27-year-old Auckland engineer Shyamal Shah has been sentenced to two years, two months imprisonment for what is believed to be one of the largest public sector thefts on record – a 17-month scheme in which he managed to swindle roughly $1 million from his employer, Watercare.

The court was told yesterday that the theft and deception came about through Shah’s gambling addiction that started at Sky City Casino, then escalated after three men approached him and invited him to a residence where private games were being held. It was a racket where addicts were targeted and given a significant line of credit before payment is demanded, often through coercion. I mean, if we've ever seen any Good Fellas type movies, you've seen it before.

In Shah’s case, the court was told the defendant was shown photos of another man who had been violently assaulted after they didn't pay. So he was hooked, he was reeled in, and he turned a promising career in a promising life into a complete and utter train wreck. He will go to jail, his parents, who had taken a gamble and backed that their son was going to be an exemplary citizen, are financially ruining themselves to try and pay back as much of the money as they possibly can.

This is what a gambling addict looks like, and it comes at the same time as the nation's independent gambling regulator, the Gambling Commission, has issued a damning report into the Ministry of Health's problem gambling section, saying it is impossible to judge whether the services actually reduce gambling harm. The report recommended Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey and Internal Affairs Minister Brook van Velden reject the Ministry of Health request to increase a levy from $76 million to $92 million over the next three years. The levy comes from the gambling industry, which makes sense. A lot of people can gamble and just have, you know, $5 on the nose of a horse, a pretty chestnut at Race 9 at Te Rapa, but others can't, so the industry helps fund problem gamblers, helps fund assistance and help for problem gamblers.

But the Commission’s expert reviewer Doctor David Rees said when it came to the money that has been given to the Ministry of Health to help problem gamblers, we don't know if it's enough. We don't know if it's too much. And that's a point made by a number of people. There's a lack of data, a lack of understanding, we don't know what's working, and we don't know what's not working. Sounds like my hero, the Auditor General John Ryan. He said, I don't know this money's been well spent, there's no track of it, no record of.

So same again, the Ministry of Health gets millions of dollars from the gambling industry to help problem gamblers, does it work? Dunno! Ddn't really know. Matt Doocey said it's not good enough, symptomatic of what happened under the last Government. Doocey said in mental health and addiction services, increased funding had led to no material difference. And it's true, that's exactly what happened under the last Government. We're seeing lots of ads for the TAB right now: “You know the odds, now beat them”. In the pregame build up before the All Blacks there's always a punters report: what the totes paying for which player to score the first try. You can bet on anything and it's being very, very normalised.

As with every addict across every addiction, you start off thinking it's a bit of harmless fun, think you can handle it until you can't, until you've found yourself like Shyamal Shah, in the dock with your promising life and career absolutely ruined. All addicts need help to get the monkeys off their back, but just throwing money to the Ministry of Health and thinking there we go job done, is not good enough. They have to show that the millions of dollars they have been granted have done some good.

And this hasn't come out of the blue. In 2019, they were asked to account for the money. They didn't. In 2022, they were told to carry out a major strategic review of its problem gambling strategy and they didn't. And then they had the temerity to come back and ask for more money. Can we have another $11 million? No. If you want $92 million, then you have to show what you're spending it on, not just for the sake of the money and for the sake of proper accounting, but for the sake of the addicts. It's so hard for addicts to know they have a problem before it's too late. I'm talking about any addiction. And when you reach out for help, you need that help to be there.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've steered clear of much of the sentencing changes proposed by the Government because it's a topic that we do canvas often. The Government campaigned on toughening up on crime and on criminals, and so far they seem to be delivering, so you know, leave them to it. But Paul Goldsmith's proposal that the government could introduce more minimum or mandatory sentences for crimes, meaning less power for the judges and more for the government, couldn't come at a better time as far as I'm concerned.

Currently, when penalties are established for different offences, lawmakers normally set out a “maximum” sentence. For example, the Government's newly announced coward punch offence has maximum sentences of either 8 or 15 years imprisonment, depending on the situation. Judges then have discretion to take into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances. So that's the maximum that can be set. A judge can't go right, that was just outrageous, that's 20 years for you - not allowed to do that, there's a mandatory term.

Late last month the government changes came into effect, capping sentence discounts that judges can apply. So in most cases now the most they can apply is 40%. If a judge thinks that would be massively unjust, they can exceed this discount cap but that will be the exception, not the rule. Now the Government's looking to introduce more minimum sentences so the judges can't start at a laughably low detention rate or give a remarkably soft sentence. There will be a minimum to which that can apply.

So for those who think that's an attack on the judiciary, Labour, or for those like Tamatha Paul, who think this is an attack on the poor, how do you defend these sentences? The 17-year-old knife wielding rapist who had robbed two men at knife point before raping a young woman at Albert Park in Auckland who was coming home after celebrating her 21st birthday. He raped her, threatened to kill her boyfriend. Her life has never been the same since.

The defence wanted home detention for a vicious rape at knife point. The judge said oh no, but am going to give you a 77% discount, for his youth, his guilty plea, no priors, and his attempt at rehabilitation. In the sentencing notes, the judge also seemed to take into account that he was criminally stupid. He was an idiot. Like, as in the old-fashioned version of idiot, barely able to string three words together in any language. So she gave him a 77% discount from her starting point. He ended up with two years, two months, and a week for a knife attack and rape and threatening to kill. And oh, sorry, forgot about robbing at knife point the two men earlier. On appeal, Peter Kosetatino's sentence was three years and 11 months. Again, no, no, no, a rape at knife point for a young woman whose life will never be the same? No.

Drunk driver Jake Hamlin who killed an innocent young woman? 12 months home detention. He's halfway through home and laughing. Quite literally.

The couple who murdered 4-year-old Ashton Cresswell – they were jointly charged with manslaughter. There were only the two of them there, the mother and her partner. Both of them stayed schtum. That's all you have to do when you're a baby murderer, you just shut up. That feral tart protected her partner at the expense of her little boy. The police’s hands are tied. They were jointly charged with manslaughter because nobody else could have done it. It was one of them. Police couldn't prove either one of them because both of them were protecting each other, so they pled guilty to reduce charges of neglect. And so for murdering that little boy and then staying schtum, his mother, in name only, got three years. And the partner got four years for basically torturing a child. So many children are being tortured right now, tortured and killed, and for that you get 3 years and four years.

Is it any wonder why the Government is interfering with the judiciary? Those are three good examples among thousands, thousands, and thousands of why the government has to interfere with the judiciary.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins says speeding up the justice system is a priority.

Recent announcements by the Justice Minister include bigger fines for trespassing and harsher penalties for coward punches and assaulting first responders.

Hipkins told Kerre Woodham unlike National, he wouldn't spend the first 18 months in power overturning the last Government's legislation.

He says there’s been too much flip-flopping around.

One of the things Hipkins wants to prioritise is the courts – saying that they have to deal with the inefficiencies in the system, and that justice delayed is justice denied.

Chris Hipkins says Jacinda Ardern will be weighing up safety before deciding whether to return to New Zealand for our Covid inquiry.

Ardern could be among key decision-makers expected to be asked to speak later this month.

Hipkins told Kerre Woodham there are risks to her security in New Zealand.

He says they aren't idle threats, and it's legitimate for her to consider the danger to herself and her family.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

To start the morning, I wondered about looking at the fairness - or otherwise - of the corporate tax rate.

The Finance Minister, according to a New Zealand Herald story, has quietly asked Inland Revenue to look at the appropriateness of the tax settings being applied to banks. Nicola Willis confirmed to the Herald a wide range of options is being considered to ensure the major banks are paying their fair share of tax.

She wants advice back ahead of next year's Budget, which is expected to be delivered just months before the 2026 general election. She said, “our work to enhance banking competition is wide-ranging and as part of this of sought advice on whether the major banks are paying their fair share of tax,”.

I've been interested, she went on, in how New Zealand's bank tax regime compares with Australia and elsewhere, particularly in light of the significant profits Australian banks make from Kiwi customers.

No decisions have been made, recommendations have not yet been taken to Cabinet, so she's not going to comment on specific proposals at this stage.

I would have thought if the company tax rate was a set amount and the banks are paying that, then they're paying their fair share of tax.

I was listening to Heather talking to Claire Matthews, the banking expert from Massey, this morning.

Claire Matthews said the way she thought it might work would be the corporate tax rate would be lowered for all corporates except the major trading banks. Everybody else will be lowered, but banks, so they wouldn't in effect be punished, they just wouldn't benefit from any changes to this tax regime.

But as Claire Matthews pointed out, banks already contribute a significant amount to the New Zealand economy.

They pay a very large portion, something like 20% of total tax, total corporate tax in New Zealand. So they're paying a huge amount of tax, so if you drop the corporate tax rate but keep the bank’s tax at a higher level, you, the Government could manage to avoid the actual impact on their tax take.

I think there's a real danger here. Are they going to suddenly make supermarkets pay more because they, too are Government’s favourite whipping boys and girls? Why are they being singled out?

Sure, I would love it if I didn't have to pay the house price twice over, but I understand that when you're lending money to individuals and to businesses, there is risk involved with that so you have to pay for that risk.

I don't imagine the banks would just close their doors, decamp and head back over the Tasman, there's still money to be made. But I just don't understand why banks would be asked to pay more while the rest of corporate New Zealand pays less.

I don't want a bank to fail. It's not in the country's best interest for a financial institution to go under. We've seen the damage done when the BNZ had to be bailed out, and then the different finance companies were bailed out, why on Earth would we want to see banks fail if they're paying their fair share of tax?

I have no skin in the game other than a hefty mortgage, which I would love to see reduced, but I don't necessarily see it's the bank's fault that they are the ones who profit from lending money.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There are a lot of things parents can teach children without schools needing to get involved. Basic hygiene, reading, physical education, even driving – parents should and could teach their children these skills. And I know schools already have a lot to be dealing with as regards to the needs of our children in their classroom, they've got a lot of changes to the curriculum happening. But one area where I would totally jump on my soapbox and say the schools need to be teaching is civics education.

It's come to the forefront because while the NSW Government understands the importance of young people having a working knowledge of democracy and the legal system, it announced last year that studying civics would be compulsory in primary schools from 2027. Critics are saying that the subject is too important to be included within a wider syllabus. At the moment, what the NSW Government is doing is putting civics in with human society and its wider environments syllabus, along with other things. Critics argue that civics is so important it should have its own standalone status, with its own standalone support material, and specialist teachers, and the like.

I couldn't really agree more, because when you look at everything we talk about on this show, when you look at the subject matters that are dear to our hearts, the genesis of all of the issues that come up comes down to decisions made by people voted by us or people choosing not to vote. So a small number of people get to choose individuals who will make decisions that impact us all, be it local bodies or government.

Or we're talking about issues because decisions are made by people who don't understand the social contract and what it means to be a citizen, and that's what civics is all about: understanding that when you are a citizen within a civilized society you have rights certainly, but you have duties and obligations. So if there was a greater understanding of civics, a greater understanding and appreciation of what it means to be involved in a democracy, a greater understanding of the way our governments work, both central and local government, the way our laws work, we would have a more civilised society.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A new tool can now estimate how fast a person is aging.

University of Otago scientists have found a way to use an MRI scan of the brain to quantify the rate of biological aging of middle-aged people to forecast risks of dementia, chronic disease, and death in older adulthood.

The technology was developed using data from the Dunedin Study, a decades long health project tracking more than 1,000 people born in the early 70’s.

Dunedin Study director Professor Moana Theodore joined Kerre Woodham to break down the findings of the study and how the tool works.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't know about you, but I want to know how big our Finance Ministers' holes are.

I think it's really important to know what political parties’ promises are going to cost us. A nine-year battle to get a publicly funded body to cost political parties election promises, starting with the 2026 election, ended at cabinet on Monday after ACT and NZ First put the kibosh on the plan.

Way back when —2016— the proposal came from the Greens, but over time it's been modified, and Nicola Willis’ plan would have amended the Public Service Act to allow the political parties access to public service resources up to 10 months before an election, so they had the information they needed to cost their policy promises. A unit in the Public Service Commission would have been created to coordinate those requests, funded with $1.2 million. Which is chicken feed in the scheme of things. But with ACT and NZ First nixing it, we remain with the status quo, which as Stephen Joyce explained this morning, means an awful lot of time wasting and running around for the opposition parties.

“You have to go chasing around OIA’s and parliamentary questions to try and get enough information to build a policy which stands scrutiny when it gets out to the public, and it's a lot of fun for the government of the day to try and withhold all that information and then go, “ah, it’s ridiculously costed policy.””

That really ground my gears this morning when I heard that. Oh, it's all a great lark, it's all such fun having opposition parties running around desperately trying to get the information they needed.

And the clue comes from the Public Services Resources. They're ours! Taxpayer money funds those services, it funds those resources. We have a right to know how much is being spent on what programmes, what funding is available, and we have a right to allow that information to be disseminated to opposition political parties so that they can craft their own policies with that knowledge, with that baseline knowledge that they need. Otherwise, they are going to be promising pie in the sky. This should be public information. It's taxpayer money funding services for taxpayers. It should be easy to access, easy to find, and then the opposition parties will be able to craft their policies accordingly. No more silly buggars. It's in the public interest not to have this time wasted.

How many staffers are employed by opposition parties chasing after OIAs and chasing after this information, when that work could be better put to spending time with programmes and organisations and departments, and coming to terms with what they need to do the best possible job to deliver for the taxpayer? There is nothing fun about this. There's nothing clever about this. It is expensive time wasting.

As for ACT’s no because “we already provide a fully costed budget before each election”, stop being so smarmy and teachers’ pets, you can't mark your own homework. Each party should have to pay out of their own party funds —not out of taxpayers dollars— for an economist, not to run the ruler over their own budgets because we've all seen that, they should each pay for an economist and the economist names should go in a ballot. Each party draws out a name, and that economist runs an eye over that party's budget. So ACT pays for an economist. The ACT economist goes into the hat, the Māori Party draw him out, that's who runs an eye over their budget.

I want to know without having to do the sums myself if what a party is promising is viable, and I don't want them to do their own costings, thanks very much. I do want an independent body to look at it. That information should be freely accessible to all opposition parties. Let's put an end to the fun and the silly buggars, and each party's promises before an election should be independently verified, so we can all cast our vote with the best possible knowledge available.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.