Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Coming out of a difficult winter period for hospitals, New Zealand’s nursing shortage has become an election issue. New Zealand currently uses Care Capacity Demand Management, which calculates staffing requirements according to patient needs, to determine nursing numbers. But Andrew Jull, Professor of Nursing at the University of Auckland, argues the evidence from NZ and overseas now makes a strong case for putting minimum nurse-to-patient ratios into law.  Jull told Kerre Woodham the advantage to having minimum nurse-to-patient ratios is it stops the government from stopping the flow of nurses, allowing for a consistency of health investment.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Greens are under fire with Marama Davidson doubling down on her desire to work with the mob to get positive health outcomes. First there was the photo in the mob headquarters, cha ching, look at us, woo hoo! That was the Greens and Te Pāti Māori MPs popping along to a health hui.   And when asked about that in faintly judgy tones by the media, Greens co leader Marama Davidson said, "We are open to funding the Mongrel Mob to deliver drug prevention programs. We're open to funding what works. We're an evidence-based party."  And that instead of pushing problems under the carpet, they want to bring problems out into the light, get to the people who are hard to reach, and if that means working with the mob, well, all well and good.   They have got the receipts already, we will support more of that work. But have they? The thing with receiving government money for pet projects and worthy community initiatives is that you have to show you get results, measured in hard data, before you can get any more dosh. And when it comes to drug rehabilitation and trying to rehabilitate people who are not part of the mainstream, sure, try something different.  But Labour has tried. Under Jacinda Ardern, they funded the Harry Tam marae-based rehab program for gang members. Harry Tam's a lifelong Mongrel Mob member. The money didn't come from the taxpayer's pocket per se, it came from the Proceeds of Crime Fund, which seemed perverse to critics but logical to supporters: use gang money to rehabilitate gang members.   But the whole thing boils down to whether or not it worked. And the answer is: who would know? There were 80 participants across nine intakes who went through an eight-week live-in program at Waipawa, followed by two weeks of reintegration and then wrap around support services for six weeks. All of the intakes were drug tested at the beginning, almost all of them testing positive for meth. The program was addiction treatment, then cultural immersion to build self-worth, physical activity programs, and help towards the end of the program with welfare applications, writing CVs and applying for driver's licenses or training courses to make you more employable.  All very well and good and marvellous, but did it work? Did the graduates kick the meth? Again, who would know? To quote from Derek Cheng's story in the Herald, "an exact figure is not possible from the reports, as only some of them include data for the post program checks, while others have the data redacted." Available data shows that some relapsed at some point, while a minority were using methamphetamine regularly after the program, and this data is caveated as mostly self-reported." And that's the thing, Lynn, as Tom Sainsbury would say. You cannot self-report and rely on anecdotal evidence and reckons if you want more money from the government. You don't get that when you're dealing with the government. They want to know that if they're putting in money, there is a set of measures, there's a set of outcomes, and you have to tick a certain number of them before you can get the money.   You'll know that if you're working in a not for profit or a community initiative or a community organization. Trying to get funding is really, really difficult, and you have to show that your program works. I feel much the same way about the boot camps.  If they're not working, can them. I don't expect a 100% success rate. You simply won't get that when you're dealing with drug addiction, nor will you get that with lawless kids.  I'm not asking for 100%. You do need a bit more than "it felt really good to talk with the brothers" from the participants. An early evaluation of the program after the first two intakes found of the 22 people who had completed the program, two thirds still used meth, although most said they used less than they used to.  On the positive side, 65% of those participants self-reported an improvement in their physical health between week one and week eight of the course. Cool. Healthier, fitter, stronger gangsters. And of the 22 unemployed participants who attended the first two intakes, 10 had since found employment of some kind, although whether they're still in employment, who would know.   Now, if Harry Tam was doing all this through private funders and sponsors, great. Go for it. Show them and see if they want to keep funding the rehab program. If the mob wants to put its members through a rehab program and pay the going rate for a place in a rehab centre for each of the lads, again, go for it. None of our business, good luck, I wish you the best of British. But as every worthy organization reliant on public money needs to know, before we show you the money, you need to show us we're going to get value for it. When Marama Davidson says, hey, we're an evidence-based party," on that level, Harry Tam's rehab program fails. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sweet mercy. I don't know about you, but the sight of Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs posturing and posing with members of the Mongrel Mob brought back very bad memories of the bad old days. Remember when gang members were given funding for dubious rehab programs? And when they took over the roads and the streets as they were going to tangihanga or just, you know, going from point A to point B and wanted to put on a show?   Remember when the Mongrel Mob Kingdom tried to tell New Zealanders, "Hey, look, we're just ordinary everyday members of society who want the best for our kids and our families just like you," who got Don Brash on board with their education trust, and had their own media liaison person, Louise, who would ring me almost on the daily for a while and harangue me for my anti-gang sentiments? This is the same Mongrel Mob Kingdom that said, "Hey, we're not like the other Mongrel Mob. I mean, we might have it in our name, but we're anti-drugs." Bit awks then when the 2IC of the Mongrel Mob Kingdom was jailed for 10 years in 2023 for importing, distributing, and supplying meth and the date rape drug. Cool story, guys. Some of somebody believed it.   One of the best things about the gang patch ban is that it's stopped the gang members overtly recruiting in my neighbourhood. They used to park up on sunny days on their gleaming bikes on the patch of grass next to the roundabout, and the local kids would ooh, aah around the bikes while these men swaggered and punked around. Now the recruiting is not quite so obvious and not quite so overt, not so bloody shamelessly in the face of the neighbourhood. I couldn't agree more with Casey Costello when she condemned the MPs for their ill-advised photo op.  "It was beyond despicable. They have done more damage for our fight against organised crime than I think they even realise. You know, these are trying to legitimise themselves and they've just played into their hand and told young people, "Oh, look at these cool guys." Just pathetic. If they want to be treated legitimate, take their damn patches off and meet as individuals. Don't try and come as a collective entity as if you're representing some legitimate business. And I wouldn't allow them into my office. I wouldn't allow them into I wouldn't meet with them full stop. Take your patches off and be treated as individuals."  Absolutely. Could not agree with her more. And I accept that there are people within gangs who are hardworking, productive members of society. I don't know if you remember Paul who rang us from Kawerau around home detention. People are complicated. The world is not binary. But when you wear that patch, you have to accept that people will judge you on that patch. They've worked very, very hard to build up a reputation around the patch so that as soon as you see it, you know what it stands for. They want to make you fearful. That's the point. And the reason you do feel fearful when you see it is that they associate it with so many violent crimes and drug dealing. It's like working at ZB a bit. You know, there are people who think that everyone who works at ZB is a foaming right-wing racist. They've never listened to any of the shows, but because ZB has been branded that, that's what people believe. And the truth's a little bit more nuanced than that, I hope.   I think Casey Costello is right. I mean, individuals, absolutely fine. Take off the patch, have a discussion, cool. But these guys look like 16 year olds posing with the gang members inside the pad. "Ooh, look at us flirting with danger. Oh my god, we're just so cool. Just so cool." No, you're not cool. Looks pathetic. And it gives validation to a criminal organisation that that organisation has not earned. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What would you rather? New Zealand jobs in a premium product or cheap materials? The aluminium extrusion industry says the government's decision not to impose a safeguard on imports may have signed the New Zealand industry's death warrant. Under advice from MBIE, the government has rejected a request to give special temporary protection to the aluminium extrusion industry in the face of growing competition from offshore.   The industry, which manufactures aluminium into products such as windows and door frames, had asked the government for what is known as safeguard protection measures to give it time to adjust to the competition. However, Minister of Commerce Cameron Brewer decided the threshold for a safeguard measure had not been met, which is interesting because the MBIE report noted that the domestic industry had suffered serious injury in recent years. It also said the increase in imports was one source among many, including a contracting domestic market and cost increases. It said while a safeguard measure might help the domestic industry in the short term, it would be likely to raise prices for consumers and would not support New Zealand's trade goals.  However, it was odd because the industry, who was talking to Mike this morning, said that the MBIE officials had asked them to investigate taking a dumping case. Clearly MBIE thinks that there is a case there, or at least a case to be made, but in the meantime, they're not willing to put in the safeguard protections.   Dave Slomp, Managing Director of McKenney Aluminium Solutions says what they need in the short term to look after jobs and to ensure that a quality world class product remains on the market.  "We operate at world-class levels of quality, service, productivity, the envy of the world, and we're an industry that services the New Zealand market extremely well. And what we're seeing here is Chinese extrusion being landed in New Zealand for less than what extruders pay for the raw billet that we make extrusions out of."  When you are bringing in a product for less than the price of the material in the home country, that is dumping, pure and simple. You would have thought it was an open and shut case. He said it's going to put the country's manufacturers' skilled jobs and critical industry capability at immediate risk. And all very well and good for those of us who want to buy aluminium extrusion products thinking, "Oh yay, they're cheap as chips because the Chinese are dumping their products here." What happens if they decide they're not going to? What happens if they decide that New Zealand's not a market worth bothering about?   We won't have the product at all because our premium product, our New Zealand made product, will have shut up shop. We've been here before with the imported peaches versus homegrown. The government found that Chinese peaches were in fact being dumped into New Zealand following an investigation of claims made by Heinz Wattie's last year. Again, goods are considered to be dumped if they're exported for less than their normal value in their home country.  The peach industry just took an absolute hammering when all of the imported produce turned up, and despite the fact that tariffs were put on, it was all far too late for the peach growers.   But ultimately, Heinz Wattie's said we won't be able to can New Zealand peaches because of a declining demand for canned peaches of New Zealand origin. It's a premium product, just like our New Zealand aluminium extrusions. Premium, costs more, and consumers decide with their wallets. The consumers ultimately decided they'd rather have the cheaper imported fruit, and that was the end of the premium product. That's the rub. Ultimately, the consumer will decide. If you're a customer, if you're somebody who is buying aluminium extrusion products, do you want the cheaper or do you want New Zealand aluminium industry safeguarded?  And I can't understand if MBIE is saying to the industry, "Go ahead, put together a dumping case." Surely, it's incumbent upon them to put safeguards in place to protect the industry while the case is considered. As a consumer living in a free trade world, do you want the cheapest available goods that are on the market globally, or is there some merit in paying more to keep New Zealand jobs here?  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've seen a few posts on my social media over the past month from young people moaning that "they're locking us out of voting". They, presumably being the rich white patriarchal establishment, us, presumably being the 18 to 24 year olds. What absolute hogwash. Yes, the rules around enrolment have changed and same day enrolment is no longer possible, but they are doing everything they can to get young people registered to vote and have been doing so since time immemorial, since every election.   In 2020 the Electoral Commission paid 12 Kiwi social media stars a combined $160k or thereabouts to create and share dozens of pieces of nonpartisan content about voting on their TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook pages. Overall, in 2020 the Commission spent $3 million on advertising that targeted 18 to 29 year olds alone. The budgeting bill for advertising was higher than that, but $3 million was spent on younger voters. It'll be more this time round, heaven only knows what's been spent, it'll take an OIA to find out.   I don't think there's anything wrong with a message that says if you want to vote, you've got to take it seriously. Registering is a very good start to understanding that with rights come responsibilities. If you want to vote, you have to think about it. If you want to vote, you have to get your act together and enrol. A young colleague was saying to me this very morning that an acquaintance of hers, who would describe herself as an activist and will attend a protest march at the drop of a keffiyeh, posted that she wouldn't normally use her platform to encourage people to vote, but this one matters. What is wrong with using your platform to encourage people to vote?   I know it's a lot harder to think about issues and problems that we have at home, far easier to rig yourself up a witty slogan painted on a placard and get out there and march, be on the six o'clock news, show that you care. Actually showing that you care is registering, voting, taking an interest, reading the policies, things that 18 to 24 year olds are perfectly capable of doing. And interestingly, of those young people who do get off their chuffs and enrol to vote, they show up on election day.   Mike was quoting a story from the Herald this morning that showed in '23, 74% of young people who were enrolled to vote did in fact cast their vote. They were the biggest proportion of the enrolled voting population to actually use the power of their vote to cast it. It matters. In our household, I think we've got three of us voting differently across the spectrum. And that's okay, that's democracy, and aren't we lucky to live in a society where men and women can debate political matters, can turn up without fear of getting mown down to cast their vote, to know that for all its faults and for all a few spot issues, voting is fair, you're not going to get corruption at the ballot box.   It's an imperfect society in which we live. Very few of us going to get a government that we're passionate about. For a lot of us, turning up to vote is going to be holding your nose and ticking the box. But it matters. And if young people cannot be bothered, not be sufficiently informed to understand that they have to enrol to vote, they can't rock up on voting day, then perhaps they shouldn't be in possession of a vote. If they don't care enough, they're not informed enough to know that they need to be enrolled, fine by me if they don't cast their vote. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Erica Stanford says the Government's put a lot of work into boosting educational outcomes - and she wants students to improve.  The Party is campaigning on requiring students to stay in school until they finish Year 11, rather than being able to leave as soon as they turn 16. Stanford says the best place for these young people to be is in school, where they can get the proper support they need.  "Where is the best place for a 16-year-old who feels like that? In our school, where we know where they are, we can wrap around supports, we can put these things in place where we can have the guidance counsellors and the careers councillors talking to them."  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Everyone on board vessels up to six metres in length must wear a lifejacket, starting from today.  Maritime NZ says the nationwide rule means all people heading out on the water have a better chance of coming home.   On average, 17 people die in recreational boating accidents each year, with two thirds not wearing properly-fitted jackets.  Maritime NZ's Matt Wood told Kerre Woodham the rule change not only lifts the minimum standard nationally, but removes the regional differences, which makes the overall messaging clearer.   He says they believe it will make a tangible difference, as when this rule was introduced in Tasmania in 2001, fatal boating numbers halved straight away and have stayed that way since.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This election is highlighting yet another war being fought on the ideological battleground that is education. Charter schools, as they operate now, are in the sights of Labour because they're doing something different. To be fair, Labour's never liked the idea of schools operating under their own curriculum. Nothing new there. As Chris Hipkins told Mike Hosking this morning, they're all for new ideas in education, so long as the schools follow the party line.  CH: I believe that when you're spending public money on education, there needs to be good, strong accountability. Schools, there should be a level playing field. There are gaps in our education system. Some of those charter schools are doing interesting things. They can do that within the public education system.  MH: Interesting or good?  CH: Well, some of them are good. And but we demonstrated last time, I think of the charter of the schools that were set up as charter schools last time, most of them are still operating. They're still operating within the public education system and they're operating successfully.  Yes, but under the party line, aren't they? Not doing their own thing. Partnership schools, as they were once known, opened in 2014 born out of frustration from parents who could see the state school system was failing their children. They were closed by the Labour Government in 2018 and either shut their doors or became state integrated or special character schools. The charter school model was brought back following the 2023 election. David Seymour, the Associate Education Minister and champion of charter schools, says families are choosing charter schools precisely because they offer something different.   You can see by attendance whether they're working for parents or not. Seymour cites Northwest College. That grew from 22 students in March 2025 to 150 by July of this year. Five of the first seven charter schools, he says, exceeded their attendance targets in the first year. Five exceeded their achievement targets. At Tipene, initial assessments on February 25th found more than half of students were below expected level in maths, reading, and writing. By the end of the year, 81% were achieving at or above the expected level in maths, 79% in reading, 80% in writing.  Parents are choosing to take their children to these different schools. Schools that are run differently, that operate differently, because their kids run and operate differently on different programs. You know, a state school education works pretty well for most kids. The quality of it, well, we can debate that, but for most kids, they fit in. The school suits them, they suit the school. But for other kids, it doesn't. It doesn't work at all. And until the charter schools came along, there was really very little you could do. You just had to try and mash a square peg into a round hole. And it wasn't comfortable for either the school or the student or the family.  If you've got a school that opens with 22 students in March 2025 and then just over a year later the school rolls grow to 150, doesn't that indicate that the school is working? And it's working because parents are telling each other about it, they're sharing the results they're getting with their children. They're saying we don't have to come and pick up the child from school because they simply cannot be there. They're saying our child is willing to get up and go to school. That is a win for a lot of families. Forget about what happens when they get there. The fact they walk through the school gates is a win for a lot of families.  And there's got to be flexibility. I just cannot understand why everybody has to march to Labour's drumbeat. You know, what about what happened to interpretive dance off on the side somewhere? You know, some people are more interpretive dancers than they are rigidly marching in formation. And if the schools are working, if there's accountability, if the teachers are accredited, if you're ticking boxes and teachers and principals and families have the freedom to find the best way to educate a certain cohort of children, then everybody wins. The poor little square pegs who are trying to be mashed into the round hole aren't disrupting the rest of the class. The teachers aren't expected to do specialist teaching when they're generalists. They're not feeling frustrated and cross because they can't give that one child everything that one child needs and they know they're not giving the other 32 the time and attention they deserve.   I just don't understand why, so long as you've got quality control, and surely the parents would dictate that, if you've ticked off all the quality control boxes, why can't Labour let people educate their own children the best way they see fit? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well last night I took my mum to the Q Theatre to see a performance of Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, which was fantastic. Last couple of days, I really recommend you get along and see it – I think there's a few tickets left. It was fantastic. And then I had to come home and watch the leaders' debate on demand, and I know what I'd rather have been watching, that's for sure. I agree with Mike, the format of these "debates", in inverted commas, because they're not debates. A debate as I remember it from our cup winning Sacred Heart debating team, was where each speaker got the chance to make a speech around a certain premise or topic, why I would be the best Prime Minister for New Zealand, and then the second speaker got a chance to argue against it and rebut and finesse some of the points that were made by the first speaker. It was a proper speech, debate, argument, considered, reasoned. This is not a debate. I'd say it's a television performance. And I was listening to Mike this morning and he said that he was arguing against the format in 1997, and I couldn't agree more. Oh no, 2017 but he was probably arguing about it in 1997 as well. It's outmoded, past its use by date.  I thought Jack Tame did as good a job as he could given the format. He was very even handed, but he's trying to cover so many topics. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. But then I have to remember that I'm in a privileged position where I talk the news every single day. I'm reading, absorbing, digesting the news, party political statements, press releases every single day, and most people have the luxury of not having to do that. So I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. And the single word yes or no answers, again it comes back to the fact that's not a debate, it's a performance. It's not elucidating, it's not insightful – all you got to see was who was better on the telly than the other. And on that, within the limitations of the format, I thought Chris Hipkins was very good. He came across well, he acknowledged work that National had done, recognised where he believed he could have done better when he was Prime Minister. I thought he came across well. And Christopher Luxon was way better than I thought he was going to be. I thought Chris Hipkins would wipe the floor with him, but he coped well in that environment.  Ultimately did we learn anything though? That's what I keep coming back to. I get far more from the hour that I get to have with each leader where they can sit down and have the time to properly talk, they can articulate policy, you get to hear a bit about the person. And while I accept that my questioning is more gentle nibbling from a toothless chihuahua than a kind of mauling from an attack dog, Jack didn't really get the opportunity in that format to do the good hard attacking journo questions either. You get far more of that on Q&A, where you can see again that Jack's really done his homework and puts them to the sword when he gets the party/political leaders in. I think we'd have learned more having reruns of Q&A on in that time slot than that debate. More of the long form, less of last night really.   The only thing that really came back when I was, and again I didn't watch it all including the ads, I was skimming through it, but you'd have to wonder why anyone under 50 would vote for Labour when they won't even look at options around the Super. There were some truly dumb questions in there, and I'd have to ask why Christopher Luxon just will not work with Opportunity. Like flat out. I mean he might not want to, but could he not be a little bit more accommodating perhaps in his language? Anyway, love to hear your thoughts on this if you were good citizens and endured and watched, I'd love to hear your feedback. But seriously, there's some really good pieces in the Listener where Danyl McLauchlan has gone through and is looking at policy and each party's response to it and the experts are giving their opinions on whether it's good, bad or ugly policy. There are hour long debates with the different spokespeople on their portfolios. I've got the hours with the party leaders. I'm not sure I'll watch another debate. I just don't get enough out of it to make me invest that time. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The topic of New Zealand-owned banks is arising again, with NZ First pitching to buy back BNZ to bolster competition.  Kiwibank is already New Zealand-owned, but only holds a little over 6% of the lending market, raising the question – how much do Kiwis actually care about backing a Kiwi bank?  Kiwibank CEO Steve Jurkovich told Kerre Woodham that they've been in operation for much less time than some of those bigger banks —around 25 years compared to over 150— so they've had less time and capital to grow.  Jurkovich told Woodham they could always be bigger and have more impact, but over the last few years they've been growing pretty strongly.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How big is his hole? Nicola Willis was asking Grant Robertson back in 2023, where are you going to find the money to fill that Government's financial fiscal hole? And now yesterday, she says that Labour has another fiscal hole to fill and it's a beauty. She told us yesterday when she was a guest in studio that there is no way Labour can afford to fund their pay equity promises, far less many of the other promises they're making to voters. Labour in response has said, well just taihoa, all will be revealed when our fiscal plan is produced sometime soon.   Now some of this is electioneering and there's a surprise given we're in the middle of an election campaign. For example, National says that Labour's promise to fund public transport for many parts of the country, up to a certain point, will come out of the Crown balance sheet. Labour says absolutely not, they'll take the money from the Land Transport Fund. They won't pay for something that's been promised out of the Land Transport Fund. They won't pay for that, they'll pay for their public transport fares. It's called reprioritisation – the money does exist for the public transport fares, they just won't pay for something else. Some of the funding though is a mystery. I have no idea where they think they're going to get 11, 13, 14 and counting billion dollars for pay equity. Chris Hipkins, opposition leader, is adamant the money can be found within the budget as he told Mike Hosking yesterday.  CH: We're going to set out in our plan, you know, we're going to demonstrate in our fiscal plan, you know, when we set out our breakdown of numbers that we have room there to pay for pay equity. What I said yesterday, and you know, there's a bit of divining tea leaves has been going on here, is that we're not going to have a specific line item, but the, our fiscal plan will clearly demonstrate that there is money in there to be able to meet the cost of pay equity.  MH: So why isn't it a line item?  CH: Because you don't basically, when you're going through a bargaining process, you don't tell the other side what's in the envelope. And you know, we wouldn't do that with any other process of bargaining. We've never done that with pay equity. The Crown has never put a line item in the budget that said here's how much we're setting aside for pay equity, but it has been there. And our fiscal plan will be the same.  MH: It'll be about $12 or $13 billion. Is that fair though? Within that ballpark, that's what we're dealing with.  CH: We certainly expect it to be a big number.  Yeah, so it's going to be a big number. If it's coming from the budget, that's 13, 14, 15, whatever billion —billion, not million— that won't be spent on something else. And I don't know that there's that much wiggle room. The free doctors visits aren't going to be funded by a capital gains tax, I think surely even Labour's accepted that, given that Treasury forecasts house prices not going up anytime soon. Something else will have to be cut to fund those. Nicola Willis has accused Labour of fiscal fraud, but until Labour finally comes up with their fiscal plan, it's a bit like waiting for Keri Hulme to come up with a sequel to The Bone People. You should, I suppose, give them the benefit of the doubt. But do you believe it is in any way possible for any party to find —let's be generous— $10 billion from the budget without ripping the guts out of the essentials and without undoing the hard work that we have endured over the past three years? Where the hell do you imagine it's going to come from? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The idea of a new co-ed school in the Auckland suburb of Epsom came from the schools involved – Epsom Girls and Auckland Grammar.  ACT Leader and Epsom MP David Seymour says the idea is to ease pressure on the existing single-sex schools.  He'll campaign on acquiring Auckland University's $150 million site, formerly used for teacher training and which currently sits empty.  Seymour told Kerre Woodham the heads of EGGS and Grammar have had this idea in the works for months.  He says Brenda McNaughton and Tim O'Connor approached him, have the backing of their boards, and are very serious.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The centre-right bloc is at odds over voting strategies.  Christopher Luxon and former leader John Key implored voters at National's campaign launch to simply party vote National and ignore any call for strategic voting.  The strategy is aimed at creating an overhang and maximising the number of aligned MPs in Parliament.  Key told Kerre Woodham for the Coalition, it would result in a lot more ACT and NZ First ministers, trading talented National ministers like Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, or Paul Goldsmith for people voters have potentially never heard of and don't want.  He says if you broadly want a National Government, then vote for what you want instead of potentially ending up with buyer's remorse.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.