
He says it might come down to cost, different capability needs, or wanting to be more active in the Antarctic, for example.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.