Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

I wanted to start today with a landmark study from Monash University. It's found that a routine arming of police officers does not lead to a spike in trigger happy coppers. In fact, after Aussie coppers were armed in the early 1990s, there was a downward trend in shooting rates. The research, which investigated 50 years of officer-involved shootings in Australia between 1970 and 2020, challenges the prevailing assumption that increased firearm availability among police inevitably results in higher rates of lethal force. And I think that assumption exists here.
You think that by routinely arming officers, there will be more shootings. That doesn't appear to be borne out across the ditch. Police in most countries are routinely armed, but they're not in England, New Zealand, Norway, and Scotland. Guns are available, but they're not worn as of the standard uniform. And this is often due to concerns that arming officers could damage their relationship with the public or lead to a more authoritarian style of policing. The lead researcher of the study at Monash, Dr Ross Hendy, said the findings provide crucial real-world evidence for countries currently debating whether or not their police should carry guns. It was not followed by an increase in shootings.
I find that interesting because you would imagine if it's there, you'd use it. But not necessarily so. And I think you've seen where you are going to see a damaging of the relationship between police and the public is when you have officers who are completely brainwashed and unwilling and or unable to use their own discernment, as we saw in the appalling case of Henry Nowak. An utterly appalling case. I haven't been able to watch the full video of that poor young man being handcuffed as he lay dying because once you see something, you cannot unsee it.
American History X is a case in point. I could not – I started to watch it and then I just could not. But this is what happens when police are too intimidated, too brainwashed, too fearful to use their own critical thinking and instead rely on doctrinaire and tutelage and sitting through endless re-education classes, going from black bad, white good to white bad, black good. You cannot reduce humans to that kind of binary, primitive calculation. And that seems to be what's happened in an attempt to try and rid the British police force of any kind of racism towards minority communities. They have completely flipped it and now you have racism in reverse, which is just as damaging, just as bad. And this is the result. So that's what's going to damage relations between police and the public when police aren't able to use their own discernment and police accordingly.
How many times do you think the police fired their guns in New Zealand? They're not routinely available, you can access them, so I would have thought maybe 100 – I don't know why. I mean, we're seeing increasingly violent crime, I would have thought maybe 100 times. No. Police discharged their firearms in just three separate events in 2024 Three! Three times! It averages about 5.5 times a year over the past 10 years. That is a phenomenally small number of times that police actually fire their weapons. When they fire them, they tend to fire them for a reason, and the result tends to be terminal. You could hardly accuse our police force of being trigger happy. The police say they're very glad that their de-escalation training is working. The presentation of firearms, sponge bullets, tasers, and batons is far more often than that. But they don't use them, they just show the offender, the person, what they've got, but they don't just pull them out and use them. That shows that they're thinking, they're discerning.
While the Police Association has advocated for routine arming in recent times, for a long time they did not. But as policing has changed, as policemen have been shot and killed, they have called for routine arming. Politicians have been more cautious. A routine arming trial was carried out in 2019 and 2020 but not continued because the Police Commissioner of the time, Andrew Coster, said they created fear in communities. So that that didn't happen. The low rate of police firing their weapons is incredible when you consider that the firearms were pointed at police in 19 incidents over 2024 – eight times they were fired at. So they've fired at fewer criminals than criminals have fired at police.
I think if the police want to be armed, I think the stats show they have the self-restraint, they have the discernment to be able to use them. The Monash study says when it came to Aussie police, routinely arming them did not lead to an increase in use of firearms. In fact, there was a de-escalation of them. So the studies from Monash, our own statistics from New Zealand, say to me that if the police want to be armed, they’ve earned the right to bear sidearms, if that’s what they think they need to do.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The speed of the changes to council voting rights is sparking some concern.
The Government is amending the Local Government Act, which would strip non-elected representatives of voting rights on council committees.
Changes would impact iwi and youth representatives, although Treaty-based committees are exempt.
Local Government NZ Board Member and Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell told Kerre Woodham that while they understand where Minister Simon Watts is coming from, this is substantial and unprecedented reform.
She says it's a pretty quick change to the law, and they hope they can continue to have input so as to ensure there’s no unintended consequences.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government will stop unelected individuals from voting on council committees, a move an Act MP has described as closing an anti-democratic loophole. It seems like a no brainer. Why should unelected individuals have the right to vote on council committees? Of course people who have never been elected to a council or a government shouldn't be given voting rights. You can certainly ask people for their opinion, their informed comment, but voting rights?
The issue of unelected New Zealanders being appointed to council committees and then having voting rights has been in the news recently, predominantly around the Far North where hapū representatives were confirmed to be put on a committee tasked with shaping Māori strategic relationships and embedding Te Tiriti based partnership in council decision making. Fair enough, getting their opinions. Absolutely. You would imagine that hapū representatives are the best people to talk about how to shape Māori strategic relationships and how they see Te Tiriti being enacted through council decision making. Totally fair enough.
Where it gets a bit murky is that they have full speaking and voting rights alongside elected representatives. They're also paid the daily rate. They don't have to accept it, but they are paid a daily rate of around about 250 bucks plus travel costs plus any childcare, just as elected representatives can ask for. They can volunteer their time and their knowledge, but if they want to be paid, they will be. They wouldn't make final decisions, but they would vote on the issues that would be heard at full council.
ACT leader David Seymour said anyone voting on council decisions should be accountable, including facing elections, and the party lodged a member's bill to prohibit voting rights for unelected appointees. But Simon Watts, Local Government Minister, has basically cut their lunch and announced that non-elected individuals can be appointed to offer their professional advice, they can represent communities, but they will not be able to vote or count towards a quorum. The statutory committees and appointments, including those agreed as part of a treaty settlement though, will be excluded.
WATTS: This is a specific board set up for Auckland Council. Short answer is, is that for the Independent Māori Statutory Board, those members will only be able to vote on council committees where the law specifically enables it, and what that means is, is that that committee's set up under a different act.
HDPA: So they retain their voting rights?
WATTS: If it's related to the specific act. So it relates to where they're doing the management of natural and physical resources. If they're on a subcommittee doing that, then they're able to vote. Anything else, they're not able to.
So, does that clear it up? I would be really interested to hear from a range of interests as to how council decisions will impact, and some will vary more than others. If you're in Wellington right now, for example, and you're in council, you would want to hear from businesses as to how decisions made by the council have impacted upon them. The cycle lanes, the development of, or the neglect really, the lack of development around the bridge, the Paremata Bridge and the library, the reopening of the library, the cost of that, the redevelopment of the Michael Fowler Centre. You would want representatives from business to say, look, this is our experience, this is what's happening, make your decisions perhaps based on that. If you're Māori in the Far North and you're dealing with issues around Māori land or the rating of Māori land, the re-rating of Māori land, or water, tourism perhaps, you would definitely want a Māori lens, a Māori perspective.
But if you're going to be making decisions so that some issues don't make it to full council, elected members might not even know that there was an issue because it's been dealt with by these unelected representatives and they have voted on what the elected members of the council will actually see, I think it's a different story. Imagine if the Government asked a panel of Newstalk ZB hosts for their reckons to shape policy and then vote on it as to what would get to Parliament. You know, basically act as a select committee. I don't think so. You wouldn't stand for that. And if we want to have our reckons represented at a council level or government level, then we stand. We stand as councillors, mayors, we stand as MPs. There are 33 Māori across all parties in Parliament, representing a huge range of views and lived experiences, which is fantastic. We have councillors, chief executives, highly regarded mayors, all Māori. And I'd be really interested to hear the views of Māori, particularly in how it relates to land and water management. But if you're not elected, I don't think you should have a vote. Have a reckon by all means, but not a vote.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Defence Minister Chris Penk opened the door, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon slammed it shut. Chris Penk was at the Shangri La Dialogue, an annual security forum held in Singapore where defence ministers and military chiefs from across the Asia Pacific gather every year.
Asked whether New Zealand might ease its rules to allow nuclear powered submarines into its waters, given that Australia's slated to get three nuclear powered subs as part of the AUKUS deal, Chris Penk said, “We don't have any official shift in our no nukes policy, but the subject," he said, “is worth chatting about." He said New Zealanders are sceptical of nuclear weapons, but it's quite a different proposition when it comes to nuclear propulsion.
And that is quite true. New Zealand doesn't allow nuclear propelled vessels into its waters, whether they carry nuclear weapons or not. We don't allow nuclear weapons, we don't allow nuclear propulsion, but we do allow nuclear technology in this country. Radioactive isotopes are used to diagnose conditions and treat cancers. Our universities and research centres use small scale radioactive sources for research, and various industries use nuclear gauges and X ray technology for quality control, safety testing, and measurement. So it's not like we're as pure as the driven snow. We don't allow nuclear weapons, sure, but nuclear propulsion, surely you'd put that in the same category as X ray machines.
We seem to be okay with a little bit of nuclear energy and technology – what about a little wee bit more when it comes to propulsion? No way," says Christopher Luxon. We're going to remain purer than the driven snow and we will maintain our no nuke stance."
CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Essentially, we've got a long-standing position from '87. It's across the political spectrum. All New Zealanders feel very strongly about the nuclear free position.
HEATHER DU PLESSIS-ALLAN: No, they don't.
LUXON: No, they do. They do. And whether it's nuclear propulsion or nuclear armed, that's something that we're not up for and we won't be changing.
Right. So this gentleman's not for turning, to misquote Margaret Thatcher. “All New Zealanders feel strongly about this," he said. “No, they don't," said Heather, filling in for Mike. No, they don't. I'm kind of with Heather. I couldn't have been more proud as a kid when New Zealand took on this David and Goliath stance against America. “No nukes," we said. And the world applauded and we took the moral high ground and caused strains with our relationship with the United States, the UK, and Australia. There were tensions, but my god, we were noble and we were holy and we were righteous. David Lange and the fourth Labour Government put us on the world stage with our no nuke stance.
All very well and good, but there will be some of you who weren't even born when that was happening. The world has moved on. The world is a vastly different place than it was 40 years ago. I think we have to be open to a discussion about, A, our stance around nuclear weapons, B, around our stance on nuclear propulsion when it comes to armed forces around the world, and C, when it comes to nuclear energy. It makes sense. If the Greens are putting up roadblocks to more hydro dams, we cannot depend on solar energy alone. Open your curtains, look out the window. We need to have a constant, steady, reliable source of energy and we need to be able to discuss where that comes from.
We need in this crazy world to have strong defensive alliances. And if that means allowing nuclear propelled ships, submarines into our waters, I'm okay with that. I'm not as righteous as Christopher Luxon seems to think New Zealanders are. Where do you stand on this one? A little bit more nukes? I mean, we already have some because we understand the value it brings. We understand the good it can do. What about a little bit more?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As far as Budgets in economically precarious times go, I thought it was a pretty good one.
And save yourself the 20 cents, anonymous texter. I can see you typing from here. "Well, you would say that, Tokyo Rose, wouldn't you?" Well yes, come on, be fair though – what on Earth were they supposed to do? We were warned that there would be very little money to spend. The Government resisted throwing lollies, instant sugar hits to voters and did concentrate on spending what money there is where it will get the most returns. Not on policies like Fees Free third year of education for tertiary students, which was not delivering on the metrics, but on things like capital works that have been sorely, sorely needed for so many years and will provide pipelines of work for years to come.
So there'll be jobs, there'll be increased spending and there'll be necessary upgrades that so many communities have been waiting for, like the new 158 bed tower block at Whangārei Hospital, plans for a new hospital in Drury for the South Auckland population, the Cambridge to Piarere expressway, redevelopment programs for Tauranga, Palmerston North and Hawke's Bay hospitals, the rail network investment program, building 232 new classrooms across the country, new police stations in Greymouth and Whanganui, 2,250 additional social houses, new courthouses in Rotorua. You cannot argue that this is a poor use of what money there is.
It feeds into the Keynesian school of economic thought, which I've always thought was really sensible and I don't think any other better alternatives exist, that during tough economic times, consumers and businesses will typically hoard cash and spend less. So, the theory argues, Governments should then step in and break that cycle because once you close everything down, it just gets worse. You can't make consumers and businesses spend money, but governments can. So they fund public works and infrastructure, the sort of sensible kind of spending, the long-term spending, spending with a long-term outcome. It will create jobs by doing that, inject money directly into the economy and provide the sort of capital infrastructure that the country so desperately needs. And the workers who work on these projects spend their money on goods and services and that creates jobs and income for others. It’s called the multiplier effect – it brings an economy out of a slump. And I think that's what we've been asking for and arguing for a while, isn't it? The tax cuts, not so much, but that's okay, that was back then. So, you know, we'll draw a veil over that. But this kind of spending where you're spending on works that have to be done. There are no ifs or maybe one days or these are not nice to haves, these are essential works that need to be done.
I thought it was, as far as Budgets in tough times go, I thought it was a pretty good Budget. I'd very much like to get your feedback on this. I thought the that old school style of reporting of “there was nothing in it for you, was there?”, to the beneficiaries and to the state housing tenants and the “what about me's”, is lazy. I think that's really lazy reporting. You have to look at the bigger picture and you have to have an expectation that when people are on benefits, it doesn't mean they might have lost their job or they might have lost their ability to work for a time, doesn't mean they've lost their minds or their brains. They can understand too that you've got to fix the economy, it's got to improve, it's got to get better before their chances of finding work improve. And if they're unable to work, you know, they're going to get improved services and improved benefits if we are financially prosperous, if we're in a position to spend extra money. We're not in that position right now and it's going to take a few more years yet.
For the first time, I felt a little bit of hope. A little bit of hope that you could actually see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's not the train bearing down upon you. There is a way out. It was sensible spending for the most part. I'd give it an eight out of ten, but I'd love to hear from you.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.