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.

The Government's harshest sentencing rules begin today. Rules like capping the maximum discount that a judge can apply at 40 percent, with some exceptions.

There will be no repeat discounts for youth offenders, those aged 18 to 25. No discounts for remorse, if you're sorry again and again and again, you only get to be sorry once, because Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said repeat discounts had allowed for lenient sentences.

A new aggravating factor has been introduced for offences against sole charge workers and those whose homes and businesses are interconnected. So basically your corner dairy and that's part of the National-ACT coalition agreement.

A sliding scale for early guilty pleas has been implemented. There's a maximum discount of 25 percent, reduced to a maximum of 5 percent if the guilty plea is entered once the trial has started.

I think there should be a discount for early guilty pleas saving us all the cost of a trial, all for that - but once the trial started and you're playing silly buggars and then decide yeah, I did do it, minimal discount.

The use of cumulative sentencing for offences committed while on bail and custody or on parole will be encouraged to denounce behaviour that indicates a disregard for the criminal justice system, and this was part of the National- NZ First Coalition agreement.

Why have these tougher changes been made? Because that's what New Zealanders in the main wanted. We were fed up with seeing instances like this - a teen mongrel mob member who broke into the home of a pregnant woman, didn't know her, tried to friend her on Facebook, she wasn't having a bar of it - so he broke into her house and indecently assaulted her in the bed she was sharing with her child. This teen (was actually 19), but teen offender was sentenced to 12 months home detention for breaking into her house and for indecently assaulting her in her bed.

Judge Gordon Matena said he had to hold Stevie Taunoa accountable but also had to take into account his youth at the time of the offending. He noted that Taunoa had spent seven months in custody, had been on electronic monitoring bail since the charges were laid.

He acknowledged that Taunoa had used drugs from a young age and that his offending had been motivated by drug addiction. He also noted his lack of cultural identity and his membership in the Mongrel Mob before sentencing him to 12 months of home detention. Taunoa said “thank you, judge. I appreciate that”, then laughed like a drain as he entered the police cells and yelled out to all and sundry “cracked it”. All that remorse, eh?

In the meantime, the poor woman said she didn't want to live on her own anymore. She was terrified of the dark, she was terrified to sleep and because of his youth, because he was a druggie, because he lacked cultural identity, because he was a member of the Mongrel Mob, all of that meant that he got his sentence discounted. I was fed up with seeing things stories like this.

This is only one example. There are hundreds and hundreds. And how can you be sorry 3, 4, 5 times? I'm really sorry. I violently assaulted this person. I'm really sorry I sexually offended. Not once, not twice, not three, four times I'm really sorry. No, no, no, enough.

Again, if the Justice Department could show me that all of these discounts applied to violent offenders to sexual offenders to young offenders, if these discounts meant that they realised they'd had a lucky escape from prison, that this was an opportunity to look at another direction in their lives and take it, if you could show me that it worked I'd be interested in talking. Doubt that you can.

The Government's also looking at longer prison sentences for people who assault prison officers or on duty first responders such as paramedics and firefighters. This is so overdue. The proposals will create a new, specific offence for assaults on first responders.

For those who have family who work on the front line, I know a number of you were terrified about your loved ones going to work. You really hope that you got to see them again, fit and healthy when they came back through the door.

Does this give you a greater degree of security? Probably not, because the offence has to happen before they're punished. But at least, I hope, it gives you the confidence to know that the first responders are valued, that you're recognised. That we know what you do is walk into danger while other people are running away from it.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Hawke’s Bay-based motorsport legend says a plan by the Ministry of Transport to remove the full-licence practical test is nothing short of “ludicrous”.

In April, Minister for Transport Chris Bishop announced a range of suggested changes to the licensing system, including removing the full-licence practical test and introducing safety mitigations for people on their learner or restricted licence.

The Government is proposing the changes to make the process “more accessible, efficient and affordable”.

Greg Murphy, V8 Supercar icon and Bathurst-winning driver, told Kerre Woodham that nearly 10 thousand people have died on the road in the last 25 years, 2500 of them between the ages of 15-24.

He says this discussion with the govrnment has provided an opportunity to reassess and reevaluate the licensing system, and we can’t afford to stuff it up.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.