Episodes

  • Kerre Woodham: Three women killed by repeat offenders, when will courts learn?

    Kerre Woodham: Three women killed by repeat offenders, when will courts learn?
    Mar 8 2026
    It was a glorious weekend. Somewhat marred when I read this story from Anna Leask in yesterday's New Zealand Herald. I really had to I really had to reset myself after reading this. Anna writes, urgent calls for change are mounting after a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and a raft of prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe. Which it didn't. Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Chantal McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes. All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders. Men who were released under supervision and conditions designed to keep the public safe. Nathan Boulter murdered Chantal McDonald in front of her kids, 13 days after he was released from prison where he'd been sent after terrorising, abusing, and kidnapping other women. In 2022 Juliana Herrera was murdered by a convicted rapist, Joseph Brider. He'd been released on parole 72 days before he crept into her house while she was sleeping and subjected her to a prolonged sexual and physical assault before stabbing her to death. And Nicole Tuxford was murdered by Paul Pounamu Tainui, otherwise known as Paul Russell Wilson, who was on parole for the earlier rape and murder of his girlfriend. The girlfriend he'd previously killed had told her mother it was just a matter of time before she ended up dead. She knew he was going to kill her. She knew he was going to do it sooner or later, and he did, and then he was sent to prison, and then he did it again. After each woman's murder, Corrections mounted a review. Corrections confirmed it communicated and worked with police and others in a multi agency group to monitor the parolees' risk and compliance with their conditions. Clearly they haven't learned any lessons. Not after the first one, not after the second, not after the third. There'll be a fourth and a fifth. And primarily, primarily it's because these men have been given sentences where they have to come out eventually. And then it's on Corrections to try and monitor them, and they can't be monitored. They have shown through their actions that they cannot be rehabilitated, if they could be habilitated at all. If they were given preventive detention, we, the community and women in particular, wouldn't have to worry. Have a look at Australia. You know, they are not considered a particularly backward, primitive society. You wouldn't think of Australia and think, oh yeah, but they're nutters, you know, they chop people's hands off in the square. No, they don't do that. But what they do do, is keep the community safe. A man who raped and killed an international student was sentenced to 30 years minimum jail term. The Crown appealed that because they said despite the fact he was 20 at the time of the attack, that he pleaded guilty, he had no criminal record and had not premeditated the offence, the Crown said its sheer violence meant the safety of the community needed to be placed above the limited prospect of him being rehabilitated when he was released. They argued the minimum 30 year sentence was manifestly inadequate for a 20 year old who pleaded guilty, who'd never had a history of criminal offending. And what do our judges do? Nine years, 10 years, 12 years for people with long, documented histories of violence and abuse. Another one, Derek Barrett, 32 initially sentenced to at least 34 years in jail in 2017 in Sydney for killing his 26 year old niece who was boarding with him and his wife at the time. It's 46 years. That's what the judge handed out, 46 years, and he's eligible for parole in 34 He probably won't get it because they found out later he'd done all sorts of unspeakable things when they found a USB. That's what that's how much the courts in Australia value the lives of women. Innocent women who have their lives completely and utterly destroyed in prolonged assaults by men who are very, very sick. Now, in our case, over the ditch in New Zealand, we knew these men were sick. They'd shown they were sick. They'd shown they had absolutely no interest in rehabilitation, and they'd been recalled to jail a number of times for assaults against women before they murdered again. Had our judges applied the same consideration in sentencing these men with their proven history, the other two in Australia had never put a foot wrong that anybody had found out about. They might have been deviant creeps in their in their private life, hadn't commit you know, they hadn't shown to the judges that they'd done anything wrong. These ones have. Join the dots. Could we make it any clearer? All three of those women named in Anna's article and many, many other women would still be alive today if we applied the sort of sentencing that Australian judges think is perfectly reasonable to apply to monsters who are sick and ...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • Greg Newbold: Criminologist and Author discusses Christchurch woman's murder by a repeat offenders

    Greg Newbold: Criminologist and Author discusses Christchurch woman's murder by a repeat offenders
    Mar 8 2026

    Over the weekend, a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe.

    Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Shantelle McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes.

    All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders.

    Professor Emeritus in Sociology at University of Canterbury and Criminologist Greg Newbold joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the importance of NZ courts cracking down on violent crime, including a call to issue 'life without parole' sentences.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Show More Show Less
    9 mins
  • Trish Sherson: Sherson Willis Director on the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll results

    Trish Sherson: Sherson Willis Director on the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll results
    Mar 6 2026

    An explosive poll shows National has reached its lowest result since forming a Government, as Labour climbs ahead.

    The Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll has Labour on 34.4% as National drops six points behind to 28.4%.

    The Greens are on 10.5%, with NZ First trailing slightly on 9.7%, ACT on 7.5%, and Te Pati Māori on 3.2%.

    Director of Sherson Willis, Trish Sherson told Kerre Woodham the poll is a warning light.

    She says 28% isn’t a death certificate, but it does indicate that National has a connection problem as well as a numbers problem.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Show More Show Less
    14 mins
  • Mark Dye: NUBU Pharmaceuticals Co-Founder on David Seymour's push to reduce medicinal cannabis export regulations

    Mark Dye: NUBU Pharmaceuticals Co-Founder on David Seymour's push to reduce medicinal cannabis export regulations
    Mar 5 2026

    The medicinal cannabis industry could be worth billions of dollars to the country in the not-so-distant future, if regulation's improved.

    ACT leader David Seymour says he's looking at further improvements to speed up processing for exports of the plant.

    He's open to improving regulation domestically as well.

    Co-founder of NUBU Pharmaceuticals Mark Dye told Kerre Woodham New Zealand was one of the first countries to start cultivating cannabis for medical use.

    He says the sooner we lean into it, and back it, the sooner New Zealand could become known one of the best cannabis growing regions in the world.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Show More Show Less
    11 mins
  • Kerre Woodham: A golden, or green-golden, future

    Kerre Woodham: A golden, or green-golden, future
    Mar 5 2026
    When I heard David Seymour talking up the potential of New Zealand's medicinal cannabis industry, I was immediately transported to a world where the Far North was once again a thriving powerhouse of the New Zealand economy, as it used to be. Where bright young people could get meaningful jobs without having to leave home, where once again New Zealand's brilliant scientists combined with primary producers, just as they do in agriculture, to innovate and disrupt. Now, I realise I was getting a little ahead of myself, but only a bit. The medicinal cannabis export business is growing. A Ministry of Health paper released under the Official Information Act showed we exported more than a tonne of cannabis flower in 2024. That document was obtained by Newstalk ZB and showed that was more than double the 485.6 kilograms exported in 2023 So, you know, there is potential for growth there. I had the pleasure of visiting ANTG's cannabis growing facility in Armidale in New South Wales towards the end of last year. I had no idea what I was expecting to see when I went to see a cannabis growing lab, but it was just like visiting a high-level medical research lab, which is what it is. It's not a couple of old stoners growing some weed in the back garden. The security is military level. The level of hygiene and sanitation is exactly as you'd expect to see in a medical laboratory. Before you go in to where the bud has been dried and then is taken off the plant and put into the sterilised capsules to be sent off to its buyers, you have to go into a hermetically sealed room and then you have to put on outerwear and outer shoes and masks and then you can only go through one at a time. You're not allowed to pick anything up or put anything in your pocket. When you come back, you have to take off your outerwear. Like, it's the full rig. It's a full operation, as it should be. There's an entire research branch where you've got young graduates and young doctorate young people going through their doctorates working on they're either working in medicine, alternative therapies, horticulture, so there's a wide range of skills where they've been given research grants to either come up with ways of alleviating common conditions, get more out of the plant itself, find new ways of growing that are more that need less electricity or, you know, less of the anyway, it was amazing. I can't even begin to explain what I saw. Unless you've seen it, you probably unless you have been to something like this, you probably wouldn't appreciate the level of sophistication, the level of technology, the level of security that goes into exporting cannabis. We're so used to seeing cannabis as a way of gangs making money and people being sent to jail and it being something dirty and underhand. It's a complete reset of your thinking when you see it in this particular setting and this particular environment. In an interview, Seymour noted that people have said the industry could be the new high value export similar to New Zealand's wine industry. He said medicinal cannabis is some people's drug of choice and they're prepared to pay a lot of money for it. New Zealand could become, just as we are with wine, a high value powerhouse. He said the Government was looking to give exporters more permanent licenses to reduce red tape and bureaucracy and saw the rise in exports as a positive for the New Zealand economy. We need to get money into the country. Not everybody likes this stuff, but there is definitely a market for it, Seymour said. I would venture to suggest that not everybody likes the idea of cannabis being sold as a recreational drug. Some people really don't like that. Some people don't like the stuff because it's gang currency. Some people don't like the stuff because there are turf wars over it. But that's illegal cannabis. What we're talking about is medicinal cannabis, which is a whole universe away from the underhand drug dealing that goes on and is undertaken by gangs. This is next level with doctors, with scientists, with horticulturalists, with exporters putting their back into it and turning it into a billion-dollar industry. I think Seymour's quite right. I think we need to get absolutely in behind it and the very areas that would grow it best, where the investment should be, are the areas that need the jobs and the economic boost the most. The place I visited in New South Wales is just one of many, but is in a small rural area. Their primary industry appears to be private schools where farmers' daughters can take themselves and their ponies and be educated. And apart from that, it's medicinal cannabis. And it keeps really bright young minds in the district. There's a university there and the really bright ones get the research grants to be able to stay and work on cures for epilepsy and irritable bowel syndrome. There's a whole range of things they're working on. So I'm all for it. I see a golden future or a green-gold ...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • Kerre Woodham: Is the primary teachers' union acting in its members' best interests?

    Kerre Woodham: Is the primary teachers' union acting in its members' best interests?
    Mar 4 2026
    I'd be getting seriously brassed off if I was a primary school teacher, especially if I was a non-union primary school teacher. The NZEI has been in protracted negotiations with the Public Service Commissioner and the Government over pay and conditions. Every other teaching union has negotiated its own deal for its teachers, its principals, and its support staff, but not the NZEI. The Treaty of Waitangi was a big sticking point for them for a while, but according to Sir Brian Roche, who was on with Mike Hosking this morning, that's no longer the major roadblock it has been. At the moment, primary teachers are teaching the new curriculum, and it's amazing. I've seen the homework books. If you've got little ones in your house, primary school students in your house, you will have seen them too. It's your building block stuff. The kids are responding to it because the teachers are presenting it well. They're doing the job already. They're presenting the curriculum, and in my case, I can see that they're doing it well. The children are engaged, they're excited. The older siblings are like, “why didn't we get these books? Why didn't we have these?" They feel like they've missed out, and to a certain extent they have. A whole generation of kids has missed out. So they're doing a great job, but they're not getting paid for it because the NZEI is holding out. They're refusing to budge on the pay and conditions negotiations. They chose not to present the latest offer to its members, so the primary teachers couldn't even decide for themselves whether this was a deal they could accept or not. Sir Brian Roche, the Public Service Commissioner, sounds increasingly brassed off. He told Mike Hosking this morning that there is no question that the union works hard for its members, but he does wonder whether the union's acting in the best interests of teachers by failing to even inform its members of the conditions of the latest offer. “They work very hard for their union members. There's no question about that and provide a range of services. But on this particular issue, I find it deeply frustrating that our offers are not being put directly to their members.” Why would you not? Members of the union have now rejected three proposed settlements. An offer agreed in December was comparable to what secondary teachers accepted last year, but ultimately, when the union took it back to its members, they didn't ratify it. Teachers know there are no lump sums or back pay available in this bargaining round, according to Sir Brian, so every week without settlement is money the teachers aren't receiving – between $50 and $76 per week. What exactly is it? What is it that the unions find so repugnant that they cannot bring themselves to even bring it to their members? And if you are a union member, do you accept that your delegates are qualified to make the decisions on your behalf? Do you trust that they will do right by you? Surely, you'd want to see what was being offered, wouldn't you? Or is that what you pay your union dues for? Sir Brian says that he's looking at a way to present the pay and conditions offer to non-union teachers. We've been trying to find how many non-union teachers there are. Apparently that's secret squirrel stuff and it's buried deep – not even AI has the answer to how many non union members of NZEI there are. We're trying to find out. So if you're a non union member, you'd be getting even more frustrated. Apparently, he's bound by confidentiality agreements where he can't present to the non-union members what he's presenting to the union. But he says he's looking for workarounds on that to allow the non-union members to get on and get that extra money in their pockets right now for the work they're doing right now, and many of them are doing really well right now. Presumably primary teachers are in the classroom teaching, doing what they do best, so they can't respond. Maybe there's a few home with, you know, head colds or what have you for whatever reason. But I would love to hear your view on whether your union is doing right by you, whether you're like, “Absolutely, hold fast, stay firm, don't give in to the government overlords on this one." But if you are a union member, do you feel that your delegates do right by you? Are you getting value for money from the dues that are deducted from your pay every month or every two weeks? When you look at this, it just seems so old fashioned. And I totally get that unions are there for people who don't have a voice, who can't speak up for themselves, who haven't got the bargaining power. But surely articulate, intelligent, capable, self-possessed teachers would be able to bargain their own pay and conditions. Why would you need a union? Why would you need a union delegate to do it for you? And I guess the same goes for, I don't even know who's the big unions anymore. I think you've got the ones for the cleaners, home help. They do ...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • Kerre Woodham: Is it the Government's responsibility to get you home?

    Kerre Woodham: Is it the Government's responsibility to get you home?
    Mar 4 2026

    I just want to get your opinion. This follows a, shall we say, spirited discussion in the office around people who are trapped overseas and how they get home. I'd love to hear from people who might have been in this position before, trapped overseas because of acts of war or closed borders or forces of nature. What did you do and what was your expectation? Did you think it was the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home? And if you had chosen to live overseas and then the world turned mad, again, is it the responsibility of the government taxpayer to get you home?

    I find it really interesting and a little bit sad that people are complaining the government taxpayer should be doing more to help family members trapped in Dubai because of the enormous disruption to flights caused by the Iranian conflict. Sure, the Government sent a Defence Force plane to Iran last year during the Israel-Iran conflict, and during Covid we partnered with Australia to get stranded travellers out of Wuhan in 2020, but I really don't believe there should be an expectation that if you have chosen to travel or chosen to live in another country and then the mud hits the fan for whatever reason, that you will automatically and immediately be rescued.

    I had family living overseas in London for a while, and if they had suddenly found themselves in the middle of a war, I'd be doing all I could to get them out. And if there was a plane there, I would want them on it, whether it was a government plane, a commercial aircraft, whatever, I would be doing all I could to get them out of there, absolutely. But I wouldn't expect the government taxpayer to do it for me. I have been stranded overseas before when the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull blew up. I was in Paris doing the Paris Marathon, airspace over Europe was closed, travel insurance didn't help, and you were on your own. And there are worse places to be than trapped in Paris in the springtime, I will grant you that. And it was ash blowing into the cities, not Iranian missiles, but statistically right now, although that could change at any minute, there would be more chance of me being run over on the Champs Élysées back then than killed by a missile in Dubai right now.

    But that's statistics and that emotion doesn't come into it, I get that. When your loved ones are stranded overseas, you want them home and you want them safe. But is it on the taxpayer to provide that? I don't think so, but am I being a heartless moll? I've been accused of that before. But I just, you know, I get the emotion, I totally do, because I've been there. You want your loved ones home, you want to get home, but I never assumed that my first port of call would be the Government.

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Show More Show Less
    4 mins
  • Kerre Woodham: Mutually assured destruction - will it work again?

    Kerre Woodham: Mutually assured destruction - will it work again?
    Mar 3 2026

    I was listening to the podcast ‘The Rest is Politics’ last night. The speakers were saying that Trump's inclination to invade countries at will, will almost certainly result in nuclear proliferation and will drive countries to find protection in the shadow of Russia and China. The thinking being, what will stop the big orange guy from invading me? Nuclear warheads. Or a mate as big as he is. And then what do you know, a couple of hours later President Macron announced that France is to boost its nuclear arsenal and extend the deterrent to cover other European countries. It's a major development of its nuclear defence policy. The next 50 years, he said, will be an era of nuclear weapons. He said eight other European countries, the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, and Denmark had agreed to participate in a new advanced deterrent strategy. The aim, he said, is to convince potential adversaries that if they have the audacity to attack France, there will be an unsustainable price to be paid.

    Anyway, back to the future we go. Remember MAD magazine, the American satirical magazine? It was huge in the 60s and 70s and took its name from mutually assured destruction. Sure, press the button, but if you press the button, I press the button and we both go. The catchphrase for MAD magazine was “What, me worry?" And yep, we're back there. You just watch those Golden Visas fly off the shelf as wealthy Americans and Europeans look for a safe haven. Our isolation can work to our advantage.

    At the moment, when it comes to nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads, there are nine countries that have them. Russia has around 5,500, the US just over 5,000, China 600 – they're rapidly expanding their stockpile. France has 290 stable and mostly sea based as of yesterday, but today it'll be a different story. The UK 225, India 180, they're increasing their stockpile, Pakistan 170, increasing their stockpile. Israel has kept shtum about how many it has, and North Korea, who would know? But experts say they're actively testing and expanding. You've also got countries that host nuclear weapons: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey host US and NATO weapons. Belarus has Russian tactical nuclear weapons.

    So, 50 years of nuclear weaponry Macron is predicting, where mutually assured destruction is the only thing stopping people from pressing the button. It happened before and we got through it. And it does, I mean, you would have to have a death wish for yourself and your people and your country. But are there any guarantees on human behaviour these days? Given our isolation, will that work to our advantage? Hopefully, to a certain extent. We don't have anything of major military strategic importance. No minerals that you can only find here that can be used to make a super bomb, and then we should be relatively safe.

    As of late February this year, the Active Investor Plus, the Golden Visa program, has seen 573 applications received, 196 applications approved, and you can imagine that that will increase. Coming back to The Rest is Politics’ theory that as a result of America going into Venezuela and attacking Iran, that will see smaller countries looking to buy nuclear weapons to keep themselves safe or looking to cosy up to Russia and China. That theory is all well and good, but we should remember that having nuclear weapons didn't stop the US from attacking Iran. They just neutralised the nukes before they went in. And having Russia as your mate, “don't attack me, I've got Russia in my corner," is all very well and good, but as Syria's Bashar al Assad and Venezuela's Maduro and now the mullahs in Iran have found, Russia right now is all talk and no trousers. It can do a great line in rhetoric and they've given their friends a lot of verbal support, which will be pretty cold comfort, but when it comes to on the ground troops and military resources to go in and back up their mates, they're all tied up in Ukraine right now and Russia won't want to commit to wars on two fronts in two different zones.

    So, mutually assured destruction, the threat of one keeping someone pressing the button keeping you from pressing yours, worked before. Tensions eased and there was a relative period of peace. Can you see the same thing happening again? Tensions will rise, tensions will get high, people will get very nervous, and then we can all relax. Do you see New Zealand's isolation as its best defence?

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins